HiAndTight

Yeah, this is bad, but really just puts us back to where we were before last week. But the chances he's the ONLY person who has it... This has the ability to just be a huge gut punch.

YES. One team is practicing in cold weather, the other in 70-degree weather. It's not like the Packers are just better at dealing with the cold, they've just gotten acclimated to it.

Yes, all these things. And Geoff has smaller than normal hands to begin with(which they've attributed to his fumbles).

Right...as I mentioned in this thread or another, Bear Bryant was the first coach to really do this. He'd have rosters with 250 guys on scholarship. It's also why when someone asked if Coan may be going to ND on a Lax scholarship but planning to play FB, I pointed out that was against the rules. You can play the 2nd sport if you're on a FB scholarship, not the other way around. Like I said in that thread, Alabama would suddenly field a Wrestling team with a whole lot of 4-star recruits who were not very good wrestlers. I don't think cutting the scholarships anymore is really the answer though. As it is, you're talking about 22 guys each class on scholarship. How far do you cut it before you think it's fair? 60? Then you have 15 yearly on average? I don't think Alabama is SO dominant because of the number of scholarships. That was a floundering program when Saban came back....they were 4-9, 6-6, 6-7, and 7-6 in Saban's first year. LSU was 7-15 the two years before Saban got there. Mich State was bad before Saban got THERE...going 3-8 and coming off a 4-year run in which they were under .500. So in Alabama's case, they just took a Belichick disciple and HE built maybe the greatest dynasty in CFB. There's really no way to level out the playing field in CFB. The best you can do is try and put the right HC in place, do your best to put a fence around your own state(that state being loaded in talent helps) try and build the right way and then hope you can grab some talent from other area's. I think Chryst is doing about as good as you can expect out of him and I'm kinda resigned to the fact that either one fluke year everything lines up(like it nearly did with Watt and Wilson's class)...and beyond that, just root for some B1G title games and hope we can play OSU well. Losing Markese Stepp really sucks though. He could have been a major piece of the puzzle the next couple years. Guessing there were some issues with him academically. There's generally been the issue when a recruit flips from UW to MSU, or NeB in the past. I can't imagine he looked at the OL Wisconsin is building, the offense we have and thought Nb was the better school to get him ready for the NFL.

I’m with you there. For as much money as these programs generate with low cost labor, the least they could do would be guarantee their scholarship and stipend for 4 years (provided they remain in good standing). This is the most obvious and usually the route they go with their true blue-chippers.

Did he play well in those games, or struggle? Forecast is around 30 at gametime with no precipitation. While cold by LA standards I don't expect weather to be a big factor in the game like one might expect if they were playing in below zero temperatures. His states are absolutely brutal. 0 TD's and 5 Picks IIRC with ~45 pct comp pct in 2 games under 30. I just read the article...but it was also from his worst season and I believe it was mostly one awful game vs a very good defense. Maybe the Bears when they had the top D? I don't remember for certain now. But even if you can kinda explain the poor performances away in those two games, he'll be playing in the cold....with a bad thumb. He ALSO has those especially tiny hands for a QB. 9 inches I think they were...much smaller than the average QB...which has been attributed to his fumbling issues and poor performances in the cold/wet weather. That's why I'd like to see our CB's up on them and not giving them big cushions. I think they'll try to give him as many easy throws as possible. And if Kupp's out, then you can use Sullivan on one of those two athletic TE's they've got.

And by the way, I did like Alexander, but I thought he was a slot corner. I thought Jackson was a huge steal just like you did. Though I still think he can play, we're just much better at CB than we've been in a while...and Alexander has turned into the elite cover man in the NFL.

