After Further Review: Packers vs. Bears

Ross will provide a few observations every Monday afternoon following a Packers game based on a few viewings of the condensed version of the game on NFL GamePass.  While this might not be the All-22 camera deep dive that might be more "educational", it should provide a conversation point for the rest of the week.

I was right about Davante Adams.  You (probably) were not.

What a game from Kenny Clark.  Clark may never be a pass rusher.  He'll always be compared to BJ Raji on account of Raji's retirment right before he was drafted and the fact that they play the same position.  Clark may never achieve a 6.5 sack season like Raji did in 2011, but he is a player.  He is (somehow) just 21 years old and is playing at a very high level in the run game in a grown man's position.  He and Mike Daniels are pretty dominant on that side of the ball.  Last week against Dallas really appears to be the exception that proves the rule.

I had said early on in the offseason that the Packers could afford to keep just three backs because of Montgomery and Cobb, but I didn't want to find out like this.  Randall Cobb and Ty Montgomery possess the skills to be a half decent third string running back, but I was hoping that the Packers wouldn't find out by losing Eddie Lacy for the season and enraging my boss. 

It's clear to me that Montgomery is a better running back that Randall Cobb (what a weird sentence).  He's bigger, certainly, and does a better job in the shotgun running game.  Using those two players this season is going to lead to more opportunities for 12 men on the defense, because they can be used with a tight end or a fullback, or not.  When the Packers use their 4 WR 1 TE set, or their "big 5" WR set they can run running plays out of those formations without allowing the defense to subsutitute. 

When defenses try to sub against that package, Rodgers can just go.  The only time a defense is allowed to match personell is on an offensive substitution.

Excellent bounce-back game from LaDarius Gunter.  Gunter struggled mightily against Dallas, specifically in some work against Cole Beasley (the exact opposite kind of receiver you'd like the tall, slower Gunter on).  

As happens quite a bit, Packers fans became enraged with Gunter and intimated that maybe he wasn't a very good palyer (or even worthy of a roster spot).  Gunter bounced back in a big way on Thursday night.  Not only did he play very well, but he was put in a really tough spot.  Gunter was asked to shadow Alshon Jeffrey (the Bears only viable wide receiver that) as the rest of the pass defense dealt with everyone else and Demetri Goodson (a special teams-level player) was given consistent help.

Gunter limited Jeffrey to three catches.

Leonard Floyd is a really good player, and is going to be good for a long time.  I wish I was wrong about him in pre-draft.  Would have been a really special player in Green Bay.  Now McCarthy and the offense will have to deal with him for a long time. 

Aaron Rodgers isnt' "fixed", but he did play better.  There were a lot more throws that were made on time and in the spirit of the actual play design.  Yes, there was some improvisation, but that's what makes Rodgers a Hall of Famer.  If Randall Cobb hangs on to the first TD pass and drags his feet on the second, we'd be talking about a 350+ yard day with five passing touchdowns.  The Bears might be bad, but Rodgers played much better.

This offense reminds me quite a bit of when the Packers fixed Brett Favre.  It's now convenient for folks to forget just how bad Favre was from age 33 to age 36. He averaged just 25 touchdown passes (Rodgers has never thrown fewer than 28 in a season in which he started 15 or more games) and threw more than 21 interceptions a season for a four-year stretch.  It was much, much worse football than Rodgers has ever played for a much longer period of time, but we live in the Twitter era in which everything that happens is a huge deal and it's going to happen forever and never change.

Mike McCarthy came in, drafted Greg Jennings and James Jones and introduced a short passing game and spread sets to rebuild the aging QBs confidence.  Favre responded by having one of the finest seasons of his career in 2007 with the Packers, and probably the finest statistical season of his career in 2009 with the Vikings.  Sometimes quaterbacks just need a re-set (I guess).

Lane Taylor is really playing well, and Don Barclay is still awful.  It was remarkable to see just how badly things went when Don Barclay was inserted at right guard in place of TJ Lang.  It's also remarkable to think that Taylor wasn't viewed as a significantly better player than Barclay during the offseason, because let me tell you what, people, he is.

The defense has a chance to be special when the secondary gets healthy, though that might not happen as soon as we might like, especially for Sam Shields.  IR placements can't be back-dated, so Shields isn't going to be available to the Packers until their 14th game.  I really don't have a problem with the secondary if Gunter is an outside-only corner and they use Rollins, Hyde and Randall as interchangeable parts.

Someone needs to explain to Janis and Davis what the odds are of them reaching the 25 yard line.  The new touchback rules really do make it difficult to take anything but a very low kick out of the very front of the end zone worth your while.  Both Davis and Janis are above average kick returners, but they need to do a better job of understanding field position.  The Packers offense put up three touchdowns, two field goals and a failed fourth and one from the one despite battling awful field position all game long.

