Although you got a win, should you be concerned with the D?

[Dabaddestbear]

I know the Packers defense look much better than last year, but when you look at the tape, they gave up some big plays to what many considered a very sub-par WR group. I heard how the WR group of the Bears would not be able to do anything, and that Forte and the TE's is all the Bears have to throw to, but it was exactly the opposite. The young WR's ran some bad routes, and Cutler tossed some questionable INT's, but even with all that self destruction of the Bears passing game, they still did put up some impressive numbers against a pretty good Packers secondary.

Hester- 4 catches 90 yards and a TD. Had a very nice sideline grab and getting deep for that TD. He played like a #1 WR that night.

Knox- Yes, he stopped on his route on the slant but what do u honestly expect from a rookie wr from a D2 school? 2 catches 82 yards and one catch was for 68 yards in beating Woodson.

Bennett- 7 catches for 66 yards- I think this kid is very talented. He got a lot of separation from some good GB DB's. He did drop one and also had a dumb offsides and went back instead of coming forward when Cutler scrambled. Basically his first nfl game you have to expect mistakes from young guys like this.

I mentioned this because I have yet to see this brought up, for it seemed to get loss in all the defensive hoopla discussion in regards to both teams.
Nice win of course, but from that game, with the new expectations of the defense, can you honestly say you have no reason to be concerned? :idea:

[Patler]

On the TD, Collins cramped up and didn't get there. He went off right after the play and went to the locker room for an IV. When it happened, Collinsworth mentioned that Collins was in good position at the start of the play, and should have gotten to it. His first comment was something like, "I can't believe that Collins didn't get to this ball." In the replay, he said Cutler should have thrown to the single coverage on the other side. If Collins doesn't cramp up, maybe he gets the interception??? :lol: :lol:

Other than that, I expected and many of the analysts, writers, etc. wrote that the Packers would make mistakes in coverage until they get more experienced with the defense, timing, calls and recognition of their responsibilities, etc. This was their first real game, starters against starters, with game plans, fatigue, pressure to win and all that goes with it. I expected some mistakes.

So, no, I'm not concerned about the few big plays that occurred. I didn't expect them to have the defense down pat, yet. I expect there will be more mistakes in the games ahead, too, resulting in open receivers. Some have said to expect it for the first half of the season, and that it could take most of the season for it to become truly instinctive for the DBs in coverage.

[gbpackfan]

NO, I am not concerned about the D. Don't you have enough to worry about on your side of the ball? :P

[Dabaddestbear]

NO, I am not concerned about the D. Don't you have enough to worry about on your side of the ball? :P
Yes,as do all teams. But I will remember your quote here as saying you ARE not concerned sir.

[Patler]

NO, I am not concerned about the D. Don't you have enough to worry about on your side of the ball? :P
Yes,as do all teams. But I will remember your quote here as saying you ARE not concerned sir.

Right now there is more to be excited about than concerned about in the Packer defense:

Harris CAN play zone, who knew? :lol:
Kampman/Poppinga and the LBs in general were NOT victimized by a team with some good TEs.
The D-linemen made plays, a bunch of them.
The ballhawking and return ability of the secondary continued from last year.
The defense always snapped back after surrendering a big play.
Three was no late game collapse like we saw often in 2008.
There is enthusiasm and attitude on defense that has been lacking for years.

There are always positives and negatives. The positives far outweighed the negatives in the Bear game, so the natural result is enthusiasm this week, not conern. Of course, that could change after the next game! :D

[3irty1]

So I guess you're fishing for us to say that the Bears WR aren't as bad as everyone thought. I was impressed with Hester last night as a WR.

[swede]

Next time you see us you may have to account for Jenkins AND Raji along that D-Line.

[Dabaddestbear]

Next time you see us you may have to account for Jenkins AND Raji along that D-Line.
Raji? Was he even in the game?
Jenkins ran over our guard though. I think Beekman will be there by the next time we face you guys.

But I was just pointing out that these WR's are not looked on highly by anyone on the NFL, ESPECIALLY Packer fans. And if that was so before the game, how can you completely ignore that these guys were to gain some nice yardage in the secondary. And mind you none of those yards came in garbage time in a prevent defense.

Yes, I think the Packers arrow is pointing up, but no team should just ignore its weakness. But I understand the jist of what most of you are getting at.

[Patler]

Next time you see us you may have to account for Jenkins AND Raji along that D-Line.
Raji? Was he even in the game?

No, Raji wasn't. That was the point of Swede's comment (I think).
Raji was inactive due to an ankle injury in the last preseason game. Looks like he should be ready this week.

[]{ilr]3]

The only one I was impressed with was Knox. Gone from a guy no one had heard of to a guy you need to watch when he is only field because he is so fast and seems to have good hands.

Otherwise I didnt see anything from the Bears WR that could be mis-conscrewed as attention worthy. And the Packers played them that way, focusing a lot of attention where it was due shutting down the TE's and the RB. If they had focused on the WR I dont think they would have completed a pass all night. The Packers focused on the stength of the Bears and let the weakness play out.

I was impresses with the Bears Def. Killer pass rush and great scheaming with the new defensive looks that really threw A-Rod for a loop.

[sharpe1027]

I know the Packers defense look much better than last year, but when you look at the tape, they gave up some big plays to what many considered a very sub-par WR group. I heard how the WR group of the Bears would not be able to do anything, and that Forte and the TE's is all the Bears have to throw to, but it was exactly the opposite. The young WR's ran some bad routes, and Cutler tossed some questionable INT's, but even with all that self destruction of the Bears passing game, they still did put up some impressive numbers against a pretty good Packers secondary.

Hester- 4 catches 90 yards and a TD. Had a very nice sideline grab and getting deep for that TD. He played like a #1 WR that night.

Knox- Yes, he stopped on his route on the slant but what do u honestly expect from a rookie wr from a D2 school? 2 catches 82 yards and one catch was for 68 yards in beating Woodson.

Bennett- 7 catches for 66 yards- I think this kid is very talented. He got a lot of separation from some good GB DB's. He did drop one and also had a dumb offsides and went back instead of coming forward when Cutler scrambled. Basically his first nfl game you have to expect mistakes from young guys like this.

I mentioned this because I have yet to see this brought up, for it seemed to get loss in all the defensive hoopla discussion in regards to both teams.
Nice win of course, but from that game, with the new expectations of the defense, can you honestly say you have no reason to be concerned? :idea:

Wait, I thought the INTs and incompletions were often the WR's fault? Which is it? How's the koolaid?

Honestly, any NFL WR can make a play or two. By-and-large your WRs will not scare any team.

[Zool]

He brings up a valid point though. The safety play was far from outstanding. I'd call it the weak link on the D from Sunday night.

[run pMc]

But I was just pointing out that these WR's are not looked on highly by anyone on the NFL, ESPECIALLY Packer fans. And if that was so before the game, how can you completely ignore that these guys were to gain some nice yardage in the secondary. And mind you none of those yards came in garbage time in a prevent defense.


Speaking for myself, I think Hester can be extremely dangerous. With his talent (and salary), I'd find ways to get him the ball. IIRC Earl Bennett played with Cutler and Vandy, so that should help both. He didn't play poorly -- he wouldn't be on the roster if he didn't have talent.

I think there's a greater concern for Olson and Forte because a LB or S is likely to be covering them, and that's a tough defensive matchup. Some of GB's LBs aren't good in man-to-man pass coverage, although the new scheme might hide that.
Vs. the WR's, Harris (in '07-'08) and Woodson ('08-'09) have each gone to the Pro Bowl, and Williams (the #3 DB) could start for most teams... so I think it's more a case of who the matchup favors than disrespect.

Am I concerned about the D?
I'll stop worrying when they pitch a few shutouts or at least prove they can be trusted to hold a lead against top-tier QB's. I'm mostly worried about things like avoiding injuries and blown coverages, seeing how well the players communicate, and stopping Adrian Peterson.
I think there will be some rocky games at first, but this defense will improve.
I was impressed with both defenses...that was a tough loss for Bears fans.

[Scott Campbell]

NO, I am not concerned about the D. Don't you have enough to worry about on your side of the ball? :P
Yes,as do all teams. But I will remember your quote here as saying you ARE not concerned sir.


Still savoring your moral victory?

Remember when Matt Forte didn't suck?

[Bossman641]

There are definitely a few things to get cleaned up in the pass D, but it's not like the Bear WR's were beating the cornerbacks consistently.

Woodson didn't have a very good game. I think he underestimated Knox in allowing him to blow by him and then missed a tackle on Hester along the sideline, resulting in a long run after catch. Collins, either due to a poor read or cramps, didn't react on the TD throw to Hester the way he should have. That's a ball I would normally expect him to pick off or at least knock down. Those 3 passes right there must have combined for close to 130 yards.

[sharpe1027]

He brings up a valid point though. The safety play was far from outstanding. I'd call it the weak link on the D from Sunday night.

Yeah, but I'll take that as the weak link. Truthfully, they made several mistakes, but I expected a few more mistakes. When you have an aggressive defense, you are going to give up a few big plays in exchange for all the pressure you bring.

[HarveyWallbangers]

There are definitely a few things to get cleaned up in the pass D, but it's not like the Bear WR's were beating the cornerbacks consistently.

No question there are things to clean up (the two big yardage plays). On the other hand, they held a good RB to 25 carries for 55 yards, almost shutout a good TE, and held a solid QB to 17 for 36 with 4 interceptions. Hard to be too concerned about the defense. RT is a different story.

[Harlan Huckleby]

jeez, how could anybody watch that game and come away grumbling about the defense?

[boiga]

He brings up a valid point though. The safety play was far from outstanding. I'd call it the weak link on the D from Sunday night.

Although it wasn't a frequent problem, there were some communication errors last night with the safeties. On the long play to Knox, Woodson thought he had safety backup, which is why he let Knox zoom by. I was actually impressed he could catch up to the speedster and force him out of bounds when he realized he was on an island. For an old man he's still got burners. Saving the TD there led to the Jolly INT, which was huge.

Also, on the play Collins gave up to Hester, sure he had cramps, but he also hesitated before trying to make it over there. The safeties coach was pissed at Collins for that play.

All in all, the defense isn't nearly so worrisome as the O-Line. There were still some communication errors, but overall the improvement was substantial. As Packer fans we also have to hope that the D won't be on the field as much as it was. Should Rodgers get a bit more protection, the D will be on the field a lot less and perform even better.

[gbgary]

my only concern for the D is it being worn down from being on the field so much because the O can't put drives together. if the O can turn around all will be ok. if they're all they're cracked up to be the next two should be easy.

[wist43]

I've had concerns about the D all along... this game didn't allay any of them.

LB has to be a major concern... Kampman is a DE playing LB, Hawk is pedestrian, and Barnett is completely uninstictive... that's 3/4's of your starting LB'ing corp. I've been saying this for months, and Sunday nights game did nothing to change my opinion of that.

On the bright side, Matthews looked like a good fit, and while I expect growing pains, he already looks better than Barnett. Chillar should be starting, and Bishop should be starting.

