The Sky Is Falling

[HarveyWallbangers]

Just had to say that. Mostly for Bretsky and bulldog. I haven't been able to read many threads, but it sounds like some hamstrings are being pulled jumping off the bandwagon--although bulldog is never really on the bandwagon.

[FritzDontBlitz]

Just had to say that. Mostly for Bretsky and bulldog. I haven't been able to read many threads, but it sounds like some hamstrings are being pulled jumping off the bandwagon--although bulldog is never really on the bandwagon.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I agree.

[Deputy Nutz]

I think they played a really crappy and they should be disappointed. But the Packers are still the 2nd best team in the NFC right now.

[Bretsky]

Just had to say that. Mostly for Bretsky and bulldog. I haven't been able to read many threads, but it sounds like some hamstrings are being pulled jumping off the bandwagon--although bulldog is never really on the bandwagon.


What in the H are you talking about ? I've been saying all week the Bears will make this a very scary game, and when I saw the weather I figured this would be rough. In an effort to make up points in a pick em pool I even switched my pick to the Bears.

It doesn't matter what happens; we're 12-3 and that's far better than I ever expected.

A first round loss in the playoffs and this season is still a success.

[Bretsky]

Just had to say that. Mostly for Bretsky and bulldog. I haven't been able to read many threads, but it sounds like some hamstrings are being pulled jumping off the bandwagon--although bulldog is never really on the bandwagon.


Although the sky is falling in that I lost to that Jag Off Red in our divisional finals. He got revenge on me this year :(

[Joemailman]

I think M3 does a good job of acknowledging a poor performance when it happens without dwelling on it. He'll have them ready to play next week and in the playoffs. You don't go 12-3 if you don't have the ability to bounce back after a loss.

[Bretsky]

I think M3 does a good job of acknowledging a poor performance when it happens without dwelling on it. He'll have them ready to play next week and in the playoffs. You don't go 12-3 if you don't have the ability to bounce back after a loss.


They will pound Detroit

[Scott Campbell]

I think M3 does a good job of acknowledging a poor performance when it happens without dwelling on it.


Yeah, I really like how the man handles himself.

[FritzDontBlitz]

I think both McCarthy and Favre handled the postgame press conferences well. Neither made a lot of excuses about how the game went today.

I will go out on a limb here and say M3 learns he needs to add another wrinkle to his offensive scheme. Being offensive coordinator in warmer climates most of his career never prepared him for what he had to face today, but I am sure he will adapt.

[BF4MVP]

Haha nice post, Harv. The truth is, not a whole lot really changed today..In fact, if Dallas wins next week (which I'd doubt, since it'll be their JV squad), then nothing will have changed at all..Fact is, we still have the number 2 seed and first round bye..That won't change. The only time I'll worry is if we play like that in the playoffs, and I highly doubt it considering we had played pretty well all season up to this point, save for a couple games. The thing I'm worried about is this ending up like 2002 where we were banged up at the end of the season, had a meltdown at the end of the regular season (42-17 against a vastly inferior Jets team), and it carried over into the playoffs and we ended up getting our asses handed to us by Atlanta at home..As long as we can bouce back from this and put together a strong playoff run (perhaps even Super Bowl run) then I'll be more than willing to put this game behind me and forget about it. If that doesn't happen and it ends like 2002 did, then I will point to this game as the game when the season began to come apart.

[Joemailman]

The kind of offense the Packers have, where they are at their best by spreading things out and throwing most of the time, I suspect is not what M3 had in mind. He's done a good job of adjusting his offense to fit the reality of the situation. I suspect he and TT are going to take a close look at the OL in the off-season, and try to figure out what changes need to be made for the Packers to be a consistent running team.

[the_idle_threat]

FIRE TED THOMPSON!!!


Somebody had to say it. :satan:

[b bulldog]

Actually I've been posting concerns, mostly the D for the past 4 or 5 weeks and today they really came to fruition against a bad team. Off the bandwagon, never but I do see them for what they are and they are not in the same catagory with the Pats,Colts,Jags and Cowboys. Our D is not able to rush the passer, has difficulty stopping the run for the PAST THREE OR FOUR WEEKS and our Oline is not able to give the QB much time. Do you want me to search the past posts and bring all of my concerns up?? I love the Pack but I don'tt drink the Kool-aid.

