Cutler's head not in the game

[madlithuanian]

That's what a savvy QB does. Cutler isn't there yet. May never be...

 

I'm glad you brought up Manning because it leads me right into what's missing from this offense, and that being a no huddle. What allows Peyton to do what he does is that no huddle, being able to use the extra seconds on the play clock to survey the defense and bait them into showing blitzes with hard counts.

 

Did anyone watch the game against the Steelers last week? There was a point in that game where the Broncos were in the redzone, looking to take control of the game with a late touchdown, and Manning used the no huddle and the hard count again and again to completely neutralize Troy Palimalu's attempt at a blitz. With that extra time on the play clock, Manning was able to get the play he wanted and take advantage of the matchups that were there to exploit. The result of the drive ended in a touchdown.

 

That's just an example of how the no huddle can be used. It's also a way to not only keep defensive players on the field, but also keep them in a base defense. It completely dumbs down everything they can run because they don't have the time to call a play. It wears them out along the way. I have no idea why this has not been installed yet for this offense. Last time I can remember seeing it was in the Ron Turner days. It's a MUST, especially with this line. It keeps everything simple, and simple is good.

 

[jason]

That's part of the problem though...for some ungodly reason, the Bears keep thinking that up against teams that can rush the passer they can still look downfield to start the game. I don't know if that's just Lovie, if that's Tice/Martz, if that's something Cutler insists upon, but that's not how it works in the NFL. You can sit back in the pocket when your opponent can't rush the passer and when they're sending 6-7 guys.

 

When an opponent can get pressure, you have to do something to break it. You have to complete a couple quick passes against the blitz and start moving the ball, so that the defense pays a penalty for sending extra men. You have to run the ball and break a 10+ yard carry or two because the defense is going after the QB. Then you have to add in the play fake.

 

This was the book on how the Patriots beat Peyton for 5 years. Get in his face, overload one side of his line and break through with a blizter, and make sure that he doesn't have time to read a defense. How did he adapt? They developed that Manning-to-Wayne quick slant where every time a team sent a blitz, Manning made it go for at least 8 yards, with an occasional missed tackle for a long play. No reads, no progressions, dare the defense to blitz because he'll eat it alive.

 

Agreed. When a team with a good pass rush plays against the Bears, the Bears should do something to combat that pass rush. Whether it be more runs, screens, slants, max protect, or whatever, they need to do something that directly battles against the blitz. HOWEVER...

 

An NFL team, and an NFL coach, probably has some expectation that their players will be able to amount to something in one-on-one battles some of the time. They have to expect some sort of competency. A team shouldn't have to do something to support the weak link the entire game. A team should FIX the weak link.

 

And therein lies the problem. Right now, the Bears and their coaches seem to want to perpetually use bandaids for gunshot wounds.

[Bears4Ever_34]

That's what a savvy QB does. Cutler isn't there yet. May never be...

Still, Jay has been in the league long enough to be able to put guys in optimum position to make plays. He knows how to read defenses pre-snap, he has the power to adjust on the fly. Teams like the Falcons have now gone to a predominantly up-tempo/no-huddle offense, and so far, they've looked unstoppable since the beginning of the pre-season. It's about the change of pace and keeping the defense on their heels instead of allowing them to dictate exactly what they want to be able to do. Now that Cutler has the ability to audible, a no huddle offense should have already been installed yesterday.

[selection7]

I blame the OL much more than Cutler. The OL is entirely to blame for their own performance, and partially responsible for Cutler's bad performance. It's tough to constantly be under pressure, constantly get hit, constantly have to run for your life, and still keep your eyes up field. Much less make good decisions.

The thing is, we've seen Cutler play well under pressure before. We know he can do it. He sure didn't last night against Green Bay. It's also worth mentioning that Cutler played better than his stats would seem to indicate until the 4th quarter when he seemed to flake out.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I care. You better care if you want the Bears to do well. Cutler without confidence is what you saw last night. Cutler with confidence is what you saw against the Colts. I prefer the latter.

