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

[SnakeLH2006]

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?

C'mon Scott....He's had some great comebacks with Cutler:

Just saw the highlights.

Cutlers pick and almost-pick was inexcusable. He was out there looking like Brett Favre, and not the good Brett.

umm..ok?

Get used to having a joyless-ass Brett Favre winging up balls and making excuses, DBB.

Maybe Urlacher was right? :

http://jay-mariotti.fanhouse.com/2009/09/14/cutler-lovie-partners-in-brain-cramps/

Cutler, Lovie Partners in Brain Cramps

Posted Sep 14, 2009 2:40AM By Jay Mariotti (RSS feed)

Jay CutlerGREEN BAY, Wis. -- So now, already, we are left to wonder if the biggest curse in professional football has swallowed Jay Cutler. He was supposed to be the savior of the Chicago Bears and still might be in due time, but in his first regular-season game Sunday night, he plummeted into the same black hole that has doomed so many of the franchise's wickedly bad quarterbacks.

Um, what in the name of Chad Hutchinson was he trying to do in the second quarter, when he floated a wayward pass to nobody in particular that was intercepted by Green Bay's Tramon Williams and returned 67 yards to the Bears 1? What in the name of Henry Burris was he doing just before then, when he tried a shovel pass to Matt Forte that entered the personal space of 325-pound Johnny Jolly, who couldn't have dropped the ball if it were covered in grease? What in the name of Peter Tom Willis was Cutler doing in the first quarter, when his wayward toss became the property of opposing safety Nick Collins?
Mariotti: Favre Just Spectator at Peterson Show

And please explain, in the name of the mercifully departed Rex (The Turnover Machine) Grossman, how Cutler could look so pathetic with 1:06 left, when he was supposed to answer the touchdown pass of rival Aaron Rodgers and deliver the eighth game-winning rally of his young career -- and instead telegraphed a throw that seemed to veer toward the dreadlocks of cornerback Al Harris as if guided by a magnetic force?

That would be a total of four picks for Cutler, making it a four-gettable performance by a quarterback who expects to be paid $100 million by the Bears in the near future. While we should point out that his array of wide receivers leaves much to be desired -- is that Johnny Knox or Johnny Knoxville? -- it should concern Bears fans greatly that he became so easily rattled and unglued by pressure applied out of the Packers' new 3-4 scheme. Chances are, he'll be given the benefit of the doubt by Bears fans for another week. But if he struggles next Sunday at home against the monster defense of the Pittsburgh Steelers, which is possible, the "JAY CUT'' T-shirts that are so popular in town could be reversed to "CUT JAY.''

This was advertised as a duel between Rodgers and Cutler, and, in the end, it was the Green Bay gunslinger who avoided mistakes through his own struggles and made the giant throw when urgently needed. He found Greg Jennings for a 50-yard touchdown pass with 1:11 remaining after Bears cornerback Nathan Vasher slipped in single coverage, letting the receiver sprint past him like Usain Bolt whipping past a cement mixer. The result was a 21-15 victory for the Packers in the first of six round-robin games featuring Green Bay, Chicago and Minnesota, three elite teams in the long-downtrodden NFC North. You can excuse it as merely a first-game letdown, but don't tell the Bears, whose body language after the Jennings score spoke volumes on the sideline.

"[Bleeping bleep],'' muttered star linebacker Brian Urlacher, who dislocated his right wrist, left the game in the third quarter and likely will be out for an extended period.

Meanwhile, a few feet away, Cutler was on the bench with his head slumped, looking aghast and incapable of inspiring a rally. It brought to mind a reported offseason insult by way of Minnesota receiver Bobby Wade, who said Urlacher had referred to Cutler as a "p----'' when Wade and Urlacher were together in Vegas. If that is harsh, Cutler certainly came up small in his first trip as a Bear to Lambeau Field, where the team's players and coaches are judged most severely by a large Midwestern city that treats the Packers like a blood rival. Cutler's last career stop in Denver is a pressure cooker, but as he underlined himself in saying that fan intensity in Chicago is a "9'' compared to "6'' in Colorado, losing and looking awful in Green Bay is the worst way to start a Bears career.

Welcome to the big city, kid. You're not in Santa Claus, Ind., anymore.

"It's tough. I'm sure the city of Chicago is disappointed. I'm disappointed, and we have 90 people in the locker room who are disappointed,'' said Cutler, whose No. 6 jersey has been among the league leaders in sales for months. "But we have 15 more to play, and I think we ultimately will overcome this one and we will be fine.''