[b bulldog]

One more thing, look at what the Packers had to play for. My bet is that most in here would have taken the Skins next week against Dallas after watching what they did agaisnt Minny last night . Homefield was there to be had, they choked it away and if that is OK with you than shame on you because good teams don't lose games like that when everything is still on the line. We as fans have a right to expect them to put a competent package out on the field, they did anything but that. A total embarrassment!

[b bulldog]

From week 10 to week 15, they went from having the 9th rated run D to the 15th. in the past 6 games, they given up 767 rushing yards.

[Carolina_Packer]

From week 10 to week 15, they went from having the 9th rated run D to the 15th. in the past 6 games, they given up 767 rushing yards.

Goes to show how critical Jolly is to our D-line and it's success. You can't expect Harrell to help a lot as he's a first year guy, and many of them struggle, even if they are heralded (Harrell'ded?). We'll see how much he's learned going into next week and the playoffs because he will be in the rotation.

[b bulldog]

Injuries are a reason but don't tell the Bears and the rest of the NFL that. The Bears had 6 or 7 starters out of yesterdays game. Every team has injuries and as B noted, this may just show that we need everything to go our way to be able to compete at such a high level.

[RashanGary]

Losing Jolly was bigger than bulldog is willing to let on. He was a rock in there. This team is still good, but they are not as good as they were before they lost one of their top Dlineman. Chicago was severely weakened with injuries at the end of last year and they got it even worse this whole year. It happens, it's part of the game. The Packers havn't been hit bad enough to be dreadfull but it's bad enough to hurt. I think that stat is very telling. They went from strong to weak as a run defense. Williams just is not the run stopper that Jolly was and Harrell is too young. He's not good right now.

It was even obvious in the Carolina game. As soon as Jolly went out, they ran it down our throat and teams have been running it down our throat ever since. I don't think you, bulldog, have any idea how much Jolly meant to this defense. The Packers will probably fall short this year. They're deeper than a year or two ago but not deep enough yet IMO. Next year they should be able to sustain one injury with the development of Harrell. This year, they were not able to. They were not good enough. That's football when you have to rebuild a whole roster in 2 years. it's not going to be 53 deep. Same thing is happening with Indy and Freeney. They are hurt badly by his loss. I don't think they have a real shot. I think Jacksonville has the best shot, partly because they are the healthiest (esspecially on their Dline).

It's nothing to go cliff diving about. It will still be a fun playoffs and they should make it into the NFC Championship game at the minimum. That's a pretty good year. Nothing to whine about considering where we were two years ago and where the arrow is pointing (UP).

[b bulldog]

nick, show me one team that hasn't had meaningful injuries.........The friggin bears have lost Mike Brown, maybe the best S in the north, Vasher and Tillman have been hurt all year, Urlacher and Briggs have also been, the best DT in the game, Harris is playing on one leg and they lost his ruuning mate at DT before the season started, Anderson and Brown have also been dinged up. Joley was a loss but he is no wherenear the player Tommie Harris is, not close. This Packers team may need everyone 100% healthy to compete with the big 3 but that is not very realistic an every fan from every NFL city can say what it..... Have you ever heard the what if's that Bart Starr always said when he wa coaching??? You'd have love those. If your not alarmed by what you saw yesterday with what was on the line, you must have your head in the sand cause this is not the time of the year to start playing so poorly against the run and for the passrush to all but disappear from your front four.

[RashanGary]

Yes, and the teams that get the important injuries lose. That's football. Health matters. If you're a coach, you don't make excuses because that hurts your team and is a weak attitude. If you're a fan, you're allowed to be realistic. They are no longer strong in the run game because they only had two starting caliber DT's and one went down, weakening the run defense. It only gets worse from there because not stopping the run spreads through the whole defense and then into the offense because you can't get off the field and then into the ST's because you put yoruself in bad field position. It's not good.