 

Really? Cutler was able to play against an apparent inferior team in the Colts and and EQUAL (yes I said equal) team in the Pack and looked like horse sh*t. The Packers are NOT better. They scored ONE offensive TD. The Bears scored ONE offensive TD. The difference in this game? Special teams and Cutler giving up (throwing 4 INTs). Yes I know "Jay was sacked 7 times" but at one point both Cutler and Rodgers had been sacked an equal number of times: 4. The result? Jay went off on his line and was sacked three more times and threw more interceptions. Rodgers? Threw more completions to his 1 int. I'm not saying Jay was sacked "intentionally" but after his display the line probably lost its desire, especially when Jay threw the ball to whomever wanted it.

 

Lacked confidence? Perhaps. Like I said he opened his pie hole to begin with by calling out the Pack's secondary

(stupid and idiotic in my book) and only reinforced it by playing like crap. He couldn't back up his bravado and he paid the price. Not just physically but image wise.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I'm glad you brought up Manning because it leads me right into what's missing from this offense, and that being a no huddle. What allows Peyton to do what he does is that no huddle, being able to use the extra seconds on the play clock to survey the defense and bait them into showing blitzes with hard counts.

 

Did anyone watch the game against the Steelers last week? There was a point in that game where the Broncos were in the redzone, looking to take control of the game with a late touchdown, and Manning used the no huddle and the hard count again and again to completely neutralize Troy Palimalu's attempt at a blitz. With that extra time on the play clock, Manning was able to get the play he wanted and take advantage of the matchups that were there to exploit. The result of the drive ended in a touchdown.

 

That's just an example of how the no huddle can be used. It's also a way to not only keep defensive players on the field, but also keep them in a base defense. It completely dumbs down everything they can run because they don't have the time to call a play. It wears them out along the way. I have no idea why this has not been installed yet for this offense. Last time I can remember seeing it was in the Ron Turner days. It's a MUST, especially with this line. It keeps everything simple, and simple is good.

 

I totally agree. The "no huddle" is a great tool. Jay would benefit from it big time. And perhaps learn a lesson on the right way to call out your opponent:

http://m.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskin...f8eb_story.html

 

 

[Lucky Luciano]

Agreed. When a team with a good pass rush plays against the Bears, the Bears should do something to combat that pass rush. Whether it be more runs, screens, slants, max protect, or whatever, they need to do something that directly battles against the blitz. HOWEVER...

 

problem #1:

 

the bears coaching staff is BAD from top to bottom with the only 'possible' exception being special teams. the main reason the packers beat out our brains every year? we are always OUTCOACHED!! the packers or any other good team can devise a scheme against us using last years game plan on offense OR defense.

 

it takes an entire training camp for lovie smith to come up with the opening day game plan. after that he doesn't have a clue beyond just the basics of how they want to scheme an opponent or adjust to an opponents strengths and weaknesses ESPECIALLY game day. he knows so little about offense that he is just a ghost on the sidelines if our offense turns into $#!+. he might as well be on mars counting rocks.

 

and defense? again i am going to bring up this lovie cover 2 scheme at which our corners (for the last TEN years) play so soft off the LOS it is impossible to cover the middle zone thus giving up 5-10 yds whenever an opponent wants it. our safeties are also so deep in coverage they are little if any help against the run (or intermediate passes for that matter).

 

this BEND AND DON'T BREAK philosophy is stupid. while we are eating up the clock with our defense on the field our offense (if we had one) sits on the sideline with their thumbs up their $%%^. we are taking away their time on the field where we are supposed to be scoring points instead of giving our opponents riding time.

 

PLUS... we don't have the horses to play this type of defense even IF it wasn't figured out 12 + years ago. our key starters are just plain not young enough to play 4 quarters in this system anymore. OLD - peppers, urlacher, peanut, briggs. we have no DT's to run this system, we have no elite safeties to run this system, and we have no top notch COVER corners that can play bump and run which is needed in this system (which i have stated for years IS a must to make it work) and we make nearly no adjustments to this year after year.

