Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Khaseem Greene the likely replacement for Briggs
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Chicago Bears
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Madmike90


Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Posts: 22441
Location: Scotland
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AlexGreen#20 wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
Nads786 wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
Superman(DH23) wrote:
G08 wrote:
GBPACKMAN4LIFE wrote:
G08 wrote:
He plays a little reckless and has a propensity to hit high... might have a couple more personal fouls under his belt Monday night (not that I'd complain if it knocked Rodgers out of the league) Twisted Evil


You guys might actually have a chance to beat us if that happened.


Sadly, I don't think so.
Oh if they lost ARod, they would be in contention for worst team in the NFL. Their roster right now is every bit as decimated as ours. Rodgers is a great eraser.


Yeah without ARod they would be in a much worst case scenario than us.


On offense sure, but their defense is pretty solid this year especially against the run.


Their D is good against the run because on most occasions teams are having to play from behind because Rodgers and co have put up points and have to pass more to catch up…you take Rodgers away from the Packers and they struggle way more than we do without Cutler.


The defense is 6th in the league in yards per carry, 4th in the league in yards per game. 8th in run defense according to football outsiders DVOA, and that's a low estimate because we haven't forced fumbles. They have our defensive line ranked 8th overall, 7th in stuffs, only 23rd in short yardage situations. They have our LBs ranked 9th. The run defense is very good.

The defense as a whole keeps getting screwed in the blowouts. Capers decides we're going to sit back in prevent and it kills our stats as team's attempt to make the score look more respectable.


They have also only been ran at 158 times this season...or the 3rd least amount in the NFL...as I said teams can't run the ball much because they need to keep up with the scoring.


I guess I don't understand how that stat contradicts my point. Teams aren't running on the Packers doesn't mean the Packers can't stop the run. By every statistical measure, the Packers CAN stop the run.

Teams choose not to run the ball for a bunch of reasons, they think they can do better throwing, they can't afford to run the ball with the clock, or down and distance makes it not smart. The best way to stop a team from running short of getting a big lead, is to stop them on first down so they can't run on 2nd down without avoiding 3rd and long.

So far, the Packers have done both. That's why that number is so low.


I’m not saying it does contradict the face that GB have been solid against the run…but my original point is that there is no doubt that if you took Rodgers out of the starting lineup which would lead to GB scoring much less points that teams would run on the Packers far more that they have done because they wouldn’t have to worry about the Packers getting too far ahead and I think that would lead to more success in terms of YPC.
_________________
Adopt-a-Bear 2014…Lance Briggs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 5828
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Madmike90 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
[

I guess I don't understand how that stat contradicts my point. Teams aren't running on the Packers doesn't mean the Packers can't stop the run. By every statistical measure, the Packers CAN stop the run.

Teams choose not to run the ball for a bunch of reasons, they think they can do better throwing, they can't afford to run the ball with the clock, or down and distance makes it not smart. The best way to stop a team from running short of getting a big lead, is to stop them on first down so they can't run on 2nd down without avoiding 3rd and long.

So far, the Packers have done both. That's why that number is so low.


I’m not saying it does contradict the face that GB have been solid against the run…but my original point is that there is no doubt that if you took Rodgers out of the starting lineup which would lead to GB scoring much less points that teams would run on the Packers far more that they have done because they wouldn’t have to worry about the Packers getting too far ahead and I think that would lead to more success in terms of YPC.


I guess I just don't see it. There's elite run stopping talent along that defensive line. It's not like the production is greater than the sum of it's parts. When we want to, we can run out Perry/Neal-Raji-Pickett-Jolly-Clay. That is a massive group.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Madmike90


Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Posts: 22441
Location: Scotland
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AlexGreen#20 wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
[

I guess I don't understand how that stat contradicts my point. Teams aren't running on the Packers doesn't mean the Packers can't stop the run. By every statistical measure, the Packers CAN stop the run.

Teams choose not to run the ball for a bunch of reasons, they think they can do better throwing, they can't afford to run the ball with the clock, or down and distance makes it not smart. The best way to stop a team from running short of getting a big lead, is to stop them on first down so they can't run on 2nd down without avoiding 3rd and long.

So far, the Packers have done both. That's why that number is so low.