I think you underestimate Jolly. Harris is a great pass rusher, but I believe Jolly is a better run stopper and in the scheme we play, that's what we really need from that position. It hurts a lot.

I guess I don't see your point in saying injuries don't matter. They do. They hurt the Packers, the same way they've hurt many other teams this year. The healthy ones usually have the best shot. Look at Indy last year. They were remarkably healthy. Baltimore, GB back in the day, Denver, NE, Jacksonville right now, Minnesota, ect. .. . Healthy teams always have the best shot. This might not be our year and the stats (along with common sense) seem to show that injuries matter. I just don't see why deny it. Do you have some sort of point you are trying to prove that the Packers wouldn't be better with Jolly because if that is your point, I don't think very many people here will agree iwth you and you'll keep going round and round all frustrated and angry like you are now.

[b bulldog]

The Pats lost Seymour for the first six games, then they lost Maroney for two or three games, thean they lost Watson for about three games, Harrison hasn't played in about 4 games, Rosie Colvin will be out for the duration of the seaon also.

The Cowboys lost their starting NG in week one, Newman missed two or three games due to injury and really hasn't been 100% all season, they've lost their starting C for some games, TO will miss two or three games and so on.

The Colts lost the best passrusher in the game in Freeney, they lost Harrison for close to half the season, they lost Anthoney McFarland for the year,Rob Morris and about two DB's for the year. The Boys have been the healthiest of these three teams.

The Redskins have lost Jason Campbell, Sean Taylor, Rocky McIntosh and Santana Moss has been hurt along with Clinton Portis. They have also lost a few Dlineman.

[b bulldog]

The two best teams in football have probably had more injuries than anyone. The Colts have lost a ton and they at worst are the seond best team in the league.

[RashanGary]

Yes, they are better teams. Is there any reason to be all angry and repetetive about it. I don't hear too many people here talking about the Packers being better than the Pats or Colts. We think we have a shot against the Cowboys and look forward to the playoffs because "any given Sunday". That is called being a normal fan. Why is that such an issue?

[Packers4Glory]

A first round loss in the playoffs and this season is still a success.

ummm NOOOOOOOOO

I couldn't disagree more. finishing 13-3 or 12-4 w/ a bye and a home playoff game, losing that game would be a huge failure. This team is very good and should pose a serious threat for being the NFC team to get beat by the Pats...losing that first game would be extremely disappointing because the NFC sucks outside of the Pack and Cowboys.

[b bulldog]

I not angry about anything except the constant whinning about Jolley like he is #92. One thing I hate, is excuses, that's all. We have overachieved and that is great.

[RashanGary]

I not angry about anything except the constant whinning about Jolley like he is #92. One thing I hate, is excuses, that's all. We have overachieved and that is great.

Are you saying you don't think this team is a legit playoff team? I'll bet the Packers put up a nice performance in the playoffs and show they belong. Will they win one, two? I don't know, but I think they belong in the playoffs and in that case they didn't over achieve, they earned their way in.

As far as Jolly goes, he did make a big difference. He was a big part of the reason this team was a top 10 run stopping team. Losing him is a big part of the reason they are now bottom 10. The great teams can overcome a loss to their starting DT. The ones who are in year two of a massive rebuilding have a slightly tougher time. We're not great, but we are a good playoff team that wasn't deep enough to keep going full speed with a loss to the Dline. I don't know why that is such a big issue. If I was playing the game or coaching it I wouldn't make excuses, but as an outsider looking in, I can't help but call it as I see it.

[gbgary]

The kind of offense the Packers have, where they are at their best by spreading things out and throwing most of the time, I suspect is not what M3 had in mind. He's done a good job of adjusting his offense to fit the reality of the situation. I suspect he and TT are going to take a close look at the OL in the off-season, and try to figure out what changes need to be made for the Packers to be a consistent running team.

in the first half of the season they were at their best with the 4 and 5 wide-out offense...but not recently. now teams are blitzing when they see this and the result hasn't been pretty. the disturbing thing is that MM hasn't adjusted to this reality. it continued yesterday with the lasting memory of urlacher running down the field with yet another pass thrown right to him.

