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

Bears at Packers GDT (MNF)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 41, 42, 43, 44  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Chicago Bears
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ForteOz


Joined: 03 Sep 2013
Posts: 511
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AlexGreen#20 wrote:
ForteOz wrote:
Nads786 wrote:
Packerraymond wrote:
bears2308 wrote:
Great win! It brings a lot of promise in Trestman and I wouldn't be surprised to see Jay tagged and traded. Looking through this thread I find it hilarious that Packer fans come in here trying to justify this loss due to injury. Yes, A-Rod was hurt. We all saw. I also saw a thread in the Packer forum before this game saying how much better the Packers have drafted over the years. Is that now a moot point? Our back-up qb vs. your back-up. Two All-Pro's on defense missing the game with another hobbled with a lingering groin issue vs. one All-Pro. Packers fans talk so much about their depth but when A-Rod goes down they're lost.

BEAR DOWN!!!!!!!


This is downright laughable. The Packers have lost as much if not more due to injury then the Falcoms and were playing some of the best football in the NFL while the Falcons are getting rolled. We have the best depth in the NFL, fact is our drafted and developed backup QB became too expensive to keep. Once the best player in the NFL goes down any team would be lost, cant believe youre trying to be serious here. Man some Bears fans just seem to get it, others make me grateful that you are our biggest rival.


So with all that great depth why did you lose... your defense could do nothing against a 34 year old journeyman backup..

please go can't even lose with dignity.


I would have expected a little more humility and better judgement from a Mod at a site like this, but perhaps I'm basing my expectations on our own.

By his own admission he acknowledges some fans/posters get it, some don't. Why bother responding to the ones that don't? Are you new to internet discussions?

Don't expect any Packer fans to give it up to us. How long before they start calling McClellin dirty I wonder.

Hope both teams are healthier week 17.


Why would anybody call McClellin dirty?


A phenomenon I like to refer to as Packer Logic. Smile

It is what causes posters respected enough by their peers and those in charge to be put into a position of authority to claim, in the same breath, that their team has the best depth in the league, but also the most hamstrung by the loss of their starting QB, so much so that no comparisons can be made between another team losing theirs. They are, literally, incomparable situations.

Do they have the best depth, or are they dependent on one guy masking their deficiencies? Both, depending on which point refutes your opponent the best (bonus points for belittling their team/QB).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LaxBroBearsFan


Joined: 11 Oct 2011
Posts: 145
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CBears019 wrote:
LaxBroBearsFan wrote:
What are your guys thoughts on Mel finally joining the team on the sideline?? I for one enjoyed that angry look on his face whenever inthe cameras found him lol only wish it wasnt justified by 200 yards on the gruond....I can't imagine him having the same impact from the box, i think as DC he should be down there commanding his troops.


I prefer to have all the coaches on the field. Sure, they get a better view of what the opposition is doing from above, but when on the field they can get in their players' ears much better and actually coach them rather than just from a headset. More of a hands-on approach.


Well said. I would argue its even more critical right now for him to be on the field with the rookie LBs, off the street DTs and useless safeties.... I could understand hiding in the box with our 2007 D or even last years.... But we don't have Urlacher or the same amount of experience and leadership across the board on D anymore.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Packerraymond


Moderator
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 14012
Location: UW Oshkosh
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since when does the best depth in the NFL mean the best depth at every position???

If the Chiefs go undefeated does that mean they are the best at every position in the league?? The Packers do have the best depth in the NFL. You just saw an OL with our 2nd and 3rd string tackle, who had to move inside because he is our back-up guard and was replaced by our 4th string tackle, block for 200 yards rushing. AJ Hawk was our only starting LB able to play the last 4 weeks. We are the only NFL team to have 3 separate 100 yard rushers this year (not counting QBs), our 5th string WR had come in and played as well as most #1's in the league do. We've weathered injuries at every position group besides QB before this game and fought through.

