Believe me yet? I called ALL of this

[freddylamar]

Cool story.

 

[dennehy]

I never claimed you didnt think it was obvious. Again I responded to your claim that implied it is obvious to everyone as you were asking why I posted something so obvious. Well because it is not obvious to everyone.

You didnt answer my question. Can we agree the biggest issue on that play was Fields taking a sack when at least 3 guys were open?

I already said that, several times (now one more time).

Also no said it wasn't obvious that players were open.

 

[remydat]

I already said that, several times (now one more time).

Also no said it wasn't obvious that players were open.

No you acknowledged he messed up not that it was the biggest issue on the play.

And again. Others claimed they were not open. Hal for example claimed the underneath defender would habe broken up or intercepted the ball if he threw to the guy circled. So no it is not obvious they were open. You have meatballs willing to deny their very eyes.

 

[dennehy]

No you acknowledged he messed up not that it was the biggest issue on the play.

And again. Others claimed they were not open. Hal for example claimed the underneath defender would habe broken up or intercepted the ball if he threw to the guy circled. So no it is not obvious they were open. You have meatballs willing to deny their very eyes.

Any normal person could understand that I meant it was the biggest issue on the play. Or at the vey least any normal person could ask rather than assume and waste all this time.

Hal did not claim that anywhere in this thread, guy. You are lost. One other poster commented on it and then said that of course Fields should have seen someone there.

You are just making up all this shit because . . . ?

 

[remydat]

Any normal person could understand that I meant it was the biggest issue on the play. Or at the vey least any normal person could ask rather than assume and waste all this time.

Hal did not claim that anywhere in this thread, guy. You are lost. One other poster commented on it and then said that of course Fields should have seen someone there.

You are just making up all this shit because . . . ?

Lol I did ask you did I not?

I never claimed he said it in this thread. In fact I specifically said I posted it several times which implies other threads as I did not post it several times in here.

 

[dennehy]

Lol I did ask you did I not.

I never claimed he said it in this thread. In fact I specifically said it was from another thread where I posted that photo in.

After like 10 posts, and it was obvious after two at the most.

Sorry, every time I post something I will look through all the threads to verify. You specifically said that where?

I think you and I have talked enough football to where you're not going to confuse me with Hal.

 

[remydat]

After like 10 posts, and it was obvious after two at the most.

Sorry, every time I post something I will look through all the threads to verify. You specifically said that where?

I think you and I have talked enough football to where you're not going to confuse me with Hal.

I never said I confused you for Hal. You specifically asked why I posted it when it should be obvious he missed it and all I did was point out it was not obvious to everyone. So no I didnt expect you to look through all the threads which is why I alerted you to the fact your "obvious" claim was inaccurate based on my debate with Hal.

The Tape Never Lies Bears vs Packers

Enjoy!

www.chicitysports.com

 

[dennehy]

I never said I confused you for Hal. You specifically asked why I posted it when it should be obvious he missed it and all I did was point out it was not obvious to everyone. So no I didnt expect you to look through all the threads which is why I alerted you to the fact your "obvious" claim was inaccurate based on my debate with Hal.

The Tape Never Lies Bears vs Packers

Enjoy!

www.chicitysports.com

Just because something is obvious doesn't mean everyone will see it. For example in our last exchange it was obvious the Bears were in M2M coverage, but you thought they were in zone. That's just one example. That doesn't mean it's not obvious.

Also it helps when I wrote that the player was wide on the 25 - that seems to indicate I think it's obvious, again to someone with a normal thought process.

 

[remydat]

Just because something is obvious doesn't mean everyone will see it. For example in our last exchange it was obvious the Bears were in M2M coverage, but you thought they were in zone. That's just one example. That doesn't mean it's not obvious.

Also it helps when I wrote that the player was wide on the 25 - that seems to indicate I think it's obvious, again to someone with a normal thought process.

And just because you claim something is obvious doesnt make it so.

I mean I think it is obvious that it is silly to nitpick that 2 guys were near each other on a route where 3 guys were still open but you didnt think so.

 

[TheWinman]

Dude I’ve done it twice already on the same thread. One more time just for you.For the third time. I called it.
Steps 9 and 10 coming soon.

SHOW us the proof idiot. You saying you said something, proves nothing

 

[dbldrew]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1452671695790166020

#1 was not on coaching unless they told him to look for the open WR and make sure to throw it behind the direction he is running and way over his head.. this one is 100% on fields.

 

[Bearly]

Wow, nobody thought GB and TB would kick out butts or Fields would struggle early starting our #6 T and not helping him enough.

Here's the thing, We always start with a play sheet but we replace a functional T with Simmons on game day. Do we adjust for him or keep pounding the play sheet so we can continue to use bars as before? That D sends free radicals all day and you've got a PS guy starting. Start the guy already on the 53 or help the new guy and ditch the play sheet. Idiots!!

 

[JP Hochbaum]

He's had NO time today.

Part of him having now time is pre snap read recognition of blitzes and mismatches and hot reads. This is why all rookie QBs get sacked a ton.

 

[JurisFrog]

SHOW us the proof idiot. You saying you said something, proves nothing

Click the link in the post. I not only have to explain football to this fam base but also the basic workings of the internet. Oh my.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

#1 was not on coaching unless they told him to look for the open WR and make sure to throw it behind the direction he is running and way over his head.. this one is 100% on fields.

Sorry but I'm going to trust a former quarterback who played in the NFL over a forum bitch

 

[dbldrew]

Sorry but I'm going to trust a former quarterback who played in the NFL over a forum bitch

how about you trust just your own eyes?

The correct play on a "free" play should of been too Herbert for a wide open TD.. but actually throwing the ball to AR for a huge chunk play would still be ok if he actually threw it to him.. Even throwing to Mooney would of been ok.. all three options where wide open, but the big play TD should of been the first option

 

[abegibronlives]

I predicated ALL of this.

fans and media call for Fields to play.

Nagy yields. Stupidly.

Fields, behind rotten OL, with known pre-draft problems of holding ball too long, gets mauled.

Next steps: Fields gets ruined. Fields gets hurt.

And all along you football ignoramuses had a perfectly capable QB the whole time but that wasn’t good enough for you.

Need to change my name to Nostradamus or some such.

You actually predicted that the Bears would play Fields at some point?

Gorsh! Everyone is so impressed...

 

[remydat]

how about you trust just your own eyes?

The correct play on a "free" play should of been too Herbert for a wide open TD.. but actually throwing the ball to AR for a huge chunk play would still be ok if he actually threw it to him.. Even throwing to Mooney would of been ok.. all three options where wide open, but the big play TD should of been the first option

Yeah people acting like only one person can be at fault. Whover told him it was a free play is at fault but that does not absolve Fields from making a terrible fucking throw.

 

[dennehy]

how about you trust just your own eyes?

The correct play on a "free" play should of been too Herbert for a wide open TD.. but actually throwing the ball to AR for a huge chunk play would still be ok if he actually threw it to him.. Even throwing to Mooney would of been ok.. all three options where wide open, but the big play TD should of been the first option

Herbert wasn't open until after the ball left Fields' hand.

 

[dennehy]

And just because you claim something is obvious doesnt make it so.

I mean I think it is obvious that it is silly to nitpick that 2 guys were near each other on a route where 3 guys were still open but you didnt think so.

Haha, ok. M2m coverage is objective. A player being open is a bit less objective, but still pretty objective. Thinking it's silly to nitpick something is not - and it's objective that there were two in-breaking routes within a couple yards of one another, which was all I posted. Pretty simple. You read in the rest.