This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
In all fairness to both, Rodgers was not under alot of pressure until the 4th quarter, when it was obvious the Packers weren't/couldn't run the ball. The Packer play calling did alot to make sure that was the case (kudos to them for that.)
No it didn't watch the reply again. Cutler's arm nearly goes limp releasing the ball because of the helmet to helmet.
To me, that comparison makes zero sense. It always has. So, what, because they both have strong arms, which they both have relied on too much at times, they are similar players? Not at all. Jeff George could never move around like Cutler does. Did you see that run last night where Cutler scrambled for a first down, juking a defender at the last minute to get the first down instead of sliding two yards short of the first down? George never would have done that.Also, in all of the good seasons George had, he was throwing to what most would have called above average receiving corps. He had a trio of good WRs in Atlanta, he had Tim Brown in Oakland, and then he had Moss and Carter in Minnesota. George never thrived with a receiving corps as mediocre as the one Cutler has right now. I get that Cutler makes throws sometimes that make you wonder what he is thinking, as that comes from the overconfidence in his arm, which I suspect is the crutch of most people's argument about Cutler and George being similar, but really, they aren't similar QBs at all.
Even more confusing is all the love for Starks. Has he even played a down in ANY NFL game yet?
If you believe that the hit didn't bother the throw, there is no way you watched replays of that throw. It was as obvious as it gets.
A few points, if I may:1) The 5 INTs, the Pack should have had - the 2 called back on penalties were both called back because the penalties were what contributed in large part to them being INTs, hence the reason they were called back. Also, let's not forget that Tillman dropped what would have been an Aaron Rodgers pick in the 2nd half.2) The offensive line is bad - no doubt. Yet every week they find a way to keep (fill in name of great pass rusher here) off of Jay Cutler. In week 2 it was Ware, week 3, Matthews - yet in both game, neither recorded a sack. 3) You mentioned not being able to count on other teams to make mistakes. The "cover 2" - which is the base shell for the Bears defense, is predicated on that very premise. That is, don't give up the big play, keep things in front of you, secure the tackle, creat turnovers and force teams to put together 12-15 play drives. Many teams cannot without making a mistake (be it failed execution, penalties, or turnovers).
I believe the "penalty" portion of the hit had nothing to do with the INT.Blaming the INT on the penalty is crap...sorry, its crap. If the guy hits him a few inches lower, the throw would have been affectly likely just the same.Not even sure it takes a few inches as the helmet hits below his head and moves up during the hit (Im not whining about the penalty...if they are going to call the one on the Bears the possession before that, they have to call this one)
I think they finally admitted not long ago that they screwed up on that hit on Rodgers in AZ.That call will be on the D every time though on the PI call.
The throw was affected by the hit.The hit was helmet to helmet.Helmet to helmet is a penalty.The penalty gave the ball back to the Bears.I'm not sure how you can say it had nothing to do with the play. Bad cheese maybe??
The guy was going to hit him anyway...if he hits him a few inches lower it would not be a penalty...and the ball is in all likelyhood still affected and intercepted.What about that don't you understand.The helmet contact was not what caused the INT.Again, this is not saying that it should not have been called...just using a penalty as an excuse for the INT is foolish.
On the Barnett int. Cutler threw the ball in anticipation of the hit, the penalty occured after he threw it. The illegal hit had no effect on the throw, the pressure did. The pass interferece call on Burnett was a jump ball call, that probably should have been a no call. I'm not arguing the Tillman drop. My point was that Cutler still makes bad decisions, at least vs. the Packers defense. Whether they were ints. or not they were bad throws.Matthews might not have gotten a sack but the protection schemes to double and chip Matthews resulted in the Packers getting 3 sacks from other players, countless hits and several awful throws by Cutler.My point on the mistakes is not the fumble which was a good play, but the franchise recored 18 penalties for 152 yards on the Packers. I'm sure the Bears feel great about the win but I'm also sure they aren't entirely confident about how good of a team they are. The point being the Packers will never have 18 penalties in a game again, but they most likely can move the ball up and down the field on the Bears and pressure Cutler again.DoubleG said:
Any way you want to slice it, Chicago is 3-0. They beat two of the best teams in the NFC preseason. Dallas on the road and Green Bay in front of a national crowd. Name another team that has done that this season...none.
