Mongo3451 Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 to borrow a term another person likes to use on this board: Read the post and the original statement. LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted June 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Over that time period, the Packers have averaged 29.37 points per game in the regular season as a whole. So the Bears have done better than average against the Packers...but still given up over 3 TDs per game. Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted June 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 You can't switch the argument or statement from one of the Packers offense being dominant to one of the Bears defense being dominant. to borrow a term another person likes to use on this board: Read the post and the original statement. I don't consider scoring 22pts per game a huge offensive success. Pointing out plays where their players dropped passes is like saying Webb is a great LT once he gets his feet set and his hands on his man. Or should I simply state that if Major Wright didn't complete whiff on a tackle then the Packers wouldn't have scored? If Bowman doesn't line up 5 yards off his man at the goal line than that quick slant pass couldn't have been completed in the last game? If 22pts per game is your standard of excellence for offense then you should be ecstatic over the results of last year's Bears: 17 Chicago Bears 16 22.1 353 (as in 22.1pts per game average) I don't really care about other teams, because again, the statement was that all teams have struggled against the Packers offense for several years yet we have matched up well prior to last year. I simply provided some facts to show that was not the case for all teams. Remove the absolute and we are in agreement, most teams have trouble matching up with Green Bay's offense. However, it can be done. Wesson Just like it was easy to game plan against the Packers because they had a week running game Me ...don't kid yourself, it was FAR from easy to gameplan against the Packers. They've been tearing the entire league a new ass for more than a few years. AZ54 Maybe scoring 10pts is getting torn up in your opinion but it seems to me one team has been right there holding their offense in check. (provides list of games in which Bears give up 22 PPG) Me I point out the 22PPG figure, and the oddity of that one game in which the Bears' D played well while the Packers' O played poorly. Then I ask you, "Do you consider giving up three TDs per game a defensive success for the Bears?" The reason for the question is obvious: The Bears gave up 22PPG, and the 10pt. game was an anomaly. My advice would be to read the ENTIRE thread. I simply replied to Wesson's original "the Packers are easy to gameplan against" statement by categorically and simply disproving it. Also, I never stated whether 22 PPG was successful; I merely asked a question. But you are right, the Bears have shown better success against the Packers' offense than average. One must also consider, if bringing up the Bears 22PPG, that they had more combined TDs via KR, PR, and Fumble/INT return than any other team in the league. Over a quarter of their TDs were non-offensive. The Packers, meanwhile, nearly doubled the Bears' total TDs and only had 10% of their TDs come from non-offensive sources, further proving the difficulty in gameplanning for their offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesson44 Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Wesson Just like it was easy to game plan against the Packers because they had a week running game Me ...don't kid yourself, it was FAR from easy to gameplan against the Packers. They've been tearing the entire league a new ass for more than a few years. AZ54 Maybe scoring 10pts is getting torn up in your opinion but it seems to me one team has been right there holding their offense in check. (provides list of games in which Bears give up 22 PPG) Me I point out the 22PPG figure, and the oddity of that one game in which the Bears' D played well while the Packers' O played poorly. Then I ask you, "Do you consider giving up three TDs per game a defensive success for the Bears?" The reason for the question is obvious: The Bears gave up 22PPG, and the 10pt. game was an anomaly. My advice would be to read the ENTIRE thread. I simply replied to Wesson's original "the Packers are easy to gameplan against" statement by categorically and simply disproving it. Also, I never stated whether 22 PPG was successful; I merely asked a question. But you are right, the Bears have shown better success against the Packers' offense than average. One must also consider, if bringing up the Bears 22PPG, that they had more combined TDs via KR, PR, and Fumble/INT return than any other team in the league. Over a quarter of their TDs were non-offensive. The Packers, meanwhile, nearly doubled the Bears' total TDs and only had 10% of their TDs come from non-offensive sources, further proving the difficulty in gameplanning for their offense. Like I said you you have pointed out it is easy to game plan against the Packers. The packers are a throwing team, have 3,4,5 WR on the field all the time......so when you kow this that is what you focus on in game planning. You assign one player to spy the RB.The problems are with actually covering those WR's. Example...the Packers killed us with that slant on the goalline because they dont have the height to run the fade route with any sucess, the slant you know it coming but still you dont cover it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 Teams can be easy to game plan for that doesn't mean your talent on defense can match up. Line up Bowman on the goal line against any Packers WR with Rodgers throwing to him and we'll lose every time even though every single fan on this board knows the game plan is the quick inside slant, or if the WR lines up outside it'll be the back shoulder throw. I give Lovie credit because he knows how to hold their offense in check although at times it is obvious players' execution isn't always good (ref. Zach Bowman, Major Wright missing tackles). Each time we've played them the last few years I thinking we're going to get blown out by halftime and we don't. That is despite having a pathetic offense that routinely went 3 and out so the defense wasn't getting much rest in those games. So giving up 22pts average given our offense's minuscule output is pretty good IMO. Clearly we don't have enough