I’m not saying it does contradict the face that GB have been solid against the run…but my original point is that there is no doubt that if you took Rodgers out of the starting lineup which would lead to GB scoring much less points that teams would run on the Packers far more that they have done because they wouldn’t have to worry about the Packers getting too far ahead and I think that would lead to more success in terms of YPC.


I guess I just don't see it. There's elite run stopping talent along that defensive line. It's not like the production is greater than the sum of it's parts. When we want to, we can run out Perry/Neal-Raji-Pickett-Jolly-Clay. That is a massive group.


I don’t see how you can’t think that without Rodgers putting up points opposing offences would run the ball more against your D.
_________________
Adopt-a-Bear 2014…Lance Briggs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 5828
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Madmike90 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
[

I guess I don't understand how that stat contradicts my point. Teams aren't running on the Packers doesn't mean the Packers can't stop the run. By every statistical measure, the Packers CAN stop the run.

Teams choose not to run the ball for a bunch of reasons, they think they can do better throwing, they can't afford to run the ball with the clock, or down and distance makes it not smart. The best way to stop a team from running short of getting a big lead, is to stop them on first down so they can't run on 2nd down without avoiding 3rd and long.

So far, the Packers have done both. That's why that number is so low.


I’m not saying it does contradict the face that GB have been solid against the run…but my original point is that there is no doubt that if you took Rodgers out of the starting lineup which would lead to GB scoring much less points that teams would run on the Packers far more that they have done because they wouldn’t have to worry about the Packers getting too far ahead and I think that would lead to more success in terms of YPC.


I guess I just don't see it. There's elite run stopping talent along that defensive line. It's not like the production is greater than the sum of it's parts. When we want to, we can run out Perry/Neal-Raji-Pickett-Jolly-Clay. That is a massive group.


I don’t see how you can’t think that without Rodgers putting up points opposing offences would run the ball more against your D.


I surely agree with that point. I disagree with your assumption that with more attempts would come more yards per carry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IronMike84


Joined: 17 Jun 2009
Posts: 7120
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There was some harsh criticism of Greene for his play in the Washington game. Most of that is unfounded; the guy has a lot of upside but was thrown into the fire to replace possibly the best WLB in the NFL. Tall order.
_________________
Rotoworld.com wrote:
...internet mock drafts, which have ridiculously become the measuring stick for where players are "supposed" to go.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShaggyBear


Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 963
PostPosted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not looking for Greene to play anywhere near Briggs level. I want to see him attacking the ball and making tackles. It has made me sick how we can't wrap up and properly tackle. I was so glad Williams is done for the year because I was tired at screaming at the TV when he would try to shoulder tackle guys like Brendon Jacobs and just bounce off.
_________________
Adopt-A-Bear: Matt Forte; Carries- 289, Yards- 1339, Rushing TD's- 9, YPC- 4.6, Receptions- 74, Reception Yards - 594, Reception TD's - 3, Reception Average- 8.0, Fumbles - 2, APY - 1933

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blkwdw13


Joined: 21 Aug 2009
Posts: 1667
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2013 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

IronMike84 wrote:
There was some harsh criticism of Greene for his play in the Washington game. Most of that is unfounded; the guy has a lot of upside but was thrown into the fire to replace possibly the best WLB in the NFL. Tall order.


Where was this because I saw Costanzo taking most of the snaps when Briggs went out.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 5828
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IronMike84 wrote:
There was some harsh criticism of Greene for his play in the Washington game. Most of that is unfounded; the guy has a lot of upside but was thrown into the fire to replace possibly the best WLB in the NFL. Tall order.


ANY criticism of Greene for his play in the Washington game is COMPLETELY unfounded considering he played exactly one defensive snap in that game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bears2308


Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Posts: 2431
Location: Indianapolis
PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2013 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AlexGreen#20 wrote:
IronMike84 wrote:
There was some harsh criticism of Greene for his play in the Washington game. Most of that is unfounded; the guy has a lot of upside but was thrown into the fire to replace possibly the best WLB in the NFL. Tall order.


ANY criticism of Greene for his play in the Washington game is COMPLETELY unfounded considering he played exactly one defensive snap in that game.


