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

[Dabaddestbear]

NO, I am not concerned about the D. Don't you have enough to worry about on your side of the ball? :P

What was that you said you were not worried about?

[Dabaddestbear]

NO, I am not concerned about the D. Don't you have enough to worry about on your side of the ball? :P

Yes,as do all teams. But I will remember your quote here as saying you ARE not concerned sir.

Right now there is more to be excited about than concerned about in the Packer defense:

Harris CAN play zone, who knew?
Kampman/Poppinga and the LBs in general were NOT victimized by a team with some good TEs.
The D-linemen made plays, a bunch of them.
The ballhawking and return ability of the secondary continued from last year.
The defense always snapped back after surrendering a big play.
Three was no late game collapse like we saw often in 2008.
There is enthusiasm and attitude on defense that has been lacking for years.

There are always positives and negatives. The positives far outweighed the negatives in the Bear game, so the natural result is enthusiasm this week, not conern. Of course, that could change after the next game!

My points came to fruition more than the rose colored glasses.

[Dabaddestbear]

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

I know the Packers defense look much better than last year, but when you look at the tape, they gave up some big plays to what many considered a very sub-par WR group. I heard how the WR group of the Bears would not be able to do anything, and that Forte and the TE's is all the Bears have to throw to, but it was exactly the opposite. The young WR's ran some bad routes, and Cutler tossed some questionable INT's, but even with all that self destruction of the Bears passing game, they still did put up some impressive numbers against a pretty good Packers secondary.

Hester- 4 catches 90 yards and a TD. Had a very nice sideline grab and getting deep for that TD. He played like a #1 WR that night.

Knox- Yes, he stopped on his route on the slant but what do u honestly expect from a rookie wr from a D2 school? 2 catches 82 yards and one catch was for 68 yards in beating Woodson.

Bennett- 7 catches for 66 yards- I think this kid is very talented. He got a lot of separation from some good GB DB's. He did drop one and also had a dumb offsides and went back instead of coming forward when Cutler scrambled. Basically his first nfl game you have to expect mistakes from young guys like this.

I mentioned this because I have yet to see this brought up, for it seemed to get loss in all the defensive hoopla discussion in regards to both teams.
Nice win of course, but from that game, with the new expectations of the defense, can you honestly say you have no reason to be concerned?

Wait, I thought the INTs and incompletions were often the WR's fault? Which is it? How's the koolaid?

Honestly, any NFL WR can make a play or two. By-and-large your WRs will not scare any team.

Ok, so you tell me who fault was it today for the Packers? Just curious.

[Partial]

Even after this game, I can't really pinpoint a huge hole on the team. The biggest thing that I can think of was the lack of adjusting to the 6 OL Cinci was playing.

They need more pass rush. That didn't really get home today.

I thought tackling was really poor.

Matthews and Kamp looked pretty good to me today.

[Dabaddestbear]

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.

You my friend, may have a point.

[Brohm]

I'm concerned with the D. Even before they were on the field too long, they were giveing up 12-14 yards a play, couldn't tackle and couldn't get off the field on 3rd and long. No adjustments at the half, it was a bloodbath. Well then throw in the O's problems on top of that. Those were some of the quickest 3-and-outs I have ever seen

[Dabaddestbear]

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.

So mission, what about the Packers are you worried about?

[denverYooper]

How many times can you respond to the same post?

[Dabaddestbear]

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.

Some of you guys call Wist Chicken little, but he seemed sort of prophetic in this thread.

[Dabaddestbear]

How many times can you respond to the same post?

As many times as I can go through this thread to make more of you eat crow for being too full of koolaid

[Dabaddestbear]

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?

Yes I do...
And today........

[Dabaddestbear]

well, the d looked pathetic today

front 7 got their asses handed to them, ton of missed tackles

it was ugly, even with woodsons 2 int's

then we lost collins, so now we have zero decent safeties

Well atr least he is coming back. Urlacher gone for the season and we still have to pull it together on D.

[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.

Some of you guys call Wist Chicken little, but he seemed sort of prophetic in this thread.

I call 'em as I see 'em...

A lot of these guys on here are not just homers - they're super-homers

The Packers made a change in schemes for a reason... it sucked, and the players they drafted to play in it were average at best. But these homers on here saw all of them as headed for the HOF in the old scheme, and see them headed for the HOF in the new scheme.

Body types are necessarily going to be different - and quite frankly, if the talent on that side of the ball was so great to begin with, we wouldn't have been changing schemes, i.e. the overall talent level on defense needs to be upgraded.

I'm persona non grata for pointing out the obvious

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You are persona non grata because your assesments are just the usual bs.

Chillar and Bish should be starting. LOL

[Fritz]

Let's wait til the end of the season to start proclaiming people prophets, shall we?