 

our offensive coach? again we get another never-been-there-done-that wanna be. who, by the way, anointed this guy an offensive line guru? our NFL opponents? just exactly what has he done to make our offensive line better in 2 years? we can't pass protect and we can't run block either.

 

that said... does this guy (or lovie for that matter) ever look at previous games our opponents play? the 49ers ran it down the packers throats off LT and LE, RT and RE. we had one run around LE and that was by CUTLER. 4 rushes at LT for a whopping 6 yards. 4 rushes off RT for 15 yds and 3 around RE for 13 yards. and NINE rushes up the middle for 47 yds (36 on one play which means the other 8 times we ran for a total of 13 yards).

 

YET... during the first half we NEVER ran the ball on first down even when we were getting nothing out of our passing game. not a single time until the 3rd quarter.

 

defensive coach? again a supposed guru. who on our defensive line has he made better? my god he has a HOF defensive end to work with, a HOF linebacker, and a perennial pro-bowl backer in briggs. yet we can't even slow the run down. where are our tackles?

 

problem #2:

 

offense? what offense?

 

we have no offensive line. we can't run block so how can we run more running plays? we can't pass protect so how do we initiate a passing attack that isn't the most basic max protect?

 

it's like a shooting gallery out there. one play our LT misses the blocks, one play it's the LG, next it's garza (who in my opinion had a lousy game again), the RG is next and next our RT who finishes the set. no wonder cutler is half nuts. we are making david carr out of a good qb. he has ZERO trust he isn't going to end his career from anywhere in the entire line including blocking from our running backs and tight ends (which brings me back to tice... just what is he teaching these players?).

 

the reasons for problems #1 and #2 are because we have clowns for owners and a clown for president of football operations. we will have another wait-and-see to find out if our GM fits in the clown car with the rest. as it is, he already has one foot in the car.

[ChileBear]

problem #1:

 

the bears coaching staff is BAD from top to bottom with the only 'possible' exception being special teams. the main reason the packers beat out our brains every year? we are always OUTCOACHED!! the packers or any other good team can devise a scheme against us using last years game plan on offense OR defense.

 

it takes an entire training camp for lovie smith to come up with the opening day game plan. after that he doesn't have a clue beyond just the basics of how they want to scheme an opponent or adjust to an opponents strengths and weaknesses ESPECIALLY game day. he knows so little about offense that he is just a ghost on the sidelines if our offense turns into $#!+. he might as well be on mars counting rocks.

 

and defense? again i am going to bring up this lovie cover 2 scheme at which our corners (for the last TEN years) play so soft off the LOS it is impossible to cover the middle zone thus giving up 5-10 yds whenever an opponent wants it. our safeties are also so deep in coverage they are little if any help against the run (or intermediate passes for that matter).

 

this BEND AND DON'T BREAK philosophy is stupid. while we are eating up the clock with our defense on the field our offense (if we had one) sits on the sideline with their thumbs up their $%%^. we are taking away their time on the field where we are supposed to be scoring points instead of giving our opponents riding time.

 

PLUS... we don't have the horses to play this type of defense even IF it wasn't figured out 12 + years ago. our key starters are just plain not young enough to play 4 quarters in this system anymore. OLD - peppers, urlacher, peanut, briggs. we have no DT's to run this system, we have no elite safeties to run this system, and we have no top notch COVER corners that can play bump and run which is needed in this system (which i have stated for years IS a must to make it work) and we make nearly no adjustments to this year after year.

 

our offensive coach? again we get another never-been-there-done-that wanna be. who, by the way, anointed this guy an offensive line guru? our NFL opponents? just exactly what has he done to make our offensive line better in 2 years? we can't pass protect and we can't run block either.

