Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Game 17 - Bears Studs & Duds
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dantés" data-source="post: 1021658" data-attributes="member: 12283"><p>The media discourse around this game was like 85% focused on the Bears, and that made no sense. The two main talking points were:</p><p></p><p>1) Fields is playing so well that they might keep him.</p><p>2) The Bears defense has become elite.</p><p></p><p>Neither of those things were really accurate. Fields had simply gone from unplayable to merely below average and was playing way below Love's level.</p><p></p><p>Their defense has certainly improved since adding Sweat, but not remotely to an elite level. Their previous two good outings against the Falcons and Cardinals were merely instances of allowing a team to score their average. The last time this defense had gone on the road against a good offense prior to yesterday was @DET on 11/19, and they gave up 31 points.</p><p></p><p>I just wish that the Packers hadn't left points on the field so that the final would reflect what a beat down this really was. 17-9 in the books, but more like a 30-6 type of game, especially when you consider how much water the refs carried for the Bears.</p><p></p><p>GB: 432 yards</p><p>CHI: 192</p><p></p><p>GB: 7.2 yards/play</p><p>CHI: 4.2</p><p></p><p>GB: 24 1st Downs</p><p>CHI: 13</p><p></p><p>GB: 70% on 3rd Down</p><p>CHI: 27%</p><p></p><p>GB: 5 sacks</p><p>CHI: 1</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dantés, post: 1021658, member: 12283"] The media discourse around this game was like 85% focused on the Bears, and that made no sense. The two main talking points were: 1) Fields is playing so well that they might keep him. 2) The Bears defense has become elite. Neither of those things were really accurate. Fields had simply gone from unplayable to merely below average and was playing way below Love's level. Their defense has certainly improved since adding Sweat, but not remotely to an elite level. Their previous two good outings against the Falcons and Cardinals were merely instances of allowing a team to score their average. The last time this defense had gone on the road against a good offense prior to yesterday was @DET on 11/19, and they gave up 31 points. I just wish that the Packers hadn't left points on the field so that the final would reflect what a beat down this really was. 17-9 in the books, but more like a 30-6 type of game, especially when you consider how much water the refs carried for the Bears. GB: 432 yards CHI: 192 GB: 7.2 yards/play CHI: 4.2 GB: 24 1st Downs CHI: 13 GB: 70% on 3rd Down CHI: 27% GB: 5 sacks CHI: 1 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
mradtke66
milani
Latest posts
M
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: mradtke66
A moment ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
R
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: rmontro
25 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
R
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: rmontro
27 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
Prior to Training Camp - Predicting the 53 Man Roster
Latest: Heyjoe4
58 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: Heyjoe4
Today at 2:58 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Game 17 - Bears Studs & Duds
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top