Jordan Howard/Nagy vs. Urlacher/Trestman

[remydat]

So Trestman had NFL HC experience prior to being hired by the Bears? Pace's overall record was impeccable prior to hiring Nagy? Urlacher played for the Bears in 2013? The Bears weren't 10-6 and missed the playoffs in 2012?

None of which has anything to do with Howard. That is not data that proves his argument about Howard. You are better than this Onebud.

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

I specifically said he had 3-4 good games based on high YPC and decent production. I remember multiple drives in these games where Howard had the opposing D on its heels and Mitch looked more relaxed and comfortable in the offense due to Howard gashing them.

Howard was basically the only real running threat an opposing D had to face last year outside of QB scrambles and trick sweeps - especially later in the year.

You answer with "Howard only had 2 100-yard games" so YOU are not sure how anyone could give him credit for the running game to the point of 3-4 wins.

See how you reply but don't talk WITH me? It's too typical with you.

EDIT: I am not downplaying Cohen or anyone else you might want to spin my stance into.

 

[onebud34]

None of which has anything to do with Howard. That is not data that proves his argument about Howard. You are better than this Onebud.

It's a direct correlation. Not sure how/why this is so hard for you to grasp.

 

[onebud34]

I specifically said he had 3-4 good games based on high YPC and decent production. I remember multiple drives in these games where Howard had the opposing D on its heels and Mitch looked more relaxed and comfortable in the offense due to Howard gashing them.

Howard was basically the only real running threat an opposing D had to face last year outside of QB scrambles and trick sweeps - especially later in the year.

You answer with "Howard only had 2 100-yard games" so YOU are not sure how anyone could give him credit for the running game to the point of 3-4 wins.

See how you reply but don't talk WITH me? It's too typical with you.

EDIT: I am not downplaying Cohen or anyone else you might want to spin my stance into.

It's interesting that they pretty much relied on Howard in December. It gives me hope that Nagy knows that you win in December/January by establishing the running game.

 

[remydat]

It's a direct correlation. Not sure how/why this is so hard for you to grasp.

No it actually isn't. Trestman and Nagy are two completely different people with two different personalities. It would be like if Rory and I were coaches and you decide to draw comparisons simply because one followed the other. It is pretty fucking stupid.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

The OP speculated on a locker room effect he has no actual knowledge of.

I thought that was, by definition, what speculation is. Sometimes on CCS, I even make predictive statements that don't end up actually happening. Weird, huh?

 

[onebud34]

No it actually isn't. Trestman and Nagy are two completely different people with two different personalities. It would be like if Rory and I were coaches and you decide to draw comparisons simply because one followed the other. It is pretty fucking stupid.

That's a terrible comparison...it's doubtful you could even coach the TV remote

 

[remydat]

I specifically said he had 3-4 good games based on high YPC and decent production. I remember multiple drives in these games where Howard had the opposing D on its heels and Mitch looked more relaxed and comfortable in the offense due to Howard gashing them.

Howard was basically the only real running threat an opposing D had to face last year outside of QB scrambles and trick sweeps - especially later in the year.

You answer with "Howard only had 2 100-yard games" so YOU are not sure how anyone could give him credit for the running game to the point of 3-4 wins.

See how you reply but don't talk WITH me? It's too typical with you.

EDIT: I am not downplaying Cohen or anyone else you might want to spin my stance into.

Great and I asked you to list the games and explain why you think we lose without Howard and why his replacement would suck in those games.

Otherwise, not sure your point. You have not provided a single specific example for us to discuss so I picked his two best games in yardage and noted the D was so dominant that I don't thin Howard really mattered.

In the case of Minny, Bears was greater than 50% on 3rd down in both games one where Howard sucked and one where he was good. In the latter game, the D held Minny to 10 points. So I have no reason to believe that they would have lost without Howard because the D would still be good and Trubs would still lead an O to greater than 50% conversion most likely. So what is your argument here. That Trubs couldn't score 11 points against Minny.

If not, what 3-4 games are you referring to so we can discuss.

 

[remydat]

I thought that was, by definition, what speculation is. Sometimes on CCS, I even make predictive statements that don't end up actually happening. Weird, huh?

One of your squires was claiming you provided data that supported you argument about Howard. Glad we agree you did not and simply speculated. Please notify your squire so he doesn't make stupid statements on your behalf.

