Evans suspended.

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
4,290
Reaction score
704
other than weaker tackling efforts, I didn't have a problem with what they were doing. I have no problem giving up 3-7 yards at a time with the clock running in that situation. It was the half assed tackling that gave up the huge chunks that made it seem worse than it needed to.
I think you also have to credit Montgomery. He looked like an all pro. And he is a very good running back. Not a good enough excuse though because every week we play against good players.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
14,852
Reaction score
2,833
I think you also have to credit Montgomery. He looked like an all pro. And he is a very good running back. Not a good enough excuse though because every week we play against good players.
oh, definitely. He's good back, i'd take him on our team for sure.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
10,481
Reaction score
3,068
Once again, I agree that it's better to force an opponent to take time off the clock when moving the ball but I would definitely prefer the defense to not give up those years at all. If the Bears would have scored on that drive (and they came within inches of doing it) it would have been a one score game with eight minutes left.
IF is the operative word. They didn’t because our D stiffened the further down the field. The Bears had 1 successful drive and a gifted 3 points on a bonus drive after our O Turnover. We could’ve cleaned up a few missed tackles for sure, I see that part is all. The Bears played exactly into our hand.
As far as the IF? Both sides get to play that IF card. You throw yours then I’d like to throw mine. IF Rodgers didn’t fumble to Dillon we score 7 on that drive. It was 1st and 10 at the THEIR 28 yard line and we were gashing them all day, we were unstoppable and the Bears D was exhausted. Look at that TOP we manhandled them.
37:15 GB
22:45 Chi

Ok. We would’ve eaten 2 more minutes and scored again, leaving the Bears at 7-28 with the 4th Quarter to go. No 1 play would’ve brought a Bears Win, our O was 1 more TD short of dominating them. The Bears would’ve had to largely abandon the run and it would’ve resulted in an even uglier finish for Fields passing game. (Our strength) Matt would’ve showed Mercy and just run the clock

Bears 14 GB 31
Or
Bears 14 GB 34
 
Last edited:

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
5,002
Reaction score
888
I think you also have to credit Montgomery. He looked like an all pro. And he is a very good running back. Not a good enough excuse though because every week we play against good players.
He looks like an all pro running back just about every time we play the Bears it seems. He's had a very good career against us.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
10,481
Reaction score
3,068
He looks like an all pro running back just about every time we play the Bears it seems. He's had a very good career against us.
Yep. He’s a much better selection than Amari was in that same draft area (Round3)
 
Last edited:

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
1,919
Reaction score
450
Once again, I agree that it's better to force an opponent to take time off the clock when moving the ball but I would definitely prefer the defense to not give up those years at all. If the Bears would have scored on that drive (and they came within inches of doing it) it would have been a one score game with eight minutes left.
Definitely. In many ways having a QB like Fields may have been a disadvantage. The Bears went to the well once too often and the Packers were looking for Fields like Michael Vick. In the old days they just hand it off behind a big FB and they score.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
28,327
Reaction score
2,842
other than weaker tackling efforts, I didn't have a problem with what they were doing. I have no problem giving up 3-7 yards at a time with the clock running in that situation.

I want a defense considered to be one of the top units in the league to get a stop at some point before the goal line though.


oh, definitely. He's good back, i'd take him on our team for sure.

I think the Packers are more than fine with Jones and Dillon.

IF is the operative word. They didn’t because our D stiffened the further down the field.

The Packers were lucky to get a stop on that drive. Heck, it was that close that the refs even called a touchdown on the third down play before it being overturned.

He looks like an all pro running back just about every time we play the Bears it seems. He's had a very good career against us.

There's some truth to it as Montgomery has averaged 5.04 yards per carry in six games vs. the Packers while only 3.84 against the rest of the league.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
10,481
Reaction score
3,068
The Packers were lucky to get a stop on that drive. Heck, it was that close that the refs even called a touchdown on the third down play before it being overturned.
You call it luck, but i’d contend it was not luck on the play preceding. It was called using a #22 overall on a superior athlete. 95% of the LB’s out there would’ve missed that Tackle. Quay Walker gets a .5 turnover imo.

