PDA

View Full Version : The Story from Chicago



vince
02-11-2011, 01:43 PM
How sweet it is!

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/rosenblog/2011/02/what-the-packers-told-us-about-the-bears-hint-uh-oh.html

What the Packers told us about the Bears (hint: uh-oh)

Doesn’t matter that the Bears weren’t in the Super Bowl yet again. It’s still about the Bears. Around here, anyway. It’s still about the Bears because that’s the new barometer for the Bears.

As in, What did the winners tell us about the Bears? That’s the football issue. The other issue is why Kenny G is pushing tin for Audi. He shouldn’t be selling cars, he should be under one.

But anyway, what the Packers told us is that the Bears are in bigger trouble than we thought. Better hope there’s a lockout.

We already knew the Bears had a general manager who is almost useless on draft day and a head coach who is almost useless on Sunday, but the Packers told us just how much.

The Packers had half their roster tied behind their back and still won. The scary numbers are the Packers put 15 players on injured reserve and still won the Super Bowl. The Bears had a ridiculously healthy team and still lost two in a row to the Packers when winning either one of them would’ve stopped Green Bay’s Super Bowl dreams right there.

Even in the Super Bowl, the Packers lost a starting receiver and their top defensive player, and still won. The Bears spent all season being lucky and opportunistic, and still couldn’t beat the beaten-up Packers when it counted.

The Bears faced a bunch of third-string quarterbacks. The Packers spent the last six weeks beating Eli Manning, Michael Vick, Matt Ryan, Ben Roethslisberger and Jay Cutler twice.

What’s more, the Packers won three straight playoff games on the road, then won the Super Bowl away from Lambeau Field. The Bears lost a home playoff game, and Lovie Smith is getting an extension? One playoff win in the last four years -- against the worst postseason entry of all-time, mind you -- is worth a contract extension? Yeesh.

The Packers have the second-youngest team in the NFL to go along with the Lombardi Trophy. The Bears have Jerry Angelo drafting and Smith coaching. Would the Packers have made Todd Collins their top backup quarterback? Jeez, would the Packers have even bothered with that cadaver?

The Choice (and remember, death is not an option): Smith using timeouts vs. Smith making replay challenges vs. Smith evaluating talent?

The Packers told us something about game-planning based on the game your talent can play best. Mike Martz’s play-calling can get the quarterback killed, while Mike McCarthy’s play-calling neutralized the defensive player of the year. By spreading the Packers’ offense, McCarthy kept Steelers safety Troy Polamalu from blitzing. He was forced to stay in coverage. He didn’t have the option of breaking Aaron Rodgers’ ribs. That was the key matchup, but the fear is that the raw data of Green Bay’s 41-11 pass-run ratio will become Martz’s aerial crack pipe.

The sane among us, however, know why it worked. Two reasons, in fact. First, even without a running game, the Packers have an offensive line that provides protection. By contrast, when the Bears don’t have a running game, their blockers provide toe tags.

Second, the Packers have actual receivers who, despite surprising drops Sunday, still run actual routes, a concept that troubles Bears receivers beyond the idea of doing a down-and-out at the trash can.

Another thing: The Packers made it pretty obvious how stupid the Bears were with Cutler’s injury. They hung out their quarterback with bad public information after he tore a ligament in his left knee, an ongoing savaging that continued through some of the Super Bowl pregame shows. Idiot Bears. The Packers, meanwhile, had Donald Driver in a boot on the sideline and put a sling on Charles Woodson. They were injured, folks. They were telling other NFL players to keep their Tweets to themselves. I swear, I expected the Packers to hook up somebody to a defibrillator if necessary.

So, to recap, the Packers do a better job than the Bears with healthy players and with injured players, while the Bears pants them when it comes to bad backup quarterbacks.

But let me say this: The Packers told us something favorable about the Bears. Shocking, sure, but true: The Bears’ defense does a better job on the Packers than the Steelers did. Biggest reason is Julius Peppers, who starts on the line of scrimmage while Polamalu can be schemed away from it.

Something else the Packers told us about the Bears, and again it’s somewhat favorable: If the Bears are going to be stuck with Smith, then his emphasis on forcing turnovers even to the point of missing tackles is a productive way to go. The Packers turned three takeaways into three touchdowns, the first being an interception returned for a score, the last a game-changing fumble by a former Illinois running back.

Champaign tangent: The Choice (and remember, death is not an option): Rashard Mendenhall’s Sunday vs. Bruce Weber’s Saturday?

Mostly, though, the Packers told us they are better than everybody and figure to be better still when they get their injured players back. What the Packers told us is the Bears need to petition to move to the NFC West.

Packgator
02-11-2011, 02:04 PM
Love it!!

Willard
02-11-2011, 02:17 PM
Bee-a-uuuutiful!!!

MadtownPacker
02-11-2011, 03:26 PM
They are who we thought they where!!

Cheesehead Craig
02-11-2011, 04:00 PM
They are who we thought they where!!