Kampman and JT will both be gone next year... so TT should further address the LB'ing corp again next offseason, but for now we have what we have.

[Fritz]

Wist, your avatar should be a picture of Eeyore.

[Guiness]

jeez, how could anybody watch that game and come away grumbling about the defense?

The Bears scored on 3 of 5 possessions in the second half...but they held them to an FG on the second last possession and sealed the deal with the INT.

[hoosier]

Wist, your avatar should be a picture of Eeyore.

Eeyore?!? Wist = Chicken Little! :lol:

[mission]

The last thing Im worried about is the Packers defense right now...

And I love the comment about the Bears WRs ... so it was their fault they had 4 INTs but they had a great game because of 3 plays... lol

Hester looked OK, but he didn't look like a #1 WR IMO.

[HarveyWallbangers]

jeez, how could anybody watch that game and come away grumbling about the defense?

I had to laugh after reading your post, and then Wist's post.


I've had concerns about the D all along... this game didn't allay any of them.

LB has to be a major concern... Kampman is a DE playing LB, Hawk is pedestrian, and Barnett is completely uninstictive... that's 3/4's of your starting LB'ing corp. I've been saying this for months, and Sunday nights game did nothing to change my opinion of that.

On the bright side, Matthews looked like a good fit, and while I expect growing pains, he already looks better than Barnett. Chillar should be starting, and Bishop should be starting.

Kampman and JT will both be gone next year... so TT should further address the LB'ing corp again next offseason, but for now we have what we have.

Crazy talk. You'd have to be pretty hard-headed to criticize the LBs after that game. They had an excellent game. In fact, it seems like the scheme fits them perfectly. I think you'll be eating big-time crow on this one. I know it's been hard for you to change your tune on a player once you've made up your mind, but I have a feeling this one is going to be pretty obvious at the end of the year.

I love the flexibility. Barnett is a solid all around LB. Kampman got after it. He'll occasionally get beat in coverage, but will more than make up for it against the run and rushing the passer (more often one-on-one). Hawk is a very good run defender and they can bring Chillar to cover and rush the passer. Poppinga is a solid run defender and Matthews looks like he'll be a force in passing downs (like Chillar). I love this mix of LBs for this scheme, and they are seven deep there.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The Bears scored on 3 of 5 possessions in the second half

That's pretty nitpicky--since the Bears scored on ZERO possessions in the first half. Also, the defense provided constant pressure, shut down a good RB (Forte) and a good TE (Olsen), and had four interceptions.

[Guiness]

The Bears scored on 3 of 5 possessions in the second half

That's pretty nitpicky--since the Bears scored on ZERO possessions in the first half. Also, the defense provided constant pressure, shut down a good RB (Forte) and a good TE (Olsen), and had four interceptions.

Don't get me wrong - I was happy with the D effort. Even though the Bears scored, holding them to that FG on their second last possession was very nice. And keeping Olsen out of the boxscore was good too.

All I'll say about the second half is that I hope that doesn't mean Chicago was able to make adjustments at the half that enabled them to be more successful. I don't think so, though, I didn't see anything second half that was much different. The missed tackle by CW on Hester, and Collin's cramping were the difference makers on the scoreboard, and those were flukes.

[Scott Campbell]

The Bears scored on 3 of 5 possessions in the second half

That's pretty nitpicky--since the Bears scored on ZERO possessions in the first half. Also, the defense provided constant pressure, shut down a good RB (Forte) and a good TE (Olsen), and had four interceptions.


One of those scoring drives was kept alive only through the 3rd down phantom call on Harris.

[Dabaddestbear]

jeez, how could anybody watch that game and come away grumbling about the defense?
Not grumbling really about either defense. If you notice in my post in other threads, I stated how I loved the aggressive defensive play on both sides of the ball. I was just pointing out how a strength of the D (being its pass coverage) may have flipped.

And for those that I noticed tried to pile on about Forte, if you watched the game you noticed he did what he could with what he had, cuz only Barry Sanders could have avoided all those D-linemen in the backfield as soon as he touched the ball. And he did move the ball and pick up several key first downs when needed. The Bears went into pass happy mode with their new toy and it got them in trouble. I dont expect for that to happen anytime soon.

[Pugger]

jeez, how could anybody watch that game and come away grumbling about the defense?

This thread was started by a bear fan asking us if we are worried about our pass D. I don't worry about that too much. EVERY DB gets burned once or twice during a game. The fellas on the other sideline get paid too. Woodson didn't have a great game but there were enough guys on D who did and the Packers' offense came thru in the end and found a way to win a game when they weren't playing their best by any stretch of the imagination. And that is what good teams do. :D

[]{ilr]3]

I think its the Bears fans who should be concerned about thier QB instead of worry about issues with other teams.


From PFT.com


Why do Lovie's buddies keep piling on Cutler?
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on September 15, 2009 2:41 PM ET
You don't need to be an NFL insider to have heard the whispers about Jay Cutler's leadership skills (or lack thereof.)

The issue went national, of course, during the long buildup to Cutler's trade to Chicago, with Tony Dungy being one of the most outspoken people who questioned Cutler's maturity a few months after he joined the Bears.

Those comments raised a few eyebrows considering Dungy's relationship with Bears coach Lovie Smith, and now another coach close to Smith has jumped on Cutler's behavior.

As pointed out by The Chicago Sun-Times, Mike Martz was critical of Cutler during his NFL Network gig, especially Cutler's behavior in his post-game presser.

"[Cutler] just doesn't get it,'' Martz said. "He doesn't understand that he represents a great head coach and the rest of those players on that team ... somebody needs to talk to him."

Jim Mora also slammed Cutler for "acting like he didn't even care," which we're not sure is fair. Whether you like it or not, Cutler's laconic demeanor is a lot more consistent than his decision-making on the field. He's just not going to give fire-and-brimstone speeches.

Cutler's attitude towards the press is a lot less interesting to us than his interaction with his teammates. There have been signs that Cutler wasn't exactly a beloved leader in the Denver locker room.

Journalist Stefan Fatsis, who spent training camp in 2006 with the Broncos for a book he wrote, alluded to Cutler's aloof nature in a recent interview with the On the DL Podcast. (Outstanding book incidentally.)

Fatsis had close ties with folks throughout the Broncos organization, and there seemed to legitimate questions from within whether Cutler had the "intangibles" necessary to lead a football team. It's fair to wonder whether Josh McDaniels and company took this into account before dealing Cutler away.

Fatsis' comments popped in my head when I read what Martz's said. Hearing one coach close to Lovie Smith question Cutler's maturity was odd, but two seems like a trend.

Brad Biggs of the Sun-Times said it perfectly: "At this point, it's fair to wonder if Lovie Smith shares the same viewpoints as his mentors."

[Dabaddestbear]

The Bears scored on 3 of 5 possessions in the second half

That's pretty nitpicky--since the Bears scored on ZERO possessions in the first half. Also, the defense provided constant pressure, shut down a good RB (Forte) and a good TE (Olsen), and had four interceptions.


One of those scoring drives was kept alive only through the 3rd down phantom call on Harris.
They Double the TE all night....look at the game.
Forte was used on occasion versus how they normally use him out the backfield. You guys were using a corner WITH help of a safety over top on Olsen.
And to say well we kept them scoreless in the first half as validation for what the topic of this thread is very irrelevant. I asked specifically about a group of WR's that many of you still aren't worth the cloth of their jerseys, yet they outperformed your more heralded WR's . So I ask if you think such production from such very young and average WR's in you guys eyes are something to be concerned with.

I never said it was a big issue, only that it may be a wrinkle of concern. Thank you Guiness, Wist, sharpe1027, run pMc, Harlan, and a few others for staying on the topic at hand.

[ThunderDan]

They Double the TE all night....look at the game.
Forte was used on occasion versus how they normally use him out the backfield. You guys were using a corner WITH help of a safety over top on Olsen.
And to say well we kept them scoreless in the first half as validation for what the topic of this thread is very irrelevant. I asked specifically about a group of WR's that many of you still aren't worth the cloth of their jerseys, yet they outperformed your more heralded WR's . So I ask if you think such production from such very young and average WR's in you guys eyes are something to be concerned with.

I never said it was a big issue, only that it may be a wrinkle of concern. Thank you Guiness, Wist, sharpe1027, run pMc, Harlan, and a few others for staying on the topic at hand.

WTF?!?

Let's see... Chicago WR blow goat. Forte is very good, Olsen is a very good TE. Of course I'm doubling Olsen and focusing on Forte.

Why wouldn't you scheme your defense to take away Chicago's only offensive weapons???

[Scott Campbell]

So I ask if you think such production from such very young and average WR's in you guys eyes are something to be concerned with.


Average????

Those guys are well below average.

[imscott72]

For this being the 1st game of the season with a new defensive scheme I don't have any complaints considering how they kept us in the game. Are there things to work on? Of course, there always is, but overall I'd give the defense a solid B in game one. They played much better than I expected given the new scheme and some new personnel.

[sharpe1027]

They Double the TE all night....look at the game.
Forte was used on occasion versus how they normally use him out the backfield. You guys were using a corner WITH help of a safety over top on Olsen.
And to say well we kept them scoreless in the first half as validation for what the topic of this thread is very irrelevant. I asked specifically about a group of WR's that many of you still aren't worth the cloth of their jerseys, yet they outperformed your more heralded WR's . So I ask if you think such production from such very young and average WR's in you guys eyes are something to be concerned with.

I never said it was a big issue, only that it may be a wrinkle of concern. Thank you Guiness, Wist, sharpe1027, run pMc, Harlan, and a few others for staying on the topic at hand.

I think you answered your own question. The Packer's focused on everyone but your WRs all night, and your WRs were still pretty average at best. Basically, even when the Packers all but ignored your WRs, they did very little.

[HarveyWallbangers]

For this being the 1st game of the season with a new defensive scheme I don't have any complaints considering how they kept us in the game. Are there things to work on? Of course, there always is, but overall I'd give the defense a solid B in game one. They played much better than I expected given the new scheme and some new personnel.

B might even be harsh. They gave up 13 points, held Forte to under 2.5 yards/carry, constantly harrassed Cutler, and had 4 turnovers. That would probably be a solid B for Pittsburgh even.
:D

[wist43]

The scheme in-and-of itself is going to yield improvement... while I have been clamoring for the switch to a 3-4 for years, you homers were singing the praises of everything and anything done at 1265 - including Bates' scheme.

Simply by running the 3-4 they can create more confusion in an opponents blocking scheme and assignments, more easily hide deficient players, and more effectively take advantage of players strengths.

Are any of you prepared to argue that Kampman looks comfortable and fluid out in space??? Or that Hawk is the next Ray Lewis???

I see reason for hope moving forward simply b/c they did make the swiitch to the 3-4, and they did bring in Raji and Matthews. All steps in the right direction; but, even as TT has acknowledged, it is going to take time to transition into bringing in players with different body types, and players who more effectively fit the 3-4 scheme. I can guarentee you, he is not scouting players with Kampman's body type to be his replacement at LOLB next year.