That was a Malay on 4th down and if you want to score, then prove it. Relying on an official to begin with tells the whole story. The GB Defense forced a Turnover on Downs and it doesn’t need to be pretty
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
1,919
Reaction score
450
You call it luck, but i’d contend it was not luck on the play preceding. It was called using a #22 overall on a superior athlete. 95% of the LB’s out there would’ve missed that Tackle. Quay Walker gets a .5 turnover imo.

That was a Malay on 4th down and if you want to score, then prove it. Relying on an official to begin with tells the whole story. The GB Defense forced a Turnover on Downs and it doesn’t need to be pretty
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
1,919
Reaction score
450
Correct. Many a Packer defense would have given up the TD. This one did not. Just as the Viking defense stopped us a week earlier. Make the other team beat you.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
10,481
Reaction score
3,068
Correct. Many a Packer defense would have given up the TD. This one did not. Just as the Viking defense stopped us a week earlier. Make the other team beat you.
Exactly. While it was admittedly as close as it gets, we must not forget it was 4 attempts to get that TD. If a team can’t convincingly gain 10 yards on 4 attempts to score? They shouldn’t blame anyone but themselves.

While I realize the Bears are not Le Creme de La Creme. They had 9 possessions and scored 10 points. They are still a professional football team and able to finish a drive. 10 points allowed against any team is a good performance and it should not be dismissed because of 1 late 4th Qtr desperation drive.
 
Last edited:

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
28,327
Reaction score
2,842
You call it luck, but i’d contend it was not luck on the play preceding. It was called using a #22 overall on a superior athlete. 95% of the LB’s out there would’ve missed that Tackle. Quay Walker gets a .5 turnover imo.

That was a Malay on 4th down and if you want to score, then prove it. Relying on an official to begin with tells the whole story. The GB Defense forced a Turnover on Downs and it doesn’t need to be pretty

The Packers defense ultimately got the job done but they won't be able to stop opponents on the goal line consistently.

Therefore I would feel better about them if they had gotten off the field earlier in that drive.

10 points allowed against any team is a good performance and it should not be dismissed because of 1 late 4th Qtr desperation drive.

I agree that overall the defense played well. That drive shouldn't be ignored though.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
1,919
Reaction score
450
The Packers defense ultimately got the job done but they won't be able to stop opponents on the goal line consistently.

Therefore I would feel better about them if they had gotten off the field earlier in that drive.



I agree that overall the defense played well. That drive shouldn't be ignored though.
I believe if teams just play smash mouth at the goal line we will be pressed to stop them consistently. Whereas I think using a scat back or wild cat or option QB to punch it in gives us a chance. If the Bucs face the same on Sunday Brady will sneak, give it to a bulldozer back, or play fake and go to his TE. Bears just do not have enough weapons.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
28,327
Reaction score
2,842
I believe if teams just play smash mouth at the goal line we will be pressed to stop them consistently. Whereas I think using a scat back or wild cat or option QB to punch it in gives us a chance. If the Bucs face the same on Sunday Brady will sneak, give it to a bulldozer back, or play fake and go to his TE. Bears just do not have enough weapons.

It's tough to stop opponents from the 1-yard line no matter what. Over the past 10 seasons teams have scored a touchdown on 55.1% of the plays in those situations.
 

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,122
Reaction score
1,018
You call it luck, but i’d contend it was not luck on the play preceding. It was called using a #22 overall on a superior athlete. 95% of the LB’s out there would’ve missed that Tackle. Quay Walker gets a .5 turnover imo.

That was a Malay on 4th down and if you want to score, then prove it. Relying on an official to begin with tells the whole story. The GB Defense forced a Turnover on Downs and it doesn’t need to be pretty
All that may be true… but your whole point hinges on the Bears not actually scoring on that drive…. they didn’t .. but it was very close… close enough that I can’t buy into your argument that surrendering all that yardage was a sound strategy.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
10,481
Reaction score
3,068
All that may be true… but your whole point hinges on the Bears not actually scoring on that drive…. they didn’t .. but it was very close… close enough that I can’t buy into your argument that surrendering all that yardage was a sound strategy.
The strategy was to invite the Bears to Run that clock and Run that clock they did. Do we want to give up big plays? Absolutely not and I never said that. I said anything under <5 yards inched us closer to a victory. Do we look at that film and make adjustments? Yes. Do we change our entire D game plan if it happens again? Nope

We had several poor tackles and really aside from that it accomplished what we intended. In addition, it was Matt himself that said Barry stuck to his game plan and he commended him for that specifically. Btw Eating clock?? isn’t some new philosophy that Oldschool thought sounded neat last week.