Blake Martinez was a monster on Thursday night.  I really hope nothing serious is going on with Jake Ryan.  This team is already beat up enough.

-------------------

Ross Uglem is a staff writer for Cheesehead TV. He can be found on Twitter @RossUglem 

NFL Categories: 
0 points

Comments (65)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
Spud Rapids's picture

October 21, 2016 at 01:56 pm

32 first downs.... and limited Schum... That's what I took away. The short passing game was just as successful as running the ball with Lacy

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

October 21, 2016 at 06:59 pm

Great playcalling.
Great halftime adjustments.
You know, the usual stuff everybody lauds after every game.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Amanofthenorth's picture

October 21, 2016 at 08:56 pm

. Pretty remarkable how on a short week they can just start running a new offense. That, packer fans, is coaching and being coached. Edit: and welcoming and teaching a new running back

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

October 22, 2016 at 09:38 am

Dont see it as a new offense, just started using more of the playbook. No great innovation. And it's s about damn time

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
David Van Scyoc's picture

October 23, 2016 at 12:16 am

Even without Shum pootching balls 25 yards the pack still had horrible starting field position and the Bears didn't. When will special teams straighten out? Isn't this why Zook was promoted? To fix this stuff??

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bohj's picture

October 21, 2016 at 02:00 pm

Awesome takes Ross!! I know it takes a bit of the first half of the season to see what a team does well. Hopefully we have a big enough sample now to forge an offensive identity. First half of Lions where we mixed personel, first half of Giants where we mixed personel. And the second half of Bears where we went all Patriots. Please take note Big Mike......keep doing all of that. I like this Defense. Just get healthier please.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
David Van Scyoc's picture

October 23, 2016 at 12:25 am

Problem is, having a receiver in at tailback isn't the identity ANY team wants. If TT would spend money or sign a big name player he would be on the phone to marshawn lynch every day since lacy's injury to try to bring him here. Like he should have done years ago when lynch said he wanted to. But TT never even called! I don't bemoan the past often or question Ted often, but damn! Think we could have controlled some of those playoff losses a little better with Lynch as our back? I certainly DO... Anyway, we need to hope knile can be an every down back or bring in another one if Jackson isn't ready to go. Ty is too valuable a receiver to take the load of work a GOOD running game requires. What u saw against the Bears was a gimmick, not an identity... It won't work against ANY top 15 defense in the nfl. Just my take...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
David Van Scyoc's picture

October 23, 2016 at 01:11 am

So, whoever disliked what I said, why don't you educate me about why what I said was wrong? Or what u disliked about it. I certainly didn't think what I said sounded too stupid, but let me know if, and how, you disagree with it...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
David Van Scyoc's picture

October 23, 2016 at 01:33 am

That's what I thought. One of those guys who just gives thumbs down without saying why. Too scared to look foolish getting into a serious football themed discussion with someone who knows more than you? Figures...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

October 23, 2016 at 05:37 am

I gave you the dislike, DVS. You'll develop a thicker skin - I've got over 2000 dislikes. They don't bother me much. As it happens, I work 3rd shift, and had something come up, but now I have some free time. Happy to discuss my disagreement.

A) You lose me immediately when you say TT doesn't spend money. The NFL requires teams to spend at least 90% of the cap. GB currently is at 92.6%, which translates to cap space of about $10.6M. That seems to me to be a prudent amount. It allows for in-season acquisitions like the one you propose with Lynch, and for smaller deals like acquiring Knile Davis. The remaining cap space also allows for extensions for Perry and/or Tretter, maybe Jones, etc. Most players who are extended will want a check in hand when they sign, though theoretically the guaranteed money could be pushed into 2017 via guaranteed base or roster bonuses.

B) You lose me when you express a desire for TT to sign big name FAs. TT has been good at it (Woodson, Pickett, Peppers), but also picky. Perhaps there is a causal correlation. As it happens, I criticize TT sometimes because I favor some mid-tier FA signings so that we can go more BPA in the draft. I think TT overpays his own FAs pretty routinely.

C1) Lynch retired. Seattle still holds the rights to him for 2016 and 2017. If Lynch un-retired, Seattle would have 4 options: Honor his $9M (prorated) base salary; Negotiate a lower salary, trade him; cut him. I'm not too interested in shipping another draft pick to Seattle, and what Seattle would want anyway? There is some reason to think Seattle would just cut him (Christine Michael is having an adequate season with a 4.4 yd average and they just re-signed Michael, Rawls is supposed to return week 8 or 9, they spent 2 draft picks on RBs, and they signed Spiller, though they could cut him easily enough to make room for Lynch. If necessary, what draft pick would you be willing to part with to obtain Lynch's rights? It could be that TT is just waiting for Lynch to un-retire and for Seattle to cut him.