Capers is a good coach, and there is enough talent there to win... how far we can go, I don't know; but, at the same time you have acknowledge weaknesses or deficiencies... stop guzzling the Kool-Aid, and you might be able to make an objective analysis.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Are any of you prepared to argue that Kampman looks comfortable and fluid out in space??? Or that Hawk is the next Ray Lewis???

Are you prepared to argue that it doesn't really matter much if Kampman looks comfortable out in space. Does Jarret Johnson or Greg Ellis look comfortable in space? So, we need A.J. Hawk to be Ray Lewis? I'm fine if he's as good as Bart Scott or Larry Foote.

Rewatch the tape and tell me A.J. Hawk didn't play well.

[sharpe1027]

The scheme in-and-of itself is going to yield improvement... while I have been clamoring for the switch to a 3-4 for years, you homers were singing the praises of everything and anything done at 1265 - including Bates' scheme.

Simply by running the 3-4 they can create more confusion in an opponents blocking scheme and assignments, more easily hide deficient players, and more effectively take advantage of players strengths.

Are any of you prepared to argue that Kampman looks comfortable and fluid out in space??? Or that Hawk is the next Ray Lewis???

I see reason for hope moving forward simply b/c they did make the swiitch to the 3-4, and they did bring in Raji and Matthews. All steps in the right direction; but, even as TT has acknowledged, it is going to take time to transition into bringing in players with different body types, and players who more effectively fit the 3-4 scheme. I can guarentee you, he is not scouting players with Kampman's body type to be his replacement at LOLB next year.

Capers is a good coach, and there is enough talent there to win... how far we can go, I don't know; but, at the same time you have acknowledge weaknesses or deficiencies... stop guzzling the Kool-Aid, and you might be able to make an objective analysis.

No doubt that each player has weaknesses. Have you ever stopped to consider that they also have strengths. If you do, the next step is to consider how the defensive scheme has been adjusted for the strengths.

For how critical it seems to be, I find it strange that I hardly ever saw Kampman out in space. Hell, I've seen Gilbert Brown in space almost as much as Kampman was.

Requiring that a player be as good as one of the best players to ever play at a position seems a tad unrealistic/unobjective.

Being critical of a team you support is not automatically being objective.

[HarveyWallbangers]

This coming from Bedard--who has been outspoken critic of Hawk. Now, we'll anxiously await his comments on Kampman (he was also an outspoken critic of moving Kampman to LB).

I also think Bedard is wrong on another thing. Hawk played solidly as a rookie, but in his second year I thought his play improved. That was his best year. Last year, he took a big step back, but he also played hurt. I've predicted that he'll bounce back this year, and I'm sticking to that. He may not play every down because the Packers have a really good nickel LB backing him up, but I think he'll continue to do his job well.

http://packerrats.com/ratchat/posting.php?mode=reply&t=18622


Giving Hawk his due
By Greg A. Bedard

Green Bay - Packers linebacker A.J. Hawk has had plenty of criticism laid at his doorstep.

Specifically in this space.

Far too often in his still-young career, Hawk has been way too tentative. For whatever reason, Hawk has preferred to play mistake-free instead of impactful. Maybe he always colored inside the lines as a kid. Who knows?

It wasn't always that way. As a rookie in 2006, Hawk played a little more free and made big plays. He played how you would expect a player taken fifth overall to play -- or at least in the ballpark.

The past two years Packers coaches have tried to turn that switch back on with Hawk.

Maybe it's starting to work.

Let it be said loud and clear (so no one thinks anybody is anti-Hawk): Hawk played very well in the season-opener against the Chicago Bears.

"I thought he played a lot more aggressive," said assistant head coach/inside linebackers Winston Moss. "He did a very good job of stepping up and making some plays that he was supposed to make."

Hawk, who had four tackles and a one for a loss, has almost always been in the right place from play to play, even though he hasn't been the quickest at reading his keys and then reacting like the elite players at linebacker are.

What the Packers want from Hawk is for him to instinctively read a play and then shoot a hole to make play. He did some of that in college and then as a rookie.

In the new 3-4 scheme, it's imperative that he do that. Against a power-running team like the Bears, he had to.

And he did.

"I think as a whole on every play against the run, he was a lot more aggressive than he's been the last three years," Moss said. "So that was extremely encouraging to see. I think he's going to be able to take a look at the film we just studied and be able to gain a lot of confidence in that he can just go ahead and trust his ability, trust the scheme and continue to go out there and make a lot of plays."

Has Hawk turned a corner? We'll have to see. When training camp started, Hawk was also very physical the first few days and was very impressive. Then, for some reason, he went back to thinking too much.

The Packers are hoping he sticks with it this time.

"I like A.J.," defensive coordinator Dom Capers said. "Everybody's thinking he was drafted high. I've seen it many times. Everybody expects a guy to have a cape on. But A.J.'s a good football player. I think he's good in the huddle. He's really done a nice just calling the plays. He had some physical plays (on Sunday night). Part of that run defense, our linebackers got to the ball pretty good."

[Scott Campbell]

How many times have Rodgers needed to bring his team back in the 4th quarter and just couldnt do it? Now Cutler time and time again has done it over and over again with a terrible defense.

Look, time will tell. And I will be laughing at these post.

By the way, glad to be back even though most of ya hate to see me coming. :-)


Remember this? :lol:

[Scott Campbell]

THey traded him cuz they found someone even better..than Orton AND Rodgers..lol.

Like always, sour grapes from a Packer fan that doesnt know any better...lol.


Or this? :lol:

[Iron Mike]

THey traded him cuz they found someone even better..than Orton AND Rodgers..lol.

Like always, sour grapes from a Packer fan that doesnt know any better...lol.


Or this? :lol:

KABONG!!!!!
http://whatigotsofar.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/elkabong.jpg

[SnakeLH2006]

THey traded him cuz they found someone even better..than Orton AND Rodgers..lol.

Like always, sour grapes from a Packer fan that doesnt know any better...lol.


Or this? :lol:

C'mon Scott....He's had some great comebacks with Cutler:



Just saw the highlights.

Cutlers pick and almost-pick was inexcusable. He was out there looking like Brett Favre, and not the good Brett.
umm..ok? :roll:

:shock: :D Get used to having a joyless-ass Brett Favre winging up balls and making excuses, DBB.

Maybe Urlacher was right? :

http://jay-mariotti.fanhouse.com/2009/09/14/cutler-lovie-partners-in-brain-cramps/

Cutler, Lovie Partners in Brain Cramps

Posted Sep 14, 2009 2:40AM By Jay Mariotti (RSS feed)

Jay CutlerGREEN BAY, Wis. -- So now, already, we are left to wonder if the biggest curse in professional football has swallowed Jay Cutler. He was supposed to be the savior of the Chicago Bears and still might be in due time, but in his first regular-season game Sunday night, he plummeted into the same black hole that has doomed so many of the franchise's wickedly bad quarterbacks.

Um, what in the name of Chad Hutchinson was he trying to do in the second quarter, when he floated a wayward pass to nobody in particular that was intercepted by Green Bay's Tramon Williams and returned 67 yards to the Bears 1? What in the name of Henry Burris was he doing just before then, when he tried a shovel pass to Matt Forte that entered the personal space of 325-pound Johnny Jolly, who couldn't have dropped the ball if it were covered in grease? What in the name of Peter Tom Willis was Cutler doing in the first quarter, when his wayward toss became the property of opposing safety Nick Collins?
Mariotti: Favre Just Spectator at Peterson Show

And please explain, in the name of the mercifully departed Rex (The Turnover Machine) Grossman, how Cutler could look so pathetic with 1:06 left, when he was supposed to answer the touchdown pass of rival Aaron Rodgers and deliver the eighth game-winning rally of his young career -- and instead telegraphed a throw that seemed to veer toward the dreadlocks of cornerback Al Harris as if guided by a magnetic force?

That would be a total of four picks for Cutler, making it a four-gettable performance by a quarterback who expects to be paid $100 million by the Bears in the near future. While we should point out that his array of wide receivers leaves much to be desired -- is that Johnny Knox or Johnny Knoxville? -- it should concern Bears fans greatly that he became so easily rattled and unglued by pressure applied out of the Packers' new 3-4 scheme. Chances are, he'll be given the benefit of the doubt by Bears fans for another week. But if he struggles next Sunday at home against the monster defense of the Pittsburgh Steelers, which is possible, the "JAY CUT'' T-shirts that are so popular in town could be reversed to "CUT JAY.''

This was advertised as a duel between Rodgers and Cutler, and, in the end, it was the Green Bay gunslinger who avoided mistakes through his own struggles and made the giant throw when urgently needed. He found Greg Jennings for a 50-yard touchdown pass with 1:11 remaining after Bears cornerback Nathan Vasher slipped in single coverage, letting the receiver sprint past him like Usain Bolt whipping past a cement mixer. The result was a 21-15 victory for the Packers in the first of six round-robin games featuring Green Bay, Chicago and Minnesota, three elite teams in the long-downtrodden NFC North. You can excuse it as merely a first-game letdown, but don't tell the Bears, whose body language after the Jennings score spoke volumes on the sideline.

"[Bleeping bleep],'' muttered star linebacker Brian Urlacher, who dislocated his right wrist, left the game in the third quarter and likely will be out for an extended period.

Meanwhile, a few feet away, Cutler was on the bench with his head slumped, looking aghast and incapable of inspiring a rally. It brought to mind a reported offseason insult by way of Minnesota receiver Bobby Wade, who said Urlacher had referred to Cutler as a "p----'' when Wade and Urlacher were together in Vegas. If that is harsh, Cutler certainly came up small in his first trip as a Bear to Lambeau Field, where the team's players and coaches are judged most severely by a large Midwestern city that treats the Packers like a blood rival. Cutler's last career stop in Denver is a pressure cooker, but as he underlined himself in saying that fan intensity in Chicago is a "9'' compared to "6'' in Colorado, losing and looking awful in Green Bay is the worst way to start a Bears career.

Welcome to the big city, kid. You're not in Santa Claus, Ind., anymore.

"It's tough. I'm sure the city of Chicago is disappointed. I'm disappointed, and we have 90 people in the locker room who are disappointed,'' said Cutler, whose No. 6 jersey has been among the league leaders in sales for months. "But we have 15 more to play, and I think we ultimately will overcome this one and we will be fine.''

So why the ugliness? "It's still a learning process. We haven't been together that long in game situations, but that is no excuse for what happened out there,'' Cutler said. "There were a lot of failures. We've got to go back and look at it. I think we're still going to be a good football team, so there's no need to panic."

Oh, but Chicago wouldn't be Chicago if it didn't panic. And now that people have seen Adrian Peterson rumble for 180 yards with Brett Favre playing game-manager in Minnesota, one could envision the Bears missing the playoffs while the Vikings and Packers get in. Along with Urlacher, Chicago's hobbled include valuable tight end Desmond Clark, linebacker Pisa Tinoisamoa and cornerback Trumaine McBride. "It's always tough to have your leader go down,'' linebacker Lance Briggs said of Urlacher. "He knows the defense better than anyone and he communicates everything to everyone else. In football, injuries can happen at any time, so guys will have to step up and play big.''