The QB position, we do not have great depth, who knows maybe we do if Seneca plays well with a week of practice and prep. However, QB is the most important and complex position on the field and losing an MVP caliber QB is one thing that no team can overcome.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 5508
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ForteOz wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
ForteOz wrote:
Nads786 wrote:
Packerraymond wrote:
bears2308 wrote:
Great win! It brings a lot of promise in Trestman and I wouldn't be surprised to see Jay tagged and traded. Looking through this thread I find it hilarious that Packer fans come in here trying to justify this loss due to injury. Yes, A-Rod was hurt. We all saw. I also saw a thread in the Packer forum before this game saying how much better the Packers have drafted over the years. Is that now a moot point? Our back-up qb vs. your back-up. Two All-Pro's on defense missing the game with another hobbled with a lingering groin issue vs. one All-Pro. Packers fans talk so much about their depth but when A-Rod goes down they're lost.

BEAR DOWN!!!!!!!


This is downright laughable. The Packers have lost as much if not more due to injury then the Falcoms and were playing some of the best football in the NFL while the Falcons are getting rolled. We have the best depth in the NFL, fact is our drafted and developed backup QB became too expensive to keep. Once the best player in the NFL goes down any team would be lost, cant believe youre trying to be serious here. Man some Bears fans just seem to get it, others make me grateful that you are our biggest rival.


So with all that great depth why did you lose... your defense could do nothing against a 34 year old journeyman backup..

please go can't even lose with dignity.


I would have expected a little more humility and better judgement from a Mod at a site like this, but perhaps I'm basing my expectations on our own.

By his own admission he acknowledges some fans/posters get it, some don't. Why bother responding to the ones that don't? Are you new to internet discussions?

Don't expect any Packer fans to give it up to us. How long before they start calling McClellin dirty I wonder.

Hope both teams are healthier week 17.


Why would anybody call McClellin dirty?


A phenomenon I like to refer to as Packer Logic. Smile

It is what causes posters respected enough by their peers and those in charge to be put into a position of authority to claim, in the same breath, that their team has the best depth in the league, but also the most hamstrung by the loss of their starting QB, so much so that no comparisons can be made between another team losing theirs. They are, literally, incomparable situations.

Do they have the best depth, or are they dependent on one guy masking their deficiencies? Both, depending on which point refutes your opponent the best (bonus points for belittling their team/QB).


I don't think it's unrealistic to make either claim.

The amount of bodies that we've lost and limped to 5-3 with is insane. That's a reflection of the great depth that the Packers have.

An injury to Rodgers was the one injury that we couldn't deal with. Combine that devastating injury with the rest of the backups playing on offense and you're going to have issues. You can move pieces to plug holes, but when there are holes everywhere, you start running out of players to plug it with.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that Wallace would have looked significantly better if his weapons were Jordy, Jones, Cobb, Finley, and Lacy rather than Jordy, wounded Jones, Myles White, Andrew Quarless, and Lacy. The injury to Lang was also a bad one for us. All of a sudden our great run blocking wasn't that great anymore.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nads786


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 4156
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AlexGreen#20 wrote:
ForteOz wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
ForteOz wrote:
Nads786 wrote:
Packerraymond wrote:
bears2308 wrote:
Great win! It brings a lot of promise in Trestman and I wouldn't be surprised to see Jay tagged and traded. Looking through this thread I find it hilarious that Packer fans come in here trying to justify this loss due to injury. Yes, A-Rod was hurt. We all saw. I also saw a thread in the Packer forum before this game saying how much better the Packers have drafted over the years. Is that now a moot point? Our back-up qb vs. your back-up. Two All-Pro's on defense missing the game with another hobbled with a lingering groin issue vs. one All-Pro. Packers fans talk so much about their depth but when A-Rod goes down they're lost.

BEAR DOWN!!!!!!!


This is downright laughable. The Packers have lost as much if not more due to injury then the Falcoms and were playing some of the best football in the NFL while the Falcons are getting rolled. We have the best depth in the NFL, fact is our drafted and developed backup QB became too expensive to keep. Once the best player in the NFL goes down any team would be lost, cant believe youre trying to be serious here. Man some Bears fans just seem to get it, others make me grateful that you are our biggest rival.