 

that said... does this guy (or lovie for that matter) ever look at previous games our opponents play? the 49ers ran it down the packers throats off LT and LE, RT and RE. we had one run around LE and that was by CUTLER. 4 rushes at LT for a whopping 6 yards. 4 rushes off RT for 15 yds and 3 around RE for 13 yards. and NINE rushes up the middle for 47 yds (36 on one play which means the other 8 times we ran for a total of 13 yards).

 

YET... during the first half we NEVER ran the ball on first down even when we were getting nothing out of our passing game. not a single time until the 3rd quarter.

 

defensive coach? again a supposed guru. who on our defensive line has he made better? my god he has a HOF defensive end to work with, a HOF linebacker, and a perennial pro-bowl backer in briggs. yet we can't even slow the run down. where are our tackles?

 

problem #2:

 

offense? what offense?

 

we have no offensive line. we can't run block so how can we run more running plays? we can't pass protect so how do we initiate a passing attack that isn't the most basic max protect?

 

it's like a shooting gallery out there. one play our LT misses the blocks, one play it's the LG, next it's garza (who in my opinion had a lousy game again), the RG is next and next our RT who finishes the set. no wonder cutler is half nuts. we are making david carr out of a good qb. he has ZERO trust he isn't going to end his career from anywhere in the entire line including blocking from our running backs and tight ends (which brings me back to tice... just what is he teaching these players?).

 

the reasons for problems #1 and #2 are because we have clowns for owners and a clown for president of football operations. we will have another wait-and-see to find out if our GM fits in the clown car with the rest. as it is, he already has one foot in the car.

Great rant Alaska. And yes, I agree. Have we ever seen adjustments made when the game lan goes south? Rarely.

[selection7]

YET... during the first half we NEVER ran the ball on first down even when we were getting nothing out of our passing game. not a single time until the 3rd quarter.

Wow. That's hard to believe.

[madlithuanian]

The lack of running on first down is just stupid...

 

Great rant!

 

problem #1:

 

the bears coaching staff is BAD from top to bottom with the only 'possible' exception being special teams. the main reason the packers beat out our brains every year? we are always OUTCOACHED!! the packers or any other good team can devise a scheme against us using last years game plan on offense OR defense.

 

it takes an entire training camp for lovie smith to come up with the opening day game plan. after that he doesn't have a clue beyond just the basics of how they want to scheme an opponent or adjust to an opponents strengths and weaknesses ESPECIALLY game day. he knows so little about offense that he is just a ghost on the sidelines if our offense turns into $#!+. he might as well be on mars counting rocks.

 

and defense? again i am going to bring up this lovie cover 2 scheme at which our corners (for the last TEN years) play so soft off the LOS it is impossible to cover the middle zone thus giving up 5-10 yds whenever an opponent wants it. our safeties are also so deep in coverage they are little if any help against the run (or intermediate passes for that matter).

 

this BEND AND DON'T BREAK philosophy is stupid. while we are eating up the clock with our defense on the field our offense (if we had one) sits on the sideline with their thumbs up their $%%^. we are taking away their time on the field where we are supposed to be scoring points instead of giving our opponents riding time.

 

PLUS... we don't have the horses to play this type of defense even IF it wasn't figured out 12 + years ago. our key starters are just plain not young enough to play 4 quarters in this system anymore. OLD - peppers, urlacher, peanut, briggs. we have no DT's to run this system, we have no elite safeties to run this system, and we have no top notch COVER corners that can play bump and run which is needed in this system (which i have stated for years IS a must to make it work) and we make nearly no adjustments to this year after year.

 

our offensive coach? again we get another never-been-there-done-that wanna be. who, by the way, anointed this guy an offensive line guru? our NFL opponents? just exactly what has he done to make our offensive line better in 2 years? we can't pass protect and we can't run block either.

