Yes but Cutler is elusive and a great passer out of the pocket. Bumping the WR is fine if you can get to the QB but the more time Cutler buys the more time Hester has to get open.
I would actually do the opposite with the Bears. Cover 2 man under maybe. The problem there though is Olson and Forte are great catching balls and our LB's are pretty mediocre in pass coverage.
I'm telling you, Cutler to the Bears is alot more dangerous than most on here are making it out to be.
I'm not saying Cutler is Montana but he is a good fit for the Bears. They are literally 1 WR away from having the potential to be one of the best offenses in the league (sounds weird).
We don't really match up well with them in my opinion.
"dd80forever" wrote:
Bears had a whopping #16 D last year and it's on the decline. Our D sucked because of injuries and lack of depth on the DL. If Ted Thompson can fix the DL, our D will do circles around their D. If he doesn't, he may be out of a job.
Forte vs Grant is a wash. Our WR core is superior. They got a better TE. As much as I complained about our OL last year, ours is at least better than da Bears' OL.
Their STs took a big hit last year with Hester become a full-time WR. Heck, WE had more TDs on our STs than they did.
Why are you worried about da Bears again? Like I've said before, if the Vikings get a QB, I'd be worried. But da Bears? No.
"zombieslayer" wrote:
Because I think you are dismissing them a little to easy.
First off Pace may be getting up thier in age but he still has game. The truth is Pace allowed a whopping 2 Sacks last year which was tied for 3rd in the league amongst LT's. Chad Clifton ranked 23 out of 31.
Shaffer will help the run game. Tait and St. Clair were turnstyles and are both gone. The Chicago O-Line is going to be much improved. They made some nice moves to fix what ails them.
There are also rumors floating around that Hester is trying to lure Torry Holt to the Bears.
Cutler elusiveness combined with Forte and Olson receiving ability as checkdowns is going to make the Bears offense a whole lot better than it was last year.
Defensively it's about a wash bewtween the GB and Chicago. I can't comment on the new 3-4 as we've yet to see anything of it. I'm undecided on Capers.
This team was 3 games better than us last year. Whether we didn't get the breaks or whatever doesn't really mean anything to me. Cutler, Shaffer, and Pace are nice additions while we just kind of sit idle.
"dd80forever" wrote:
GB sat idle and passed Chicago once before. Why not try again?
You're overrating Jay Cutler as much as some overrate Aaron Rodgers on here.
Jay Cutler is 17-20 as a starter. He is a great QB with a lot of potential, but he doesn't elevate a team like a Brett Favre did once upon a time or even what Matt Ryan did with a very average talented Atlanta Falcon team. He's not the player you're making him out to be.
Orlando Pace is average right now. Chad Clifton vs. Orlando Pace is wash. I really wouldn't take neither and I'm huge Pace fan back in his prime. Pace is not as good as last years best rookie offensive lineman, Ryan Clady whom was protecting Cutler.
Chicago's interior line needs help. They're about as good as the Packers.
I do like Olsen.
Matt Forte and Ryan Grant averaged the same amount of yards per carry last year. Their numbers are very close.
Defensively, Chicago has very little pass rush. Alex Brown, Mark Anderson, and Adewale Ogunleye combined for 12 sacks last year.
So did Aaron Kampman and Cullen Jenkins and Jenkins played in only 4 games.
Their tackles are solid with Tommie Harris and Anthony Adams should start, but I don't know what's going on there. None the less they need depth.
Their linebackers are solid. I like Briggs a lot. Urlacher isn't a big time player anymore, but he's still above average at what he does.
Secondary is awful in Chicago. Their safeties stink. They'd be wise to start Daniel Manning at free safety and I think they will so that's a big upgrade for them.
Charles Tillman struggled last year. Nathan Vasher is actually on thin ice. I read he was almost release. They lack depth behind them. No real true SS.
That team was overachieving last year. Yeah they won 9 games, but GB won 13 in 07. Were the Pack a 13 win team? You and I both know that's probably not the case. They came back down to earth this past year even without injuries.
Before this deal Chicago was probably a 6 or 7 win football team. Now they could get to 10, but they aren't far away better than Green Bay and I still don't get how people seem to be dismissing Minnesota. The Vikings are still top to bottom the best built team in my opinion. Chicago is better, but they won't that good to begin with.