r-e-l-a-x (?)

[Forget Favre]

If you want to make the point that game situations dictate the decision, as you have by pointing out that the first half was different.... then you are conveniently ignoring the actual game situation when the Packers attempted the field goal. It was well into the 4th quarter... if made, that field goal would have put the Packers up by 3 scores. No sensible coach would choose to forgo those points in that situation.

What do you think about them going for it in the first half instead of attempting a FG?

 

[PikeBadger]

What do you think about them going for it in the first half instead of attempting a FG?

In favor of that particular decision given the circumstances.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Not yet. The Bears with Hoyer getting knocked out and just a bad team in general couldn't take advantage of our beatup secondary.

Don't expect the results to look like this when we gotta go to Atlanta and try to cover all of Matt Ryan's weapons, let alone Julio.

 

[Firethorn1001]

Just enjoying the victory rather than fretting on every little thing. I'll let the "Ya but...." crowd do their thing.

 

[HardRightEdge]

MM didn't even put Ripkowski on the field. We had two WRs in the backfield on a 4th and 1.

Very frustrating.

McCarthy said in the brief halftime interview, "we had a formation adjustment that wasn't quite right". I'll say. I'm not quite sure what that adjustment was since nobody moved from the initial set. Maybe he meant there should have been a formation adjustment, i.e., an audible to a spread set that did not happen.

Counting Montgomery, as you did, there were 5 WRs on the field, including Janis at H-back. I can understand going 4 or 5 wide for a pass look, spreading the defense, then trying to slip a run inside. But Nelson, Adams and Cobb were set in the slot only a couple steps off the OTs. With Janis coming across for a seal block, you had 5 OLs blocking against 7 stacked inside the tackle box with the LBs standing a half step off the goal line.

I don't think I've ever seen the Packers line up in this formation let alone with this personnel grouping.

I think this play was newly constructed this week with limited practice and it got screwed up. It's an accommodation to the fact that there is no running back who can pound it between the tackles. Montgomery is in the mold of the classic "3rd. down back"; he can run effectively on delays and draws but not in this situation against a loaded box. But who else ya got? You're not going to throw Jackson or Davis in there in that situation, one guy never having taken an NFL snap and the other guy still trying to find his locker.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Probably wanted to force the Bears to play a dime defense. Just because Ty lines up at RB doesn't mean the defense is going to play base. Put Rip in the game and the Bears can keep a LB on the field. Coaches probably felt that the Bears had better linebackers than corners and wanted to force the Bears to play bad cornerbacks. That's what's awesome about actually being versatile and letting Ty play RB. If the defense stays in base to stop the run, Montgomery can shift out wide and now you have a mismatch with a LB on Ty. If the defense goes to dime then you can run the ball with Montgomery.

That makes sense. One problem: the defense was in base and they ran the ball anyway.

 

[swhitset]

What do you think about them going for it in the first half instead of attempting a FG?

I was ok with it based on how the defense had played on the previous drive.. and the fact that if they failed to score they would be pinning the Bears deep. Hindsight says even that didn't work out all that well.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

That makes sense. One problem: the defense was in base and they ran the ball anyway.

Then that's on the players/coaches for not recognizing what they were seeing. Doesn't mean the strategy is wrong, just that they didn't do the correct thing. If they were truly in base, then a linebacker was responsible for Ty and he should have shifted out to the slot; then it's an easy pass for a TD with Montgomery lined up against a linebacker.

 

[Chris398]

I was ok with it based on how the defense had played on the previous drive.. and the fact that if they failed to score they would be pinning the Bears deep. Hindsight says even that didn't work out all that well.

MM probably thought there were a lot more points coming. Against a stonger defense I would kick the FG.

 

[Chris398]

Just enjoying the victory rather than fretting on every little thing. I'll let the "Ya but...." crowd do their thing.

Good for players and fans morale knowing a tough game is coming up against Atlanta.

 

[MajikMan7]

What do you think about them going for it in the first half instead of attempting a FG?

