End of the Devin Hester era. Might mean more Slocum.Code:Stat Packers Bears
RETURN YARDS 169 43
Oof.
* Includes INT return yardage. But Packers still won ST return yardage battle.
Printable View
End of the Devin Hester era. Might mean more Slocum.Code:Stat Packers Bears
RETURN YARDS 169 43
Oof.
* Includes INT return yardage. But Packers still won ST return yardage battle.
I know Micah Hyde had OK kickoff returns. That is too conservative a call, IMO. Gotta be somebody faster on roster.
well those numbers are nice and deceiving
the real numbers.
neither team had a punt return
hyde had 2 returns for an average of 23 with a long of 25 (25,21)
harris had one return for 20 yards
ross for the bears had 2 returns for a 21 yard average with a long of 22 (22,20)
they look pretty equally unimpressive to me
102 of those "return yards" were on int returns. nothing to do with slocum and his shit unit
and on the plus side, we had a FG blocked
Anybody else notice that after the Martellus Bennett non-TD, there was a penalty on the Bears that was supposed to have been assessed on the next kick-off?? It never was.
And yet, the damned Bears' fans will STILL piss and moan about how the ref's handed the game to GB......
i didn't see where they kicked it off from after the half... but if i remember correctly, the kick was fielded at the 5 and not in the endzone... guess i just assumed they marked off the penalty yardage...
I thought it was marked correctly to start the 2nd half. Admittedly, I didn't look to hard but based on where the kick landed I figured it had been spotted 15 yards back.
First half penalties do not carry over to the second half. The ball should have been spotted at the 30 for the second-half kickoff.
That's what I thought. They caught it at the 5 and it was not a pop-up kick, and returned to the 30. It certainly seemed like they were kicking from farther back.
The ref explicitly said it would, and it makes sense to do so for dead ball fouls, otherwise you can get a free cheap-shot in at the end of a half.
Have to say, the decision making by the Bears at the end of the first half was awful. I can't believe they tried to run a play with 9 seconds on the clock instead of taking the FG. Until then, they had scored on every possession. They were behind because the Pack scored TDs while one of their scores was a FG, but not getting those points ratcheted up the pressure on their offense.
They were running at will against the Pack's D, and if they'd scored they could've waited for the Packers to make a mistake instead of botching it themselves.
I dunno -- it was aggressive, which you want. I think Trestman saw Rodgers was on fire and GB was getting the ball for the 2nd half KO, so he knew it would be tough to keep pace, especially with FG's.
I have more issue with the execution -- if Bennett doesn't flatten his route it's a TD. Plus, Cutler has giants in Marshall and Jeffries; so it's not like he doesn't have other RZ weapons to target.
Yup, my bad, the only dead-ball PFs that don't carry over to second half are unsportsmanlike and taunting.
The decision was standard. There is enough time to take a shot and still get a field goal. Tresseman would have been called a pussy if he didn't take a shot, and rightly so. The TE fucked up by not taking is route deeper into the endzone before coming back for the ball.
The TE flattened the route. It was supposed to go into the endzone before coming back a little. Nothing wrong with throwing to an open TE in the endzone, even if it is over the middle. Given the situation, the back corner is going to be really hard to get open, so the middle is a good bet. The TE fucked up, plain and simple. I can't fault Cutler because from his position he couldn't tell the difference. (Yeesh I'm defending Cutler, that has to be a sign of the apocalypse.) If the TE goes 1-2 yards deeper like he was supposed to, we're spending today bitching about the coverage and not the decision.
For sure. D allowed the completion, and there is a 50-50 chance he did actually score. Dude's got long arms, and reached for the goal line. Luckily, Hyde was blocking the camera view, so the review amounted to nothing, and the call on the field stood!
I'm not sure if he flattened his route, or if there was coverage where he wanted to be, would have to watch again.
It was 4 cm from being a TD. It was a good chance to take.
SI_DougFarrar @SI_DougFarrar 33m33 minutes ago
Packers formation-diverse vs. CHI. They'd run 11 personnel 76% thru 3 games, but went heavy 12 base & more WR wrinkles. Made a difference.
SI_DougFarrar @SI_DougFarrar 30m30 minutes ago
Second-quarter TD to Cobb came out of a two-slot WR package Packers used a few times. Created iso matchups vs. man coverage. Go figure!
Jarad Allen reportedly lost 18 pounds with a bout of pneumonia:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ith-pneumonia/
While I'm not sorry the Packers missed facing him, that's some serious shit. As long as he gets the time to get back in shape, there should be no lasting effects.
Maybe. But consider an alternate scenario. I would bet you that loose ball control that was clearly over the line (plus control of ball when on the ground) would yield a TD call that would stand up to being reversed. Of course, I am probably forgetting about the rules section that covers this exact scenario that might render my argument moot.
Bob McGinn @BobMcGinn 5m5 minutes ago
The #Packers' roster has stood at 52 players for 13 days now.
Maybe he's shopping for a DT.
http://www.footballbyfootball.com/co...-high-coverage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lions Game
Solution? Skip the run (unless you want to run zone and put Starks in), put in Harris and throw it to middle of field and the flats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bears Game
I don't understand why the Packers roster is at 52. Why didn't they call up Jumal Rolle and not lose him to Houston? I don't get. It's not to save a small chunk of salary, is it?
They forgot. Fire Slocum!
They are relatively healthy, so there isn't much need to fill the spot with a guy who will be inactive every game anyway.
As for Rolle, they have 6 healthy corners on the roster now, not much need for a 7th.
Besides, this will give them a roster spot to activate Tretter in a few weeks without having to release anyone.
Pretty crazy that the whole defensive backfield is healthy! The 6th CB, Goodson, has he dressed yet? The Packers kept him, now at the expense of Rolle, who looked a lot better in the pre-season, I wonder what the plans are for bringing him along now that he's healthy.
We also haven't seen much of Richardson, who I thought would be on the field a lot more, but seems to be behind Burnett
Makes little sense. It's saves a little bit of money, but doesn't reward guys on the practice squad. The Packers have a good reputation for building within, but this seems cheap. Why not call up Dorsey or White with Boykin out.
The 53rd spot is for Jesus.