That's a terrible comparison...it's doubtful you could even coach the TV remote

Well one thing we know, if Rory were a coach, you would be a Honey Bear cheering him on.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

This is completely illogical. Cohen and ARob contributed in different ways while Howard has a very limited skill set.

WTF? Post #56! That is what MY point was to YOU in response to YOUR short-sighted 'data pull'. It's like you are arguing against yourself...again.

 

[onebud34]

Great and I asked you to list the games and explain why you think we lose without Howard and why his replacement would suck in those games.

Otherwise, not sure your point. You have not provided a single specific example for us to discuss so I picked his two best games in yardage and noted the D was so dominant that I don't thin Howard really mattered.

In the case of Minny, Bears was greater than 50% on 3rd down in both games one where Howard sucked and one where he was good. In the latter game, the D held Minny to 10 points. So I have no reason to believe that they would have lost without Howard because the D would still be good and Trubs would still lead an O to greater than 50% conversion most likely. So what is your argument here. That Trubs couldn't score 11 points against Minny.

If not, what 3-4 games are you referring to so we can discuss.

Groundbreaking analysis...FYI...Howard actually was a key cog in the 1st Vikings game. He was a focal point of stopping in the second half because he was an integral part of the Bears 1st scoring drive. Couple that with Trubisky being slippery on 3rd downs and you have a pretty decent 1/2 punch that Vikes couldn't really combat in the 1st half.

It's funny how you've changed your tune on Trubisky...

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

Great and I asked you to list the games and explain why you think we lose without Howard and why his replacement would suck in those games.

Otherwise, not sure your point.

What do you want? Me to speculate the drive-by-drive boxscore of what happens when the O is less effective without Howard justifying a lower score than the opponent? So you can take that exercise apart as speculation (which it would be) and avoid the cold, hard fact that without Howard, our offense is less effective in a handful of games last year?

Why should I explain how we lose without Howard by replacing him with Mizzell or Cunningham? Don't you already know that's patently true?

I specifically said he had 3-4 good games based on high YPC and decent production. I remember multiple drives in these games where Howard had the opposing D on its heels and Mitch looked more relaxed and comfortable in the offense due to Howard gashing them.

Howard was basically the only real running threat an opposing D had to face last year outside of QB scrambles and trick sweeps - especially later in the year.

See how you always reply but never talk WITH me?

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

Groundbreaking analysis...FYI...Howard actually was a key cog in the 1st Vikings game. He was a focal point of stopping in the second half because he was an integral part of the Bears 1st scoring drive. Couple that with Trubisky being slippery on 3rd downs and you have a pretty decent 1/2 punch that Vikes couldn't really combat in the 1st half.

It's funny how you've changed your tune on Trubisky...

I remember being pumped because if Nagy could use Howard as well as his typical Nagy ball system we could be a force but it was always when Mitch is hot, Howard disappears and when Nagy is uncertain about Mitch, Howard gets the focus of the gameplan to mixed results in those games: 3-4 good efforts where he looks like the D can't stop him at times and 2-3 bad efforts where Nagy tried to get him unleashed and the D was able to shut him down all day.

All other games Nagy didn't even include him at all. But you are right, December saw more of a lean towards Howard.

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

Groundbreaking analysis...FYI...Howard actually was a key cog in the 1st Vikings game. He was a focal point of stopping in the second half because he was an integral part of the Bears 1st scoring drive. Couple that with Trubisky being slippery on 3rd downs and you have a pretty decent 1/2 punch that Vikes couldn't really combat in the 1st half.

It's funny how you've changed your tune on Trubisky...

Also, don't let remy try to control you by demanding that you show HOW the 1st Vikings game goes differently if Howard WASN'T a key cog in that game. That is a bullshit tactic in every way.

 

[onebud34]

I remember being pumped because if Nagy could use Howard as well as his typical Nagy ball system we could be a force but it was always when Mitch is hot, Howard disappears and when Nagy is uncertain about Mitch, Howard gets the focus of the gameplan to mixed results in those games: 3-4 good efforts where he looks like the D can't stop him at times and 2-3 bad efforts where Nagy tried to get him unleashed and the D was able to shut him down all day.

All other games Nagy didn't even include him at all. But you are right, December saw more of a lean towards Howard.