I have no problem with that decision at all. The players just have to execute there.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I have no problem with that decision at all. The players just have to execute there.

I agree. The execution was poor. But the play call also looked to be experimental with the lack of a true between-the-tackles runner.

Generally speaking, I lean toward taking the points in that situation. While it's easy to say that if you blow it the defense is pinned at the 1 yard line, it also has a deflating affect in coming away with no points. If the opponent can at least get the ball out to their 20, it's a big win for them with that "now we have to start all over again in our own territory" loss of momentum.

Still, I have a hard time getting worked up over the call given the opponent and and the fact it was early in the game.

It's helpful to harken back to the 2014 NFC Championship game. McCarthy took the FGs twice on 4th. and 1 early in the game for a 6-0 lead, decisions I agreed with then and to this day. After the fact he was roundly criticized for being too conservative in those situations and then in going conservative at the end in trying to burn the clock, another decision I agree with. I view that criticism as peanut gallery hindsight with a heavy dose of revisionist history. The loss was directly attributable to special teams and defensive collapses down the stretch.

It boils down to this: If it works, the crowd will cheer. If it doesn't, the crowd will boo.

 

[thisisnate]

Julio.

UGH. That name. Nightmares. Cold sweats. Juliooooooo. Can you imagine Gunter trying to cover that man? Hope it doesn't come to that.

 

[MajikMan7]

UGH. That name. Nightmares. Cold sweats. Juliooooooo. Can you imagine Gunter trying to cover that man? Hope it doesn't come to that.

By no means is Alshon, Julio, but I was really impressed with Gunter last night as he was primarily covering Alshon Jeffery most of the game last night and kept him in check. Especially after his performance against Dallas, I was nervous going into last night but I think he really stepped up to the challenge. With that said I would be surprised if Rollins and/or Randall aren't ready to go for ATL.

 

[PFanCan]

What do you think about them going for it in the first half instead of attempting a FG?

Personally, I nearly always agree when a coach "goes for it" when inside the 5 yard line. If you don't make the TD, your D comes on and has a chance at a safety or forcing a punt from the end zone.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

My doctor told me to R-E-L-A-X just before THAT investigation. That didn`t work out well either !!!

 

[HardRightEdge]

By no means is Alshon, Julio, but I was really impressed with Gunter last night as he was primarily covering Alshon Jeffery most of the game last night and kept him in check. Especially after his performance against Dallas, I was nervous going into last night but I think he really stepped up to the challenge. With that said I would be surprised if Rollins and/or Randall aren't ready to go for ATL.

Historically, Jeffery has been Shields' little shutdown b*tch. Maybe Gunter got some useful tips. Regardless, Gunter has been playing well. Every corner gets exposed. It's a matter of frequency, and Gunter's exposure moments have been fairly infrequent. Goodson? Not so much. Getting either Randall or Rollins back, whenever that happens, will be a step in the right direction.

 

[Un4GivN]

Not yet. The Bears with Hoyer getting knocked out and just a bad team in general couldn't take advantage of our beatup secondary.

Don't expect the results to look like this when we gotta go to Atlanta and try to cover all of Matt Ryan's weapons, let alone Julio.

This works both ways for me, while I enjoy the victory. That Bears team that was on the field last night might be able to challenge the Browns for the worst team in the league.

Defense played how they should against sub-par competition. Can't fault them for that, but I doubt it goes nearly that well vs Atlanta unless they step it up to a level I haven't seen from them yet.

The offense and Aaron getting all this hype for last night is a little crazy if you ask me. They passed 50+ times for 300 yards. Not really great stats. Not to mention Tracy Porter was the only corner I had even heard of before that game. The Packers offense beat up on Cre'von Leblanc (undrafted rookie free agent) and Bryce Callahan (undrafted second year corner)? Yet for the entire first half we couldn't get separation. Jordy had one catch. And we we went into half with 6 points. Nearly zero contribution from the TE spot again. The line however looked pretty impressive so that was nice. Montgomery and Adams played awesome. Cobb I thought left a lot to be desired but played well enough.