C2) If traded, his contract calls for $9 million (pro-rated to $4.76M at this time. That could be re-negotiated, but would it be up or down? How much would you, good Sir, pay? (See C4 below as well.) Would you give him a signing bonus? What if he wants a multi-year deal?

C3) Is Lynch still fit, and is he still any good? He had injuries last season, and had season-ending abdominal surgery. I read that he put on pads for the Cal practice last August and took some reps on the scout team, but the article did not say that there was whether any contact was involved. Mike Florio wrote that Lynch might un-retire in week 5 or so, but gave no reason why Lynch would delay if he was in football condition back in August. I can think of a number of reasons to wait until week 5 to come back to the NFL, most of them bad. GB could work Lynch out first if Seattle released him and he became a FA, or perhaps something could be worked out.

C4) Do you really want the drama and is Lynch a good fit in GB? Lynch, even though he was under contract, just extorted $5M from Seattle in 2015, signing an "extension" that had a $7.5M signing bonus (prorated over 2015, 2016, and 2017) plus a $4.5M guaranteed base salary. He received $12M in 2015 to play 7 games, then retired, requiring Seattle to eat two thirds ($5M) of the signing bonus as a dead cap hit, which they have done. There is his relations with the media, his unpredictability, his recurring contemplation of retirement over the years and being a diva - downright Favre-ish. He hit a pedestrian and drove off, and had a gun charge while with Buffalo. IIRC he was arrested for DUI in Seattle, but not charged.

C5) Would Lynch want to play in GB? Apparently Lynch didn't like losing in Buffalo. Seattle is more cosmopolitan than GB. I assume that GB with full beast mode would be a winning team. Not sure the Cal alumnus liked the weather either, but can't recall if that was an issue.

C6) IIRC, I was on board with giving up a 3rd or 4th for Lynch in 2010. I agree that GB might have won another SB. I guess I don't think Lynch would still be a packer today - I just don't think TT would have put up with him for 7 years, but who can say how he might have behaved had he gone to GB instead of Seattle.

D) I am very reluctant to bring in another RB unless Jackson can be cut or Starks placed on IR.

E) I don't think Montgomery is way too valuable to play RB. Prior to the Chicago game, he played 52 snaps (15.3%), so apparently the coaches don't think that much of him as a WR. Indeed, I think the ability to take some snaps at RB is half of his value. At 6' and 220 pounds, he has prototypical RB size which should enable him to take some hits, especially if limited to 8 to 10 carries per game, and good speed for a RB. I was concerned that he lacked vision as a RB, but he looked better at it against Chicago. Never thought Lacy or Starks had good vision. I view Monty as a slot WR only, which puts him firmly behind Cobb. Of course we could go with 2 slot WRs, but we have Abby and Nelson who can play slot as well. If his vision is decent, he isn't a gimmick. I've explained exactly how I'd like him used in a prior post, but briefly he needs to be able to run btw the tackles, even have Rip next to him, and either run with a lead blocker or motion out with the few seconds left and run an honest to god real WR route, not just a swing or leaking out into the flat.

F) We don't know if TT has called Seattle/Lynch. Maybe he knows Lynch isn't in football shape. I've read zero speculation anywhere about signing Lynch. I imagine there are reasons.

[EDIT: Agreed with your post on Gunter below. Thumbs up!]

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

October 21, 2016 at 02:30 pm

Ross, was Gunter that much better, or were there times when he was beat but the Bears' QBs couldn't take advantage? Not trying to be down on Gunter. I've always hoped he would pan out b/c he is the only Packers DB north of 6'0". Just wondering if Dallas was a horrible game, Chicago was a great game, or something in between.

Agree about Favre. I made the same point the other day, noting that his seasons in 2000 and 2006 were his lows for passer rating. Again, not trying to be a downer, but did Adams really turn the corner, or were the Bears just that bad?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Ross Uglem's picture

October 21, 2016 at 02:38 pm

On the TV copy, Gunter played very well. I'd have to go back and look at the all-22 but the game against Dallas is the outlier for his career. This isn't a player who has been bad his whole career, played really bad against the Bears and then all of a sudden shadowed a Pro Bowl WR on Thursday night.