I don't deny that, they won the game and in the end that's all that matters. I will say, I don't think the Bears or Bear fans can be overly impressed with how their team played. I still wouldn't be shocked if Chicago only won 8 games this year. They just don't look like a 3-0 team, and I know you know what I mean.
Read Bowen's thoughts on nfp...Burnett did look, his mistake was he grabbed at the WRs hands...(and a few other things Bowen points out that will draw the flag every single time).sho nuff said:Had the defender turned and made a play on the ball THEN Offensive penalty.
The defender cannot impede the receivers ability to go for the ball.
In this case the defender played the player and not the ball.. Therefore
The Bears deserve credit for beating them 2 teams. Period. I still think both of them teams finish ahead of the Bears in the standings when the 16 GAME SEASON is finished. For now givem credit they won and fought to do so. Good job Bears. Much improved thus far.
So a if a DB has inside posistion he is to give that up for a WR to catch the ball?? It makes no sense. Cutler's pass was to the numbers while Bennet was closer to the sideline. Way the rule is being interpeted is that Burnett is suppose to let the WR pass or have WR throw him to the side, so he has a chance to catch an errant pass.Offical should have made a no call as Bennet was out of posistion and also had his ands all over Burnett. Burnett did turn around a look for the ball, it was not like he just stuck up his arms to block Bennetts view.sho nuff said:Had the defender turned and made a play on the ball THEN Offensive penalty.
The defender cannot impede the receivers ability to go for the ball.
In this case the defender played the player and not the ball.. Therefore
Actually, I am fairly confident that the Bears will not only make the playoffs, but do go fairly deep in said playoffs, but thanks for the concern.In regards to those 18 penalties, you do realize that at least 4 of those were directly caused by Julius Peppers in the 4th quarter alone, right? I doubt the Packers would have had 18 penalties if it would have been some no-name guy across the line from Taushcer. The fact is, some of those penalties were casued by the Bears and their play. The same holds true about 2 of PI calls - defenders grabbed guys because they had been beaten by the guys they were covering. So to suggest that it was simply poor judgement or lack of discipline on the part of the Packers, when in fact many of the penalties were a result of good plays by Bear players is a little short sided, in my opinion. Can the Packers play better than they did last night? Sure. As can the Bears. Your presumption is that somehow Cutler will digress (or regress) when in fact he is currently 3rd in the league in passer rating and has thrown for more yards and TDs and less INTs than Rodgers. Perhaps, there will some osrt of "regression to the mean" with Cutler...or perhaps he has turned a corner and the Martz offense has helped him to do so. Another possibility is that the Bears offensive line will gel and actually improve as the season goes on (much the way they did last year). The two leading teams in terms of defensive sacks this year (i.e. the teams that come after the opposing teams QB the best) are the Packers and the Lions. The Bears have now beaten them both in the first 3 weeks. I think that actually speaks fairly highly of the offense's ability to come together in a short time and under a great deal of pressure (no pun intended). Certainly the Bears cant take anything for granted, but moving forward, I like their chances to remain one of the top teams in the NFC.
They might...but like Green Bay, with a pourous Oline and lack of running game, I don't think either will go far if they can't fix that. With Green Bay, they may be able to get over that with the way Rodgers is playing.As for the penalties...how had Bennett beat Burnett? It was poor judgement. The only other PI I think was woodson grabbing someone when he got beat a bit.I think the point of the penalties was that 2 of them took away huge plays (INTs)...they were not forced penalties at all.Maybe you have a point on the hold taking away the TD, but then you assume Rodgers wouldn't have been able to step up as he did and deliver the pass.I think Cutler will regress. Less INTs...by what...one? Given Rodgers INT last night was on a last second of the half hail mary...Id say its even at least. Cutler has also lost a fumble. And he has one more TD than Rodgers...Rodgers added a rushing TD.I think last night showed he still has those bad games in him too (Green Bay just needs to hold on to a few more or not hit him in the facemask as he throws it).But don't go puffing your chest at beating the Lions.They sack QBs and all...but they are also one of the worst pass defenses in the league right now.
You are going to be very disappointed by the end of the year.