So with all that great depth why did you lose... your defense could do nothing against a 34 year old journeyman backup..

please go can't even lose with dignity.


I would have expected a little more humility and better judgement from a Mod at a site like this, but perhaps I'm basing my expectations on our own.

By his own admission he acknowledges some fans/posters get it, some don't. Why bother responding to the ones that don't? Are you new to internet discussions?

Don't expect any Packer fans to give it up to us. How long before they start calling McClellin dirty I wonder.

Hope both teams are healthier week 17.


Why would anybody call McClellin dirty?


A phenomenon I like to refer to as Packer Logic. Smile

It is what causes posters respected enough by their peers and those in charge to be put into a position of authority to claim, in the same breath, that their team has the best depth in the league, but also the most hamstrung by the loss of their starting QB, so much so that no comparisons can be made between another team losing theirs. They are, literally, incomparable situations.

Do they have the best depth, or are they dependent on one guy masking their deficiencies? Both, depending on which point refutes your opponent the best (bonus points for belittling their team/QB).


I don't think it's unrealistic to make either claim.

The amount of bodies that we've lost and limped to 5-3 with is insane. That's a reflection of the great depth that the Packers have.

An injury to Rodgers was the one injury that we couldn't deal with. Combine that devastating injury with the rest of the backups playing on offense and you're going to have issues. You can move pieces to plug holes, but when there are holes everywhere, you start running out of players to plug it with.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that Wallace would have looked significantly better if his weapons were Jordy, Jones, Cobb, Finley, and Lacy rather than Jordy, wounded Jones, Myles White, Andrew Quarless, and Lacy. The injury to Lang was also a bad one for us. All of a sudden our great run blocking wasn't that great anymore.


I think it's more of a function of AROD, with the injuries surrounding the offense how well do you think your team would do with Matt Ryan at the helm?

Sucks to say but AROD is in that Brady/Peyton class where he makes the pieces around him better than they probably are...
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
TankWilliams


Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 9326
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't know if this image was already posted. But its brilliant.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 5508
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nads786 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
I don't think it's unrealistic to make either claim.

The amount of bodies that we've lost and limped to 5-3 with is insane. That's a reflection of the great depth that the Packers have.

An injury to Rodgers was the one injury that we couldn't deal with. Combine that devastating injury with the rest of the backups playing on offense and you're going to have issues. You can move pieces to plug holes, but when there are holes everywhere, you start running out of players to plug it with.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that Wallace would have looked significantly better if his weapons were Jordy, Jones, Cobb, Finley, and Lacy rather than Jordy, wounded Jones, Myles White, Andrew Quarless, and Lacy. The injury to Lang was also a bad one for us. All of a sudden our great run blocking wasn't that great anymore.


I think it's more of a function of AROD, with the injuries surrounding the offense how well do you think your team would do with Matt Ryan at the helm?

Sucks to say but AROD is in that Brady/Peyton class where he makes the pieces around him better than they probably are...


But Matt Flynn Laughing Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CBears019


Moderator
Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 16392
Location: Darien, IL
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TankWilliams wrote:
Don't know if this image was already posted. But its brilliant.



Haha that's great. I'm actually surprised it took so long for someone to make those.
_________________
Adopt-a-Bear: Robbie Gould, K

FG: 25/28 XP: 41/42 LNG: 58 Yards

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


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 7846
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AlexGreen#20 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
GOGRIESE wrote:
incognito_man wrote:
TytybearsFan21 wrote:
We would've been manhandled if the packers had their starters. It's not like we just killed the big, bad, healthy Goliath. We killed Goliath after he fell down a flight of stairs, got peed on, broke both ankles, got an std and then went into a coma.. This game is only worth celebrating because it pushes our record up one more win.


no one has put it better than this anywhere tonight.

Well put.


No one has said this because it goes both ways. Both teams are injured. These things tend to happen in the NFL.


You were down one offensive starter?

We were down 5-7

You were down 4-5 defensive players?