As far as Adams? He's turned the corner all season long. Even before this game, Adams ranked 23rd of the 80 receivers listed in Defense-adjusted Yards above replacement. If 40 is average, Adams is well above avergae. his DVOA rank is 13th of 80 and he's caused 68 additional yards of defensive pass interference. The corner was already turned.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
sonomaca's picture

October 21, 2016 at 04:38 pm

Gunter was out of position vs. Dallas. He's going to be a very good player. The Pack have really transformed the defensive backfield. Receivers and TE's now have to think twice, what with Burnett, Brice, and Gunter back there laying the wood.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

October 22, 2016 at 03:06 pm

Not sure that I agree that he turned the corner at the start of the season. The Giants game was the only other one where he had more than 3 catches. That game was a respectable 5 for 85 yards, but otherwise not a ton of production there. I'd like to see a couple more games this season where he cracks 100 yards.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Ibleedgreenmore's picture

October 21, 2016 at 08:41 pm

That catch for a TD that Adams made showed to me he is not to bad. If they can get him open he has a chance to play well.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
David Van Scyoc's picture

October 23, 2016 at 01:46 am

Gunter played a GREAT game!! Jeffrey is an excellent receiver and with Hoyer in there may have had a couple more receptions, but that's it. The coverage was tight all game. Hope this is THE NEW GUNTER! Or, he was just super motivated after that dismal performance against Dallas.

And yes, THE BEARS ARE JUST THAT BAD!!!
Especially the corner they had on Adams. He was awful.
That's why this game can't be taken seriously. We play a team with a decent, top 10 secondary, and maybe no packers hits double digits on the night.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tarynfor12's picture

October 21, 2016 at 02:45 pm

Wait....let's accept a most important item. ...this is possibly the worse Bears team the Packers have played in a long time. Until this team can perform above the level that doesnt have us embarrassed for the larger part of a game even in a loss.....nothing to date has changed. The bravados for the whole and individual need be in check until that level is witnessed against a formidable opponent. Which many have offered as not being as yet played prior to every game thus far. : )

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PaulRosik's picture

October 21, 2016 at 03:00 pm

No. Totally wrong. Does this team have to play better if they are going to compete for a Super Bowl? Of course. But you take the win and enjoy it or otherwise whats the point of watching them play every week.

There are no rankings, there are no style points. There are only wins or losses, so a win makes you happy and a loss does not. Always.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tarynfor12's picture

October 21, 2016 at 03:58 pm

If you only watch each week to enjoy the game whether a win or loss, why do you feel compelled to dismiss the thoughts of others who are more embedded than simply watching....diagnosing players, players etc, to get and added ambiance for the following game, less the right to comment what each believes they witness and believe in a players ability. : )

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

October 22, 2016 at 09:02 am

No, Paul, one should realize that Chicgo's team with the back ups they had to use was possibly the worst NFL team I've ever seen, and I watched GB in the 1970s. I don't entirely agree with Taryn: by all means enjoy the win, and I do think one can evaluate some of our guys against Chicago's legitimate players. So, Gunter vs. Jeffrey was promising.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

October 22, 2016 at 10:00 am

Very level headed response and conclusion to that discussion.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

October 23, 2016 at 12:06 am

WTF, picking up the slack for a subdued cow?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

October 21, 2016 at 02:51 pm

You were right in your prediction. The Bears are awful! So now we have the next Driver, sharpe, Lofton, Jennings, in Drop Adams. The guy has 1 good game and you want to put a crown on your head. " Your Probably" is a big assumption. I'd still like to put my boot up his ass. Do you really understand the meaning of 2nd round draft pick? And How long they are suppose to take, in todays NFL, to contribute to the position. Try the word Starter! If it was not for monty, Adams would have been blanketed. And until he is a starter he's Boykin,Shrader, or any other WR that has come and gone. Give the credit to A-rod. And in the meantime watch A-rod fall apart if he depends on Adams. Monty is our #3 WR not Dropsy Adams. I see more talent and dependability in Monty, then Adams. So thats 2 games straight for Monty. And I believe if A-rod didn't hate Janis so much, he would be ahead of Adams on the depth chart. Oh thats right, A-rod forgot who played well in the playoffs. But not who was the 2nd rd. pick.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bohj's picture

October 21, 2016 at 03:00 pm

Stock,
You are judging Adams based on a pretty decent debut his 1st year, an injury riddled 2nd year, and a gaining traction 3rd year. No one's crowning anyone. He merely had a fantastic game (2nd best in Packer lore)
Why does praising Adams take anything away from Monty? Why can't they both thrive together? It only helps us.
The hate Janis thing still doesn't hold water. The only thing holding Janis back...is Janis. His route running is still a work in progress.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
David Van Scyoc's picture

October 23, 2016 at 01:07 am

I discuss Janis in a lower post. Yeah, his route running is bad. So is his understanding of the playbook, and how not to get picked so you are watching the ball fly behind the back of the person you just ran into. He shows us glimpses. Enough for us not to give up on him. But unless this all starts sinking in soon, he might never be more than a special teams player. And that's ok! He's a hell of a ST player! But I think if he was smarter, put extra effort into his routes, etc... I think he could be a GREAT receiver! Physically gifted as he is, could be a pro bowler. IF he can learn to run routes like Jerry rice he would be unstoppable. Someone should be working with him every day on this if they aren't already...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PaulRosik's picture