I always thought they were loud-mouthed, overrated jackasses.

hoosier
02-11-2011, 04:13 PM
What the Packers told us is the Bears need to petition to move to the NFC West.

Now that is pathetic.

RashanGary
02-11-2011, 04:48 PM
I heard a Bears writer say on the radio, before the Packers/Bears game in week 17 that the reason the Bears won the first game was they clearly had hte more talented team. Anyone remember that game, with the penalties and drops. The Packers were clearly the more talented team. The Bears veteran team just played more solid.

The Packers are scary. I don't even think they've peaked.

swede
02-11-2011, 05:06 PM
The Packers are scary. I don't even think they've peaked.

When one thinks of the all the areas of the team that are likely to get better vs. the areas that are likely to do more poorly in 2011 one can indeed find the Packers to be "scary".

Special teams, running game, and Tight Ends are likely to be better. The defensive line might not be as strong if Jenkins leaves, but the return of Neal might mitigate that loss. With the return of Barnett, Chillar, Popinga and Jones the quality of the linebackers might drop off, though.

Freak Out
02-11-2011, 05:19 PM
Wow.....how high has the suicide rate in Chicago jumped since the Bears lost the Championship game? or is it the murder rate we should look at?

Fritz
02-11-2011, 05:20 PM
I think that article is a little tough on Lovie. I think he's a pretty decent coach. Jerry Angelo, though....brutal.

Joemailman
02-11-2011, 05:25 PM
Wow.....how high has the suicide rate in Chicago jumped since the Bears lost the Championship game? or is it the murder rate we should look at?

Pretty typical for Bears fans. They turn on the team when things go bad just as much as Philly fans. A good performance in a preseason game though and they'll be talking Super Bowl.

MJZiggy
02-11-2011, 07:22 PM
I always thought they were loud-mouthed, overrated jackasses.

Exactly.

gbgary
02-11-2011, 07:43 PM
brutal article but true. lol

MJZiggy
02-11-2011, 08:09 PM
I thought all the Packers told us about the Bears is that they suck. We already knew that though. Worthless article gives us no new information. :mrgreen:

rbaloha1
02-11-2011, 08:11 PM
When one thinks of the all the areas of the team that are likely to get better vs. the areas that are likely to do more poorly in 2011 one can indeed find the Packers to be "scary".

Special teams, running game, and Tight Ends are likely to be better. The defensive line might not be as strong if Jenkins leaves, but the return of Neal might mitigate that loss. With the return of Barnett, Chillar, Popinga and Jones the quality of the linebackers might drop off, though.

Lest not forget Justin Harrell. Forget Poppinga

rbaloha1
02-11-2011, 08:12 PM
brutal article but true. lol

Yup. The Lions are the team to worry about.

gbgary
02-11-2011, 08:35 PM
Yup. The Lions are the team to worry about.

i agree...if they can keep their qb on the field.

bobblehead
02-12-2011, 05:23 AM
I thought all the Packers told us about the Bears is that they suck. We already knew that though. Worthless article gives us no new information. :mrgreen:

But much pleasure.

MJZiggy
02-12-2011, 09:52 AM
But much pleasure.
Thank you. I was waiting for someone to finish that.

Fritz
02-12-2011, 11:12 AM
Like casual sex.

PaCkFan_n_MD
02-12-2011, 12:17 PM
Man that was nice!

prime311
02-12-2011, 01:10 PM
Last year I said the best thing about the Vikings success was that they got Brad Childress an extension. This year I said the best thing about the Bears success is that they got Lovie an extension. Although to be fair Lovie is still a better coach the Childress.

vince
02-12-2011, 01:22 PM
I tend to agree about the unwarranted Lovie hate. He seems to get his teams to over-achieve. As the guy who wrote the article noted, the always play the Packers tough.

Still sweet to read though. Bear and Viking fans are gonna hate the Pack even more, assuming that's possible.

Lurker64
02-12-2011, 02:11 PM
Lovie's not a terrible coach, but their personnel department is gawdawful. I think Angelo's contract expires after next year though, so he may not get an extension.

VermontPackFan
02-14-2011, 07:44 AM
Yup. The Lions are the team to worry about.

Detroit should be better but you never know. All I know is that the Bears were the only defense that gave Rodgers fits, 3 different times! That defense is one to be reckoned with and if Cutler ever becomes a decent QB (i.e. takes care of the football) they could be in the hunt again next year. I dont know the Bears roster situation as far as age, free agency status, etc. but I dont think they will be basement dwellers next year.

I know the first game against them was sloppy, plus 18 penalties, and we had the W in our hands a few different times only for them to come back. But the last two games against them, the Bears could have won just as easily if a couple plays went their way. I would not count them out just yet.

vince
02-14-2011, 09:02 AM
The Bears are getting old at key positions. Peppers, Urlacher, and Briggs are all over 30 now I believe. I don't think Cutler will ever change from what he is. They were amaziingly healthy last year, and seemed to get a lot of breaks in terms of facing teams when key players were out, etc. None of that means they're going to drop off the side of a cliff next year though.

