Peter King Sleeps On Clay Matthews

[pbmax]

Given the differences of the roles they play, Cushing will have a more traditional LB stat line. But now that Matthews is starting, the tackle numbers will probably not diverge like it appears here.

[Waldo]

Given the differences of the roles they play, Cushing will have a more traditional LB stat line. But now that Matthews is starting, the tackle numbers will probably not diverge like it appears here.

One thing missing from that stat line is that Clay has 4 fumble recoveries, one of them leading to a TD.

[mission]

I cant wait to see Matthews against Orlando Pace this week. I think he'll have another 2+ sack game with (more) impact plays.

It's almost infectious on this defense now ... the guys are one-upping each other with huge plays. Let's see it continue Dom!!

[KYPack]

Matthews is a real bitch. Kid has got it all. My early impressions of him were dead wrong. That early camp hamstring problem made me think it would linger. Also he really hadn't played backer that much. He was a stand up DE at SC for most of his snaps. I also saw tape on him early and he looked scrawnier than advertised. I added all that up and figured we wouldn't see what we have now until his second or third season.

Never been gladder to be so far off on a player. This kid improves by the snap. Mish is right on. He is exactly the kind of player pace can't handle anymore. I'm sure the Bears will slide to help the old OT, but Dom will make the adjustments. Jones and Matthews are more than a pleasant surprise. They are like getting money from home when you didn't even write mom a letter.

[mngolf19]

Clay Mattews sleeps with Peter King on him? Can't he just sleep in an oxygen tent like Hawk?

I was thinking, did CM pay King or was it the other way around?

[pbmax]

Matthews is a real bitch. Kid has got it all. My early impressions of him were dead wrong. That early camp hamstring problem made me think it would linger. Also he really hadn't played backer that much. He was a stand up DE at SC for most of his snaps. I also saw tape on him early and he looked scrawnier than advertised. I added all that up and figured we wouldn't see what we have now until his second or third season.

Never been gladder to be so far off on a player. This kid improves by the snap. Mish is right on. He is exactly the kind of player pace can't handle anymore. I'm sure the Bears will slide to help the old OT, but Dom will make the adjustments. Jones and Matthews are more than a pleasant surprise. They are like getting money from home when you didn't even write mom a letter.

Seeing their development with Greene makes me wonder about the O line and offensive coaches again. If it was just CMIII, then you would say, well he's a first round pick, one that Thompson clearly thought was dropping too far for his measurables and he has all the talent in the world. But Jones looks solid as well and he was from the seventh.

Could it be that T2 has hit with this draft class, Sitton and Lang as part of the normal vagaries of drafting? Possible, of course. But I am more and more convinced that the O coaches have caused some of their own problems.

[Smidgeon]

Seeing their development with Greene makes me wonder about the O line and offensive coaches again. If it was just CMIII, then you would say, well he's a first round pick, one that Thompson clearly thought was dropping too far for his measurables and he has all the talent in the world. But Jones looks solid as well and he was from the seventh.

So has Greene successfully transitioned from great player to good coach? If not, how long do results have to be shown to prove it out?

[TennesseePackerBacker]

Given the differences of the roles they play, Cushing will have a more traditional LB stat line. But now that Matthews is starting, the tackle numbers will probably not diverge like it appears here.

In my opinion, a sack should counts as 20 tackles, not TFL's. Nothing ends a drive more quickly than a sack. Maybe 20 is a high number, and I'd like to see some thoughts on this. Cushing has been impressive, and those numbers will be hard to beat. But, just in my opinion remember, 7 sacks > 100 tackles.

[Smidgeon]

Given the differences of the roles they play, Cushing will have a more traditional LB stat line. But now that Matthews is starting, the tackle numbers will probably not diverge like it appears here.

In my opinion, a sack should counts as 20 tackles, not TFL's. Nothing ends a drive more quickly than a sack. Maybe 20 is a high number, and I'd like to see some thoughts on this. Cushing has been impressive, and those numbers will be hard to beat. But, just in my opinion remember, 7 sacks > 100 tackles.

But in that case and INT > sack because it does kill a drive instead of just making it worse. One could even argue that 3 INTs > 7 sacks.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

Given the differences of the roles they play, Cushing will have a more traditional LB stat line. But now that Matthews is starting, the tackle numbers will probably not diverge like it appears here.

In my opinion, a sack should counts as 20 tackles, not TFL's. Nothing ends a drive more quickly than a sack. Maybe 20 is a high number, and I'd like to see some thoughts on this. Cushing has been impressive, and those numbers will be hard to beat. But, just in my opinion remember, 7 sacks > 100 tackles.

But in that case and INT > sack because it does kill a drive instead of just making it worse. One could even argue that 3 INTs > 7 sacks.

Gotta concede that one to you. Someone hit it on the head earlier though. It's all about the scheme they are used in. CM3 isn't in coverage nearly as much as Cushing, and vice versa Cushing doesn't blitz nearly as much as CM3. Both have had impressive seasons, but like I said in my first post, I doubt CM3 can beat out Cushing.

[Smidgeon]

Given the differences of the roles they play, Cushing will have a more traditional LB stat line. But now that Matthews is starting, the tackle numbers will probably not diverge like it appears here.

In my opinion, a sack should counts as 20 tackles, not TFL's. Nothing ends a drive more quickly than a sack. Maybe 20 is a high number, and I'd like to see some thoughts on this. Cushing has been impressive, and those numbers will be hard to beat. But, just in my opinion remember, 7 sacks > 100 tackles.

But in that case and INT > sack because it does kill a drive instead of just making it worse. One could even argue that 3 INTs > 7 sacks.

Gotta concede that one to you. Someone hit it on the head earlier though. It's all about the scheme they are used in. CM3 isn't in coverage nearly as much as Cushing, and vice versa Cushing doesn't blitz nearly as much as CM3. Both have had impressive seasons, but like I said in my first post, I doubt CM3 can beat out Cushing.

Personally I like CM3 better. I'd rather have a "frighten the QB" type of player than a "can tackle and occasionally catch a badly thrown ball" player.

[Freak Out]

Clay was on the Rome (Radio) show today...nice interview.

http://www.jimrome.com/home.html

I believe it was in the last hour.