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

[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.

[]{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.

[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]

Re: Although you got a win, should you be concerned with the

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?

[Scott Campbell]

Re: Although you got a win, should you be concerned with the

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?

[Iron Mike]

Re: Although you got a win, should you be concerned with the

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?

KABONG!!!!!