Making the Grade : Week 1

[Radagast]

Packers @ Bears : Week 1


Packers Offense --- C

Not enough preseason game work for Rodgers and the 1st team Offense and it showed.



Packers Defense --- B+

Packers Defense played great against a Bears Offense that had -- D -- performance.


Packers Special Teams --- C+ --- .

Played well, but there is room for improvement. Both Kickers did their jobs well.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

I understand every new season brings a new hope, but the Bears D averaged 17 ppg last season. GB scored 10. That’s below average.

I say the O earned a D.

[Radagast]

I understand every new season brings a new hope, but the Bears D averaged 17 ppg last season. GB scored 10. That’s below average.

I say the O earned a D.

IMO, as I've already posted, the Bears Offense played a poor game and I rated their performance with a D.

I did not however rate the Bears Defense vs the Packers. I'd say the Bears Defense played well and I rate their performance with a B. Rodgers play was the difference in the game. His TD pass to TE Jimmy Graham won the game for GB

With some real game action to give the Offense the opportunity to get in better (than practice) sync., I look for the GB offense to be a little better next game vs the Vikings.

[texaspackerbacker]

Scoring more points than the other team means a grade no lower than B minus, which is what I give the Packers offense. (if they had lost 56-53, the highest I would ever give in a lost game is B plus)

The D gets a solid A. Room for improvement? Yeah - shut 'em out and it would be A plus.

Special Teams: the rule is do no harm - that would get them a B. I would say Scott's punting and Crosby's good kicking in a small sample brings it up to B plus.

[mraynrand]

Yeah I dunno how the ST gets a C for that performance. Scott elevated them and the coverage was solid.

[RashanGary]

Defense A
Offense D (would be F if not for no turnovers)
Special Teams B

Good game and offense will only get better. Defense will fall back. 3 points is not sustainable.

[Fritz]

Disagree with those grades, Rad.

Offense: D+
Defense: A
Special teams: B

[Cheesehead Craig]

Offense: D+. There never seemed to be a flow.
Defense: A. That was a beautiful performance.
Special Teams: A. 47.6 yd punting avg with 5 inside the 20. Scott came up huge, and his 63 yd punt late in the 4th was a massive field position change. Crosby was perfect. Coverage was ok.

[George Cumby]

What Fritz said.

[run pMc]

What Fritz said.

Yup.

Rodgers goes 18-30 for just over 200 yds while getting sacked 5 times. Running on the Bears is not easy but I don't think they cracked 60 yards. Took too long getting out of the huddle and snapping at play clock of 0. Ugly performance.

Defense pressured well. Allen Robinson had a good game, but coverage overall was decent. Safety play was vastly better, and -- importantly -- players tackled quickly and limited YAC. Bears O was terrible but the defense had them in 3rd and long all night. (and got off the field!) The Smiths produced in a game what CM3/Perry did in 4.

Special teams did not lose the game which is an improvement in itself from last year, when the Zooksquad cost the team about 3 games (esp. the DET clunker). Scott's punts were instrumental in a defensive battle where field position plays an important role. CHI could not drive the length of the field. Crosby hit his kicks, coverage was decent, and don't recall a lot of stupid ST penalties. Maybe cutting Josh Jones solved that.

[Radagast]

To restate my view:

Packers Offense --- C

Packers Defense --- B+

Packers Special Teams --- C+


Bears Offense --- D

Bears Defense --- B


The GB Offense, IMO, only rated a C against a Bears Defense that rated a B. GB's new offense faced off against what was a top defense last season. The lack of preseason play by key Packers offense was evident. The low score posted by the Packers should give plenty to work on in practice before week 2. A C rating says that there is much room for improvement and they will be need to improve fast as the Vikings will be next on the schedule.

GB's Defense deserves praise. I rated the GB defense with a B+. They played a Bears Offense that I rated with a D. Had they scored a TD or produced more turnovers or sacks I'd have rated them higher. As it stands, the Packer defense too has room to improve and I believe they will improve. With 10 days to rest, practice, and study they should play well vs the Vikings

[RashanGary]

To restate my view:

Packers Offense --- C

Packers Defense --- B+

Packers Special Teams --- C+


Bears Offense --- D

Bears Defense --- B


The GB Offense, IMO, only rated a C against a Bears Defense that rated a B. GB's new offense faced off against what was a top defense last season. The lack of preseason play by key Packers offense was evident. The low score posted by the Packers should give plenty to work on in practice before week 2. A C rating says that there is much room for improvement and they will be need to improve fast as the Vikings will be next on the schedule.

GB's Defense deserves praise. I rated the GB defense with a B+. They played a Bears Offense that I rated with a D. Had they scored a TD or produced more turnovers or sacks I'd have rated them higher. As it stands, the Packer defense too has room to improve and I believe they will improve. With 10 days to rest, practice, and study they should play well vs the Vikings

I agree with this. The context of the other team makes the grades make more sense.

[Radagast]

I agree with this. The context of the other team makes the grades make more sense.

I thank you.

As you've changed your "handle", why not change your avatar as well. Perhaps something to inspire like a SB Ring or Team Logo from the past.

[Upnorth]

If we break down st grade I think our kickers were a+, coverage was a b-. Our o was a d mostly because of time issues and arod being off target. Our d was a except for whoever was covering Robison who was 70% of the bears o I think.

Looking forward to more context from more of the season. That bears d might be better than last year, I didn't see much separation for our receivers unless it was planned for. And we have a strong pass blocking line that got handled easily.

[George Cumby]

I thank you.

As you've changed your "handle", why not change your avatar as well. Perhaps something to inspire like a SB Ring or Team Logo from the past.

Control freak much?