We were down 6

I know injuries are part of the game and it was a good win for you guys, but at least an acknowledgement of how beat to [inappropriate/removed] this team is could be granted.

I'll settle for "I know they were injured, but a win is a win" Laughing
Don't complain about the injuries. Only one really matters - the qb. And you cannot expert to have EVERY qb you run in there play hundreds of games without missing any. One day your luck is going to run out and you will start returning to the average. Maybe it won't be as bad as the Bears luck with qbs but two HoFers in a row who miss almost NO games is beyond ridiculous. Now you are getting a little taste of what we have put up with for years.


I respectfully disagree. I'm pretty sure the Clay Matthews injury mattered. I'm pretty sure the Lance Briggs injury mattered. I'm pretty sure the TJ Lang injury mattered. I'm pretty sure the Henry Melton injury mattered, etc.

QB injuries are the only thing that matters????
The Pack has had major injuries year after year and still won because they did not lose their qb. Excellent coaching and drafting and player development allowed them to overcome these losses. Losing a starting qb is much more significant and can hamstring even the best coached and most talent laden teams. It is too obvious to discuss much.


The lack of anything resembling a pass rush was a huge reason why the defense struggled. I'm pretty sure having our starting OLBs would have made a difference in this game.
Nothing is more powerful than the "IF". I still think MM made a huge mistake with time management at games end where a lot of time was wasted. Wallace might not have been able to get a td but he also might have been able.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TankWilliams


Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 9326
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CBears019 wrote:
TankWilliams wrote:
Don't know if this image was already posted. But its brilliant.



Haha that's great. I'm actually surprised it took so long for someone to make those.


Looks like they are going to become a bit more common:

http://graterhead.com/#
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 5508
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChicagoAl wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
GOGRIESE wrote:
incognito_man wrote:
TytybearsFan21 wrote:
We would've been manhandled if the packers had their starters. It's not like we just killed the big, bad, healthy Goliath. We killed Goliath after he fell down a flight of stairs, got peed on, broke both ankles, got an std and then went into a coma.. This game is only worth celebrating because it pushes our record up one more win.


no one has put it better than this anywhere tonight.

Well put.


No one has said this because it goes both ways. Both teams are injured. These things tend to happen in the NFL.


You were down one offensive starter?

We were down 5-7

You were down 4-5 defensive players?

We were down 6

I know injuries are part of the game and it was a good win for you guys, but at least an acknowledgement of how beat to [inappropriate/removed] this team is could be granted.

I'll settle for "I know they were injured, but a win is a win" Laughing
Don't complain about the injuries. Only one really matters - the qb. And you cannot expert to have EVERY qb you run in there play hundreds of games without missing any. One day your luck is going to run out and you will start returning to the average. Maybe it won't be as bad as the Bears luck with qbs but two HoFers in a row who miss almost NO games is beyond ridiculous. Now you are getting a little taste of what we have put up with for years.


I respectfully disagree. I'm pretty sure the Clay Matthews injury mattered. I'm pretty sure the Lance Briggs injury mattered. I'm pretty sure the TJ Lang injury mattered. I'm pretty sure the Henry Melton injury mattered, etc.

QB injuries are the only thing that matters????
The Pack has had major injuries year after year and still won because they did not lose their qb. Excellent coaching and drafting and player development allowed them to overcome these losses. Losing a starting qb is much more significant and can hamstring even the best coached and most talent laden teams. It is too obvious to discuss much.


The lack of anything resembling a pass rush was a huge reason why the defense struggled. I'm pretty sure having our starting OLBs would have made a difference in this game.
Nothing is more powerful than the "IF". I still think MM made a huge mistake with time management at games end where a lot of time was wasted. Wallace might not have been able to get a td but he also might have been able.


Yeah, he completely mangled the clock management. No argument there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nads786


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 4156
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AlexGreen#20 wrote:
Nads786 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
I don't think it's unrealistic to make either claim.

The amount of bodies that we've lost and limped to 5-3 with is insane. That's a reflection of the great depth that the Packers have.