I could only assume that Nagy wanted to move on from him due to the pass catching and his limitations in breakaway speed....as in...he didn't have any.

 

[remydat]

WTF? Post #56! That is what MY point was to YOU in response to YOUR short-sighted 'data pull'. It's like you are arguing against yourself...again.

Yeah point is that post was stupid. You claimed that Howard had double the 100 yard games which is asinine because if you are going to compare to Cohen you need to including passing and rushing yards. When you do that, Cohen actually had more 100 yard games.

 

[remydat]

Groundbreaking analysis...FYI...Howard actually was a key cog in the 1st Vikings game. He was a focal point of stopping in the second half because he was an integral part of the Bears 1st scoring drive. Couple that with Trubisky being slippery on 3rd downs and you have a pretty decent 1/2 punch that Vikes couldn't really combat in the 1st half.

It's funny how you've changed your tune on Trubisky...

He had 61 yards. Sorry I think whoever his replacement could manage 61 yards at 3.5 per carry. Cohen had 3.9 per carry. Replacing his production with Cohen and whoever they drafted signed as a result of trading Howard would not be hard as 3.5 per carry is not impression. So this makes no sense.

 

[remydat]

What do you want? Me to speculate the drive-by-drive boxscore of what happens when the O is less effective without Howard justifying a lower score than the opponent? So you can take that exercise apart as speculation (which it would be) and avoid the cold, hard fact that without Howard, our offense is less effective in a handful of games last year?

Why should I explain how we lose without Howard by replacing him with Mizzell or Cunningham? Don't you already know that's patently true?

I specifically said he had 3-4 good games based on high YPC and decent production. I remember multiple drives in these games where Howard had the opposing D on its heels and Mitch looked more relaxed and comfortable in the offense due to Howard gashing them.

Howard was basically the only real running threat an opposing D had to face last year outside of QB scrambles and trick sweeps - especially later in the year.

See how you always reply but never talk WITH me?

I want you to justify your claim. If you think we miss the playoffs without Howard then tell me how. Otherwise it is a bullshit claim that is unprovable. I at least gave you games he played best in yardage wise and explained why I thought we still win. You running from trying to justify your position and expect me to take it on faith.

Unless you telling me we lose and miss the playoffs with Howard gone and a new RB in his place then none of what you are saying matters.

Just to point out you seem to be arguing an entirely different premise. If Howard was gone, my assumption was always that we would get a new RB to replace him as we would have an extra draft pick. So not sure why you talking to me about Benny and Mizzell. That is such a stupid thing to assume we trade Howard and then stick with Benny, Mizzell, and Cohen and had nothing to do with what I am arguing. So how do you think we fair with Cohen and a new RB?

Also, don't let remy try to control you by demanding that you show HOW the 1st Vikings game goes differently if Howard WASN'T a key cog in that game. That is a bullshit tactic in every way.

What is bullshit is making a claim you have no ability to back up. You claim that we may miss the playoffs without Howard yet don't want to actually try and justify such a hypothetical. If that is the case then your claim is ultimately meaningless. What makes it worse is you think we would just roll with Benny and Mizzell which is pretty dumb. Who trades Howard and gets a extra pick then decides to not draft or sign a FA RB? Is that what Pace did this year? No so not sure why you think they do it last year.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

Yeah point is that post was stupid. You claimed that Howard had double the 100 yard games which is asinine because if you are going to compare to Cohen you need to including passing and rushing yards. When you do that, Cohen actually had more 100 yard games.

WTF? If you are going to use yards from scrimmage, which you didn't specify in your original posting, then Howard would have more than just 2 100-yard games. So which is the problem area of yours...math, communication, logic, all 3?

Why do you make things so unnecessarily difficult? What on earth are you talking about? And, my point all along is that Cohen and Robinson were more important than Howard.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

Just to point out you seem to be arguing an entirely different premise. If Howard was gone, my assumption was always that we would get a new RB to replace him as we would have an extra draft pick. So not sure why you talking to me about Benny and Mizzell. That is such a stupid thing to assume we trade Howard and then stick with Benny, Mizzell, and Cohen and had nothing to do with what I am arguing. So how do you think we fair with Cohen and a new RB?

Perhaps the Bears could have replaced Howard with Jerick McKinnon in 2018, yo.