You're absolutely right, and I did just say that in a recent post...that Trubisky was the consensus #1 pick. They were talking about Mahomes going in the 20s. When the Chiefs moved all the way up, that looked like an overpay. I have just stopped trying to figure out which QB's would hit and which wouldn't. Mahomes was presented as a Favre like talent who needed a lot of time to develop. And Watson...I liked him, but I didn't see the arm talent. I thought he was more of a game manager who could use his legs to pick up some 1st downs early on. So I'm not really blaming the Bears for taking him(I do blame them for giving away 3 picks that you expect to get starters from to move up one spot over a team that was NOT going to take him)...but they also never even met with Watson. So...maybe a little blame for not even looking into him, but as I said, not many people considered either in play at that point in the draft. It's more just a what-if. What if the Bears had taken one of those two. They'd be very likely the team to beat in the NFC. And now in this draft that some are saying is the best QB draft since the Elway-Marino class, they're just good enough that they got easily beaten in the playoffs, but not bad enough to even sniff one of the top 3...and they'll likely won't be able to get Lance either. And if they do, Pace and Nagy are almost certain to be long gone before he matures enough to be a competent starting QB. Unless the Bears show Lions like Patience with Pace/Nagy anyway. I wonder where Love would rank had he gone back. I've seen many compare him to Wilson, but I don't know what talent he'd have had to work with. It'd just be so perfect if Love sits for 3-4 more years, then they give him the Taysom Hill treatment(pay him with the expectation of him becoming the starter, not the way they use him) and for him to then hit the ground running while the Bears continue their futile search for their successor to Sid Luckman! And yes, I understand the financial complications that could arise in such a situation...but this is more about imagining how we can have potentially 50 years of HOF caliber QB play while the Bears can only muster the occasional decent year from Rex Grossman or Jay Cutler.

I didn't see much of the game. Can you detail why Hooper looks bad? He dropped an easy TD on an out route that was thrown beautifully to the end zone. It could have been quite significant, too, since the Steelers were threatening to claw back into it by that point. All I was thinking when I watched it is how hard it is to imagine Tonyan dropping a ball like that. Ahh...I did see that. The one near the end of the game that was NEARLY picked off. That play sums up why I think the Browns are a year away from competing. You're up two scores, the chance to make it three and put them away, and you throw an out from the far hash in the red zone that does not fool the safety Edmunds at all. They're lucky it was him and not Fitzpatrick or that likely would have been a pick 6. But we're obviously in a better position paying Tonyan what we are as opposed to paying Hooper I think it was about 4/40.

Seems like they're just postponing the inevitable. I think each will end up finding success elsewhere as they're still relatively young, but they'll both be on the hot seat to enter next season and it's highly unlikely they'll have the QB situation figured out. Their best bet is to probably stick with what they have and hope Trey Lance falls to them or...I guess grab Mac Jones. But unlikely either will take them from a ~8 win team to a real contender in the near future. Pace in particular looks bad. 4 straight top 10 picks and the best of them has been Roquan Smith. Kevin White was injured from the start, Floyd...who we'll see this week, is a really solid player(10.5 sacks this year) but didn't get it done in Chicago and they decided to replace him with the more expensive, less athletic version of him. He's had some big hits...like Eddie Jackson, Amos, Eddie Goldman(not sure if Hicks was there when he got there or not). But all that would have been wiped away if they'd just taken one of the other two QB's available. Not that many people considered either in place for that pick, but damn, that set the Bears back 5 years already.

Maybe. Maybe they like Turner better at RG and Wagner at RT. The guy knows this system. LaFleur talked about it today and said it was a matter of how quickly he could get comfortable with the group, how much "recall" he has of the scheme, noting he just played in another offense. Again, he started for us last year in the playoffs, he just started this past week. So he's got a history here and he played well and he's proven he's still effective vs the Bills allowing zero sacks and just 1 pressure in 79 snaps. I think it's possible he starts or perhaps if the Packers get off to a slow start and for example, Floyd is having his way with Turner, they could make a relatively simple adjustment. It's not like someone suggested that we this non-name who's never been to Green Bay comes in and starts over this entrenched veteran. It's Veldheer plays or Patrick plays. It's entirely possible they go with the later, but I don't think it's crazy they either go with Veldheer or they don't hesitate to make a change if they get off to a slow start. We'll fine out in ~4 days now.

