- Joined:
- Apr 17, 2010
- Posts:
- 35,765
- Liked Posts:
- 43,992
Been saying Whitehair shouldn't be C since they put him there. He cant even snap the ball right for goodness sake.
Im sure.So can Daniels play RG?
Bars has come to match, and sometimes exceed, Daniels level of play from earlier in the season. The Bears have one of those "good problems" at guard now.So can Daniels play RG?
Please no more forcing major position changes on the offensive line. Let's let players be the players they are and fit the scheme around it rather than cramming square pegs into round holes.Would like to see if he can play tackle in the NFL
He played there year one and played well, no? Its what he was drafted to play.How big is the sample size with him at LG?
Definitely playing great right now
If your offensive line can physically impose on half the league then its a good offensive line. Were past the point of questioning the strength of competition now, the Bears line play has looked consistently fantastic for long enough now for it to be undeniable that they've made substantial progress.Definitely playing great right now but that also could be a result of bad defenses like Mitch
If your offensive line can physically impose on half the league then its a good offensive line. Were past the point of questioning the strength of competition now, the Bears line play has looked consistently fantastic for long enough now for it to be undeniable that they've made substantial progress.
If the Bears treat the Saints like they've treated their opponents over the last five or so weeks then you are suddenly thinking this offensive line is not just in the middle-third of the league, but one of the NFL's best.Progress yes. How much progress though is still not certain
I'd need to see more than one game against a solid defense before I'd go anywhere near calling them good
This Saints game though will tell us a lot
Their running game was far more productive in the first GB game, more yards and over 2x the yards per carry.The Packers are kinda soft in the front seven but the night-and-day difference between the running game in their first meeting and their second pretty much solidifies the idea that Whitehair-Mustipher-Bars have genuinely turned around that facet of the team. No need for PFF grades to make that point, its pretty undeniable at this point.
Bars has come to match, and sometimes exceed, Daniels level of play from earlier in the season. The Bears have one of those "good problems" at guard now.
Montgomery had a massive sixty yard run in that game that skews the statistics in a major way. In terms of being consistently physical in the trenches the Bears were way better yesterday than they were before now that the new line combination has had time to gel.Their running game was far more productive in the first GB game, more yards and over 2x the yards per carry.
Also pretty sure Whitehair, Mustipher and Bars all played every snap in both GB games.
Haha, whatever you say. Even without Monty's big run they averaged almost 1 ypc more in the first game.Montgomery had a massive sixty yard run in that game that skews the statistics in a major way. In terms of being consistently physical in the trenches the Bears were way better yesterday than they were before now that the new line combination has had time to gel.
Statistics almost never tell the whole story. If you cling to them it just means you are incapable of actually conceptualizing what you saw and describing it. Though its clear you are just looking to start a bitter internet fight, so I'll leave you alone.Haha, whatever you say. Even without Monty's big run they averaged almost 1 ypc more in the first game.
And you obviously thought there was a different lineup in the first game.
So describe to me what you watched that got you so enthused from the first to second Packers game.Statistics almost never tell the whole story. If you cling to them it just means you are incapable of actually conceptualizing what you saw and describing it. Though its clear you are just looking to start a bitter internet fight, so I'll leave you alone.
Bears offensive line consistently moved the LOS, consistently opened running lanes and most important consistently protected the quarterback. I dont really buy the theory that Mitch Trubisky has this sack-repellant aura about him. As bad as the Packers can be against the run they are a pretty good pass rushing team and their pass rush did not meaningfully change the course of yesterday's game.So describe to me what you watched that got you so enthused from the first to second Packers game.
Not really, if you consistently move the LOS you actually get yards. They were fair yesterday, a few decent holes but not many. There might have been two or three runs where an RB was not touched into the second level. And never past that.Bears offensive line consistently moved the LOS, consistently opened running lanes and most important consistently protected the quarterback. I dont really buy the theory that Mitch Trubisky has this sack-repellant aura about him. As bad as the Packers can be against the run they are a pretty good pass rushing team and their pass rush did not meaningfully change the course of yesterday's game.
I'm not talking about sacks. I dont care about statistics. There wasn't pressure, the pass rush of the Packers simply was not impacting the game at all. You can say this was the Bears getting the ball out quickly but even then I have distinct memories of the rush affecting even quick timing plays earlier in the season.Not really, if you consistently move the LOS you actually get yards. They were fair yesterday, a few decent holes but not many. There might have been two or three runs where an RB was not touched into the second level. And never past that.
The reason there were few sacks was because the ball was out of Trubisky's hand in under 2 seconds or, more rarely, they max protected (as on the bomb to Mooney).