By Aaron Nagler on Sep 25, 2011 with 38 Comments
Filed Under: Bears Suck • Featured • Good Bad Ugly
Tags: Cheesehead TV Good Bad Ugly • Packers 27 Bears 17 • Packers beat Bears
Leave a Reply | Trackback URL
Good – C’mon now, Jennings needs to be on there. Aside from a ton of receptions, he had some good blocking and KEY catches that were none too easy.
Also good – Nagler’s prediction. A game where the Pack tries to establish the run and wins 27-17. I hope you took some of that on a ride to Vegas….geez.
Bad – You nailed it.
Ugly – Starks and Mike Martz. Hey Mike, you should give that Forte character a look. Seriously, you take the “Greatest Show on Turf” scheme, then grease the field to slow people down, then DON’T use your stud RB. W.T.F.
The Bear run game was not there. More running plays would have put them in a bigger hole. They had something like 4yds on 9 carries. Awful. The problem is lack of talent on their o-line, not Martz.
When you are faced with 2nd and 12 because your RB is stoned for a 2 yard loss to start every single series you have no choice but to pass.
Well, 9 carries is hardly enough to tell. In any case, they are starting to run a pretty slick screen pass. There are other ways to get him the ball.
Nine carries was MORE than enough to tell. Two yards on nine carries? Get serious. It would have been suicide to keep running Forte against the Packer D. And, Forte is delusional if he keeps thinking he’s in the elite RB class w/AP and Darren McFadden.
Even if I agreed that 9 carries is enough for any running back, I still say they should have utilized him in dump-offs, screens, and split in the slot like he’s killed people before. He’s not AP – no doubt. But the guy’s their best consistent threat offensively. I honestly can’t believe I have to sell this.
I was starting to think Clay was going to end up on your “bad.” Good list.
I have no idea why. I have not said anything that comes close to intimating he’s not playing well.
Can you include an ‘Acceptable’ section then? Cause that’s what it seems like CM3 would be in…
There’s no Clint Eastwood movie called ‘The Good, The Bad and the Acceptable!’
To be fair — from the week 3 gut reactions to the Packers’ victory over the Bears: “Clay Matthews is either hurt or not as good as we think he is.”
Which says nothing about him not playing good football.
Are there two Aaron Naglers around or are you the guy wrote a whole article about how Matthews needs to do more than draw attention? The other Nagler would insert a “rolls eyes” here.
Give me a break. Yes – I wrote that post. Yes – Matthews needs to do more. Yes – he’s playing good football. None of these statements contradict the other. But keep trying to play “gotcha”
People read what they want to read.
There is the fact that people do tend to read and hear what they want to read and hear, but to be fair, I got the wrong impression from it, as well. I remember reading all that, thinking it did sound critical. While Aaron may not have said he’s not playing well, the dialog back and forth implied otherwise. It’s not always as cut and dry as “they” read it wrong. If we are all critical thinking people, we can say even to ourselves, oh, I didn’t realize some got that impression. Now you know I meant this. On to the next topic. Easy.
I don’t think it’s anyone playing “gotcha”. Maybe, Aaron, you underestimated how what you wrote came across. Everyone plays a roll. That’s part of the fun of a blog with a comment section. It’s not just this is the way of it, it’s here’s what I have to say, what do you think?
ugly- field condition in chicago!
Good call. Who could forget the ACTUAL DAGGER on the field? What is going on in Chicago?
That one was scary. What if someone got tackled neck down on that thing? Unreal. Unacceptable. Fix that damn stadium.
WTF was that all about? Somebody should drop a bomb on that piece of dung… preferably during a bare, queens game.
Troy Aikman wonders why McCarthy is not noted as a great play caller, this game is why. Maybe Harry Reid is available to play in place of Hawk, he tackles some big problems in the senate and Hawk (chick-a-dee) doesn’t tackle anything.
Harry Reid’s Dem. controlled senate hasn’t even passed a budget in two years. What are you smoking? Reid couldn’t tackle a dwarf w/Lou Gehrig’s disease. Leave your politics at the door.
You too, Lars.
I thought Jarius Wynn might be included in the good. People have been clamoring for DL rush (“oh, what will we ever do without Cullin??”) aand the guy comes up with a 2 sack game.
Those sacks were created by coverage and double team on BJ Raji, but it is true that Wynn was a bright light on an otherwise dimn pass rush front.
I’m happy to see Wynn doing well, but I’m not worked up about it for the same reason I’m not too upset about Jenkins leaving. Getting pressure/sacks from your DEs is gravy in a 3-4 defense. He’s a high-motor guy and on the one sack used excellent technique to rip inside his man. Probably worthy of being in the “Good” – just thought others were more so.
James Starks is basically still in his rookie season- He’ll learn from Chicago- and continue to get better to great.
I agree, but this was a weird step back for him. It’s as if he and Ryan Grant switched jerseys. But hey, that’s why it’s great to have two competent backs… hopefully at least one of them is feeling it every week.
While watching the game I thought, “Careful, James. You might be nominating yourself for this week’s ‘The Ugly’!”
The entire special teams in the Ugly category for their involvement in the called- back Bear punt return. Little did I know when covering a kick, no one is required to locate where the ball is going.
Aaron Rodgers was Good as was Jennings. Still waiting for Cheesehead TV fav. Erik Walden to crack the good column in Zombo’s absense.
I am convinced that the coaches sat down Starks before the game and stressed the importance of not fumbling the ball. He looked tentative and nervous. Obviously, he fumbled– I just remember the coaches saying the RBs first job is to not fumble. He definitely looked like a different running back.
No doubt in my mind he will bounce back for some big games though
Ugly: Blaze-organge football jerseys.
I was at the game (yes!) Starks looked even worse in person than tv. He missed wide open holes all day long. One play, can’t remember which, he could have cut left and gained 10 yards, instead he ran right in to a pile of linemen and got nothing. He looked slow, tentative, and indecisive. Grant on the other hand hit holes, ran with power and vision, and clearly was the better back.
Wait, didn’t you just write that Starks should get more carries than Grant? C’mon admit when you are wrong.
Long time readers of this site will tell you – I admit when I am wrong.
On this, I’ll admit I was wrong when we’ve seen more than one bad game by Starks. Come on.
I will admit to being wrong on one thing – Grant didn’t look as “done” as he looked through the first two weeks. But I wonder how much of that was due to his running on a bad track. We’ll see.
Maybe Grant has “Bigby Syndrome”. Not fast earlier in the season, gets faster as the fields get worse as the season progresses, temperatures get colder leading to sparse/no grass…
Subscribe Via Email
Get new Cheesehead TV posts to your inbox every morning.
This feature has not been activated yet.
You never lose a game if your opponent doesn’t score — Vince Lombardi
You never lose a game if your opponent doesn’t score