He did cause a penalty in that one play but IIRC it was a personal foul. Trestman/Tucker probably believed it'd be best to give him a week with the ones before taking a lot of snaps. More so mentally ready then physically. Let's hope he takes advantage of it.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
G08


Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 918
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

He played exactly one snap and had a ticky tack personal foul called. He was aggressive and hit high more than a few times in college, keep the aggression son but be smart with the timing and placement of your hits.

I'm really excited to see Bostic and him tonight.
_________________

WindyCity wrote:
McClellin is simply not very good. He is not big enough or strong enough to play at the NFL level. The Bears should move on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LaxBroBearsFan


Joined: 11 Oct 2011
Posts: 145
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I most certainly watched the whole game and I did notice Greene out of position a few times....but can someone with a better idea of how he played fill me in?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaMike


Joined: 21 Nov 2010
Posts: 5370
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LaxBroBearsFan wrote:
I most certainly watched the whole game and I did notice Greene out of position a few times....but can someone with a better idea of how he played fill me in?
Not a great game but he may have been our best LB. Made the least amount of mistakes.

Bostic with another tough game. Anderson is getting worse almost every game. He may be hurt.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ConVict90


Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Posts: 2228
Location: San Diego
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Madmike90 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
[

I guess I don't understand how that stat contradicts my point. Teams aren't running on the Packers doesn't mean the Packers can't stop the run. By every statistical measure, the Packers CAN stop the run.

Teams choose not to run the ball for a bunch of reasons, they think they can do better throwing, they can't afford to run the ball with the clock, or down and distance makes it not smart. The best way to stop a team from running short of getting a big lead, is to stop them on first down so they can't run on 2nd down without avoiding 3rd and long.

So far, the Packers have done both. That's why that number is so low.


I’m not saying it does contradict the face that GB have been solid against the run…but my original point is that there is no doubt that if you took Rodgers out of the starting lineup which would lead to GB scoring much less points that teams would run on the Packers far more that they have done because they wouldn’t have to worry about the Packers getting too far ahead and I think that would lead to more success in terms of YPC.


I guess I just don't see it. There's elite run stopping talent along that defensive line. It's not like the production is greater than the sum of it's parts. When we want to, we can run out Perry/Neal-Raji-Pickett-Jolly-Clay. That is a massive group.


I don’t see how you can’t think that without Rodgers putting up points opposing offences would run the ball more against your D.


Wow MM90 you called that from a mile away
_________________
Adopt-A-Bear: (A-Dub) Adrian Wilson

TCKL-
SCK-
FF-
INT-
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 5828
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ConVict90 wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
[

I guess I don't understand how that stat contradicts my point. Teams aren't running on the Packers doesn't mean the Packers can't stop the run. By every statistical measure, the Packers CAN stop the run.

Teams choose not to run the ball for a bunch of reasons, they think they can do better throwing, they can't afford to run the ball with the clock, or down and distance makes it not smart. The best way to stop a team from running short of getting a big lead, is to stop them on first down so they can't run on 2nd down without avoiding 3rd and long.

So far, the Packers have done both. That's why that number is so low.


I’m not saying it does contradict the face that GB have been solid against the run…but my original point is that there is no doubt that if you took Rodgers out of the starting lineup which would lead to GB scoring much less points that teams would run on the Packers far more that they have done because they wouldn’t have to worry about the Packers getting too far ahead and I think that would lead to more success in terms of YPC.


I guess I just don't see it. There's elite run stopping talent along that defensive line. It's not like the production is greater than the sum of it's parts. When we want to, we can run out Perry/Neal-Raji-Pickett-Jolly-Clay. That is a massive group.


I don’t see how you can’t think that without Rodgers putting up points opposing offences would run the ball more against your D.


Wow MM90 you called that from a mile away


We lost Pickett and Mulumba on top of Perry and Matthews. Of course the run defense was going to struggle. That's gonna happen when you get down to 2 OLBs.

Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LaxBroBearsFan


Joined: 11 Oct 2011
Posts: 145
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

^ we all appreciate the wealth of knowledge you possess about packer land but you can't deny that neither team did overly well against the run (although they were effective at completely different points of the game)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Chicago Bears All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group