I think you're setting yourself up for a disappointment if you expect us to beat anyone in the playoffs as the 49'ers beat us last year. There's going to be however many fans in the stands possibly snow. Home Field advantage is what Im referring to as a laugher like SF had. Game would have been a lot closer in GB. I would be worried if this was in LA. The Packers really only bad loss was vs Tampa and I still contend the turnaround was after Rodgers took a big hit and clearly landed on top of him. Took another hit not long after and his throws ever since that initial hit just lost all zip. Until LA lands that kind of shot on Rodgers GB is going to control this game. There are going to be about 6,000 people in the stands I believe. Not really enough to make much of a difference. And I don't think it would have been a different game if SF had played in GB rather than us playing there. Defense and a dominant run game will always travel. The Rams are similar to the 49'ers...but a much lesser version. But still, the same recipe. A front that can get pressure on the QB, a very strong running game, and a secondary that can matchup...with one player in particular who can defend Adams, but also guys like Johnson that we just don't hear of very often who are very good players.

Agreed. I will admit I was very worried about the defense at the midway point, but they’ve gelled beyond my wildest expectations. I’ve still seen enough promising teams in the last decade implode against a monstrous defensive front to be worried about the next couple games, but I feel better about this team than I have since 2014, and think this team will be rated more highly than that one when it’s all over. I just hope I’m not playing Charlie Brown to the Packers’ Lucy one more time. The Rams front is definitely what COULD potentially tilt this game toward the Rams. If you just swapped out Fletcher Cox for Donald, they wouldn't be that scary, but when a front has that one player who's just unblockable, it makes average players look good and good players look like Pro Bowlers. The Packers defense in the 90's is kinda proof of that. The thing about this team is they're just not nearly as reliant on Rodgers. AS you said, the defense over the last 6-7 weeks, just kinda figured it out. On all three levels. The DL started playing well, Savage started to break out, Amos started playing better, Gary's really stepped up and he's been healthy over that time period. But it's not like you can point to one or two players and say these guys are the reason our defense has gelled. It's really been a team effort. So much better effort.

I think we're pretty much in agreement across the board on this Packers team and how they stack up...and the Rams being the toughest matchup for them(though one they should be able to get past). The Packers SHOULD be the favorites. They're the best team and they're playing well. KC is maybe the more exciting team and the sexier pick, but they won't win the way they've been playing for most of the year. All those things stack up, plus they've got a talented running game and relatively speaking, very good health. They've shored up the two area's of concern, OT and DL with veterans who are able to play right away if needed. And the SOS...I just posted one that had the Rams in the middle of the league. Above the Packers, but not by much. They didn't play a great schedule, they didn't play a bad one. Just an NFL schedule...which as Adambr said, most teams will play a handful of cupcakes, a handful of really good teams and then mostly play teams in the middle. Anyway, that really doesn't matter.

I don't think the extension really says anything about him other than they believe at worse he'll be usable. 15.5 guaranteed. But he's not mentioned because he's not one of the 4 dominant pitchers we have and it's not clear where he fits in either role. Is he a starter? Meh...is he a reliever? If so, he's not one of the two dominant ones. He's a very useful player, but he's not a dominant pitcher at this point. Some stretches...but he'll need to develop a consistent 2nd out pitch to take the next step.

I don't think that is certain. He JUST started for a good team at LT and played well. He started at tackle for us just last year. But I guess we'll find out later this week one way or the other. A lot will likely depend on how he looks and feels after playing 79 snaps just a few days ago. If he doesn't start, at least he provides another option. I knew he was playing this year only because Robinson IIRC, suggested we try and claim him off their practice squad when Bahk went down. At the time I knew that was unlikely because they'd also lost their LT to a season-ending injury...and it didn't even dawn on me we'd be able to claim him after they played a game.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/standings/_/view/playoff Best SOS of any NFC playoff team. For 3rd best in the NFL I was referring to their SOV (behind Jacksonville and New York Jets) whose rankings in that category are a bit misleading for obvious reasons. Got it.

It's kinda funny, just one year ago the Rams were getting killed for their personnel decisions. Trading Peters, giving up a lot for Ramsey. And now they're back, competing for another SB bid. I think Veldheer could really be a huge signing. You'll need Linsley to slide to help with Donald(either way, though I feel quite a bit better with Jenkins on him, though he generally lines up over the RG). It's gonna be really a great matchup between the two Head Coaches as well though. They both know what the other team is going to run and each defense has practiced against a very similar offense. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a pick six on a quick hitch or a WR'er screen. Something similar to what Sullivan did vs the Lions.