October 21, 2016 at 03:07 pm

You really in your head believe that the difference between Adams and Janis is that he likes one of them and doesn't like the other one? I think you have to hand in your credentials in being able to comment for that one.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

October 21, 2016 at 03:30 pm

Well it wouldn't be the first time. And yes every time I see Janis get a couple of catches, a-rod starts barking at Janis if he misses him. As far as monty and Adams. I feel it is possible that they could make defenses re adjust. But I think one game is making people delirious again. Adams never has put together 2 games in a row. And lets not forget when you scout players, you judge them against the top players.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
David Van Scyoc's picture

October 23, 2016 at 12:57 am

Actually it's completely feasible that Rodgers doesn't like Janis. Janis played GREAT in the game vs. Arizona! I agree. But all he had to do was run straight down the field and catch 2 Hail Marys. Janis could do those routes. But when asked to understand the whole playbook, run crisp precise routes, not run straight into a defender letting the ball fly by, etc... He can't! He has a limited grasp of the playbook. Rodgers can see what a GOOD receiver looks like and what a GREAT receiver looks like. And AT THIS TIME I don't think he sees Janis as either good or great based on his shortcomings. In my heart, I don't think Aaron dislikes Jeff. It's more like, when he learns the game, stops curving his routs, understands when and where the ball is going to be thrown on that play and how to GET HIMSELF TO THAT SPOT, Aarron will start sending balls his way. IF, at that time Janis plays well, catches what's thrown to him, and is in sync w Aarron he will continue to get every possible opportunity. THEN Aarron will like him. Not before. The receiver has to prove it to Rodgers. If He never does, he won't like or throw to you. If you do, the pack just got a potential pro bowl receiver. Cuz if he earns his trust, he WILL throw it to you. So anyway, Aarron doesn't hate Janis. He needs him to improve before he starts trusting him. Simple logic. And is conversely the reason Aarron likes abberderis. Jared runs great routes, knows the playbook, and isn't prone to drops. Aarron KNOWS if he calls a play, waits 3 secs after the snap, Abby is going to be EXCACTLY where he is supposed to be. He doesn't believe that about Janis AT ALL!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Ross Uglem's picture

October 21, 2016 at 03:51 pm

So none of this means anything to you?

"As far as Adams? He's turned the corner all season long. Even before this game, Adams ranked 23rd of the 80 receivers listed in Defense-adjusted Yards above replacement. If 40 is average, Adams is well above avergae. his DVOA rank is 13th of 80 and he's caused 68 additional yards of defensive pass interference. The corner was already turned."

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

October 21, 2016 at 10:00 pm

Ross it does mean nothing. You may think he turned the corner. But I don't. Game after game we saw dropped passes. This one was his best as Targeted and balls caught. But if you Compare James Jones stats to that of Adams. It just seems your use of evidence is bias to fit your argument. If Adams is well above average, people would be beating on TTs door to get him. I still claim Adams got peripheral treatment and thats what burns my Ass. Do you see A-rod chew out Adams, like he does Janis or others? It's not about turning the corner. It was about what was best for this offense. I still believe Montgomery is better for this offense than Adams. If You set the bar to low. That doesn't help the team. So if Monty , Cobb ,Nelson, are lower on that list , shouldn't they sit the bench for Adams? Thats your argument.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

October 21, 2016 at 10:29 pm

"peripheral treatment"...?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
cpabandit's picture

October 21, 2016 at 07:11 pm

I disagree that ARod was so great last night. Dinks and dumps any NFL QB can make. As for throwing 5 TD's it can't happen when MM is the Packers head coach. After three TDs MM like to take the foot off the pedal and coast for an entire half if he can.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
David Van Scyoc's picture

October 23, 2016 at 01:28 am

We saw WAY better accuracy from Aarron Thursday than we have in awhile. I don't think anyone is saying he was great, but certainly better than he's been lately. And if I were Aarron and MM starts taking his foot off the gas, I'd audible out of every play he calls and keep that damn foot on myself! I saw two teams have a chance to come back against us this year already after we let them back in... I didn't think MM would EVER let that happen again after the 2014 NFC CHAMPIONSHIP!! That should have been the last time we ever took our foot off the gas against ANY team. Seems that experience didn't teach him anything tho. One in a thousand chance of blowing that game with less than 5 minutes left but a way was found. I would make sure to pile points on EVERYONE I played! He tries to milk the clock too early! Keep the pressure on them and score! I would rather take a touchdown than take 3 minutes off the clock unless there are only 3 minutes on the clock! Otherwise, keep piling on td's. Don't feel, "we have enough points, let's run some clock"! Gives THE OPPONENT more possessions and chances. Like I said, Aarron can take SOME of that away from Mcpredictable if he wanted to.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Amanofthenorth's picture