In general I agree with the above. The Bears were able to gut this one out, and they should get credit for that, but as a Bears fan I'm very uneasy. Way too much reliance on throwing the football when the run was working. We are supposed to have an organizational identity and last night I didn't see it. Thrilled to see Urlacher, Briggs and Peppers playing at a high level and nice to see Olsen perform in the Martz offense. I think the Bears will win more than 8 but probably less than 11. If they stay healthy they have enough playmakers on defense to account for 8 wins. What makes me uneasy, and this concerns me every year, is what this team will do if they make the playoffs.
At very least, there should have been offsetting penalties. Rodgers wasn't out of the pocket and intentionally grounded the ball before the hit even came.Always fun when fans don't understand the rules.
linkHis helmet is turned and the ball is still in his hand. Check around the eight second mark.
I tried telling him that.. but he insists he watched it and the ball was gone.
A fine? It was an inch away from being a clean hit.And again...if he just hits him, not in the helmet, the ball is still likely changed and interecepted.
I was wrong on the ball being gone...since that time I have over and over insisted not on that, but that the helmet to helmet contact is not what caused the INT.
I disagree, but fair enough. He surely wasn't seeing what he was throwing at when he threw it, and the impact to his head couldn't have helped.
Yep. Getting hit in the head like that is definitely going to effect the throw differently than a hit right at the body. Just like a guy grabbing your facemask is going to more likely result in you going down than a guy grabbing your shoulder. While not guaranteed or anything, it's likely that the interception can be attributed to the hit being where it was.
I definitely agree that he was outplayed by Rodgers. Part of that has to do with the way the offensive games were called and the respective weapons. Despite the fact that they have no OL, the Bears were dropping Cutler back with 5 step drops and going downfield most of the game. And Cutler did make some big time throws despite getting all of that pressure and moved them down the field pretty well. They were getting down into field goal range pretty much at will even on drives that didn't feature penalties. Throw to Olsen was horrible, but the Bears could have easily been tied or winning the game at halftime without him giving the ball away in FG range there and/or Gould making that FG on the first drive. That missed FG also gave GB their best field position of the game which helped set up that first TD. As much as the Packers shot themselves in the foot with penalties, the Bears made their own mistakes that resulted in missed scoring opportunities.The Packers on the other hand had Rodgers taking 3 step drops and taking what the Bears were giving them. That's Lovie's brand of defense - don't give up the big play and try to create turnovers. And it helped Rodgers to not get hit too much. Sure Rodgers moved the ball some and they racked up a nice time of possession doing it 6-7 yards at a time, but it didn't actually result in them getting any big plays or scoring much. It's part of why Romo was able to move the ball all over the field last week, but it didn't result in them getting many points either.
Then the Rodgers one on the series before isn't illegal and it should have been intentional grounding.
He didn't get outside of the tackle box and was clearly tossing it away to avoid a hit. It very easily could have been called grounding. Either way, it shouldn't have been a penalty if we're suggesting that hit on Cutler was clean. Which would have resulted in 3rd down rather than the Packers getting 3 more tries from the 3.sho nuff said:
Not necessarily in terms of the score. The Rodgers one happening on the goal line as it did adds more weight than it simply being "a 3rd down". If the Packers get held to 3 on each of those, it's worth less points than the TD was. Who even knows that that same play is called if the Bears are winning 14-13.
Because you're biased. But getting your neck snapped like that is going to effect you more than getting hit in any other area of the body. He had to make a pretty nice, leaping grab for the interception as it was. A couple more inches on the throw could have made a huge difference.sho nuff said:
Yes...and your not biased at all.
His neck likely moves quite a bit just from the hit too.I think its higly speculative and foolish to claim that hit to the facemask is what caused the INT.It was a penalty and should have been given the previous call, but IMO its not what caused the poor throw. The overall hit was.It's highly foolish and speculative to argue that it would have been the same throw no matter where he was hit. Bottom line is that it was a penalty and not an interception, so it's not really worth speculating over. Maybe next time your guy actually does hit him a bit lower, but that's not what happened on that play.Yes...and your not biased at all.
The Bears scored to end the halfThe Bears defense stopped the Pack at the end of the gameThe Bears then scored to end the game.The Bears did what winning teams do, and the Packers did what losing teams do - screw it up.The Better Team Won Monday Night.
Had the defender turned and made a play on the ball THEN Offensive penalty.