So why the ugliness? "It's still a learning process. We haven't been together that long in game situations, but that is no excuse for what happened out there,'' Cutler said. "There were a lot of failures. We've got to go back and look at it. I think we're still going to be a good football team, so there's no need to panic."

Oh, but Chicago wouldn't be Chicago if it didn't panic. And now that people have seen Adrian Peterson rumble for 180 yards with Brett Favre playing game-manager in Minnesota, one could envision the Bears missing the playoffs while the Vikings and Packers get in. Along with Urlacher, Chicago's hobbled include valuable tight end Desmond Clark, linebacker Pisa Tinoisamoa and cornerback Trumaine McBride. "It's always tough to have your leader go down,'' linebacker Lance Briggs said of Urlacher. "He knows the defense better than anyone and he communicates everything to everyone else. In football, injuries can happen at any time, so guys will have to step up and play big.''

The Bears won't be fine if Lovie Smith and the coaching staff continue to mismanage games. As it is, there's a suspicion that Smith remains a glorified defensive coordinator who is in over his head as a head coach. If Jeff Fisher ever left Tennessee, there would be a groundswell of support in Chicago to dismiss Smith and hire the former 1985 Bear. The coaches did themselves no public-relations favors early in the fourth quarter, when they thought the Packers had 12 men on the field as the Bears were punting, leading to a regrettable audible. The ball was snapped directly to the up back, Garrett Wolfe, who was stopped on 4th-and-11 after a 4-yard gain. This gave the Packers a first down at the Chicago 30, and if that screw-up wasn't gigantic enough, Smith challenged the ruling. The call was upheld -- the Packers indeed had the legal 11 men -- and the Bears looked doubly stupid, especially after Mason Crosby kicked a 39-yard field goal that gave the Packers a 13-12 lead. In the final minutes, they could have used the timeout that Smith wasted on the challenge.

"It was a mistake on our part,'' Smith said. "We thought they had 12 guys on the field. We shouldn't have done it. Our team didn't execute it the way it should have been done.''

Which falls in the laps of the coaches. Afterward, you couldn't help noticing general manager Jerry Angelo chatting quietly in the press box with his trusted aide, Bobby DePaul. Smith was Angelo's hand-picked coach, but if the Bears don't make the playoffs, the howls for a change will echo through a city that has won one NFL championship -- the entertainment extravaganza that was the '85 Bears -- in 45 years. It's one thing to lose a game. It's another to lose to the Packers in front of a national audience on Sunday night when the coach goofs up, the ballyhooed quarterback throws four picks and the Packers win on a late bomb.

"I just kind of lost my footing a little,'' Vasher said of Green Bay's game-winning touchdown pass. "We have no room for error, especially on the back end. It's just really tough.''

They spoke in somber tones as thousands of Cheeseheads rejoiced outside. Last year, the Packers were 1-7 in games decided by seven points or less. This time, Rodgers bailed them out. "I was thinking, 'We're due. We're due for one good drive,' '' he said. "I told the guys, just give me one drive. It was important for us to get a win like this tonight. It'll definitely build our team character."

It also will build Wisconsin's faith in Rodgers, forever to be judged against the legacy of Favre. When highlights of the Vikings' victory were shown on the big board, fans booed vigorously. Not that Favre will be easily forgotten. In the fourth quarter, the announcer in the press box said, "Favre's pass ... excuse me, Rodgers' pass,
complete to Donald Driver.''

There are no such problems in Chicago. The good people are just waiting for a quarterback, any quarterback, to prove worthy of a comparison to long, lost Sid Luckman. So far, Cutler isn't that man.

[Scott Campbell]

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

Um, what in the name of Chad Hutchinson was he trying to do in the second quarter, when he floated a wayward pass to nobody in particular that was intercepted by Green Bay's Tramon Williams and returned 67 yards to the Bears 1? What in the name of Henry Burris was he doing just before then, when he tried a shovel pass to Matt Forte that entered the personal space of 325-pound Johnny Jolly, who couldn't have dropped the ball if it were covered in grease? What in the name of Peter Tom Willis was Cutler doing in the first quarter, when his wayward toss became the property of opposing safety Nick Collins?

[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.

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.

I was critical of the last scheme... it was garbarge - you said, "no, look at the positives"

I am not critical of the scheme now... I am just looking at areas that need to be shored up. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

As I've said, simply by running a 3-4 it will be easier to hide deficient players, and they will be able to generate pressure simply by the scheme itself. But that doesn't mean that you ignore the deficiencies.

Kampman and JT will both likely be gone next year... they simply are not a good fit for the 3-4. That doesn't mean Kampman won't make some plays, or get his sacks, it simply means he's not a good fit for OLB. Has nothing to do with being "positive or negative"... just stating the obvious.