They finished the second half nicely, as they should. It's not exactly top tier competition here. So while I will sit back and enjoy the victory, I don't believe every problem was solved by beating the second worst team in the NFL after trailing in the third quarter at home.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The offense and Aaron getting all this hype for last night is a little crazy if you ask me. They passed 50+ times for 300 yards. Not really great stats.

That's true on it's face, but there's more to winning than fantasy stats. This ball control passing offense yielded the following team stats:

32 first downs, including 21 passing (crazy good)
9 of 16 on 3rd. down (the Packers now lead the league at 50.6%)
81 offensive plays vs. 45 for the Bears
39:36 time of possession vs. 20.24 for the Bears

When you run this kind of offense this successfully, it's not about the points you put up. It's about the point differential. You can fumble the ball in the end zone and still win by 16 which could have very easily been 24, or 20 easier yet without the kicking brain farts.

When you chew clock and don't let the opposing offense on the field, the team stats trump the fantasy stats, and the offense becomes 1/2 the defense.

There is one conventional individual stat that continues to weather the onslaught of advanced analytics: passer rating.

One of the 4 components in the passer rating formula is yards per attempt. As you suggest, 5.8 yds. per attempt is a very low number. Despite that Rodgers' passer rating for the game was 102.2. It may not be the kind of passing game you're accustomed to or expecting, but it surely was a 102 performance.

 

[Poppa San]

This offense would look much better with more red zone production. Last night 6 redzone trips, 3 TDs, 1 FG. Vs Dallas 6 trips, 1TD, 2FG, 2 TO. vs Giants 3 trips, 1TD, 2FG. Several drives stalled or turnovers between 21 and 30 in these games too.

 

[Un4GivN]

This offense would look much better with more red zone production. Last night 6 redzone trips, 3 TDs, 1 FG. Vs Dallas 6 trips, 1TD, 2FG, 2 TO. vs Giants 3 trips, 1TD, 2FG. Several drives stalled or turnovers between 21 and 30 in these games too.

This is true, but my problem isn't how they performed last night, it was fine. But it was against some of the worst competition in the secondary that this league has to offer. Even then it was touch and go at times.

My point is all teams that you face are going to be running two undrafted rookie free agents at corner. It scares me that the deep threat still isn't there and neither was the separation by wide outs for most of the game. Now when we play Seattle, Minn, Philly... You're going to need more than 50 5 yard passes to win. Corners like Sherman aren't going to stand back 7 yards and let you do that all day. Bump press has always been hard for this team to handle for whatever reason.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

Noooooooooooooo.... After watching that first half, there is no relaxing. The second half showed the lack of depth and talent on the Chicago Bears roster.

 

[HardRightEdge]

This offense would look much better with more red zone production. Last night 6 redzone trips, 3 TDs, 1 FG. Vs Dallas 6 trips, 1TD, 2FG, 2 TO. vs Giants 3 trips, 1TD, 2FG. Several drives stalled or turnovers between 21 and 30 in these games too.

It goes without saying that turnovers are killers. Eliminate those and the numbers go up.

I would advising making a clear statisitcal break between the first 4 games and the last 2. Very different offenses before and after.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

By no means is Alshon, Julio, but I was really impressed with Gunter last night as he was primarily covering Alshon Jeffery most of the game last night and kept him in check. Especially after his performance against Dallas, I was nervous going into last night but I think he really stepped up to the challenge. With that said I would be surprised if Rollins and/or Randall aren't ready to go for ATL.

I still think you'd need a healthy Shields on mr tall speedy number 11, to have a chance of locking it down. Plus Matt Ryan's been playing lights out football this year, spreading the ball around and beating good defenses including the Broncos in their house, and shoulda beaten the seachickens this last Sunday, who only won cuz of 2 lucky plays and a no-call.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

discuss!!

We are 4-2. Effnrelax.