October 21, 2016 at 08:53 pm

Why not wait until he's 24 before you make any decisions?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

October 22, 2016 at 06:38 am

@Stockholder... I've commented that Thompson could have drafted Allen Robinson instead on Adams several times and obviously Robinson is the better player up to this point. Others including myself have also reminded people Nelson took 3 years plus the next regular season and 3 playoff games before he broke out in SB 45. The thing about Adams is he's played better this season, much better, and with defenses switching focus to Nelson a little Adams has stepped up, something he didn't do before this year.

Adams IS better, give the guy a little credit. As far as Monty goes just LOOK at the games. He doesn't play in the first 4 games and does nothing (Hard from bench), the last 2 games McCarthy has used him like many thought would be successful and what do you know, Monty HAS been.

This Offense with all it's issues is on McCarthy. You heard it from HOF players and coaches all night Thursday. They ALL mentioned Scheme and that's on MM.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

October 22, 2016 at 08:58 am

Nick I understand that you, and Ross, think he's played better this year. But we've seen his tease in his rookie year. (When he had a big game and then went flat for the next 2 years. ) Remember that game he got his butt chewed on the sidelines? Adams did not show us anything on returns etc. ( during his time.) Nelson made the jump to pro status in 3 years . But he still played without screw ups in the meantime. Something Adams has not DONE! Nelson did not cause interceptions, Fumbles or hurt the team in those three years. Adams has. (And look at A-rods problems NOW. ) OK let's hope he has turned the corner. But you guys/Packers , now have set precedence that every Rookie deserves 3 years to turn the corner. Thats the peripheral preference I'm referring too. And if players are allowed that just to turn the corner ,this team will never WIN a Superbowl Again! Thats been my argument. That others should be allowed the same chance. Monty would have replaced Adams last year if he didn't get hurt. Nick you know that! Monty is the one who turned the corner. Proof: You Don't give a player the ball and tell him to run with it. Can MM put Adams in the backField? SCREW'S UP returns! Haven't seen any reverses, Haven't seen him at Gunner. See we saw every other WR on this team show up in a different Roll. Adams has not. Thats special treatment gentlemen. Nick if they gave others the same opportunity, we might just be all the better for it. ( Example: look at what happen to Farve, and A-rod emerged. ) FOOTNOTE: The packers dug their heels in to deep, with adams. Would they have dug their heels in on Farve , if TT drafted him?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bearmeat's picture

October 21, 2016 at 03:01 pm

Ross is right.

The quick rhythm passing game DOES have a chance to revive the ailing ARod. Last night's offense looked a LOT like 2007 - and lest we forget - Favre in 07 was coming off of 3 straight up awful years - and ARod has never gotten that bad. 07 was very successful on offense, and 15's personnel is far superior to what we had in 07 on both sides of the ball (except now at RB). Even more encouraging, when MM has been FORCED to adjust or lose the season (think the sack problem in 09, the Finley-centric scheme in 10, Lacy based offense in 13, CM3 at ILB in 14), he's almost always made the right calls. He CAN adjust, he's just too damn stubborn to do so until it's staring him in the face. That's what was so encouraging about last night. For the first time in almost 2 full years, the Packers offense reinvented itself; and credit should be given to MM and AR for doing so.

That said, this Bears team, even without the injuries, was never good, and with the injuries they shouldn't be in the NFL. (side note: Wouldn't it be awesome if the NFL had relegation like the EPL?) So there is a LARGE caveat: BUUUUUT.........

IF Rodgers gets back in rhythm AND the secondary gets healthy, AND Lacy comes back (or Diggs turns out to be Ryan Grand V.2) they COULD threaten for a super bowl by January.....

But I don't want to get my hopes up so I'm going to remain skeptical until they look good against a good team.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bohj's picture

October 21, 2016 at 03:10 pm

Bear,
It's super easy to discredit any improvement due to the level of competition. But for what it's worth, we have beat all of the bad teams we've played just like a winning football team should. Unlike the Chargers and Saints are doing with their fantastic QB play. We should be happy we are at least taking care of those games showing we have a much more well rounded team. We also have a higher ceiling because we are starting so many Rookies and second year players that are gaining a ton of reps due to injury. This bodes well for end- of-season play. To quote COW:
Everyone in the NFL is 4-2 2-3 right now. We only lost to two of the best teams in the NFL right now. One of them we played pretty close in their house and the other one we had 4 turnovers because we stunk. PS.....did I quote COW? My point is, we should still celebrate victory over a weaker opponent. And just be glad that our fifth stringers are greater than their second and third stringers.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bearmeat's picture

October 22, 2016 at 08:12 am

I'm certainly not complaining about a victory. Any victory in the NFL is better than looking "good" and losing. It's just that with how BAD they looked against basically all of their competition - good or bad - for all but the 2nd half of the Bears game, the 1st half of the Lions game and the 1st quarter of the Jags and Giants.... I don't trust this team yet. At least at this point I'm more prone to think how they finished the game last night was more a result of the Bears being truly awful than GB "turning a corner."

