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

[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!

[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.