[sharpe1027]

I was critical of the last scheme... it was garbarge - you said, "no, look at the positives"

I am not critical of the scheme now... I am just looking at areas that need to be shored up. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

As I've said, simply by running a 3-4 it will be easier to hide deficient players, and they will be able to generate pressure simply by the scheme itself. But that doesn't mean that you ignore the deficiencies.

Kampman and JT will both likely be gone next year... they simply are not a good fit for the 3-4. That doesn't mean Kampman won't make some plays, or get his sacks, it simply means he's not a good fit for OLB. Has nothing to do with being "positive or negative"... just stating the obvious.

I'm not saying ignore the deficiencies, I'm saying if all you do is point out weaknesses that's not being objective. You have accused people of not being objective and stated that your opinion is obvious (implying I'm obviously wrong).

I'm not pissed and welcome the discussion, but you should know you sound like a pompous know-it-all when you dimiss other's views as not objective (implying yours is) and claim your view is obvioussly correct (implying I can't see the obvious). Therefore, I repeat that just because you are being critical of your team, that does not necessarily mean you are being objective.

LaMarr Woodley doesn't look good in space, yet he fits in well with the Steeler's defense, which is arguably the best in the league.

So, again, who cares that Kampman isn't great in coverage? It's way down on the list of important duties for his position.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Kampman and JT will both likely be gone next year... they simply are not a good fit for the 3-4. That doesn't mean Kampman won't make some plays, or get his sacks, it simply means he's not a good fit for OLB. Has nothing to do with being "positive or negative"... just stating the obvious.

I doubt Thompson will be gone. If he is, it's because he's not any good--not because he doesn't fit the scheme. When you draw up a 3-4 OLB, they look like Thompson.

Any scheme is good with the right players. I think this scheme actually fits the Packers personnel better than the last scheme. I said that in the offseason. Nothing wrong with the Bates scheme--with the right personnel and the right coordinator. However, it needs two good pass rushing DEs, a rotation of block eating DTs, a few good press corners, AND a coordinator that can adjust if injuries or the opponent dictate that things need to be adjusted.

[mraynrand]

Nothing wrong with the Bates scheme--with the right personnel and the right coordinator. However, it needs two good pass rushing DEs, a rotation of block eating DTs, a few good press corners, AND a coordinator that can adjust if injuries or the opponent dictate that things need to be adjusted.

That's kind of funny when you re-read a few times. Sure, nothing wrong with that scheme that a squad of pro bowlers couldn't make work! (I know that's not what you meant). Still, that Bates D seems to need more talent than the average scheme to work. Looked pretty sloppy in Tampa on Sunday.

[Patler]

If you look back at my posts early when Capers was hired, I argued that the Packers needed to trade Kampman to a 4-3 during the off season, while they could still get something for him. I argued he simply wouldn't fit. After hearing Capers discuss his strategy a little, and after thinking about it more myself, particularly Kampman's background, I backed off that and thought, well....maybe....

I became hopeful after watching him in a few preseason games because he wasn't horrible.

After Sunday, I am convinced he can play the position for the way they seem likely to use him. Did he look smooth and comfortable all the time? Of course not! It was his first real game at the position. But I thought he played quite well, actually. He was in on plays all over, he wasn't exposed in passing plays when he dropped back, and he was rushing effectively. There was the obvious face mask that kept him off Cutler once, and two other times he was right there and seemed to be held. I'm not complaining about the non-calls, just pointing out that they seemed to be having trouble containing him on the rush a little. Plus, I thought it was clear that his instructions were to make sure Cutler didn't get outside. The way he rushed and held outside positioning made that seem quite obvious on a number of the times he rushed the passer.

All in all, I'm guessing the coaches are pleased with how Kampman played in his first game at the position.

[sharpe1027]

If you look back at my posts early when Capers was hired, I argued that the Packers needed to trade Kampman to a 4-3 during the off season, while they could still get something for him. I argued he simply wouldn't fit. After hearing Capers discuss his strategy a little, and after thinking about it more myself, particularly Kampman's background, I backed off that and thought, well....maybe....

I became hopeful after watching him in a few preseason games because he wasn't horrible.

After Sunday, I am convinced he can play the position for the way they seem likely to use him. Did he look smooth and comfortable all the time? Of course not! It was his first real game at the position. But I thought he played quite well, actually. He was in on plays all over, he wasn't exposed in passing plays when he dropped back, and he was rushing effectively. There was the obvious face mask that kept him off Cutler once, and two other times he was right there and seemed to be held. I'm not complaining about the non-calls, just pointing out that they seemed to be having trouble containing him on the rush a little. Plus, I thought it was clear that his instructions were to make sure Cutler didn't get outside. The way he rushed and held outside positioning made that seem quite obvious on a number of the times he rushed the passer.