The Bears won't be fine if Lovie Smith and the coaching staff continue to mismanage games. As it is, there's a suspicion that Smith remains a glorified defensive coordinator who is in over his head as a head coach. If Jeff Fisher ever left Tennessee, there would be a groundswell of support in Chicago to dismiss Smith and hire the former 1985 Bear. The coaches did themselves no public-relations favors early in the fourth quarter, when they thought the Packers had 12 men on the field as the Bears were punting, leading to a regrettable audible. The ball was snapped directly to the up back, Garrett Wolfe, who was stopped on 4th-and-11 after a 4-yard gain. This gave the Packers a first down at the Chicago 30, and if that screw-up wasn't gigantic enough, Smith challenged the ruling. The call was upheld -- the Packers indeed had the legal 11 men -- and the Bears looked doubly stupid, especially after Mason Crosby kicked a 39-yard field goal that gave the Packers a 13-12 lead. In the final minutes, they could have used the timeout that Smith wasted on the challenge.

"It was a mistake on our part,'' Smith said. "We thought they had 12 guys on the field. We shouldn't have done it. Our team didn't execute it the way it should have been done.''

Which falls in the laps of the coaches. Afterward, you couldn't help noticing general manager Jerry Angelo chatting quietly in the press box with his trusted aide, Bobby DePaul. Smith was Angelo's hand-picked coach, but if the Bears don't make the playoffs, the howls for a change will echo through a city that has won one NFL championship -- the entertainment extravaganza that was the '85 Bears -- in 45 years. It's one thing to lose a game. It's another to lose to the Packers in front of a national audience on Sunday night when the coach goofs up, the ballyhooed quarterback throws four picks and the Packers win on a late bomb.

"I just kind of lost my footing a little,'' Vasher said of Green Bay's game-winning touchdown pass. "We have no room for error, especially on the back end. It's just really tough.''

They spoke in somber tones as thousands of Cheeseheads rejoiced outside. Last year, the Packers were 1-7 in games decided by seven points or less. This time, Rodgers bailed them out. "I was thinking, 'We're due. We're due for one good drive,' '' he said. "I told the guys, just give me one drive. It was important for us to get a win like this tonight. It'll definitely build our team character."

It also will build Wisconsin's faith in Rodgers, forever to be judged against the legacy of Favre. When highlights of the Vikings' victory were shown on the big board, fans booed vigorously. Not that Favre will be easily forgotten. In the fourth quarter, the announcer in the press box said, "Favre's pass ... excuse me, Rodgers' pass,
complete to Donald Driver.''

There are no such problems in Chicago. The good people are just waiting for a quarterback, any quarterback, to prove worthy of a comparison to long, lost Sid Luckman. So far, Cutler isn't that man.

[Scott Campbell]

Um, what in the name of Chad Hutchinson was he trying to do in the second quarter, when he floated a wayward pass to nobody in particular that was intercepted by Green Bay's Tramon Williams and returned 67 yards to the Bears 1? What in the name of Henry Burris was he doing just before then, when he tried a shovel pass to Matt Forte that entered the personal space of 325-pound Johnny Jolly, who couldn't have dropped the ball if it were covered in grease? What in the name of Peter Tom Willis was Cutler doing in the first quarter, when his wayward toss became the property of opposing safety Nick Collins?



:lol: :lol: :lol:

[wist43]

The scheme in-and-of itself is going to yield improvement... while I have been clamoring for the switch to a 3-4 for years, you homers were singing the praises of everything and anything done at 1265 - including Bates' scheme.

Simply by running the 3-4 they can create more confusion in an opponents blocking scheme and assignments, more easily hide deficient players, and more effectively take advantage of players strengths.

Are any of you prepared to argue that Kampman looks comfortable and fluid out in space??? Or that Hawk is the next Ray Lewis???

I see reason for hope moving forward simply b/c they did make the swiitch to the 3-4, and they did bring in Raji and Matthews. All steps in the right direction; but, even as TT has acknowledged, it is going to take time to transition into bringing in players with different body types, and players who more effectively fit the 3-4 scheme. I can guarentee you, he is not scouting players with Kampman's body type to be his replacement at LOLB next year.

Capers is a good coach, and there is enough talent there to win... how far we can go, I don't know; but, at the same time you have acknowledge weaknesses or deficiencies... stop guzzling the Kool-Aid, and you might be able to make an objective analysis.

No doubt that each player has weaknesses. Have you ever stopped to consider that they also have strengths. If you do, the next step is to consider how the defensive scheme has been adjusted for the strengths.

For how critical it seems to be, I find it strange that I hardly ever saw Kampman out in space. Hell, I've seen Gilbert Brown in space almost as much as Kampman was.

Requiring that a player be as good as one of the best players to ever play at a position seems a tad unrealistic/unobjective.

Being critical of a team you support is not automatically being objective.

I was critical of the last scheme... it was garbarge - you said, "no, look at the positives" :lol:

I am not critical of the scheme now... I am just looking at areas that need to be shored up. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

As I've said, simply by running a 3-4 it will be easier to hide deficient players, and they will be able to generate pressure simply by the scheme itself. But that doesn't mean that you ignore the deficiencies.

Kampman and JT will both likely be gone next year... they simply are not a good fit for the 3-4. That doesn't mean Kampman won't make some plays, or get his sacks, it simply means he's not a good fit for OLB. Has nothing to do with being "positive or negative"... just stating the obvious.

[sharpe1027]

I was critical of the last scheme... it was garbarge - you said, "no, look at the positives" :lol:

I am not critical of the scheme now... I am just looking at areas that need to be shored up. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

As I've said, simply by running a 3-4 it will be easier to hide deficient players, and they will be able to generate pressure simply by the scheme itself. But that doesn't mean that you ignore the deficiencies.

Kampman and JT will both likely be gone next year... they simply are not a good fit for the 3-4. That doesn't mean Kampman won't make some plays, or get his sacks, it simply means he's not a good fit for OLB. Has nothing to do with being "positive or negative"... just stating the obvious.

I'm not saying ignore the deficiencies, I'm saying if all you do is point out weaknesses that's not being objective. You have accused people of not being objective and stated that your opinion is obvious (implying I'm obviously wrong).

I'm not pissed and welcome the discussion, but you should know you sound like a pompous know-it-all when you dimiss other's views as not objective (implying yours is) and claim your view is obvioussly correct (implying I can't see the obvious). Therefore, I repeat that just because you are being critical of your team, that does not necessarily mean you are being objective.

LaMarr Woodley doesn't look good in space, yet he fits in well with the Steeler's defense, which is arguably the best in the league.

So, again, who cares that Kampman isn't great in coverage? It's way down on the list of important duties for his position.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Kampman and JT will both likely be gone next year... they simply are not a good fit for the 3-4. That doesn't mean Kampman won't make some plays, or get his sacks, it simply means he's not a good fit for OLB. Has nothing to do with being "positive or negative"... just stating the obvious.

I doubt Thompson will be gone. If he is, it's because he's not any good--not because he doesn't fit the scheme. When you draw up a 3-4 OLB, they look like Thompson.

Any scheme is good with the right players. I think this scheme actually fits the Packers personnel better than the last scheme. I said that in the offseason. Nothing wrong with the Bates scheme--with the right personnel and the right coordinator. However, it needs two good pass rushing DEs, a rotation of block eating DTs, a few good press corners, AND a coordinator that can adjust if injuries or the opponent dictate that things need to be adjusted.

[mraynrand]

Nothing wrong with the Bates scheme--with the right personnel and the right coordinator. However, it needs two good pass rushing DEs, a rotation of block eating DTs, a few good press corners, AND a coordinator that can adjust if injuries or the opponent dictate that things need to be adjusted.

That's kind of funny when you re-read a few times. Sure, nothing wrong with that scheme that a squad of pro bowlers couldn't make work! :) (I know that's not what you meant). Still, that Bates D seems to need more talent than the average scheme to work. Looked pretty sloppy in Tampa on Sunday.

[Patler]

If you look back at my posts early when Capers was hired, I argued that the Packers needed to trade Kampman to a 4-3 during the off season, while they could still get something for him. I argued he simply wouldn't fit. After hearing Capers discuss his strategy a little, and after thinking about it more myself, particularly Kampman's background, I backed off that and thought, well....maybe....

I became hopeful after watching him in a few preseason games because he wasn't horrible.

After Sunday, I am convinced he can play the position for the way they seem likely to use him. Did he look smooth and comfortable all the time? Of course not! It was his first real game at the position. But I thought he played quite well, actually. He was in on plays all over, he wasn't exposed in passing plays when he dropped back, and he was rushing effectively. There was the obvious face mask that kept him off Cutler once, and two other times he was right there and seemed to be held. I'm not complaining about the non-calls, just pointing out that they seemed to be having trouble containing him on the rush a little. Plus, I thought it was clear that his instructions were to make sure Cutler didn't get outside. The way he rushed and held outside positioning made that seem quite obvious on a number of the times he rushed the passer.

All in all, I'm guessing the coaches are pleased with how Kampman played in his first game at the position.

[sharpe1027]

If you look back at my posts early when Capers was hired, I argued that the Packers needed to trade Kampman to a 4-3 during the off season, while they could still get something for him. I argued he simply wouldn't fit. After hearing Capers discuss his strategy a little, and after thinking about it more myself, particularly Kampman's background, I backed off that and thought, well....maybe....

I became hopeful after watching him in a few preseason games because he wasn't horrible.

After Sunday, I am convinced he can play the position for the way they seem likely to use him. Did he look smooth and comfortable all the time? Of course not! It was his first real game at the position. But I thought he played quite well, actually. He was in on plays all over, he wasn't exposed in passing plays when he dropped back, and he was rushing effectively. There was the obvious face mask that kept him off Cutler once, and two other times he was right there and seemed to be held. I'm not complaining about the non-calls, just pointing out that they seemed to be having trouble containing him on the rush a little. Plus, I thought it was clear that his instructions were to make sure Cutler didn't get outside. The way he rushed and held outside positioning made that seem quite obvious on a number of the times he rushed the passer.

All in all, I'm guessing the coaches are pleased with how Kampman played in his first game at the position.

Not to mention his play against the run. To my untrained eye, he has been outstanding at standing up his man, containing and then making a play on the runner.

Wist is right the few times he dropped into coverage he looks ackward. Still, that's not his main role.

[wist43]

I was critical of the last scheme... it was garbarge - you said, "no, look at the positives" :lol:

I am not critical of the scheme now... I am just looking at areas that need to be shored up. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

As I've said, simply by running a 3-4 it will be easier to hide deficient players, and they will be able to generate pressure simply by the scheme itself. But that doesn't mean that you ignore the deficiencies.

Kampman and JT will both likely be gone next year... they simply are not a good fit for the 3-4. That doesn't mean Kampman won't make some plays, or get his sacks, it simply means he's not a good fit for OLB. Has nothing to do with being "positive or negative"... just stating the obvious.