 

that said... does this guy (or lovie for that matter) ever look at previous games our opponents play? the 49ers ran it down the packers throats off LT and LE, RT and RE. we had one run around LE and that was by CUTLER. 4 rushes at LT for a whopping 6 yards. 4 rushes off RT for 15 yds and 3 around RE for 13 yards. and NINE rushes up the middle for 47 yds (36 on one play which means the other 8 times we ran for a total of 13 yards).

 

YET... during the first half we NEVER ran the ball on first down even when we were getting nothing out of our passing game. not a single time until the 3rd quarter.

 

defensive coach? again a supposed guru. who on our defensive line has he made better? my god he has a HOF defensive end to work with, a HOF linebacker, and a perennial pro-bowl backer in briggs. yet we can't even slow the run down. where are our tackles?

 

problem #2:

 

offense? what offense?

 

we have no offensive line. we can't run block so how can we run more running plays? we can't pass protect so how do we initiate a passing attack that isn't the most basic max protect?

 

it's like a shooting gallery out there. one play our LT misses the blocks, one play it's the LG, next it's garza (who in my opinion had a lousy game again), the RG is next and next our RT who finishes the set. no wonder cutler is half nuts. we are making david carr out of a good qb. he has ZERO trust he isn't going to end his career from anywhere in the entire line including blocking from our running backs and tight ends (which brings me back to tice... just what is he teaching these players?).

 

the reasons for problems #1 and #2 are because we have clowns for owners and a clown for president of football operations. we will have another wait-and-see to find out if our GM fits in the clown car with the rest. as it is, he already has one foot in the car.

 

[madlithuanian]

Alaska, the Packers are a better team. 8 out of 9 wins pretty much proves it. Until otherwise, you're just being too much of a fan and not seeing reality for what it is. (Note, that I mean team...coaching, talent and execution all combined)

 

The Packers are NOT better.

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Alaska, the Packers are a better team. 8 out of 9 wins pretty much proves it. Until otherwise, you're just being too much of a fan and not seeing reality for what it is. (Note, that I mean team...coaching, talent and execution all combined)

 

They (Packers) were not better the other night. They played just good enough to win. It was back and forth through the first two quarters. "Three downs and a cloud of dust" stuff. (Unfortunately for the Bears some penalties hurt them more than did the Packers. It wasn't until that Special Teams play when things started to turn. Sacks and turnovers were similar throughout until later in the game. Mad: they got ONE offensive TD all game. They were suppose to be the better high octane offense that the Bears (and all the NFC North for that matter) were trying to emulate. As has been the case the Bears held their own. They are NOT a better team. That night just a little better but not better overall.

 

I know you think I'm a homer for Lovie but like you have in the past I'll give him through this season and if it doesn't trend to the playoffs, maybe he should go. He's had three (?) O coordinators in his time and despite the rantings of those like Lucky L, he's maintained a high rated defense even with a different D line each year and an aging core.

 

Yes I am a fan but not blind to reality.

[AZ54]

Yes, hard to fault the D for holding the best quarterback and one of the top offenses in the NFL to just one TD.

 

Offense was a disaster from play calling to execution across the board. I remember years ago under Jauron we played Detroit with a bad run D and we passed all game long. Same deal here. If you can't game plan on your own at least read a newspaper article or two to learn about your opponent.

 

The only offensive player who impressed me was Michael Bush.

[jason]

Really? Cutler was able to play against an apparent inferior team in the Colts and and EQUAL (yes I said equal) team in the Pack and looked like horse sh*t. The Packers are NOT better. They scored ONE offensive TD. The Bears scored ONE offensive TD. The difference in this game? Special teams and Cutler giving up (throwing 4 INTs). Yes I know "Jay was sacked 7 times" but at one point both Cutler and Rodgers had been sacked an equal number of times: 4. The result? Jay went off on his line and was sacked three more times and threw more interceptions. Rodgers? Threw more completions to his 1 int. I'm not saying Jay was sacked "intentionally" but after his display the line probably lost its desire, especially when Jay threw the ball to whomever wanted it.

