Let's regroup, refocus and rebound on this MNF game in our house against the Bears!
Just saw that CB Charles Tillman out
Old#15 wrote:I will be very interested in seeing how MM uses TEs and CJ in passing game against Bears. If I'm not mistaken TEs were only targeted 4 times on Sunday, which is surprising to me. I would think that because Packers were stifling the run, that we could have slipped either Cumberland or Amaro out over the middle for 5-10 yards or a couple of seam routes. I would have also thought that we would be seeing CJ more in space vs running up the middle. Still having visions of CJ 1v1 vs Julius Peppers in space and we don't take advantage.
BTW - Who has the skinny on the Bears, defensively that is. I know that Tillman is out and being replaced by #1 pick Kyle Fuller, but beyond that I haven't followed them too closely.
football51 wrote:Our beat writers are truely tools.
Brian Costello
[ltr]@BrianCoz[/ltr]
· 4m
[ltr]Jets media requested Santonio Holmes for the opponent conference call. It looks like he said no. I thought he might want to catch up.[/ltr]
Brian Costello
[ltr]@BrianCoz[/ltr]
· 43s
[ltr]I had this question all ready for Santonio, too: Best pizza - New York slice or Chicago deep dish?[/ltr]
Manish Mehta
[ltr]@MMehtaNYDN[/ltr]
· 2m
[ltr]NY media requested Santonio Holmes for weekly conf call. He declined. Wanted to find out how far away his locker is from Alshon Jeffrey #nyj[/ltr]
soj wrote:Old#15 wrote:I will be very interested in seeing how MM uses TEs and CJ in passing game against Bears. If I'm not mistaken TEs were only targeted 4 times on Sunday, which is surprising to me. I would think that because Packers were stifling the run, that we could have slipped either Cumberland or Amaro out over the middle for 5-10 yards or a couple of seam routes. I would have also thought that we would be seeing CJ more in space vs running up the middle. Still having visions of CJ 1v1 vs Julius Peppers in space and we don't take advantage.
BTW - Who has the skinny on the Bears, defensively that is. I know that Tillman is out and being replaced by #1 pick Kyle Fuller, but beyond that I haven't followed them too closely.
U R correct TW only four (4) balls... terrible he did nothing to mitigate the fact that they were stacking the box.
Superman55 wrote:We need Decker bad though. We don't have many reliable WRs (2) and playmakers. Sproles tore them up, but you're talking about a team with Cooper, Maclin, Sproles, and McCoy....we have Decker, Kerley, Ivory, and CJ2k.
Hoping our TEs can help balance things out and the extra day off gets Milliner and Decker ready to go.
While someone above references Cutler is nothing special, he's infinitely better than Kaepernick, maybe about the same as Romo and Stafford, he can move, and he has two WRs that catch everything in a 5 yard radius...he only has to be so good with those two monster WRs.
This game is a huge challenge as the Bears have twice the level of talent as the team we just lost to.
Superman55 wrote:
This game is a huge challenge as the Bears have twice the level of talent as the team we just lost to.
hobson54 wrote:Superman55 wrote:
This game is a huge challenge as the Bears have twice the level of talent as the team we just lost to.
the year is 2014, not 1986. i don't see the bears as being a vastly superior team to the packers. in fact, i think the packers are the better overall team and will finish higher in the standings. i'd take rodgers over cutler every day of the week, and twice on sundays (or mondays). both teams have very good WR corps, although i give the bears the advantage on running games. defensively, neither is stellar and both have mediocre o-lines. add in we were in GB and are at home this week, and i don't think the bears are a harder matchup than last week in GB
that said, i do think it will be a difficult game and we will need to avoid self-inflicted wounds like last week. it's certainly a winnable game (i didn't really give us much a chance heading into GB last week), but it will take a clean, crisp effort.
Superman55 wrote:hobson54 wrote:Superman55 wrote:
This game is a huge challenge as the Bears have twice the level of talent as the team we just lost to.
the year is 2014, not 1986. i don't see the bears as being a vastly superior team to the packers. in fact, i think the packers are the better overall team and will finish higher in the standings. i'd take rodgers over cutler every day of the week, and twice on sundays (or mondays). both teams have very good WR corps, although i give the bears the advantage on running games. defensively, neither is stellar and both have mediocre o-lines. add in we were in GB and are at home this week, and i don't think the bears are a harder matchup than last week in GB
that said, i do think it will be a difficult game and we will need to avoid self-inflicted wounds like last week. it's certainly a winnable game (i didn't really give us much a chance heading into GB last week), but it will take a clean, crisp effort.
Whoa, whoa, whoa -
GB > Chi at QB
Chi has better WRs and RB (IMO) than GB and both olines suck. Chicago has a better defense, though they haven't looked great yet. I'd take their personal outside of Rodgers over Gbs every day of the week.