[Packers4Ever]

I think M3 does a good job of acknowledging a poor performance when it happens without dwelling on it. He'll have them ready to play next week and in the playoffs. You don't go 12-3 if you don't have the ability to bounce back after a loss.

You're right, JM, and he also always mentions
he'll take full responsibility for making
necessary changes.
Sometimes making choices means you're damned
if you do and damned if you don't !

[HarveyWallbangers]

The positive from this game for me: in all likelihood, this game was meaningless to us. However, the Bears winning gives them a worst draft position. The Bears victory also made it about twice as likely the Vikings don't make the playoffs. If the Cowboys were playing for something this weekend, they'd probably have 2/3 chance of winning. Now, the Redskins probably have 2/3 chance of winning. For me, that's a good thing.

[FritzDontBlitz]

How many other teams have had a bunch of injuries cripple their interior line. Yes, other teams have had injuries, but how many other teams have suffered multiple injuries at the same position? If a player goes down at two seperate positions, you plug in their backups and you shouldn't expect a huge dropoff in production. You lose two players at the same position and the dropoff when you plug in a 3rd stringer is usually tremendous. And if a 4th stringer has to step in? Well, you get my point....

[Jimx29]

However, the Bears winning gives them a worst draft position. And in theory, we get a better pick

[The Leaper]

Actually I've been posting concerns, mostly the D for the past 4 or 5 weeks and today they really came to fruition against a bad team.

I thought our defense did a damn good job bulldog.

The first drive was a stinker...but the defense did hold up and keep them out of the endzone.

Jon Ryan or Brett Favre than proceeded to give the Bears the lion share of their remaining points...not the defense. We outgained the Bears in offense for the day...even after Chicago held the ball for the entire first period.

Some of your concerns may be valid, but your "sky is falling" concern for the defense just doesn't fit IMO. If this team loses in the playoffs, I don't think it will be due to the defense...providing our regular starters are in there and near 100%.

[HarveyWallbangers]

To me, this game was a fluke. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[b bulldog]

D did a good job, how many rushing yards did we give up and too say this was a meaningless game is pure foolishness, the Cowboys will and would have lost to the Skins next weekend and homefield would have gone through Lambeau, what a silly comment.

[b bulldog]

Wolfe and Peterson combined for more than 130 yards

[b bulldog]

Nick, never said we didn't belong in the playoffs but clearly this team has overachieved this season. We are a good team that has gooten some nice breaks but I don't see us being able to compete with the elite teams. This team could be a better team next season and have a worse record.

[The Leaper]

Wolfe and Peterson combined for more than 130 yards

They needed about 45 carries to achieve that. The run defense was fine...we gave up too many passing first downs in the first half.

Claiming our defense was and is the weak link on this team is ridiculous.

[b bulldog]

oUR d STUNK, COULDN'T STOP THE bears. tHE d had the ball run right down their throats.

[b bulldog]

Do you want me to go to the game thread and post everyones disgust with the D??

[RashanGary]

I agree with you on the D, bulldog. I just don't agree that the injuries didn't contribute to it. Jolly (while not well known) is a really good defensive tackle (one of only two on our team). That position went from a strength to average with one injury. With the 2nd injury it went to below average and now teams are running it down Williams/Harrells throat. It's bad.


Harrell isn't good, but he's better at the run than Williams. I think the Packers would be very wise to start Harrell next to Pickett and at least get some production out of Williams as a pass rusher. I don't think it will ever be fixed, but if you are going to get gashed in the run either way, you might as well get some use out of your pass rushing DT in the mean time.

[b bulldog]

Injuries do contribute Nick but every team can say that. Williams is a rotation guy who is now being exposed for being just that. I just hope that TT doesn't tag him this offseason cause I don't think he is worth it. I think he would be best as a 3-4 DE.

[RashanGary]

Injuries do contribute Nick but every team can say that. Williams is a rotation guy who is now being exposed for being just that. I just hope that TT doesn't tag him this offseason cause I don't think he is worth it. I think he would be best as a 3-4 DE.