 

Lacked confidence? Perhaps. Like I said he opened his pie hole to begin with by calling out the Pack's secondary

(stupid and idiotic in my book) and only reinforced it by playing like crap. He couldn't back up his bravado and he paid the price. Not just physically but image wise.

 

It sounds like we kind of agree but you are misreading me.

 

Cutler played poorly against the Packers once he lost confidence. He lost confidence that his OL would protect him, and just broken down in terms of mechanics and decision-making. That's what the Cutler without confidence does.

 

So, in terms of whether Cutler's confidence matters, it unquestionably matters. It's crucial to the team's success.

[jason]

problem #1:

 

the bears coaching staff is BAD from top to bottom with the only 'possible' exception being special teams. the main reason the packers beat out our brains every year? we are always OUTCOACHED!! the packers or any other good team can devise a scheme against us using last years game plan on offense OR defense.

 

it takes an entire training camp for lovie smith to come up with the opening day game plan. after that he doesn't have a clue beyond just the basics of how they want to scheme an opponent or adjust to an opponents strengths and weaknesses ESPECIALLY game day. he knows so little about offense that he is just a ghost on the sidelines if our offense turns into $#!+. he might as well be on mars counting rocks.

 

and defense? again i am going to bring up this lovie cover 2 scheme at which our corners (for the last TEN years) play so soft off the LOS it is impossible to cover the middle zone thus giving up 5-10 yds whenever an opponent wants it. our safeties are also so deep in coverage they are little if any help against the run (or intermediate passes for that matter).

 

this BEND AND DON'T BREAK philosophy is stupid. while we are eating up the clock with our defense on the field our offense (if we had one) sits on the sideline with their thumbs up their $%%^. we are taking away their time on the field where we are supposed to be scoring points instead of giving our opponents riding time.

 

PLUS... we don't have the horses to play this type of defense even IF it wasn't figured out 12 + years ago. our key starters are just plain not young enough to play 4 quarters in this system anymore. OLD - peppers, urlacher, peanut, briggs. we have no DT's to run this system, we have no elite safeties to run this system, and we have no top notch COVER corners that can play bump and run which is needed in this system (which i have stated for years IS a must to make it work) and we make nearly no adjustments to this year after year.

 

our offensive coach? again we get another never-been-there-done-that wanna be. who, by the way, anointed this guy an offensive line guru? our NFL opponents? just exactly what has he done to make our offensive line better in 2 years? we can't pass protect and we can't run block either.

 

that said... does this guy (or lovie for that matter) ever look at previous games our opponents play? the 49ers ran it down the packers throats off LT and LE, RT and RE. we had one run around LE and that was by CUTLER. 4 rushes at LT for a whopping 6 yards. 4 rushes off RT for 15 yds and 3 around RE for 13 yards. and NINE rushes up the middle for 47 yds (36 on one play which means the other 8 times we ran for a total of 13 yards).

 

YET... during the first half we NEVER ran the ball on first down even when we were getting nothing out of our passing game. not a single time until the 3rd quarter.

 

defensive coach? again a supposed guru. who on our defensive line has he made better? my god he has a HOF defensive end to work with, a HOF linebacker, and a perennial pro-bowl backer in briggs. yet we can't even slow the run down. where are our tackles?

 

problem #2:

 

offense? what offense?

 

we have no offensive line. we can't run block so how can we run more running plays? we can't pass protect so how do we initiate a passing attack that isn't the most basic max protect?

 

it's like a shooting gallery out there. one play our LT misses the blocks, one play it's the LG, next it's garza (who in my opinion had a lousy game again), the RG is next and next our RT who finishes the set. no wonder cutler is half nuts. we are making david carr out of a good qb. he has ZERO trust he isn't going to end his career from anywhere in the entire line including blocking from our running backs and tight ends (which brings me back to tice... just what is he teaching these players?).

 

the reasons for problems #1 and #2 are because we have clowns for owners and a clown for president of football operations. we will have another wait-and-see to find out if our GM fits in the clown car with the rest. as it is, he already has one foot in the car.