I'm not saying ignore the deficiencies, I'm saying if all you do is point out weaknesses that's not being objective. You have accused people of not being objective and stated that your opinion is obvious (implying I'm obviously wrong).

I'm not pissed and welcome the discussion, but you should know you sound like a pompous know-it-all when you dimiss other's views as not objective (implying yours is) and claim your view is obvioussly correct (implying I can't see the obvious). Therefore, I repeat that just because you are being critical of your team, that does not necessarily mean you are being objective.

LaMarr Woodley doesn't look good in space, yet he fits in well with the Steeler's defense, which is arguably the best in the league.

So, again, who cares that Kampman isn't great in coverage? It's way down on the list of important duties for his position.

When did I "dismiss" your opinion??? I posted an observation, and typically I was attacked for being "negative". The title of the thread is... is there reason for concern on the D??? I said yes, and stated why... don't see how that is dismissing your opinion.

In fact, I state in my original post things I see as moving in the right direction, i.e. the change in scheme and the drafting of Raji and Matthews... again, don't see how that is dismissing your opinion???

[Zool]

When did I "dismiss" your opinion??? I posted an observation, and typically I was attacked for being "negative". The title of the thread is... is there reason for concern on the D??? I said yes, and stated why... don't see how that is dismissing your opinion.

In fact, I state in my original post things I see as moving in the right direction, i.e. the change in scheme and the drafting of Raji and Matthews... again, don't see how that is dismissing your opinion???

Cause you suck. I agree with most of your points, but you still suck.

[HarveyWallbangers]

When did I "dismiss" your opinion??? I posted an observation, and typically I was attacked for being "negative". The title of the thread is... is there reason for concern on the D??? I said yes, and stated why... don't see how that is dismissing your opinion.

I didn't read where people called your opinion negative. Now, if you said you were "typically attacked because some people think you are wrong," I can agree with that.

[wist43]

Yes, you guys are right... the Packers have 53 All-Pros, what could I have been thinking??? :roll:

[rbaloha1]

No. The scheme is plays to the strength of the personnel. The D is blessed with playmakers, excellent blitzers, experience and smart players with ability to execute.

Expect the D to only get better as the season progresses.

[Guiness]

Um, what in the name of Chad Hutchinson was he trying to do in the second quarter, when he floated a wayward pass to nobody in particular that was intercepted by Green Bay's Tramon Williams and returned 67 yards to the Bears 1? What in the name of Henry Burris was he doing just before then, when he tried a shovel pass to Matt Forte that entered the personal space of 325-pound Johnny Jolly, who couldn't have dropped the ball if it were covered in grease? What in the name of Peter Tom Willis was Cutler doing in the first quarter, when his wayward toss became the property of opposing safety Nick Collins?

Who in the name of Peter Tom Willis is Peter Tom Willis???

Ok, Wikipedia tells me this:
Career stats
TD-INT 6-15
Yards 1,261
QB Rating 54.9

So...essentially the numbers Cutler appears to be headed to if you extrapolate this past week-ends numbers. Fair enough :lol:

[HarveyWallbangers]

Yes, you guys are right... the Packers have 53 All-Pros, what could I have been thinking??? :roll:

Yeah, because that's what everybody is claiming. Let's face it. Our defense has some good personnel. We lack depth at DE, safety is a sore spot, we have only 3 good corners, and we could probably use one more dynamic playmaker in the front 7 (hopefully, Raji or Matthews develops into that). However, there's some good talent on this defense. I expect a good coach with a good scheme (that looks to fit the personnel better) to get more out of them. Much more.

[mraynrand]

If you look back at my posts early when Capers was hired, I argued that the Packers needed to trade Kampman to a 4-3 during the off season, while they could still get something for him. I argued he simply wouldn't fit. After hearing Capers discuss his strategy a little, and after thinking about it more myself, particularly Kampman's background, I backed off that and thought, well....maybe....

I became hopeful after watching him in a few preseason games because he wasn't horrible.

After Sunday, I am convinced he can play the position for the way they seem likely to use him. Did he look smooth and comfortable all the time? Of course not! It was his first real game at the position. But I thought he played quite well, actually. He was in on plays all over, he wasn't exposed in passing plays when he dropped back, and he was rushing effectively. There was the obvious face mask that kept him off Cutler once, and two other times he was right there and seemed to be held. I'm not complaining about the non-calls, just pointing out that they seemed to be having trouble containing him on the rush a little. Plus, I thought it was clear that his instructions were to make sure Cutler didn't get outside. The way he rushed and held outside positioning made that seem quite obvious on a number of the times he rushed the passer.

All in all, I'm guessing the coaches are pleased with how Kampman played in his first game at the position.

Kamp was pretty solid in the run game. Set the end, pushed his guy back, forced inside runs outside, strung plays out, shed blockers. Good stuff. Have to see how he looked in 'coverage.' Don't recall offhand.

[sharpe1027]

When did I "dismiss" your opinion??? I posted an observation, and typically I was attacked for being "negative". The title of the thread is... is there reason for concern on the D??? I said yes, and stated why... don't see how that is dismissing your opinion.

In fact, I state in my original post things I see as moving in the right direction, i.e. the change in scheme and the drafting of Raji and Matthews... again, don't see how that is dismissing your opinion???

Holy buckets batman!! Wist, I thought I explained it pretty well. Let me try again: You took a shot at everyone else calling them unobjective and koolaid drinkers. Then you finish one of your posts by claiming that your are "just stating the obvious". :roll:

After all that you complain about being "attacked". LOL. You know what they say, if you live in a glass house, turn off the lights at night.

I have to admit, your post had a glimmer of positive statements. Kudos (insert image here). Just don't pretend you're objective and everyone else is not and I promise not to "attack" you quite as much. Deal? :P

[sharpe1027]

Kamp was pretty solid in the run game. Set the end, pushed his guy back, forced inside runs outside, strung plays out, shed blockers. Good stuff. Have to see how he looked in 'coverage.' Don't recall offhand.

You'll have to look close because I think it rarely happened.

[boiga]

Kamp was pretty solid in the run game. Set the end, pushed his guy back, forced inside runs outside, strung plays out, shed blockers. Good stuff. Have to see how he looked in 'coverage.' Don't recall offhand.

You'll have to look close because I think it rarely happened.

According to the GBPG analysis (http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090915/PKR01/90915204/1954/PKR03) , this was what happened on downs Chicago tried to pass :
Outside linebacker Aaron Kampman rushed two-thirds of those snaps (27) and dropped into coverage the other third (14),

Not being exploited once in 27 downs dropped into coverage is much better than I had expected. Sure, time will tell if other teams can target his coverage based on the first couple of weeks worth of game tape, but it's been a good start.

[HarveyWallbangers]

You'll have to look close because I think it rarely happened.

He appeared to be rushing most of the time, but JSO did point out that Kampman rushed 2/3 of the time out of the Bears 42 passing plays, so 1/3 of the time he was in coverage. Of course, they played mostly nickel in this game. Not really sure what playing more base will do to those stats.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Not being exploited once in 27 downs dropped into coverage is much better than I had expected. Sure, time will tell if other teams can target his coverage based on the first couple of weeks worth of game tape, but it's been a good start.

I think you mean 14. I think it should be pointed out that Jolly and Pickett combined to drop back into coverage something like 9 plays. Capers is a little exotic.
:D

[boiga]

I think you mean 14. I think it should be pointed out that Jolly and Pickett combined to drop back into coverage something like 9 plays. Capers is a little exotic.
:D

Yes, thanks. It's worked so far, so I'm happy.

[Dabaddestbear]

Still not concerned?
Just a thought.

[Dabaddestbear]

The last thing Im worried about is the Packers defense right now...

And I love the comment about the Bears WRs ... so it was their fault they had 4 INTs but they had a great game because of 3 plays... lol

Hester looked OK, but he didn't look like a #1 WR IMO.
Sure about that?

[MOBB DEEP]

The last thing Im worried about is the Packers defense right now...

And I love the comment about the Bears WRs ... so it was their fault they had 4 INTs but they had a great game because of 3 plays... lol

Hester looked OK, but he didn't look like a #1 WR IMO.
Sure about that?

wow

[Packerarcher]

The D isn't the only worry,Rodgers has looked like shit the last few weeks. I don't want to hear the o-line excuse either (although it does suck),Favre got it done for years with shitty protection.

[Gunakor]

The D isn't the only worry,Rodgers has looked like shit the last few weeks. I don't want to hear the o-line excuse either (although it does suck),Favre got it done for years with shitty protection.

Favre got it done for years with 2 bookend tackles. It isn't the same.

[MOBB DEEP]

The D isn't the only worry,Rodgers has looked like shit the last few weeks. I don't want to hear the o-line excuse either (although it does suck),Favre got it done for years with shitty protection.

Favre got it done for years with 2 bookend tackles. It isn't the same.

QFT

[red]

well, the d looked pathetic today

front 7 got their asses handed to them, ton of missed tackles

it was ugly, even with woodsons 2 int's

then we lost collins, so now we have zero decent safeties

[Dabaddestbear]

When I pointed this out last week, all I mostly got was childish remarks backed up with no logic. I specifically pointed out that if the Packers had trouble stopping our stop gap offense then how would you fair against a more seasoned offense...most of you laughed as if I WASNT WATCHING THE GAME.
And that high powered Pre-season offense has been stumped again for a second straight week. The only difference this week from last week is that the Bears could not put you guys away when they had the chance. Now a game that the Packers were highly favored to win, will instead go into the lost column.

[Dabaddestbear]

NO, I am not concerned about the D. Don't you have enough to worry about on your side of the ball? :P
What was that you said you were not worried about?

[Dabaddestbear]

NO, I am not concerned about the D. Don't you have enough to worry about on your side of the ball? :P
Yes,as do all teams. But I will remember your quote here as saying you ARE not concerned sir.

Right now there is more to be excited about than concerned about in the Packer defense:

Harris CAN play zone, who knew? :lol:
Kampman/Poppinga and the LBs in general were NOT victimized by a team with some good TEs.
The D-linemen made plays, a bunch of them.
The ballhawking and return ability of the secondary continued from last year.
The defense always snapped back after surrendering a big play.
Three was no late game collapse like we saw often in 2008.
There is enthusiasm and attitude on defense that has been lacking for years.

There are always positives and negatives. The positives far outweighed the negatives in the Bear game, so the natural result is enthusiasm this week, not conern. Of course, that could change after the next game! :D
My points came to fruition more than the rose colored glasses.

[Dabaddestbear]

I know the Packers defense look much better than last year, but when you look at the tape, they gave up some big plays to what many considered a very sub-par WR group. I heard how the WR group of the Bears would not be able to do anything, and that Forte and the TE's is all the Bears have to throw to, but it was exactly the opposite. The young WR's ran some bad routes, and Cutler tossed some questionable INT's, but even with all that self destruction of the Bears passing game, they still did put up some impressive numbers against a pretty good Packers secondary.

Hester- 4 catches 90 yards and a TD. Had a very nice sideline grab and getting deep for that TD. He played like a #1 WR that night.