I agree. I was a big fan of Jolly. If you compare the way he held down the RDT position to what C-dub is doing, it's night and day. I really hope other teams look at what happens when he's asked to play base downs and consider that when they put in their bids because I'd still like to keep Williams around. I think he's one of the better backup DT's in the league and that is worth something.

[RashanGary]

IF Harrell can take a similar leap to what Jolly did this year, we can have something pretty special with Jolly/Pickett/Harrell and Williams as a pass rush specialist. What we have right now is a good player in Pickett, a non-prepared rookie and a pass rush specialist playing base downs. Hardly special.

[b bulldog]

He would be good to keep but at no where near 6.5 per season

[Packers4Ever]

A first round loss in the playoffs and this season is still a success.

ummm NOOOOOOOOO

I couldn't disagree more. finishing 13-3 or 12-4 w/ a bye and a home playoff game, losing that game would be a huge failure. This team is very good and should pose a serious threat for being the NFC team to get beat by the Pats...losing that first game would be extremely disappointing because the NFC sucks outside of the Pack and Cowboys.


Na na na na, many here would take the 13-3 or 12-4 with a bye and losing a home playoff, yes we'd feel bad for sure, but it sure beats MANY of the predictions we predicted very early in the season, go dig 'em up, we hoped we'd be better off than '06 but how much ??? Huge surprise!

[4and12to12and4]

A first round loss in the playoffs and this season is still a success.

ummm NOOOOOOOOO

I couldn't disagree more. finishing 13-3 or 12-4 w/ a bye and a home playoff game, losing that game would be a huge failure. This team is very good and should pose a serious threat for being the NFC team to get beat by the Pats...losing that first game would be extremely disappointing because the NFC sucks outside of the Pack and Cowboys.


Na na na na, many here would take the 13-3 or 12-4 with a bye and losing a home playoff, yes we'd feel bad for sure, but it sure beats MANY of the predictions we predicted very early in the season, go dig 'em up, we hoped we'd be better off than '06 but how much ??? Huge surprise!

Yeah, someone should dig up the preseason threads showing what we were talking about before the season began. Most here would've been elated to be in a position that the Vikings are in right now. Have a chance for a winning season and make the playoffs in the final week. As I looked at the schedule this offseason, the Bears game last week scared me, because I thought that losing it would probably mean they knocked us out of playoff contention and won the North all in the same day. Instead, the game meant nothing to them, and not much to us either, we had already won the division two weeks earlier which is unbelievable, we have already exceeded EVERYONES expectations, so we can't "fail" at this point. The fact that we get to watch the first week of playoff football while our team waits to see who they play at Lambeau in week 2 is already a great season. It is going to be so much fun these next two weeks, the Detroit game, not meaning anything, the first week of the playoffs, not having to worry about who we are playing, and winning three postseason games on the road, etc.. This has been an awesome season regardless of what happens from here. And, we have almost guaranteed Brett coming back, and we have great leverage in the free agent market now, plus our team will be one year older next year. All is good in Green Bay, and if you are disappointed if we lose, remember where we were the last two years.

[FritzDontBlitz]

D did a good job, how many rushing yards did we give up and too say this was a meaningless game is pure foolishness, the Cowboys will and would have lost to the Skins next weekend and homefield would have gone through Lambeau, what a silly comment.

You are a psychic, right? You already know what Dallas will do this coming Sunday?

[b bulldog]

yes I am

[Zool]

yes I am

I knew you were going to say that.

[The Leaper]

oUR d STUNK, COULDN'T STOP THE bears. tHE d had the ball run right down their throats.

The biggest plays of the day for the Bears were mostly passing plays...a huge 3rd and 9 conversion on a screen pass on the first drive, two big pass plays for about 50 yards combined on their TD before halftime, a 3rd and 7 pass conversion on the Bears first TD in the second half (Olsen beating Barnett). Our defense really only gave up 21 points...and some of those points were aided by giving Chicago good field position by stupid special teams play/INTs. Those scoring drives typically had several big pass play conversions.