The Lions became a damn tough team the second half of the season. They won their last 4 games and barely lost to the Bears before that. They gave the Patriots all they could handle for 3 quarters too in the 2nd half of the year. Jets too, though they lost by a field goal. They have some young studs that are growing up. Still weak in the defensive backfield. I tend to agree with those that say they'll be a team to be reckoned with next year.

prime311
02-14-2011, 09:26 AM
The Bears would be scary with a good offensive line. I think a good part of the reason Cutler plays so skittish is because his line doesn't protect him. Can only hope that defense needs to restock by the time they get the oline worked out. Unbelievable that they spent all those picks on Cutler and have done almost nothing to protect him.

Smeefers
02-14-2011, 09:26 AM
The bears still suck, the bears still suck, the bears still suck, the bears still suck, they really really really really really really suck, the bears...Still....SUCK!

Patler
02-14-2011, 09:44 AM
The Bears would be scary with a good offensive line. I think a good part of the reason Cutler plays so skittish is because his line doesn't protect him. Can only hope that defense needs to restock by the time they get the oline worked out. Unbelievable that they spent all those picks on Cutler and have done almost nothing to protect him.

I either read or heard a Cutler comment out of Chicago a couple days ago. The gist of it was that physically there is nothing that Rodgers can do that Cutler can't do, but that mentally and professional there seems to be little that Rodgers does that Cutler has shown the capability/desire of doing.

denverYooper
02-14-2011, 09:55 AM
The Bears are getting old at key positions. Peppers, Urlacher, and Briggs are all over 30 now I believe. I don't think Cutler will ever change from what he is. They were amaziingly healthy last year, and seemed to get a lot of breaks in terms of facing teams when key players were out, etc. None of that means they're going to drop off the side of a cliff next year though.

The Lions became a damn tough team the second half of the season. They won their last 4 games and barely lost to the Bears before that. They gave the Patriots all they could handle for 3 quarters too in the 2nd half of the year. Jets too, though they lost by a field goal. They have some young studs that are growing up. Still weak in the defensive backfield. I tend to agree with those that say they'll be a team to be reckoned with next year.

I'm with ya on the Bears. I think they'll age out of contention soon, very possibly next year, and go the way of the Vikings.

The Lions' arrow is pointing up for sure but I think they're a couple of drafts away from being a true contender. They'll be a better team but I see them at 9-7 next year and struggling to beat quality opponents who will take them seriously.

prime311
02-14-2011, 11:07 AM
I remember the "tough" Lions going 3-13 and considered an improving squad under Rod Marinelli and look how that turned out. I'm not saying they arent an up and comer, but I wouldn't annoint them a contender just yet. Staffords injury problems are a huge concern.

Packman_26
02-14-2011, 10:44 PM
I agree that the Bears were a bit of an aberration this year. They were a solid team this year that stayed healthy, had a favorable schedule, and got some breaks (the Lions games come to mind). The clock might have struck midnight when Shields intercepted that ball, but I'm not convinced it did either. The only thing I really feel strongly about is that the author of this article is clearly overreacting.

He makes reference more than once to the fact that the Packers were so bitten by the injury bug and the Bears still couldn't manage to beat them. He is referring to the Super Bowl Champs! More than a few teams couldn't manage to beat them down the stretch. That same injury riddled team spanked the Giants and Falcons, went toe-to-toe with the Patriots on the road without their quarterback, and beat an experienced Steelers team to win the Super Bowl. It could be argued that the toughest part of the last 7 games were the two Bears games.

I think I could agree with the article more if it was pointed more towards how difficult it would be for the Bears to get past the Packers next year, not how terrible the #2 seed in the playoffs were.

BTW, I hope he is right. I hate the Bears. We should just try to imagine how we would react to this article if the roles were reversed.

swede
02-15-2011, 07:42 AM
I agree that the Bears were a bit of an aberration this year. They were a solid team this year that stayed healthy, had a favorable schedule, and got some breaks (the Lions games come to mind). The clock might have struck midnight when Shields intercepted that ball, but I'm not convinced it did either. The only thing I really feel strongly about is that the author of this article is clearly overreacting.

He makes reference more than once to the fact that the Packers were so bitten by the injury bug and the Bears still couldn't manage to beat them. He is referring to the Super Bowl Champs! More than a few teams couldn't manage to beat them down the stretch. That same injury riddled team spanked the Giants and Falcons, went toe-to-toe with the Patriots on the road without their quarterback, and beat an experienced Steelers team to win the Super Bowl. It could be argued that the toughest part of the last 7 games were the two Bears games.

I think I could agree with the article more if it was pointed more towards how difficult it would be for the Bears to get past the Packers next year, not how terrible the #2 seed in the playoffs were.

BTW, I hope he is right. I hate the Bears. We should just try to imagine how we would react to this article if the roles were reversed.

Excellent post.

Keep up the good commentary. It is in the packerrats tradition of challenging the professional media and coming out ahead.