Knox- Yes, he stopped on his route on the slant but what do u honestly expect from a rookie wr from a D2 school? 2 catches 82 yards and one catch was for 68 yards in beating Woodson.

Bennett- 7 catches for 66 yards- I think this kid is very talented. He got a lot of separation from some good GB DB's. He did drop one and also had a dumb offsides and went back instead of coming forward when Cutler scrambled. Basically his first nfl game you have to expect mistakes from young guys like this.

I mentioned this because I have yet to see this brought up, for it seemed to get loss in all the defensive hoopla discussion in regards to both teams.
Nice win of course, but from that game, with the new expectations of the defense, can you honestly say you have no reason to be concerned? :idea:

Wait, I thought the INTs and incompletions were often the WR's fault? Which is it? How's the koolaid?

Honestly, any NFL WR can make a play or two. By-and-large your WRs will not scare any team.
Ok, so you tell me who fault was it today for the Packers? Just curious. :roll:

[Partial]

Even after this game, I can't really pinpoint a huge hole on the team. The biggest thing that I can think of was the lack of adjusting to the 6 OL Cinci was playing.

They need more pass rush. That didn't really get home today.

I thought tackling was really poor.

Matthews and Kamp looked pretty good to me today.

[Dabaddestbear]

my only concern for the D is it being worn down from being on the field so much because the O can't put drives together. if the O can turn around all will be ok. if they're all they're cracked up to be the next two should be easy.
You my friend, may have a point.

[Brohm]

I'm concerned with the D. Even before they were on the field too long, they were giveing up 12-14 yards a play, couldn't tackle and couldn't get off the field on 3rd and long. No adjustments at the half, it was a bloodbath. Well then throw in the O's problems on top of that. Those were some of the quickest 3-and-outs I have ever seen :shock:

[Dabaddestbear]

The last thing Im worried about is the Packers defense right now...

And I love the comment about the Bears WRs ... so it was their fault they had 4 INTs but they had a great game because of 3 plays... lol

Hester looked OK, but he didn't look like a #1 WR IMO.
So mission, what about the Packers are you worried about?

[denverYooper]

How many times can you respond to the same post?

[Dabaddestbear]

I've had concerns about the D all along... this game didn't allay any of them.

LB has to be a major concern... Kampman is a DE playing LB, Hawk is pedestrian, and Barnett is completely uninstictive... that's 3/4's of your starting LB'ing corp. I've been saying this for months, and Sunday nights game did nothing to change my opinion of that.

On the bright side, Matthews looked like a good fit, and while I expect growing pains, he already looks better than Barnett. Chillar should be starting, and Bishop should be starting.

Kampman and JT will both be gone next year... so TT should further address the LB'ing corp again next offseason, but for now we have what we have.
Some of you guys call Wist Chicken little, but he seemed sort of prophetic in this thread.

[Dabaddestbear]

How many times can you respond to the same post?
As many times as I can go through this thread to make more of you eat crow for being too full of koolaid :twisted:

[Dabaddestbear]

How many times have Rodgers needed to bring his team back in the 4th quarter and just couldnt do it? Now Cutler time and time again has done it over and over again with a terrible defense.

Look, time will tell. And I will be laughing at these post.

By the way, glad to be back even though most of ya hate to see me coming. :-)


Remember this? :lol:
Yes I do... :cry:
And today........ :wink:

[Dabaddestbear]

well, the d looked pathetic today

front 7 got their asses handed to them, ton of missed tackles

it was ugly, even with woodsons 2 int's

then we lost collins, so now we have zero decent safeties
Well atr least he is coming back. Urlacher gone for the season and we still have to pull it together on D.

[wist43]

I've had concerns about the D all along... this game didn't allay any of them.

LB has to be a major concern... Kampman is a DE playing LB, Hawk is pedestrian, and Barnett is completely uninstictive... that's 3/4's of your starting LB'ing corp. I've been saying this for months, and Sunday nights game did nothing to change my opinion of that.

On the bright side, Matthews looked like a good fit, and while I expect growing pains, he already looks better than Barnett. Chillar should be starting, and Bishop should be starting.

Kampman and JT will both be gone next year... so TT should further address the LB'ing corp again next offseason, but for now we have what we have.
Some of you guys call Wist Chicken little, but he seemed sort of prophetic in this thread.

I call 'em as I see 'em...

A lot of these guys on here are not just homers - they're super-homers :lol:

The Packers made a change in schemes for a reason... it sucked, and the players they drafted to play in it were average at best. But these homers on here saw all of them as headed for the HOF in the old scheme, and see them headed for the HOF in the new scheme.

Body types are necessarily going to be different - and quite frankly, if the talent on that side of the ball was so great to begin with, we wouldn't have been changing schemes, i.e. the overall talent level on defense needs to be upgraded.

I'm persona non grata for pointing out the obvious :thank:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You are persona non grata because your assesments are just the usual bs.

Chillar and Bish should be starting. LOL

[Fritz]

Let's wait til the end of the season to start proclaiming people prophets, shall we?

[Dabaddestbear]

Let's wait til the end of the season to start proclaiming people prophets, shall we?
Just saying that their are issues with the D in the secondary, and now the running D was exposed as well. Funny how some of you still refuse to admit that you are not concerned.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Let's wait til the end of the season to start proclaiming people prophets, shall we?

Kinda defeats the purpose of being a prophet. :wink:

[pbmax]

Let's wait til the end of the season to start proclaiming people prophets, shall we?
Just saying that their are issues with the D in the secondary, and now the running D was exposed as well. Funny how some of you still refuse to admit that you are not concerned.
The secondary issues (Bear game version) seemed to be the result of slow play recognition by the safeties. Woodson had one bad coverage and Tramon had two. Those errors can likely be corrected if we are healthy (esp. Collins).

The front seven got pushed around today. No doubt, there is some concern here. But the Packers are not on DEFCON 5 like wist has been since 1997.

The defense could do little wrong against the Bears who had nothing but preseason film to look at (unless they went to another Caper's team film). The Bengals see this scheme twice a season. Plus a 3-4 look from the Ravens and several other 3-4s in the AFC. The Bengals were much more prepared than the Bears. of course, there is always the question of whether Ron Turner is ever prepared :lol:

The question is how much tighter can game experience make this defense? The run D leaked like a sieve today. Benson did his usual dancing and still tripped forward for 5 a play.

[Dabaddestbear]

Let's wait til the end of the season to start proclaiming people prophets, shall we?
Just saying that their are issues with the D in the secondary, and now the running D was exposed as well. Funny how some of you still refuse to admit that you are not concerned.
The secondary issues (Bear game version) seemed to be the result of slow play recognition by the safeties. Woodson had one bad coverage and Tramon had two. Those errors can likely be corrected if we are healthy (esp. Collins).

The front seven got pushed around today. No doubt, there is some concern here. But the Packers are not on DEFCON 5 like wist has been since 1997.

The defense could do little wrong against the Bears who had nothing but preseason film to look at (unless they went to another Caper's team film). The Bengals see this scheme twice a season. Plus a 3-4 look from the Ravens and several other 3-4s in the AFC. The Bengals were much more prepared than the Bears. of course, there is always the question of whether Ron Turner is ever prepared :lol:

The question is how much tighter can game experience make this defense? The run D leaked like a sieve today. Benson did his usual dancing and still tripped forward for 5 a play.
He seemed prepared enough for the defending champs today.
Bears Win!!!

[Dabaddestbear]

How many times can you respond to the same post?
Whatever happened to your other post about me about to be eating crow sir? Aww, you deleted it?

[denverYooper]

How many times can you respond to the same post?
Whatever happened to your other post about me about to be eating crow sir? Aww, you deleted it?

Not sure where you're getting that. I hate that cliche.

[Fritz]

Let's wait til the end of the season to start proclaiming people prophets, shall we?

Kinda defeats the purpose of being a prophet. :wink:

Well, let me re-phrase: let's wait until the end of the season to start crowing about how right we've been.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Let's wait til the end of the season to start proclaiming people prophets, shall we?

Kinda defeats the purpose of being a prophet. :wink:

Well, let me re-phrase: let's wait until the end of the season to start crowing about how right we've been.

What? You want this forum to die?

[Dabaddestbear]

NO, I am not concerned about the D. Don't you have enough to worry about on your side of the ball? :P
Yes,as do all teams. But I will remember your quote here as saying you ARE not concerned sir.


Still savoring your moral victory?

Remember when Matt Forte didn't suck?
Remember when Rodgers had a winning NFL record? Oh, I forgot, that hasn't happened yet. :roll:

[Dabaddestbear]

The D isn't the only worry,Rodgers has looked like shit the last few weeks. I don't want to hear the o-line excuse either (although it does suck),Favre got it done for years with shitty protection.
Its good to see that others have opened up to a view other than green and gold glasses. Cutler yesterday was blitzed, had little time to throw, and had no support of a running game against last years top D in the NFL, yet he was able to lead his team to 10 unanswered points in the 4th quarter in a come from behind victory. They called twice as many pass plays as run plays in the game and the team still pulled it out.

To sum it up, the offensive line played like crap! But Cutler still made quick reads, with quick releases to come away with a win.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The D isn't the only worry,Rodgers has looked like shit the last few weeks. I don't want to hear the o-line excuse either (although it does suck),Favre got it done for years with shitty protection.
Its good to see that others have opened up to a view other than green and gold glasses. Cutler yesterday was blitzed, had little time to throw, and had no support of a running game against last years top D in the NFL, yet he was able to lead his team to 10 unanswered points in the 4th quarter in a come from behind victory. They called twice as many pass plays as run plays in the game and the team still pulled it out.

To sum it up, the offensive line played like crap! But Cutler still made quick reads, with quick releases to come away with a win.

who cares

[Dabaddestbear]

The D isn't the only worry,Rodgers has looked like shit the last few weeks. I don't want to hear the o-line excuse either (although it does suck),Favre got it done for years with shitty protection.
Its good to see that others have opened up to a view other than green and gold glasses. Cutler yesterday was blitzed, had little time to throw, and had no support of a running game against last years top D in the NFL, yet he was able to lead his team to 10 unanswered points in the 4th quarter in a come from behind victory. They called twice as many pass plays as run plays in the game and the team still pulled it out.

To sum it up, the offensive line played like crap! But Cutler still made quick reads, with quick releases to come away with a win.

who cares
I guess you do since you cared enough to read and respond to it.. :roll:

[Scott Campbell]

He played very well, and is now on pace for 32 picks this year.

:lol:

[Dabaddestbear]

He played very well, and is now on pace for 32 picks this year.

:lol:
And like I said in another thread, as long as he keeps leading his team in fourth quarter comebacks against teams his team was given no chance to win, then I will take that.... :twisted:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The D isn't the only worry,Rodgers has looked like shit the last few weeks. I don't want to hear the o-line excuse either (although it does suck),Favre got it done for years with shitty protection.
Its good to see that others have opened up to a view other than green and gold glasses. Cutler yesterday was blitzed, had little time to throw, and had no support of a running game against last years top D in the NFL, yet he was able to lead his team to 10 unanswered points in the 4th quarter in a come from behind victory. They called twice as many pass plays as run plays in the game and the team still pulled it out.