The Rams literally had the toughest strength of schedule of any NFC playoff team and the best strength of victory of any team in the NFC and 3rd best in the entire NFL. Where do you find that? I see a dozen different SOS rankings. The Rams...from what I've seen, did have a tougher strength of schedule than the Packers, but not the 3rd toughest. http://powerrankingsguru.com/nfl/strength-of-schedule.php

They lost to the jets. That's true...but I think the larger point remains. They're a really solid team. I hope we blow them out though.

I think you're setting yourself up for a disappointment if you expect us to beat anyone in the playoffs as the 49'ers beat us last year.

I think I would've picked our KR instead. This matchup overall is very interesting though. Strength on strength almost across the board. - Donaldson vs Lindsley (and Jenkins) - Adams vs. Ramsey - #1 Offense vs #1 Defense - Rams 3 CBs against our Pass defense. With a healthy Goff, this could be a toss-up game. But we would really need to lay an egg to lose (probably worse than Seattle did). Goff played, but only completed 9/19 (Wolford 3/6). 25 passes, 38 run plays (not including 5 QB scrambles). It is obvious they were planning on being run-heavy. Unless Goff makes a big recovery this week, I'd expect much of the same. [sarcasm]I'm not too worried about Josh Donaldson rushing the QB[/sarcasm], but if they line up that Donald guy over Turner or whoever is playing RG, THAT could be a problem! But you're right, this is strength on strength. And while the 49'ers may have been able to beat us without much from their QB, I don't think Geoff will be able to. Not hurt and not in the cold. The best he's likely going to be able to do is throw a lot of short passes to their three really talented WR'ers and hope they can do something after the catch. Very similar offenses so I'd expect a lot of those quick hitters....and I feel really good about Jaire, Sullivan, and King's ability to play those at this point in the season. All three are really playing physical, not to mention Amos and Savage. As long as this team comes out with the defensive mindset they did the last quarter of the season...everyone flying to the ball, the really solid tackling, the DL staying in their lanes and not trying to jump inside to get into the backfield, the OLB'ers really keeping the edge...if that happens, it'd take a bad game from Rodgers. I'm not gonna bet on a bad game from #12. I think this game will end up looking most like the Bears vs Packers game in the NFCCG where it was a close game, but we controlled the game and they were never really in danger of losing. Maybe we'll score a little more in this game, but I think it'll be a largely unremarkable game that we just kinda control.

I wonder if the Packers just go with Veldheer now. I'm not sure how this is going to work out, but he knows the system and he's a better player. Certainly a better tackle. But as OldSchool alluded to, we're pretty well set on the OL. Whatever they're doing, they're obviously coached VERY well and their play calling seems designed to keep the other teams pass rushers from just rushing upfield every play. The worst-case scenario IMO would be the Packers get down by a couple of scores early. That would play right into the Rams hands.

Zimmer, I understand, as the Vikings scrapped the expensive parts of the defense, and plugged in a lot of rookies, particularly in the secondary. I have no idea what the "plan" is in Chicago, where their starting quarterback is now a free agent, and the backup QB they traded for to replace that QB was benched for said mediocre starter....who only managed to put up 9 points in a playoff game the team backed into (6 of which were scored on the last play of the game). Considering Foles is on the roster for another 2 years, I have to wonder whether today's firing gives Chicago's front office something to think about. I don't believe Nagy's the problem in Chicago though. He's just operating under such constraints with Trubisky at QB. Chicago is a pretty talented team...with an average(at best) player at the most important position. Just the last time we played the Bears, they had a chance to make that a good game, and Trubisky just threw one of those really bad picks to Amos. In the end though, if I were the Bears, I'd try to go and get Lance and hire Bieniemy. Foles is on the books for two more years and it makes no sense to cut him this year, so put the offense in, let Lance learn it for at least a year, and then throw him in there. But hopefully, they decide bringing back Trubisky is their best option...

I don't know how he played yesterday, BUT if he played as well as he played for us last year, this could be a huge signing and he should be our starter this week if he is still playing at that level. This was an awesome pickup and one that I didn't think was possible.