Official Week 1 Green Bay vs Chicago Thread

I'm thinking 23-17.

Bear's defense is good enough to cause some problems and Packer offense will need a few games to get on track. I'm assuming 3 field goals, but if the Rodgers to Graham thing is ready to go - add 4-8 pts to the Packers total.

Packers did not show opponents much in preseason on defense so I expect the Bears to struggle on offense for a while.
 
Packers should prevail. The bears don’t have a good offense and they haven’t really seen any of the new schemes that Pettine will throw at them.

I’m expecting a sloppy, low scoring game.

Packers 21
Bears 20
 
I really hope Trubisky sucks - if he doesn't they're going to be a bigger problem than contemplated - in this game and for awhile actually.

Let's assume he sucks until he proves otherwise. Let's assume our defense sucks until they prove otherwise.

Packers - 31
Bears - 24
 
I wasn't too far off on the score, but I read it completely wrong. The Bears offense seemed fine early. They didn't get much done later. Is that an indication that Pettine made some adjustments? Hmmm . . . not a familiar concept for me and most other Packer fans.
 
As I watched the offense during the second half, I thought about Rodgers early years, when a guy named Joe Philbin was on staff. They'd use the short passes, explore the middle, and once in a while, let one loose. That's what was happening out there, and it was working.

When Philbin left, the offense slowly evolved to a longer game which I have said repeatedly was not as solid as the way Philbin structured the shorter game. In the shorter game, you can take advantage of Rodgers' ability to read defenses, and throw people open. It doesn't work that well with the longer game. It also acts to keep Rodgers out of trouble from the rush.

I know some people will disagree, but I know I'm right on this one. We won the game tonight because Joe Philbin's short game was employed. Rodgers can play that game, just like Marino, Peyton Manning, and Joe Montana.

It was a great turn around for Pettine's defense. After getting gouged during the first half, they brought their best to the table. I had to smile when I saw our two new CBs out there. Those two guys can play some football!
 
As I watched the offense during the second half, I thought about Rodgers early years, when a guy named Joe Philbin was on staff. They'd use the short passes, explore the middle, and once in a while, let one loose. That's what was happening out there, and it was working.

When Philbin left, the offense slowly evolved to a longer game which I have said repeatedly was not as solid as the way Philbin structured the shorter game. In the shorter game, you can take advantage of Rodgers' ability to read defenses, and throw people open. It doesn't work that well with the longer game. It also acts to keep Rodgers out of trouble from the rush.

I know some people will disagree, but I know I'm right on this one. We won the game tonight because Joe Philbin's short game was employed. Rodgers can play that game, just like Marino, Peyton Manning, and Joe Montana.

It was a great turn around for Pettine's defense. After getting gouged during the first half, they brought their best to the table. I had to smile when I saw our two new CBs out there. Those two guys can play some football!

if Fuller hold on to the INT we lose, plain and simple. The bottom line is the OL is bad and depth behind it is worse. !2 has little or no mobility now and his ability to create plays is minimal.
 
if Fuller hold on to the INT we lose, plain and simple. The bottom line is the OL is bad and depth behind it is worse. !2 has little or no mobility now and his ability to create plays is minimal.

Pack you know full well you can't play the if game. If if if. ATL had a dropped pick in the SB two years ago. We supposed to act like they won?

How many dropped INTs has our D had in recent years that could've altered a game? Are we supposed to act like we won the game because IF they caught it we would've won? So why act like GB lost because the other team dropped one for a change?
 
Pack you know full well you can't play the if game. If if if. ATL had a dropped pick in the SB two years ago. We supposed to act like they won?

How many dropped INTs has our D had in recent years that could've altered a game? Are we supposed to act like we won the game because IF they caught it we would've won? So why act like GB lost because the other team dropped one for a change?
I get that but I thats how much of a razor thin margin this team has. Could have worded it better
 
Back
Top