The Bills actually ran the ball 32 times total including 15 times in the second half vs 18 passes for the entire game. I think that from what I saw the Bills benefitted at times running the ball down 20 or more when you would think the run would pretty much disappear.

I know for sure the Packers were often thinking pass which is what most teams down a bunch would be doing. It is certainly odd that a team way behind ends up with only 18 passes thrown in the game.

Most times what you state here would be correct but in this case it really didn't turn out that way.

---

It's Bear week, I always worry. I just hope we play our A game and let the chips fall. That should win it for us IMO. Lovie will have the Bears fired up, this is his Super Bowl.

---

nfl live chat, just now:


Jake, Batavia, NY
11:59 AM ET
PACKERS OR BEARS? Why?

Mike Mayock, NFL Network
Jake, the Bears are 2-0 but have significant OL issues. I give Mike Tice a ton of credit for holding that unit together despite injuries and a lack of overall depth. The Packers are coming of age. The sack numbers on Aaron Rodgers last year were more of a result of injuries than talent. He's joined the short list of elite QBs in the league. The Packers are a better football team.

---

Here's how I see it: I wouldn't be shocked if the Packers win big, but I actually see it being a close game. Green Bay's pass rush has been great so far, but lets consider a few important facts: they've done it against Philly and Buffalo. These respective teams have arguably two of the worst offensive lines in football. The Eagles were sacked six times last week by Detroit. Let me repeat that again for posterity: the Eagles were sacked six times last week by DETROIT. Buffalo has an easily below average offensive line. It's unlikely they'd have a leg to stand on if they protested your calling their o-line "awful".

Now, granted, Chicago's o-line isn't a wonder itself. But Cutler is the best QB in the bunch we've played so far (yeah, yeah, I know Vick is elusive but he was sacked... ahem... SIX TIMES by the Lions). After Cutler took a beating in quarters one and two against Dallas he things settled down. Martz is easily the best coordinator the Bears have had in recent years. He's aggressive, gets the ball to the running back frequently (Forte's "forte"), and the WRs -- while generally shitty -- have a ton of speed. Martz likes to throw downfield, but it would appear he isn't opposed to reigning things in if the pressure is consistent.

Here's the real issue, though, as I see it: the Bears defense looks for real. They've shut down opponents' run offenses and have been adequate in the pass. Take into account that they predominantly rush four and things get dicier. Green Bay's deficiencies last year weren't really against the blitz. A majority of the sacks came against four-man rushes. That's what Chicago employs, its how they base their defense, and they do it well. It is also, arguably, Green Bay's weakness -- even this year. The sacks against Philly didn't come on elaborate blitzes. Juquai Parker -- never heard of him either -- came up with two of them. Chicago has Julius Peppers. I think my point is self-evident.

If Green Bay does pose a definitive strategic advantage I'd have to say it's in the receiving core. I hope Jennings doesn't disappear (which sadly it seems he is prone to do). Finley having a big game could go a long way to sealing a win. Stretch a Cover 2 down the middle and the rest of the offense opens up. Chicago doesn't have a good secondary, but they aren't as bad as advertised.

All in all I think it is going to be close. Monday night, Soldier Field, division opponent, Cutler no-longer-playing-like-a-moron. All this shapes up for a much closer affair than most think ... I think.

---

It must only be ultra-superfans that find a reason to be unsatisfied with a 34-7 win.

I bet if we had Bill Cowher we'd play four perfect quarters every game.

---

You can't win, if you can't play four good quarters, those are just the facts.

---

I don't think there is any doubt the Packers are the better team. But I don't see them prdicting a winner or are we supposed to assume that by the last statement. Monday will be rocking. I'm not predicting a winner either, don't want to jinx the Pack!!!

---

I actually think a team needs to play well for six quarters.

The only acceptable wins are ones where you dominate a team for six quarters. If the opposing runs the ball efficiently for a quarter of the game, or if your offense sputters for a similar amount of time, the head coach should be immediately removed -- nay -- stoned to death.

---

Then how are the Chicago Bears 2-0 because they NEVER play 4 good quarters. Much of football is about overcoming adversity. What it's really about is your teams bad quarters aren't as bad as the other teams.

You have to give the opposing team their due. These teams all have talent and there will be times when one team out plays the other. That's when a good team sucks it up and turns the game back over to their side.


Last year the Saints were getting their butts kicked at half time several times down by two to three TD's but overcame the hole they dug and ultimately came back and won. Because they won games like this they ended with the home field which was huge for them in ultimately winning it all.

Four quarters of good football is the goal but once the game starts it often comes down to the team with the most heart and belief in themselves. If they believe in themselves they never quit and because the never quit good things begin to happen.

---