 

Agreed with absolutely everything, and have agreed for multiple years.

[jason]

They (Packers) were not better the other night. They played just good enough to win. It was back and forth through the first two quarters. "Three downs and a cloud of dust" stuff. (Unfortunately for the Bears some penalties hurt them more than did the Packers. It wasn't until that Special Teams play when things started to turn. Sacks and turnovers were similar throughout until later in the game. Mad: they got ONE offensive TD all game. They were suppose to be the better high octane offense that the Bears (and all the NFC North for that matter) were trying to emulate. As has been the case the Bears held their own. They are NOT a better team. That night just a little better but not better overall.

 

I know you think I'm a homer for Lovie but like you have in the past I'll give him through this season and if it doesn't trend to the playoffs, maybe he should go. He's had three (?) O coordinators in his time and despite the rantings of those like Lucky L, he's maintained a high rated defense even with a different D line each year and an aging core.

 

Yes I am a fan but not blind to reality.

 

Please stop with this unequivocally false horseshit. It's been proven time and time again that he has NOT had a high rated defense every year. This is his ninth year, and in his previous eight years he has had three good seasons. The others have been mediocre or worse. End of story. Look it up if you don't believe me.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/chi/

 

This notion that because people say he's a defensive guru, that automatically makes him a defensive guru, is absolutely infuriating. The same goes for Rod Marinelli and his supposed ability. The same goes for Tice and his "brilliance" on the OL. During Lovie's tenure we've seen the same problems over and over and over again, and he's fixed nearly nothing. The same problems exist on the defense of today that existed when it was first implemented. And if weren't for the fact that he had one of the best MLBs in history for his entire tenure, the defense would have been even less consistent than it was.

[madlithuanian]

I'm sorry but the record speaks for itself. You can go an rationalized (like they did that the Giants and SF didn't beat them, they beat them)...but the fact of the matter is the best team usually wins. Maybe not in one particular game...but out of 9...I'd say that proves it.

 

Their WR's dropped seemingly as many passes as us. Ran as many bad routes as us (ie. out pickoff). Had they held onto the balls, etc...it would have been a trouncing. Had they continued to run the ball, they'd have killed us.

 

I respect your thoughts and support of Smith and the team. But I honestly can't see how anyone here can say that the Bears are a better team than the Packers other than in your heart. It doesn't make the Packers an less evil. They still are. But, until we start beating them on a regular basis...they are better. They sum of their parts continually outshine ours.

 

They (Packers) were not better the other night. They played just good enough to win. It was back and forth through the first two quarters. "Three downs and a cloud of dust" stuff. (Unfortunately for the Bears some penalties hurt them more than did the Packers. It wasn't until that Special Teams play when things started to turn. Sacks and turnovers were similar throughout until later in the game. Mad: they got ONE offensive TD all game. They were suppose to be the better high octane offense that the Bears (and all the NFC North for that matter) were trying to emulate. As has been the case the Bears held their own. They are NOT a better team. That night just a little better but not better overall.

 

I know you think I'm a homer for Lovie but like you have in the past I'll give him through this season and if it doesn't trend to the playoffs, maybe he should go. He's had three (?) O coordinators in his time and despite the rantings of those like Lucky L, he's maintained a high rated defense even with a different D line each year and an aging core.

 

Yes I am a fan but not blind to reality.

 

[madlithuanian]

Well said.

 

Yes, hard to fault the D for holding the best quarterback and one of the top offenses in the NFL to just one TD.

 

Offense was a disaster from play calling to execution across the board. I remember years ago under Jauron we played Detroit with a bad run D and we passed all game long. Same deal here. If you can't game plan on your own at least read a newspaper article or two to learn about your opponent.

 

The only offensive player who impressed me was Michael Bush.

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I'm sorry but the record speaks for itself. You can go an rationalized (like they did that the Giants and SF didn't beat them, they beat them)...but the fact of the matter is the best team usually wins. Maybe not in one particular game...but out of 9...I'd say that proves it.