talent on D to keep them at 17pts or below consistently. Now we've added more speed off the edge to our pass rush and hopefully Melton will be more consistent in pressure up the middle. I don't think we've made enough of an improvement in our secondary to really take advantage of any improvement in the Dline forcing quicker throws. Have we made enough of an improvement on offense to outscore them? I don't know, they now have two good pass rushers coming off the edge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesson44 Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 Teams can be easy to game plan for that doesn't mean your talent on defense can match up. Line up Bowman on the goal line against any Packers WR with Rodgers throwing to him and we'll lose every time even though every single fan on this board knows the game plan is the quick inside slant, or if the WR lines up outside it'll be the back shoulder throw. I give Lovie credit because he knows how to hold their offense in check although at times it is obvious players' execution isn't always good (ref. Zach Bowman, Major Wright missing tackles). Each time we've played them the last few years I thinking we're going to get blown out by halftime and we don't. That is despite having a pathetic offense that routinely went 3 and out so the defense wasn't getting much rest in those games. So giving up 22pts average given our offense's minuscule output is pretty good IMO. Clearly we don't have enough talent on D to keep them at 17pts or below consistently. Now we've added more speed off the edge to our pass rush and hopefully Melton will be more consistent in pressure up the middle. I don't think we've made enough of an improvement in our secondary to really take advantage of any improvement in the Dline forcing quicker throws. Have we made enough of an improvement on offense to outscore them? I don't know, they now have two good pass rushers coming off the edge. Yes that maybe true about their pass rushers, but now we have two guys that will out jump,attack the ball use their body as a sheild and are hard to tackle playing WR for us that we didnt have before.So we will stay in drives longer giving our D the chance to rest more. Oh and we have speed coming off the edge on D as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted June 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 Like I said you you have pointed out it is easy to game plan against the Packers. The packers are a throwing team, have 3,4,5 WR on the field all the time......so when you kow this that is what you focus on in game planning. You assign one player to spy the RB.The problems are with actually covering those WR's. Example...the Packers killed us with that slant on the goalline because they dont have the height to run the fade route with any sucess, the slant you know it coming but still you dont cover it You are oversimplifying the word "easy." Do the Bears and other teams know the Packers are probably passing? Yes. Can they stop the Packers from passing successfully? Not really. Therefore, it's not all that easy to gameplan against them, because their offense still scores. If they have superior talent or a seemingly unstoppable play, then it requires a defensive adjustment (i.e. game-planning), and if that adjustment doesn't produce results, they are still difficult to gameplan against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted June 14, 2012 Report Share Posted June 14, 2012 You are oversimplifying the word "easy." Do the Bears and other teams know the Packers are probably passing? Yes. Can they stop the Packers from passing successfully? Not really. Therefore, it's not all that easy to gameplan against them, because their offense still scores. If they have superior talent or a seemingly unstoppable play, then it requires a defensive adjustment (i.e. game-planning), and if that adjustment doesn't produce results, they are still difficult to gameplan against. Here we will have to disagree because IMO coaching and scheming can only overcome some things in terms of lack of talent. But maybe I am oversimplifying game planning because some coaches seem to be clueless when it comes to taking advantage of an opponents weakness (Mike Martz). I guess with all these assistant coaches, some dedicated to nothing but charting out the opponents tendencies on down and distance it is really difficult to figure out what they are going to do against your weaknesses/strengths (if they even know their own team that well). I'd say the same thing about talent can only overcome so much bad scheming and I'd use the 49ers turnaround under Harbaugh as an example there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesson44 Posted June 15, 2012 Report Share Posted June 15, 2012 You are oversimplifying the word "easy." Do the Bears and other teams know the Packers are probably passing? Yes. Can they stop the Packers from passing successfully? Not really. Therefore, it's not all that easy to gameplan against them, because their offense still scores. If they have superior talent or a seemingly unstoppable play, then it requires a defensive adjustment (i.e. game-planning), and if that adjustment doesn't produce results, they are still difficult to gameplan against. No its really simple and easy to game plan against a team like the Packers when you know they are a throwing team. The biggest problem with the game planning is having the right players to do the job.I'll give you two examples. first when we plan the Lions the game plan is to take Calvin Johnson out of the game with double team over the to.....since they don't have the greatest running game. ...same with the Vikings you game plan to stop AP when we did their passing game was week so you didn'tt have to double team their WR's. Now was game plan agaist the Packers to stop the passing attack,but we didn't match up with their WR's in talent wise so we lose that battle,but win the running game war. As far as the Packers goes I dont know who taught Bowman how to play Db at all. I watched that last game and said to myself that he was lined up wrong and is going to get beaten to the inside. Then it happened. Goal line D for a corner is you line up inside taking away the slant forcing them to throw it to the outside so you can use the sideline to your advantage. He is not going deep so you can actually gamble and jump the outside route some what or make the QB throw over you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.