On a day without our best run defender, I thought our defense held up reasonably well against the run. The one big run play we gave up was the 20 yard run on the Bears second scoring drive when we blitzed and they hit a seam. We stuffed their run THREE TIMES after Ryan's first blocked punt that gave Chicago the ball inside the Packer 10 yard line, but then screwed up on our pass defense AGAIN...but were bailed out by Muhammad's hands of stone. Other than that, the Bears averaged about 2.5 yards per carry. The run defense did enough to keep this team in the game until our SPECIAL TEAMS gave the game to the Bears by refusing to accept that the weather conditions demanded a change in their approach.

Honestly, anyone claiming the Packer run defense was a failure this week is stupid. Sure they did give up a few short yardage conversions on the ground...but you can't stop a team on every short yardage conversion. It is more important to be able to stop 3rd and 7 or 3rd and 9...that was where we failed on Sunday. Our pass defense is what should be criticized, not the run defense.

[AtlPackFan]

Just had to say that. Mostly for Bretsky and bulldog. I haven't been able to read many threads, but it sounds like some hamstrings are being pulled jumping off the bandwagon--although bulldog is never really on the bandwagon.

IMHO, no one posting on this site is jumping off the bandwagon. Bandwagon jumpers disappear (like Falcon fans)...I don't see anyone disappearing.

[AtlPackFan]

It doesn't matter what happens; we're 12-3 and that's far better than I ever expected.

A first round loss in the playoffs and this season is still a success.

A 13-3, 12-4 team should not loose in the first round of the playoffs on their home field. IMHO, I would consider a first round playoff a failure.

[AtlPackFan]

The kind of offense the Packers have, where they are at their best by spreading things out and throwing most of the time, I suspect is not what M3 had in mind. He's done a good job of adjusting his offense to fit the reality of the situation. I suspect he and TT are going to take a close look at the OL in the off-season, and try to figure out what changes need to be made for the Packers to be a consistent running team.

I think this will tell us alot about TT. We have not seen consistency from Colledge, Spitz or Moll. Is this coaching? Is this scheme (I am not a fan of the ZBS)? Are they perhaps playing out of position?

If they don't consider either of the above to be the problem, then TT has to swallow his pride, admit these picks are not working out and bring adequate competition in either thru FA or the draft.

[AtlPackFan]

A first round loss in the playoffs and this season is still a success.

ummm NOOOOOOOOO

I couldn't disagree more. finishing 13-3 or 12-4 w/ a bye and a home playoff game, losing that game would be a huge failure. This team is very good and should pose a serious threat for being the NFC team to get beat by the Pats...losing that first game would be extremely disappointing because the NFC sucks outside of the Pack and Cowboys.

I don't care what the predictions were at the beginning of the year the fact is we are 13-3 or 12-4. A team with that record shouldn't lose at home in the first round of the playoffs...especially in the NFC...unless you simply aren't as good as your record and 13-3/12-4 is pure luck.


Na na na na, many here would take the 13-3 or 12-4 with a bye and losing a home playoff, yes we'd feel bad for sure, but it sure beats MANY of the predictions we predicted very early in the season, go dig 'em up, we hoped we'd be better off than '06 but how much ??? Huge surprise!

[AtlPackFan]

The positive from this game for me: in all likelihood, this game was meaningless to us. However, the Bears winning gives them a worst draft position. The Bears victory also made it about twice as likely the Vikings don't make the playoffs. If the Cowboys were playing for something this weekend, they'd probably have 2/3 chance of winning. Now, the Redskins probably have 2/3 chance of winning. For me, that's a good thing.

I think the fact that we were playing for a chance at homefield throughout the playoffs made this game meaningless. Even if the likelihood is that the Cowboys would win out anyway, it might have at least forced them to play T.O against Washington giving him one less week to nurse his high ankle sprain.

[AtlPackFan]

NicThis team could be a better team next season and have a worse record.

Totally agree!

[AtlPackFan]

oUR d STUNK, COULDN'T STOP THE bears. tHE d had the ball run right down their throats.

Honestly, anyone claiming the Packer run defense was a failure this week is stupid. Sure they did give up a few short yardage conversions on the ground...but you can't stop a team on every short yardage conversion. It is more important to be able to stop 3rd and 7 or 3rd and 9...that was where we failed on Sunday. Our pass defense is what should be criticized, not the run defense.

