FOR THOSE WHO HATE CAPERS.....

[bobblehead]

I would do the same. I'm positive that id I had to bet on it. Their IQ is inferior to mine.

Football IQ. mmmm

I've seen plenty of evidence that your mistaken. WE DO have members on this board that have considerable ability to do as good or a better job that those two men. I'm positive if we had their resources we'd trump both of them.

I'm totally sincere in my position and this. We have some very bright minds on this board.

Then you are intelligent, but naive.

[woodbuck27]

Woody, you are funny!

Humor comes naturally with my Parents and siblings. We were taught to treat a lot of things with some humor. It sure beats frustration driven anger. It's a giant step away from disillusion.

Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy are a hoot. I observe them and sometimes scream with laughter. I have to go there or blow sky high.

They represent everything I resent in what should describe manhood.

[woodbuck27]

Then you are intelligent, but naive.

No...I'm convinced I'm correct based in too much evidence.

Hang on to all that convidence in them and watch them lose their jobs.

It's coming 'only' because of what they should be; what they aren't.

I'm certain of this. Convinced of my rightness.

[mraynrand]

The one thing the Bears tend to do is forget about Forte. I think Capers is playing tendency here.

You are right on the money and wrong too. Bobble would like a word with you about your continued posting. Nevertheless, I agree with you about forgetting Forte - but that was mostly McCown. Cutler loves him and uses him more. Same with Marshall - thus, your tendency argument is totally valid, and why they doubled Marshall on the goal - cuz that is where Cutler likes to go. Leaving the dump off guy - Forte - alone is insane, but did Hawk correct that later on, or what??

Bad and good, Packers got more right than wrong in that game, against what I think was a tremendous - but flaky - offense.

[mraynrand]

Then you are intelligent, but naive.

Conversely, you are naive, but intelligent.

[wist43]

Packers D is lined up against an offense with four receivers over 6'4" and a running back who can catch as well as any WR. You want them to defend the Bears as though they are a run first team, when they have to defense 5 pretty talented receivers. Packer need pass rushers who can disrupt plays, get penetration, get hands up, etc., not pretend it's the 70s with Walter Payton on the other side of the LOS.

Just b/c you have 2 DL on the field does not mean you are only committing 2 to rushing the passer, or stopping the run - you are committing 6 guys to gap/rush/run responsibilities at the LOS of scrimmage regardless.

By going with only 2 DL however, you are essentially inviting the opponent to run - and run effectively. Capers might have a case if giving up gobs of rushing yds, easy 1st downs on 3rd and 4, etc, were offset by playing stellar pass defense, but that isn't happening either.

By having at least the 3rd DL, and in obvious passing situations, the occasional 4 man line - with your more talented players on the field, he would be better addressing the hemorrhaging this our run defense, and mixing in the blitz would be more effective at getting pressure. If you're not getting consistent pressure, which they are not, and you're giving the QB a clean and comfortable pocket, then you are very much at the mercy of those 6'4" WR's. As it happens, I thought the DB's played fairly well against the Bears, but that is the exception to the rule the past few years.

[mraynrand]

As it happens, I thought the DB's played fairly well against the Bears, but that is the exception to the rule the past few years.

I liked your post, but I think this is inaccurate.

[woodbuck27]

I liked your post, but I think this is inaccurate.

Your going to claim that the Packer DB's played very well against the Bears tall WR's (Marshall and Jeffrey) and Matt Forte!?

[woodbuck27]

Just b/c you have 2 DL on the field does not mean you are only committing 2 to rushing the passer, or stopping the run - you are committing 6 guys to gap/rush/run responsibilities at the LOS of scrimmage regardless.

By going with only 2 DL however, you are essentially inviting the opponent to run - and run effectively. Capers might have a case if giving up gobs of rushing yds, easy 1st downs on 3rd and 4, etc, were offset by playing stellar pass defense, but that isn't happening either.

By having at least the 3rd DL, and in obvious passing situations, the occasional 4 man line - with your more talented players on the field, he would be better addressing the hemorrhaging this our run defense, and mixing in the blitz would be more effective at getting pressure. If you're not getting consistent pressure, which they are not, and you're giving the QB a clean and comfortable pocket, then you are very much at the mercy of those 6'4" WR's. As it happens, I thought the DB's played fairly well against the Bears, but that is the exception to the rule the past few years.

This statement is accurate and never over stated.

[mraynrand]

Your going to claim that the Packer DB's played very well against the Bears tall WR's (Marshall and Jeffrey)

The past few seasons? Yes.

[woodbuck27]

The past few seasons? Yes.

Your easy to stay a step ahead of 'M' a simple analysis.

[mraynrand]

Your easy to stay a step ahead of 'M' a simple analysis.

Instead of spouting nonsense, go look up the stats for yourself. Secondary has played well against Bears receivers in recent history.

[wist43]

Instead of spouting nonsense, go look up the stats for yourself. Secondary has played well against Bears receivers in recent history.

My comment was a bit out of context in that I intended it in general. The Bears are one of the few teams we've matched up fairly well with over the past few years - for whatever reason. Familiarity more than anything I suppose.

In general, post superbowl, our defense has been a sieve everywhere - especially in 2011 when we set a record for pass defense futility. We were a bit better last year, but certainly nothing to write home about; and then of course the complete blowout embarrassment at the hands of the Niners further exposed Capers.

Earlier this year someone posted a stat which showed that Capers plays more 2-4 nickel than any team in the league. TT went out and invested in the DL; he invested in LB's too, but hit on only 1 (Matthews), Perry never wanted to play LB, and Hawk is "just a guy" - put it all together, and the talent is weighted to the DL. Capers should scheme accordingly, but he doesn't. He sticks to his 2-4 as much as he possibly can... it seems going to a 3 man line is actually a concession for him.

No matter how you slice it, he is not getting results, and hasn't been for quite some time. He needs to go.

[Bretsky]

WIST.....this thread was made for you.....
You should be lighting it up.

So clearly IMO TT has let his defensive staff down and the defensive staff has let the organization down as well.

So in your world...give a percentage to TT and DOM. Is is 50% bad personnell...and 50% bad coaching...or weighted more one way ??

[woodbuck27]

Instead of spouting nonsense, go look up the stats for yourself. Secondary has played well against Bears receivers in recent history.

No.

Happy New Year.

That's better.