Chicago has 2 WRs better than every player on offense for GB not named Rodgers...then add Forte. Im not sure its close...let alone similar level of talent...GB doesn't have a WR, including Nelson, that would even start for Chicago...Lacy wouldn't start either. I think some are asleep at the wheel on this topic till Monday I guess when they see Chicago's WRs up close and personal. They may have 2 of the top 3 WRs in the NFL right now...
hobson54 wrote:Superman55 wrote:hobson54 wrote:Superman55 wrote:
This game is a huge challenge as the Bears have twice the level of talent as the team we just lost to.
the year is 2014, not 1986. i don't see the bears as being a vastly superior team to the packers. in fact, i think the packers are the better overall team and will finish higher in the standings. i'd take rodgers over cutler every day of the week, and twice on sundays (or mondays). both teams have very good WR corps, although i give the bears the advantage on running games. defensively, neither is stellar and both have mediocre o-lines. add in we were in GB and are at home this week, and i don't think the bears are a harder matchup than last week in GB
that said, i do think it will be a difficult game and we will need to avoid self-inflicted wounds like last week. it's certainly a winnable game (i didn't really give us much a chance heading into GB last week), but it will take a clean, crisp effort.
Whoa, whoa, whoa -
GB > Chi at QB
Chi has better WRs and RB (IMO) than GB and both olines suck. Chicago has a better defense, though they haven't looked great yet. I'd take their personal outside of Rodgers over Gbs every day of the week.
Chicago has 2 WRs better than every player on offense for GB not named Rodgers...then add Forte. Im not sure its close...let alone similar level of talent...GB doesn't have a WR, including Nelson, that would even start for Chicago...Lacy wouldn't start either. I think some are asleep at the wheel on this topic till Monday I guess when they see Chicago's WRs up close and personal. They may have 2 of the top 3 WRs in the NFL right now...
Chicago may have better WRs, but GB's WR are no slouches. combined, they probably have 4 of the top 10-12 WRs in the league. Nelson and Cobb would be the starting WRs on most teams in the league.
RB I did give the edge to Chicago.
but to me, the biggest reason why i say they are close in talent, and i give the overall edge to GB is because of Rodgers. add in we are home vs Chicago vs at Lambeau field, and I don't see how this is a tougher game than last week
hobson54 wrote:obviously i'm not talking about over the lengths of their careers. guys like wayne, andre johnson, roddy white have had much more productive careers. but they aren't the dynamic play-makers they used to be. of the list you gave, i'd take cobb over vincent jackson, wayne, wallace, white, garcon, djax (can't stay on the field), tate, decker and a toss up with crabtree. too early to rank any of the rookie WRs. gordon is better, but that does no good if he keeps getting suspended. and i didn't count TEs.
in any event, there are very few teams (and admittedly chicago is one) that have a better 1-2 WR combo than GB. and his good start not withstanding, i'm taking rodgers over cutler. so yes, i think the talent is a lot closer than you make it out to be. GB is not jacksonville and chicago is not the walsh era-niners.
Superman55 wrote:hobson54 wrote:obviously i'm not talking about over the lengths of their careers. guys like wayne, andre johnson, roddy white have had much more productive careers. but they aren't the dynamic play-makers they used to be. of the list you gave, i'd take cobb over vincent jackson, wayne, wallace, white, garcon, djax (can't stay on the field), tate, decker and a toss up with crabtree. too early to rank any of the rookie WRs. gordon is better, but that does no good if he keeps getting suspended. and i didn't count TEs.
in any event, there are very few teams (and admittedly chicago is one) that have a better 1-2 WR combo than GB. and his good start not withstanding, i'm taking rodgers over cutler. so yes, i think the talent is a lot closer than you make it out to be. GB is not jacksonville and chicago is not the walsh era-niners.
Well, Cobb has never had 1000 yards receiving despite playing with Rodgers. Can he have one of those before we put him in the HOF?
hobson54 wrote:Superman55 wrote:hobson54 wrote:obviously i'm not talking about over the lengths of their careers. guys like wayne, andre johnson, roddy white have had much more productive careers. but they aren't the dynamic play-makers they used to be. of the list you gave, i'd take cobb over vincent jackson, wayne, wallace, white, garcon, djax (can't stay on the field), tate, decker and a toss up with crabtree. too early to rank any of the rookie WRs. gordon is better, but that does no good if he keeps getting suspended. and i didn't count TEs.
in any event, there are very few teams (and admittedly chicago is one) that have a better 1-2 WR combo than GB. and his good start not withstanding, i'm taking rodgers over cutler. so yes, i think the talent is a lot closer than you make it out to be. GB is not jacksonville and chicago is not the walsh era-niners.
Well, Cobb has never had 1000 yards receiving despite playing with Rodgers. Can he have one of those before we put him in the HOF?
well i didn't put him in the hall of fame, but that probably doesn't matter to you. he come up on a deep team, who had jennings, jones and nelson in front of him, and he got hurt last year. i'll grant my list is probably more fantasy football oriented, but in that case, the rodgers factor does help him.
of course, you listed a bunch of rookie receivers you'd take over cobb, so i guess we should also hold off on their induction ceremonies as well...
Superman55 wrote:I don't know if you've watched Sproles and CJ2K, but they are far from the same type of player...
Not just Cutler, the CHI team itself practically owns the Jets.Seaver wrote: Cutler has played well vs Jets in past to my recollection.
|
|