We'll find out against Atlanta. If they get their doors blown off, we'll have our answer. If they hang in there we will too.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

October 21, 2016 at 08:27 pm

"That said, this Bears team, even without the injuries, was never good, and with the injuries they shouldn't be in the NFL."

It's rare to get a scrimmage mid-season to work on stuff...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

October 21, 2016 at 10:32 pm

Bears team is bad?
What about those awesome FA ILB's they signed while the "idiot" TT sat on his hands? And wallet?
~~~~~~~~~~~ (just in case)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

October 22, 2016 at 09:17 am

Freeman in particular but Trevathan as well played well. Solid FA pick ups. Both would start for GB. Since TT hit on Martinez and Ryan, I am glad TT passed on the FAs as we are getting pretty decent play w/o paying big money or forfeiting comp picks, and Martinez still could easily make a jump. So could Ryan.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
David Van Scyoc's picture

October 23, 2016 at 02:22 am

15's personnel better on offense than 07? Jennings, Driver, Finley, jones. I'll take that receiver corps over this years Nelson, Cobb, Adams, and R Rodgers. Too early to tell on cook.
To say Mcpredictable can change to save a season is like saying you would kill someone to avoid him murdering you! That's survival, not good coaching. He should be figuring out these problems after 1 or 2 games! He gets paid millions and has forgotten more about football than we will ever know. But you are right he's just so damn stubborn! Doesn't want HIS plan to not work.
I do agree tho, IF we can successfully run the ball, and this game was the catalyst for Rodgers to get his accuracy back, we could be a SB team. The receiving corps with Rodgers in sync should be great, The dline will be great, the oline will be great, the linebackers will be good to great, and the secondary when healthy should grow into a great unit by the end of THIS season. Special teams has looked weak, but that's a continuing problem that we have overcome in the past. Might have to bite the bullet and call Masthay back. Not sure how many more chances Shum should get to give our opponents a plus 12 or 14 in the starting field position battle? Not many!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
David Van Scyoc's picture

October 23, 2016 at 02:22 am

15's personnel better on offense than 07? Jennings, Driver, Finley, jones. I'll take that receiver corps over this years Nelson, Cobb, Adams, and R Rodgers. Too early to tell on cook.
To say Mcpredictable can change to save a season is like saying you would kill someone to avoid him murdering you! That's survival, not good coaching. He should be figuring out these problems after 1 or 2 games! He gets paid millions and has forgotten more about football than we will ever know. But you are right he's just so damn stubborn! Doesn't want HIS plan to not work.
I do agree tho, IF we can successfully run the ball, and this game was the catalyst for Rodgers to get his accuracy back, we could be a SB team. The receiving corps with Rodgers in sync should be great, The dline will be great, the oline will be great, the linebackers will be good to great, and the secondary when healthy should grow into a great unit by the end of THIS season. Special teams has looked weak, but that's a continuing problem that we have overcome in the past. Might have to bite the bullet and call Masthay back. Not sure how many more chances Shum should get to give our opponents a plus 12 or 14 in the starting field position battle? Not many!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bearmeat's picture

October 21, 2016 at 03:01 pm

Double post.

Since I have to comment here, I'll also add that TNF sucks donkey balls in general and those all white unis looked stupid.

PS: The Bears STILL suck. :)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

October 21, 2016 at 03:12 pm

Those white uniforms had an interesting visual effect of making everyone look the same size. It sounds wierd to say but Cobb looked the same size as a Lineman on some plays.

Anyways I say keep them. Maybe Rodgers was finally able to see the guys he should be throwing too.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bearmeat's picture

October 21, 2016 at 03:44 pm

lol

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

October 23, 2016 at 07:47 am

Now that was funny!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Doug_In_Sandpoint's picture

October 21, 2016 at 05:06 pm

I actually kind of liked the white unis. And in one of the best comments on the live blog last night someone asked why the Pack were all dressed like Flo from Progressive.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

October 23, 2016 at 09:32 am

The color meaning of white is purity, innocence, wholeness and completion. In color psychology white is the color of New beginnings, wiping the slate clean.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

October 21, 2016 at 08:28 pm

if you think of the Packers in all green with that yellow helmet (hello, HS team) or in **ulp** all yellow, the whites don't look so bad...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bearmeat's picture

October 22, 2016 at 08:13 am

That's just my point. They shouldn't HAVE to choose an alternate uniform. The Packers are a classic franchise. They should have a classic look.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

October 21, 2016 at 03:09 pm