Wolfe and Peterson combining for more than 130 yards isn't a factor! That is a lot of yards and a lot of clock. But then what do I know...I'm stupid! :roll:

[AtlPackFan]

The positive from this game for me: in all likelihood, this game was meaningless to us. However, the Bears winning gives them a worst draft position. The Bears victory also made it about twice as likely the Vikings don't make the playoffs. If the Cowboys were playing for something this weekend, they'd probably have 2/3 chance of winning. Now, the Redskins probably have 2/3 chance of winning. For me, that's a good thing.

I think the fact that we were playing for a chance at homefield throughout the playoffs gave this game meaning. Even if the likelihood is that the Cowboys would win out anyway, it might have at least forced them to play T.O against Washington giving him one less week to nurse his high ankle sprain.

Correction in bold above....sorry. :oops: [/b]

[The Leaper]

Wolfe and Peterson combining for more than 130 yards isn't a factor! That is a lot of yards and a lot of clock. But then what do I know...I'm stupid! :roll:

139 rushing yards is not a lot of yards...especially if you run the ball 40+ times. Green Bay racked up 125 yards...apparently the Bears defense must have really stunk it up.

I don't see where Chicago really controlled the clock much either outside of that first drive...which ate up almost 11 minutes, but only netted the Bears 3 points. Green Bay actually possessed the ball MORE after that first drive...so it wasn't like the Bears were playing keep away from our offense when the game was on the line.

Green Bay lost because we had 4 fumbles and 2 INTs which cost us field position and points. Green Bay lost because we had 2 blocked punts, which cost us field position and points. We did not lose because our run defense was a sieve.

[AtlPackFan]

Wolfe and Peterson combining for more than 130 yards isn't a factor! That is a lot of yards and a lot of clock. But then what do I know...I'm stupid! :roll:

139 rushing yards is not a lot of yards...especially if you run the ball 40+ times. Green Bay racked up 125 yards...apparently the Bears defense must have really stunk it up.

I don't see where Chicago really controlled the clock much either outside of that first drive...which ate up almost 11 minutes, but only netted the Bears 3 points. Green Bay actually possessed the ball MORE after that first drive...so it wasn't like the Bears were playing keep away from our offense when the game was on the line.

Green Bay lost because we had 4 fumbles and 2 INTs which cost us field position and points. Green Bay lost because we had 2 blocked punts, which cost us field position and points. We did not lose because our run defense was a sieve.

Over the first 16 weeks of the season (including byes), Green Bay is ranked 16th in rushing defense allowing 106.9 YPG. I would say giving up a 139 is a lot...I don't care how many rushes it took.

No, the rushing D did not cost us the game. The turnovers are what killed us. But to me, the rushing D was not good. The Bears weren't exactly running Stephen Jackson or Adrian Peterson at us.

[The Leaper]

No, the rushing D did not cost us the game. The turnovers are what killed us. But to me, the rushing D was not good.

No, it wasn't good. However, we did not have Pickett either...who is our best run stuffer. We still held the Bears to just over 3 yards per carry. That should be good enough...if you don't give up numerous key 3rd down convertions to the Bear offense, usually through the air.

I'm just pointing out that anyone claiming that our run defense is some kind of major concern is out of their mind. That is one of the least of our worries IMO. When healthy, our starting front seven on defense will do just fine against the run.

[AtlPackFan]

No, the rushing D did not cost us the game. The turnovers are what killed us. But to me, the rushing D was not good.

No, it wasn't good. However, we did not have Pickett either...who is our best run stuffer. We still held the Bears to just over 3 yards per carry. That should be good enough...if you don't give up numerous key 3rd down convertions to the Bear offense, usually through the air.

I'm just pointing out that anyone claiming that our run defense is some kind of major concern is out of their mind. That is one of the least of our worries IMO. When healthy, our starting front seven on defense will do just fine against the run.

I still think it is a concern but I guess this is the point where we can agree to disagree and move forward. :wink:

The pass D did make Orton look like an Pro-Bowler, didn't they. You have to give the Bears credit there. Short, quick routes and some very successful screens.