 

Their WR's dropped seemingly as many passes as us. Ran as many bad routes as us (ie. out pickoff). Had they held onto the balls, etc...it would have been a trouncing. Had they continued to run the ball, they'd have killed us.

 

I respect your thoughts and support of Smith and the team. But I honestly can't see how anyone here can say that the Bears are a better team than the Packers other than in your heart. It doesn't make the Packers an less evil. They still are. But, until we start beating them on a regular basis...they are better. They sum of their parts continually outshine ours.

 

I didn't once say I thought that Chicago was better the other night. I said GB was not and I feel they are not. In times past they may have been better, but this is a new year, a different team.

 

You asked a lot of 'what ifs' so here's a few of my own. What if Marshall caught that pass in the endzone, what if Forte didn't get hurt, what if Carimi doesn't get that drive stalling penalty... What if GB just decided to kick a field go instead of the trick play? What if it had been blocked? What if it had been run back for a TD?

 

We both know this game is not played and determined by "what ifs".

[Mongo3451]

I didn't once say I thought that Chicago was better the other night. I said GB was not and I feel they are not. In times past they may have been better, but this is a new year, a different team.

 

You asked a lot of 'what ifs' so here's a few of my own. What if Marshall caught that pass in the endzone, what if Forte didn't get hurt, what if Carimi doesn't get that drive stalling penalty... What if GB just decided to kick a field go instead of the trick play? What if it had been blocked? What if it had been run back for a TD?

 

We both know this game is not played and determined by "what ifs".

 

What if the better team won?

[madlithuanian]

The record again speaks for itself.

 

Until we actually beat them, there is nothing that should make you think we are better.

 

Disregard the "if's"... It's scoreboard. And they own us. I don't care what we've added or they've subtracted. As a whole, they are still besting us top to bottom.

 

 

 

I didn't once say I thought that Chicago was better the other night. I said GB was not and I feel they are not. In times past they may have been better, but this is a new year, a different team.

 

You asked a lot of 'what ifs' so here's a few of my own. What if Marshall caught that pass in the endzone, what if Forte didn't get hurt, what if Carimi doesn't get that drive stalling penalty... What if GB just decided to kick a field go instead of the trick play? What if it had been blocked? What if it had been run back for a TD?

 

We both know this game is not played and determined by "what ifs".

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

The record again speaks for itself.

 

Until we actually beat them, there is nothing that should make you think we are better.

 

Disregard the "if's"... It's scoreboard. And they own us. I don't care what we've added or they've subtracted. As a whole, they are still besting us top to bottom.

 

Ok then, maybe this is trivial...or perhaps boorish. But throughout the whole series of GB vs Chi; Chicago leads 92-87-6.*

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears–Packers_rivalry

 

That would make Chicago the better team right?

 

And if when they meet again in December and Chicago wins, is Green Bay still the better team?

[madlithuanian]

Because the Bears are in Chicago simply makes them a better team to root for.

 

History makes them the better franchise (removing the more SB victories than the Bears)...

 

But right now, basically since Jay Cutler arrived and Aaron Rodgers took command, they have and currently are the better team.

 

If we meet in Chicago and Chicago wins, I'll be shocked...and then would give thought that they are potentially equal. It would then depend on a potential playoff match-up for final determination. But, it could also mean Chicago got lucky out of 10 attempts at beating them. Hell, even AZ took out NE today. Sometimes the best teams don't win a particular game. But they do over a series of games and over the years.

 

Until further notice, GB is better. I stand by that until proven otherwise. I wish as all hell that they weren't. But they are.

 

 

 

Ok then, maybe this is trivial...or perhaps boorish. But throughout the whole series of GB vs Chi; Chicago leads 92-87-6.*

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears–Packers_rivalry

 

That would make Chicago the better team right?

 

And if when they meet again in December and Chicago wins, is Green Bay still the better team?