We’d do the same thing under the same conditions and the only thing I’d change is the tackling needed to be better on several plays. I just don’t believe in playing “what ifs” in a game where we beat them by 3 scores! It was a great Win and trying to say we almost lost because our Run D was atrocious is a bit far fetched. My take is had we played just a tad better? That score is 34-7. The Bears were lucky we gifted them a 56 yard record breaking FG on our Turnover. The Packers Defense near dominated the Bears all day, they were lucky to score 10 on a gift
 
Last edited:

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,122
Reaction score
1,018
The strategy was to invite the Bears to Run that clock and Run that clock they did. Do we want to give up big plays? Absolutely not and I never said that. I said anything under <5 yards inched us closer to a victory. Do we look at that film and make adjustments? Yes. Do we change our entire D game plan if it happens again? Nope

We had several poor tackles and really aside from that it accomplished what we intended. In addition, it was Matt himself that said Barry stuck to his game plan and he commended him for that specifically. Btw Eating clock?? isn’t some new philosophy that Oldschool thought sounded neat last week.

We’d do the same thing under the same conditions and the only thing I’d change is the tackling needed to be better on several plays. I just don’t believe in playing “what ifs” in a game where we beat them by 3 scores! It was a great Win and trying to say we almost lost because our Run D was atrocious is a bit far fetched. My take is had we played just a tad better? That score is 34-7. The Bears were lucky we gifted them a 56 yard record breaking FG on our Turnover. The Packers Defense near dominated the Bears all day, they were lucky to score 10 on a gift
can’t argue with any of that.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
1,919
Reaction score
450
All that may be true… but your whole point hinges on the Bears not actually scoring on that drive…. they didn’t .. but it was very close… close enough that I can’t buy into your argument that surrendering all that yardage was a sound strategy.
Well, Walker certainly made a play today.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
28,327
Reaction score
2,842
We had several poor tackles and really aside from that it accomplished what we intended.

We’d do the same thing under the same conditions and the only thing I’d change is the tackling needed to be better on several plays. It was a great Win and trying to say we almost lost because our Run D was atrocious is a bit far fetched.

Nobody has mentioned the Packers almost lost the game vs. the Bears because of that drive. All several poster tried to point out that the defense didn't play well enough on those plays, something you seem to agree with as you posted that they had several poor tackles.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
1,919
Reaction score
450
Nobody has mentioned the Packers almost lost the game vs. the Bears because of that drive. All several poster tried to point out that the defense didn't play well enough on those plays, something you seem to agree with as you posted that they had several poor tackles.
Overall, the defense still was better and the ST improved. If you go back a year the Bears did come into Lambeau and even with a win embarrassed us on those sides of the ball. That one was hard to forget. This one not so hard.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
10,481
Reaction score
3,068
Nobody has mentioned the Packers almost lost the game vs. the Bears because of that drive. All several poster tried to point out that the defense didn't play well enough on those plays, something you seem to agree with as you posted that they had several poor tackles.
But that’s exactly what it sounds like. That’s how it comes across when your team wins by 3 scores.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
28,327
Reaction score
2,842
Overall, the defense still was better and the ST improved. If you go back a year the Bears did come into Lambeau and even with a win embarrassed us on those sides of the ball. That one was hard to forget. This one not so hard.

There's no doubt the defense performed significantly better than they did vs. the Bears at Lambeau last season.

But that’s exactly what it sounds like. That’s how it comes across when your team wins by 3 scores.

As mentioned above, nobody suggested anything like that. I can't control what you read into it though.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
10,481
Reaction score
3,068
As mentioned above, nobody suggested anything like that. I can't control what you read into it though.
You specifically played the IF game. The IF game is making excuses imo. It also works for for both teams.

IF you want to Win. Dominate the other team. IF is a form of denial. Just be like Mike and do it. Don’t IF it ;)
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
28,327
Reaction score
2,842
You specifically played the IF game. The IF game is making excuses imo. It also works for for both teams.

IF you want to Win. Dominate the other team. IF is a form of denial. Just be like Mike and do it. Don’t IF it ;)

Actually that was not my point at all. I mentioned that I didn't like the way the Packers defended the running game in the second half.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top