To sum it up, the offensive line played like crap! But Cutler still made quick reads, with quick releases to come away with a win.

who cares
I guess you do since you cared enough to read and respond to it.. :roll:

I cared enough for 2 words..not even punctuation.

I care about wiping my ass, but i don't put much thought into it, like responding to you.

[gbgary]

my only concern for the D is it being worn down from being on the field so much because the O can't put drives together. if the O can turn around all will be ok. if they're all they're cracked up to be the next two should be easy.
You my friend, may have a point.

wish i was wrong. as i posted in the game thread...the o is as inept as it was last year. what did we have, one drive yesterday? that act of desperation at the end i won't count even if it had been successful. we can't live on turnovers and miracle plays. better plays have to be called, guys have to catch the ball, arod has to throw better passes, arod needs to throw the ball away (when he can...out of bounds) rather than take a sack. we can't throw away possessions trying to prove some point. whichever tackle is being abused put a tightend next to him to help out. give arod half a chance.

[Dabaddestbear]

The D isn't the only worry,Rodgers has looked like shit the last few weeks. I don't want to hear the o-line excuse either (although it does suck),Favre got it done for years with shitty protection.
Its good to see that others have opened up to a view other than green and gold glasses. Cutler yesterday was blitzed, had little time to throw, and had no support of a running game against last years top D in the NFL, yet he was able to lead his team to 10 unanswered points in the 4th quarter in a come from behind victory. They called twice as many pass plays as run plays in the game and the team still pulled it out.

To sum it up, the offensive line played like crap! But Cutler still made quick reads, with quick releases to come away with a win.

who cares
I guess you do since you cared enough to read and respond to it.. :roll:

I cared enough for 2 words..not even punctuation.

I care about wiping my ass, but i don't put much thought into it, like responding to you.
And that reason may lead to some messy laundry my friend. But once again you CARED TO POST....and WITH PUNCTUATION... :roll:

[Dabaddestbear]

my only concern for the D is it being worn down from being on the field so much because the O can't put drives together. if the O can turn around all will be ok. if they're all they're cracked up to be the next two should be easy.
You my friend, may have a point.

wish i was wrong. as i posted in the game thread...the o is as inept as it was last year. what did we have, one drive yesterday? that act of desperation at the end i won't count even if it had been successful. we can't live on turnovers and miracle plays. better plays have to be called, guys have to catch the ball, arod has to throw better passes, arod needs to throw the ball away (when he can...out of bounds) rather than take a sack. we can't throw away possessions trying to prove some point. whichever guard is being abused put a tightend next to him to help out. give arod half a chance.
Guards, Tackles, you take your pick. Help all across that line may be due.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The D isn't the only worry,Rodgers has looked like shit the last few weeks. I don't want to hear the o-line excuse either (although it does suck),Favre got it done for years with shitty protection.
Its good to see that others have opened up to a view other than green and gold glasses. Cutler yesterday was blitzed, had little time to throw, and had no support of a running game against last years top D in the NFL, yet he was able to lead his team to 10 unanswered points in the 4th quarter in a come from behind victory. They called twice as many pass plays as run plays in the game and the team still pulled it out.

To sum it up, the offensive line played like crap! But Cutler still made quick reads, with quick releases to come away with a win.

who cares
I guess you do since you cared enough to read and respond to it.. :roll:

I cared enough for 2 words..not even punctuation.

I care about wiping my ass, but i don't put much thought into it, like responding to you.
And that reason may lead to some messy laundry my friend. But once again you CARED TO POST....and WITH PUNCTUATION... :roll:

Sad that you don't understand your own language.

[Dabaddestbear]

The D isn't the only worry,Rodgers has looked like shit the last few weeks. I don't want to hear the o-line excuse either (although it does suck),Favre got it done for years with shitty protection.
Its good to see that others have opened up to a view other than green and gold glasses. Cutler yesterday was blitzed, had little time to throw, and had no support of a running game against last years top D in the NFL, yet he was able to lead his team to 10 unanswered points in the 4th quarter in a come from behind victory. They called twice as many pass plays as run plays in the game and the team still pulled it out.

To sum it up, the offensive line played like crap! But Cutler still made quick reads, with quick releases to come away with a win.

who cares
I guess you do since you cared enough to read and respond to it.. :roll:

I cared enough for 2 words..not even punctuation.

I care about wiping my ass, but i don't put much thought into it, like responding to you.
And that reason may lead to some messy laundry my friend. But once again you CARED TO POST....and WITH PUNCTUATION... :roll:

Sad that you don't understand your own language.
sad that you dont understand how much you really care... :wink:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Cares:

1. To be concerned or interested:

Sorry, but no one cares about Cutler.

Game. Set. Match.

[Iron Mike]

Sorry, but no one cares about Cutler.


Not even the officials:

http://cdn.ksk.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/lolcultersmacked.gif

[Scott Campbell]

NO, I am not concerned about the D. Don't you have enough to worry about on your side of the ball? :P
Yes,as do all teams. But I will remember your quote here as saying you ARE not concerned sir.


Still savoring your moral victory?

Remember when Matt Forte didn't suck?
Remember when Rodgers had a winning NFL record? Oh, I forgot, that hasn't happened yet. :roll:


Uhhhhhh, does Jay have a winning NFL record?

[Partial]

The one thing I would worry about with Cutler is his leadership. It seems to be lacking compared to ARod. The talent is there, though, and who knows what happens away from the camera.

But man, does he ever look like a loser with that look on his face.

[vince]

I didn't see the game. Why did Cutler blatantly walk right into the ref's motion like that? It doesn't seem possible that he didn't see him waving his arms right in front of his face. In fact he closed his eyes the first time the ref passed his arm in front of his face as it looks like he thought he was going to get hit on the downswing. Was he upset about a call or non-call?

Regardless, it's a bush league move if you ask me. He looked like Shaq faking a charge acting all surprised he was hit. The ref thought it was funny though.

[red]

this is not based on the fact that cutler is a bear, and its not a shot at our bears fans

but cutler in that video, and just all the time when is helmet isn't on, looks like a giant douche bag pussy who's ass you'd love to beat just based on the way he looks

this has nothing to do with his skill or attitude, its just based on the way he looks

[swede]

this is not based on the fact that cutler is a bear, and its not a shot at our bears fans

but cutler in that video, and just all the time when is helmet isn't on, looks like a giant douche bag pussy who's ass you'd love to beat just based on the way he looks

this has nothing to do with his skill or attitude, its just based on the way he looks

If you notice, though, the helmet rolls of his head backwards and he catches it without being able to see it. That was a good catch on his part, like remembering to roll up the windows on your car after you drive it off a pier.

Honestly though, do you think players walk through the officials arm waves just for the chance to get a little more face time on ESPN? How hard is it to forecast the possibility of a football official making an arm motion that will smack you in the face?

[Scott Campbell]

this is not based on the fact that cutler is a bear, and its not a shot at our bears fans

but cutler in that video, and just all the time when is helmet isn't on, looks like a giant douche bag pussy who's ass you'd love to beat just based on the way he looks

this has nothing to do with his skill or attitude, its just based on the way he looks


Really?


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_sIvWMQvGKyA/SVqqMqybPLI/AAAAAAAABxM/X264IvgZk8w/s400/emo+jay+cutler.jpg

[Scott Campbell]

I think somebody has already pointed out the resemblance - he reminds me a lot of this guy:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/Bikini_Babe06/HAR3.jpg

[vince]

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c343/twernke/Packers/Cutler.jpg
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c343/twernke/Packers/GriffinCutler.jpg

[MJZiggy]

I didn't see the game. Why did Cutler blatantly walk right into the ref's motion like that? It doesn't seem possible that he didn't see him waving his arms right in front of his face. In fact he closed his eyes the first time the ref passed his arm in front of his face as it looks like he thought he was going to get hit on the downswing. Was he upset about a call or non-call?

Regardless, it's a bush league move if you ask me. He looked like Shaq faking a charge acting all surprised he was hit. The ref thought it was funny though.

He was genuinely not paying attention to what the hell he was doing and didn't notice a referee waving his arms in front of him.

[Dabaddestbear]

Cares:

1. To be concerned or interested:

Sorry, but no one cares about Cutler.

Game. Set. Match.
If one is not interested in a thread they would not look to respond or even read it.
So yes, I am glad you proved my point sir.
This is too easy... :roll:

[Dabaddestbear]

The one thing I would worry about with Cutler is his leadership. It seems to be lacking compared to ARod. The talent is there, though, and who knows what happens away from the camera.

But man, does he ever look like a loser with that look on his face.
If a look on his face is all you will have to go on then there is no way he should ever win another game in the NFL. The guy got a face that always looks like hes pouting. Who cares about his face. All I care about is wins. Something he got for the Bears last week. Rodgers in comparison has a calm strong leader face, but what good did that do him unless he expected the defensive lineman to run for cover with his evil death stare as they froze in place while he heaved touch down after touch down. :roll:

[Dabaddestbear]

this is not based on the fact that cutler is a bear, and its not a shot at our bears fans

but cutler in that video, and just all the time when is helmet isn't on, looks like a giant douche bag pussy who's ass you'd love to beat just based on the way he looks

this has nothing to do with his skill or attitude, its just based on the way he looks
I agree with you. As a matter of fact when I was in high school those guys with those looks just warranted an ass kicking because it just seemed like he was talking crap about you even when their lips werent moving. But like I said before, I can care less about his looks as long as he wins games for us. Hell he can have on eye smack in the middle of his forehead, five horns sticking out from behind his ears, and smell like barracuda ass.....matters not, as long as he wins. :wink:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Cares:

1. To be concerned or interested:

Sorry, but no one cares about Cutler.

Game. Set. Match.
If one is not interested in a thread they would not look to respond or even read it.
So yes, I am glad you proved my point sir.
This is too easy... :roll:

Of course i care about the packer defense, dipshit.

But, i posted who cares regarding Cutler and his performance against the steelers.

First, you are posting info about cutler in a thread you created about our defense. FAIL

Then, you can't understand why someone doesn't care. Fail.

Third. You dont' get to determine what criteria is involved for my caring. Fail.

You are the worst troll yet.

[Dabaddestbear]

Cares:

1. To be concerned or interested:

Sorry, but no one cares about Cutler.

Game. Set. Match.
If one is not interested in a thread they would not look to respond or even read it.
So yes, I am glad you proved my point sir.
This is too easy... :roll:

Of course i care about the packer defense, dipshit.

But, i posted who cares regarding Cutler and his performance against the steelers.

First, you are posting info about cutler in a thread you created about our defense. FAIL

Then, you can't understand why someone doesn't care. Fail.

Third. You dont' get to determine what criteria is involved for my caring. Fail.

