The Green Bay Packers game exposed a brutal truth for Chicago Bears fans: Ben Johnson's play-calling might be actively sabotaging the team. Al Michaels, broadcasting to a national audience, didn't mince words, echoing the frustration of countless viewers. But was Michaels right to call him out so directly? Let's dive in.
The Bears' Wild Card game against Green Bay was, to put it mildly, a disappointment. While the entire team didn't exactly shine, a significant portion of the blame landed squarely on the shoulders of offensive coordinator Ben Johnson. The core issue? His seemingly bizarre and ineffective play-calling, particularly on crucial fourth-down attempts. He seemed to get lost in a sea of complex strategies, when a more straightforward approach might have been the key to success.
Now, let's be clear: Aggressiveness is generally a positive trait in football. We want to see teams going for it on fourth down, taking calculated risks to gain an advantage. The problem wasn't the attempt to convert, but the method used. Johnson repeatedly opted for pass plays with Caleb Williams, even when Williams' running ability presented a potentially more effective option. It felt like a square peg being forced into a round hole, over and over again. And this is the part most people miss: Was Johnson simply sticking to a pre-determined game plan, or was he genuinely unable to adapt to the on-field realities?
But it didn't stop there. Johnson also inexplicably tried to involve D.J. Moore in rushing plays – a strategy that had consistently failed throughout the entire season. Why, with the Bears' playoff hopes hanging in the balance, would he choose that moment to resurrect a demonstrably unsuccessful tactic? It's a question that left many fans scratching their heads. Think of it like trying to fix a flat tire with a hammer – technically, you're doing something, but it's probably not going to work.
This is where Al Michaels entered the fray. Calling the game for Prime Video, Michaels didn't hold back his criticism of Johnson's unconventional decision-making. After yet another failed fourth-down attempt, Michaels delivered a line that instantly resonated with frustrated Bears fans: "Sometimes terminal cuteness can do you in."
Michaels' comment perfectly encapsulated the sentiment of many: Johnson was overthinking things, trying to be too clever for his own good, and ultimately hurting the team in the process. But here's where it gets controversial... Is "cuteness" inherently bad in play-calling? Or is it about knowing when to deploy those unexpected strategies?
Bears fans had long been aware of Johnson's penchant for unconventional play-calling; it was part of his reputation when he was hired. However, there's a critical difference between quirky calls that work and quirky calls that consistently fail. When a particular approach proves ineffective, a good coach must be willing to abandon it and adapt. Sticking stubbornly to a losing strategy is a recipe for disaster.
Johnson's insistence on these unusual plays ultimately could have cost the Bears the game, potentially bringing their season to an end. But the larger question remains: Can he learn from these mistakes? Can he evolve as a play-caller and develop a more balanced approach that prioritizes effectiveness over novelty? Ultimately, the success of the Bears' future hinges, in part, on his ability to create plays that lead to touchdowns and, more importantly, victories. Do you think Johnson's play-calling is truly the Bears' biggest problem, or are there other factors at play? And what changes would you make to the Bears' offensive strategy?