Last time the defense was really good and injuries on offense forced Rodgers and McCarthy to play and scheme to the skill players strengths the Packers won a Super Bowl.

It's sad that it takes this level of disruption to get proper adjustments. Makes me worry that they will go right back to where they where at any time.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bohj's picture

October 21, 2016 at 03:16 pm

It doesn't make me sad at all. It usually takes some kind of adversity for anyone to fully get better. When faced with adversity there are only two things that can happen: one can crumble entirely, or one learns and gets stronger and plows through and becomes even stronger for it. Without adversity, you just remain the same thinking everything is working. Perfect example as you alluded to: 2010 (16 on IR, wildcard road warriors)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
ebongreen's picture

October 21, 2016 at 03:28 pm

FWIW, I can see the Packers using Montgomery in a way that they might have used Johnathan Franklin, had he not been injured – or as they might have used David Johnson had he been a Packer instead of a Cardinal.

Much like Montgomery, Johnson's a mismatch for most LBs and even some safeties as a route runner and receiver. Johnson's a much better RB as well, so far – but having either on the field and able to switch from backfield to WR by motion or alignment puts the D in a personnel bind. If a D plays dime or big nickel vs. the Packers 3x1 set with TM as RB, they risk being too light against the run; if they use base/nickel, they risk TM in space on a LB who can't keep up.

It's a nice problem for the Packers offense to have right now, as they need every threat they can find.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
gary's picture

October 21, 2016 at 03:59 pm

Stockholder. I picked on TT and MM yesterday and you replied I was wrong. Lack of speed at the wr position is really hurting us. Janis has speed but AR won't throw to him. Why didn't your hero TT spend some money and upgrade the skill positions with speed. Oh i know we need to sign this guy and that guy next year, I forgot. How about peppers is in the last year of his contract which takes off 12 million at the end of this year, not enough i guess we need more to sign some more guys who aren't getting it done i get it. When rodgers is done playing the chances of getting another hall of fame QB are slime to none. Between rodgers and farve we should have had more then two super bowls. TT sucks. Now i will get the normal responses, do you know how many games the pack has won or playoff appearances.To me the bottom line is winning the super bowl.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Point-Packer's picture

October 21, 2016 at 04:03 pm

I think the Badgers could have beat this Bears team. Especially when Hoyer went down.

Let's talk after the Falcons game.

Oh, and never play Don Barclay again. Let's do what we do at the RB position and put a TE at Guard.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
al bundy's picture

October 21, 2016 at 04:32 pm

Ond comment. I dont think you can explain anyting to janis. Me rogers waxnt happy with him last night. He thinks a slant p!ay is you run into the guy who is supposed to cover you and wonder why rogers did not throw you the ball. This guy is dense. Cut him!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
EdsLaces's picture

October 21, 2016 at 05:02 pm

In my defense I didn't say Adams sucked on that thread,but I'm sure I probably did on a different one hahaha.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
egbertsouse's picture

October 22, 2016 at 08:59 am

I agree that we should see if Adams can string together a few good games before we anoint him as the 2nd coming of Jerry Rice.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

October 22, 2016 at 09:25 am

I've always thought Adams had NFL level talent. I just thought his ceiling was as a #2 WR, and probably a #3 WR. The author states that he believes in Adams. Fine.

What do you think Adams will wind up being?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

October 22, 2016 at 09:29 am

Excellent article. Clark is a very welcome addition and only 21.

"The new touchback rules really do make it difficult to take anything but a very low kick out of the very front of the end zone worth your while. Both Davis and Janis are above average kick returners.... "

Which to me is why not using them both more in the offense, Jet Sweep , Reverses anyone? is a waste. Would be so much fun to watch.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

October 22, 2016 at 09:34 am

Also, the narrative that Nelson took 3 years to develop is just garbage. It is looking at stats and adding no context.

Same thing with the draft and develop mantra. Having patience with players, particularly those with a lot of talent, makes sense. However, an entire draft class can't take 3 or 4 seasons to develop. We do need some guys to come in and be average to above average NFL players year 2, and some of your premium picks need to do it on average during their rookie seasons.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NMPF's picture

October 23, 2016 at 09:16 am

After further review.1) Janis has athleticism to burn but is dumb as a box of hair. 2) I'm afraid that Starks coming back will just revert the O back to same ol' crap. 3) what we saw vs the bears is as close to a true WC offense as we've seen in years. 4)Can will MM/AR continue to be this patient?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0

Log in to comment and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.