You are the worst troll yet.
Um, Cutler was first discussed in this thread by Packer fans, so naturally I will follow up.
So yes, you failed , and yes you still care about the topic of Cutler because you are still posting in a thread that has become about him, mainly because you keep bumping this thread about him. :wink:

Like I said, too easy. So much more fun when I am conversing with the more intelligent Packer fans on here. :roll:

oh, by the way me being called the worst troll bothers me none. I been around on these Packer boards for years, and never once have an insult from certain mentally challenged Packer fans ran me away.
oh, I'm sorry this is the point where I am supposed to :cry:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You can hang here for as long as you like. I hope you do. So we all can remind you....packers beat the bears. Everyday you are here i hope you remember that...you lost, we won.

[Dabaddestbear]

You can hang here for as long as you like. I hope you do. So we all can remind you....packers beat the bears. Everyday you are here i hope you remember that...you lost, we won.
Yep, I have no problem with being reminded of that. Just as I will remind those of downward spiral of your team as it stands, and the continued improvement of the Bears.

Been on these boards longer than most Packer fans and I will still be around after some of you jump ship. :wink:

[MOBB DEEP]

Dayum....

[Dabaddestbear]

I know the Packers defense look much better than last year, but when you look at the tape, they gave up some big plays to what many considered a very sub-par WR group. I heard how the WR group of the Bears would not be able to do anything, and that Forte and the TE's is all the Bears have to throw to, but it was exactly the opposite. The young WR's ran some bad routes, and Cutler tossed some questionable INT's, but even with all that self destruction of the Bears passing game, they still did put up some impressive numbers against a pretty good Packers secondary.

Hester- 4 catches 90 yards and a TD. Had a very nice sideline grab and getting deep for that TD. He played like a #1 WR that night.

Knox- Yes, he stopped on his route on the slant but what do u honestly expect from a rookie wr from a D2 school? 2 catches 82 yards and one catch was for 68 yards in beating Woodson.

Bennett- 7 catches for 66 yards- I think this kid is very talented. He got a lot of separation from some good GB DB's. He did drop one and also had a dumb offsides and went back instead of coming forward when Cutler scrambled. Basically his first nfl game you have to expect mistakes from young guys like this.

I mentioned this because I have yet to see this brought up, for it seemed to get loss in all the defensive hoopla discussion in regards to both teams.
Nice win of course, but from that game, with the new expectations of the defense, can you honestly say you have no reason to be concerned? :idea:

Wait, I thought the INTs and incompletions were often the WR's fault? Which is it? How's the koolaid?

Honestly, any NFL WR can make a play or two. By-and-large your WRs will not scare any team.
Well you need yours to step it up. :wink:

[Dabaddestbear]

NO, I am not concerned about the D. Don't you have enough to worry about on your side of the ball? :P
Yes,as do all teams. But I will remember your quote here as saying you ARE not concerned sir.


Still savoring your moral victory?

Remember when Matt Forte didn't suck?
remember when your WR's could catch balls hitting them right in their numbers? :twisted:

See how easy it is to come back and make some of you guys swallow crow as the season goes on, just because most of your comments are illogical and have no basis for argument. So I stick it to you when I can my friend.

[Bossman641]

Shouldn't you be a little worried about your own D. I'll admit they played well in the 2nd half, but they were carved up like a thanksgiving turkey in the first.

[Dabaddestbear]

jeez, how could anybody watch that game and come away grumbling about the defense?

This thread was started by a bear fan asking us if we are worried about our pass D. I don't worry about that too much. EVERY DB gets burned once or twice during a game. The fellas on the other sideline get paid too. Woodson didn't have a great game but there were enough guys on D who did and the Packers' offense came thru in the end and found a way to win a game when they weren't playing their best by any stretch of the imagination. And that is what good teams do. :D
I can imagine the excuses that will piling up after this game.

[Dabaddestbear]

{ilr]3]I think its the Bears fans who should be concerned about thier QB instead of worry about issues with other teams.


From PFT.com


Why do Lovie's buddies keep piling on Cutler?
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on September 15, 2009 2:41 PM ET
You don't need to be an NFL insider to have heard the whispers about Jay Cutler's leadership skills (or lack thereof.)

The issue went national, of course, during the long buildup to Cutler's trade to Chicago, with Tony Dungy being one of the most outspoken people who questioned Cutler's maturity a few months after he joined the Bears.

Those comments raised a few eyebrows considering Dungy's relationship with Bears coach Lovie Smith, and now another coach close to Smith has jumped on Cutler's behavior.

As pointed out by The Chicago Sun-Times, Mike Martz was critical of Cutler during his NFL Network gig, especially Cutler's behavior in his post-game presser.

"[Cutler] just doesn't get it,'' Martz said. "He doesn't understand that he represents a great head coach and the rest of those players on that team ... somebody needs to talk to him."

Jim Mora also slammed Cutler for "acting like he didn't even care," which we're not sure is fair. Whether you like it or not, Cutler's laconic demeanor is a lot more consistent than his decision-making on the field. He's just not going to give fire-and-brimstone speeches.

Cutler's attitude towards the press is a lot less interesting to us than his interaction with his teammates. There have been signs that Cutler wasn't exactly a beloved leader in the Denver locker room.

Journalist Stefan Fatsis, who spent training camp in 2006 with the Broncos for a book he wrote, alluded to Cutler's aloof nature in a recent interview with the On the DL Podcast. (Outstanding book incidentally.)

Fatsis had close ties with folks throughout the Broncos organization, and there seemed to legitimate questions from within whether Cutler had the "intangibles" necessary to lead a football team. It's fair to wonder whether Josh McDaniels and company took this into account before dealing Cutler away.

Fatsis' comments popped in my head when I read what Martz's said. Hearing one coach close to Lovie Smith question Cutler's maturity was odd, but two seems like a trend.

Brad Biggs of the Sun-Times said it perfectly: "At this point, it's fair to wonder if Lovie Smith shares the same viewpoints as his mentors."
So is that so? Cutler has been more than solid since week one, and Rodgers has been...well....umm....sacked....alot.

[Dabaddestbear]

So I ask if you think such production from such very young and average WR's in you guys eyes are something to be concerned with.


Average????

Those guys are well below average.
They have been playing BETTER than the packers WR's. :P

[Dabaddestbear]

Shouldn't you be a little worried about your own D. I'll admit they played well in the 2nd half, but they were carved up like a thanksgiving turkey in the first.
They have been carved up in the first half by most teams this year, but unlike the Packers coaching staff, they know how to make adjustments. You do recall the Bears defense destroyed Detroit in that game right? They scored 48 points as a result of Defense giving them excellent field position.

[Dabaddestbear]

They Double the TE all night....look at the game.
Forte was used on occasion versus how they normally use him out the backfield. You guys were using a corner WITH help of a safety over top on Olsen.
And to say well we kept them scoreless in the first half as validation for what the topic of this thread is very irrelevant. I asked specifically about a group of WR's that many of you still aren't worth the cloth of their jerseys, yet they outperformed your more heralded WR's . So I ask if you think such production from such very young and average WR's in you guys eyes are something to be concerned with.

I never said it was a big issue, only that it may be a wrinkle of concern. Thank you Guiness, Wist, sharpe1027, run pMc, Harlan, and a few others for staying on the topic at hand.

I think you answered your own question. The Packer's focused on everyone but your WRs all night, and your WRs were still pretty average at best. Basically, even when the Packers all but ignored your WRs, they did very little.
I guess tonight the excuse will be that the Packers focused on AP all night and thats why Brett had a field day.
And once again to another Packer fan that didnt know what they were talking about....Bears WR's have been playing better than your big money WR's.

[Dabaddestbear]

Are any of you prepared to argue that Kampman looks comfortable and fluid out in space??? Or that Hawk is the next Ray Lewis???

Are you prepared to argue that it doesn't really matter much if Kampman looks comfortable out in space. Does Jarret Johnson or Greg Ellis look comfortable in space? So, we need A.J. Hawk to be Ray Lewis? I'm fine if he's as good as Bart Scott or Larry Foote.

Rewatch the tape and tell me A.J. Hawk didn't play well.
Yeah, I think I would rethink that debate sir.

[Dabaddestbear]

How many times have Rodgers needed to bring his team back in the 4th quarter and just couldnt do it? Now Cutler time and time again has done it over and over again with a terrible defense.

Look, time will tell. And I will be laughing at these post.

By the way, glad to be back even though most of ya hate to see me coming. :-)


Remember this? :lol:
Yep, I am remembering it tonight...lol.

[Partial]

AJ Hawk is not a Bart Scott or a Larry Foote. No way, no how.

[Dabaddestbear]

THey traded him cuz they found someone even better..than Orton AND Rodgers..lol.

Like always, sour grapes from a Packer fan that doesnt know any better...lol.


Or this? :lol:
yep, they got a franchise QB and a 5th round steal in Knox from the pick they gave us for Orton. :twisted:

[Dabaddestbear]

He played very well, and is now on pace for 32 picks this year.

:lol:
How many safeties and sacks are Rodgers on pace to submit to? :twisted:
Yeah, cry at your stupid gaffes now sir. :cry:

[Dabaddestbear]

AJ Hawk is not a Bart Scott or a Larry Foote. No way, no how.
I just have to bump this stuff every now and then to remind people of the stupid stuff that can come out of their mouth. :roll:

[3irty1]

AJ Hawk is not a Bart Scott or a Larry Foote. No way, no how.
I just have to bump this stuff every now and then to remind people of the stupid stuff that can come out of their mouth. :roll:

He meant that as in Scott and Foote are better I think.

[Dabaddestbear]

AJ Hawk is not a Bart Scott or a Larry Foote. No way, no how.
I just have to bump this stuff every now and then to remind people of the stupid stuff that can come out of their mouth. :roll:

He meant that as in Scott and Foote are better I think.
Oh, I wasnt criticizing Partial's comment...only agreeing with him in response to the person mentioning Hawk in the same breath as Foote and Scott.

[Dabaddestbear]

Aahhh, the silence is revisited. :twisted:

[Bossman641]

You can hang here for as long as you like. I hope you do. So we all can remind you....packers beat the bears. Everyday you are here i hope you remember that...you lost, we won.
Yep, I have no problem with being reminded of that. Just as I will remind those of downward spiral of your team as it stands, and the continued improvement of the Bears.

Been on these boards longer than most Packer fans and I will still be around after some of you jump ship. :wink:

Bump for if he ever shows up

[Gunakor]

espn.com currently has us listed as the #3 defense in the NFL. That's both total yards and yards per game average, so we can't blame the bye.

Should we be concerned?

[Brandon494]

Defense has looked great the past two weeks against the Lions and Browns. Lets see if they can keep it up next week against the Vikings, having Bigby back should certainly help.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The bump made me realize that Dabaddest hasn't been around daily so i could remind he the packers beat the bears. I sure hope he remembers without my assistance.

[Iron Mike]

Aahhh, the silence is revisited. :twisted:

QFT

[Iron Mike]

http://boards.chicagobears.com/forums/thread/1869800.aspx

[Scott Campbell]

http://boards.chicagobears.com/forums/thread/1869800.aspx


I love it - Grossman comparisons abound!