All in all, I'm guessing the coaches are pleased with how Kampman played in his first game at the position.

Not to mention his play against the run. To my untrained eye, he has been outstanding at standing up his man, containing and then making a play on the runner.

Wist is right the few times he dropped into coverage he looks ackward. Still, that's not his main role.

[wist43]

I was critical of the last scheme... it was garbarge - you said, "no, look at the positives"

I am not critical of the scheme now... I am just looking at areas that need to be shored up. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

As I've said, simply by running a 3-4 it will be easier to hide deficient players, and they will be able to generate pressure simply by the scheme itself. But that doesn't mean that you ignore the deficiencies.

Kampman and JT will both likely be gone next year... they simply are not a good fit for the 3-4. That doesn't mean Kampman won't make some plays, or get his sacks, it simply means he's not a good fit for OLB. Has nothing to do with being "positive or negative"... just stating the obvious.

I'm not saying ignore the deficiencies, I'm saying if all you do is point out weaknesses that's not being objective. You have accused people of not being objective and stated that your opinion is obvious (implying I'm obviously wrong).

I'm not pissed and welcome the discussion, but you should know you sound like a pompous know-it-all when you dimiss other's views as not objective (implying yours is) and claim your view is obvioussly correct (implying I can't see the obvious). Therefore, I repeat that just because you are being critical of your team, that does not necessarily mean you are being objective.

LaMarr Woodley doesn't look good in space, yet he fits in well with the Steeler's defense, which is arguably the best in the league.

So, again, who cares that Kampman isn't great in coverage? It's way down on the list of important duties for his position.

When did I "dismiss" your opinion??? I posted an observation, and typically I was attacked for being "negative". The title of the thread is... is there reason for concern on the D??? I said yes, and stated why... don't see how that is dismissing your opinion.

In fact, I state in my original post things I see as moving in the right direction, i.e. the change in scheme and the drafting of Raji and Matthews... again, don't see how that is dismissing your opinion???

[Zool]

When did I "dismiss" your opinion??? I posted an observation, and typically I was attacked for being "negative". The title of the thread is... is there reason for concern on the D??? I said yes, and stated why... don't see how that is dismissing your opinion.

In fact, I state in my original post things I see as moving in the right direction, i.e. the change in scheme and the drafting of Raji and Matthews... again, don't see how that is dismissing your opinion???

Cause you suck. I agree with most of your points, but you still suck.

[HarveyWallbangers]

When did I "dismiss" your opinion??? I posted an observation, and typically I was attacked for being "negative". The title of the thread is... is there reason for concern on the D??? I said yes, and stated why... don't see how that is dismissing your opinion.

I didn't read where people called your opinion negative. Now, if you said you were "typically attacked because some people think you are wrong," I can agree with that.

[wist43]

Yes, you guys are right... the Packers have 53 All-Pros, what could I have been thinking???

[rbaloha1]

No. The scheme is plays to the strength of the personnel. The D is blessed with playmakers, excellent blitzers, experience and smart players with ability to execute.

Expect the D to only get better as the season progresses.

[Guiness]

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

Um, what in the name of Chad Hutchinson was he trying to do in the second quarter, when he floated a wayward pass to nobody in particular that was intercepted by Green Bay's Tramon Williams and returned 67 yards to the Bears 1? What in the name of Henry Burris was he doing just before then, when he tried a shovel pass to Matt Forte that entered the personal space of 325-pound Johnny Jolly, who couldn't have dropped the ball if it were covered in grease? What in the name of Peter Tom Willis was Cutler doing in the first quarter, when his wayward toss became the property of opposing safety Nick Collins?

Who in the name of Peter Tom Willis is Peter Tom Willis???

Ok, Wikipedia tells me this:
Career stats
TD-INT 6-15
Yards 1,261
QB Rating 54.9

So...essentially the numbers Cutler appears to be headed to if you extrapolate this past week-ends numbers. Fair enough

[HarveyWallbangers]

Yes, you guys are right... the Packers have 53 All-Pros, what could I have been thinking???

Yeah, because that's what everybody is claiming. Let's face it. Our defense has some good personnel. We lack depth at DE, safety is a sore spot, we have only 3 good corners, and we could probably use one more dynamic playmaker in the front 7 (hopefully, Raji or Matthews develops into that). However, there's some good talent on this defense. I expect a good coach with a good scheme (that looks to fit the personnel better) to get more out of them. Much more.