An injury to Rodgers was the one injury that we couldn't deal with. Combine that devastating injury with the rest of the backups playing on offense and you're going to have issues. You can move pieces to plug holes, but when there are holes everywhere, you start running out of players to plug it with.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that Wallace would have looked significantly better if his weapons were Jordy, Jones, Cobb, Finley, and Lacy rather than Jordy, wounded Jones, Myles White, Andrew Quarless, and Lacy. The injury to Lang was also a bad one for us. All of a sudden our great run blocking wasn't that great anymore.


I think it's more of a function of AROD, with the injuries surrounding the offense how well do you think your team would do with Matt Ryan at the helm?

Sucks to say but AROD is in that Brady/Peyton class where he makes the pieces around him better than they probably are...


But Matt Flynn Laughing Sad


I knew AROD was a baller when Favre went down against the Cowboys and he played brilliant.

You guys better appreciate having two hall of famers for the past 20 years, because your QB luck will run out Twisted Evil
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Nads786


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 4156
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anyone notice a ton of Bears fans at this game? I heard a lot of cheering when McCown threw his TDs...
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
ForteOz


Joined: 03 Sep 2013
Posts: 511
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Packerraymond wrote:
Since when does the best depth in the NFL mean the best depth at every position???

If the Chiefs go undefeated does that mean they are the best at every position in the league?? The Packers do have the best depth in the NFL. You just saw an OL with our 2nd and 3rd string tackle, who had to move inside because he is our back-up guard and was replaced by our 4th string tackle, block for 200 yards rushing. AJ Hawk was our only starting LB able to play the last 4 weeks. We are the only NFL team to have 3 separate 100 yard rushers this year (not counting QBs), our 5th string WR had come in and played as well as most #1's in the league do. We've weathered injuries at every position group besides QB before this game and fought through.

The QB position, we do not have great depth, who knows maybe we do if Seneca plays well with a week of practice and prep. However, QB is the most important and complex position on the field and losing an MVP caliber QB is one thing that no team can overcome.


GB has committed to their run game this year and been quite successful. Anyone paying attention to both GB and Chi knew that you guys were going to come out running all over us, because we don't have the personnel to stop *any* kind of run game. See Brandon Jacobs' performance against us (or Morris/Helu, or R Bush, or Pierre Thomas, i.e. every game since Melton went down).

It remains to be seen whether that success will continue without the threat Rodgers poses back there against even an average run defense. The next few weeks will show what kind of depth your team has, and how much was masked by Rodgers.

If QB is the one singular most important position, why isn't having a competent backup the most important issue of depth? Also, if your entire team's depth is good, should you require MVP quality play out the QB to be competitive?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 5508
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nads786 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
Nads786 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:
I don't think it's unrealistic to make either claim.

The amount of bodies that we've lost and limped to 5-3 with is insane. That's a reflection of the great depth that the Packers have.

An injury to Rodgers was the one injury that we couldn't deal with. Combine that devastating injury with the rest of the backups playing on offense and you're going to have issues. You can move pieces to plug holes, but when there are holes everywhere, you start running out of players to plug it with.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that Wallace would have looked significantly better if his weapons were Jordy, Jones, Cobb, Finley, and Lacy rather than Jordy, wounded Jones, Myles White, Andrew Quarless, and Lacy. The injury to Lang was also a bad one for us. All of a sudden our great run blocking wasn't that great anymore.


I think it's more of a function of AROD, with the injuries surrounding the offense how well do you think your team would do with Matt Ryan at the helm?

Sucks to say but AROD is in that Brady/Peyton class where he makes the pieces around him better than they probably are...


But Matt Flynn Laughing Sad


I knew AROD was a baller when Favre went down against the Cowboys and he played brilliant.

You guys better appreciate having two hall of famers for the past 20 years, because your QB luck will run out Twisted Evil




Last edited by AlexGreen#20 on Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:37 pm; edited 2 times in total
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 ... 41, 42, 43, 44  Next
Page 42 of 44

 
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