Why The Bears Will Win Sunday

[Bearin' Down]

The Bears will win Sunday and here is why:

1) The Packers have a beat up offensive line;

2) The Packers don't have anyone who can run the ball, which will make them one dimensional;

3) This means the Packers will have to key in on Khalil Mack;

4) However, what people here forget is that Leonard Floyd is a dynamic pass rusher when healthy. Don't believe me? Go back and watch his games last year and his rookie year (He was on pace for 10 sacks his rookie year and Defensive Rookie of the Year). Also, go back and look at Akiem Hicks production in terms of sacks last year. He had 7 when Floyd was healthy (because Floyd was being double teamed) and 1.5 in the last 5-6 games when Floyd was injured. Say what you want about him being able to stay healthy, none of it matters though, as he'll play in this game.

5) While Rodgers will score, he now has to keep up with the Bears offense. If you're worried about Mitch, you're not being honest with yourself. if you break down his game play into four game chunks you'd see a guy averaging almost 7 yards a throw and completing 65.6% of his passes all while throwing to Kendall Wright and Josh Bellamy with a QB rating of 81.6 while adding in 54 yards rushing and 2 more TDs. And now he's had an offseason to improve AND all reports indicate that this has occurred (whether it's the time put into learning or the play on the field and mechanics). On top of that, we've greatly improved all skill positions except RB, which was already fine. This includes players that have a reputation as a true number one receiver or are expected to be high performers elsewhere (Burton). And've added better players to our offensive line. Our offense is now much faster.

6) We should be able to also utilize our running game to keep Rodgers off the field.

7) The Packers defense is not good (on top of having a new system to learn).

8) Don't forget, Rodgers is still coming off a broken collar bone in his throwing shoulder and lost his favorite weapon in the redzone. Yes, they added Jimmy Graham, but Rodgers is notorious for not using TEs. This is probably due to him liking to extend plays and throw it down field.

 

[bearmick]

5) While Rodgers will score, he now has to keep up with the Bears offense.

You were doing ok up till here, but this statement is just ridiculous homerism. The best QB in football who has abused us since he became their starter (including defenses with guys like Urlacher, Briggs, Peanut and Peppers on them) will now "have to keep up" with a struggling inexperienced kid in a brand new system he clearly doesn't know well yet. Give me strength.

 

[Ares]

You were doing ok up till here, but this statement is just ridiculous homerism. The best QB in football who has abused us since he became their starter (including defenses with guys like Urlacher, Briggs, Peanut and Peppers on them) will now "have to keep up" with a struggling inexperienced kid in a brand new system he clearly doesn't know well yet. Give me strength.

As much as I have high hopes for Mitch, I have to agree with mick here.

Lol Rodgers having to keep up with our offense.

If that happens and Rodgers is running for his life down 3 TDs in the 3rd Quarter I will be happy to eat crow.

 

[modo]

This game will come down to one thing....stopping Aaron Rodgers. We won't win a shootout. Our defense needs to keep them on their side of the field and hold them to field goals when they can't. I don't see the INTs happening so the Bears will need to get turnovers the ugly way.

As of right now it will be a serious uphill climb.

 

[dweebs19]

yeah...I hope Mitch looks like Smith did last year running KC offense, but I'm worried. I have yet to see Mitch perform well this preseason. I know it's preseason, but the starting offense hasn't shown me anything to make me feel at ease. Having said that, I still bet my wife that the Bears win. I've been drinking the kool aid

 

[Bearin' Down]

You were doing ok up till here, but this statement is just absurd. The best QB in football who has abused us since he became their starter will now "have to keep up" with a struggling inexperienced kid in a brand new system he clearly doesn't know well yet. This is just ridiculous homerism.

You have to evaluate the comment in context of the whole. Yes, if there was someway to evaluate Rodgers versus Trubisky in a vacuum, Aaron Rodgers would win versus Trubisky as it presently stands. I agree. But the comment was made in the context of:

A) Rodgers being saddled with a porous oline;

B) Rodgers not having a running game to lean on;

C) Rodgers not having his primary scoring threat anymore;

D) Rodgers not having a defense he can count on;

E) The Bears upgraded defense; and

F) The Bears improved offense.

Then, it's topped off with an unknown based on his injury. Yes, he will have to keep up with Bears. In the context of all those things, he cannot do it on his own because his defense will be a handicap.

 

[pepethebear]

If this is an offense Rogers has to keep up with this team is winning the superbowl lol. Not sure you could have worded that more poorly

The other points listed are fine. But to the extent that the offense will win the game for the Bears it will probably be through ball control and a bad defense missing assignments.

 

[Bearin' Down]

If this is an offense Rogers has to keep up with this team is winning the superbowl lol. Not sure you could have worded that more poorly

The other points listed are fine. But to the extent that the offense will win the game for the Bears it will probably be through ball control and a bad defense missing assignments.

No, I think it's worded fine. This is an offense that can beat teams on its own. And I do think not discussing the bears in the context of a Superbowl is silly.

 

[Aquineas]

I like your enthusiasm, but disagree with at least one point. Ty Montgomery has run the ball exceptionally well vs the Bears.

 

[bearmick]

You have to evaluate the comment in context of the whole. Yes, if there was someway to evaluate Rodgers versus Trubisky in a vacuum, Aaron Rodgers would win versus Trubisky as it presently stands. I agree. But the comment was made in the context of:

A) Rodgers being saddled with a porous oline;

B) Rodgers not having a running game to lean on;

C) Rodgers not having his primary scoring threat anymore;

D) Rodgers not having a defense he can count on;

E) The Bears upgraded defense; and

F) The Bears improved offense.

Then, it's topped off with an unknown based on his injury. Yes, he will have to keep up with Bears. In the context of all those things, he cannot do it on his own because his defense will be a handicap.

All of this, much like virtually all analysis on this board, is based on everything being positive for the Bears and negative for everyone else. People rationalize ways that the Bears will be far better and rivals far worse every single offseason, and it rarely works out that way.

Rodgers has Davante Adams, Cobb and they added Jimmy Graham, and unlike Seattle, they'll use him properly. He'll be a red zone nightmare with someone as accurate as Rodgers targeting him. Their ground game outgained opposing teams by over a half ypc last year, so the assumptions that both their backfield and defense suck are not grounded in factual evidence. They have three really good young corners too. They're the 2nd largest favorites in week 1's points spreads for a good reason.

 

[didshereallysaythat]

Everyone is setting themselves up for disappointment.

The Packers will get away with holding like they always do which will negate Mack. And even so, he hasn't practiced all year yet. He could be rusty.

 

[Washington]

You have to evaluate the comment in context of the whole. Yes, if there was someway to evaluate Rodgers versus Trubisky in a vacuum, Aaron Rodgers would win versus Trubisky as it presently stands. I agree. But the comment was made in the context of:

A) Rodgers being saddled with a porous oline;

B) Rodgers not having a running game to lean on;

C) Rodgers not having his primary scoring threat anymore;

D) Rodgers not having a defense he can count on;

E) The Bears upgraded defense; and

F) The Bears improved offense.

Then, it's topped off with an unknown based on his injury. Yes, he will have to keep up with Bears. In the context of all those things, he cannot do it on his own because his defense will be a handicap.

So what will the blow-out score be like in your opinion?

The more threads I read here the more I'm excited that I'll be the one on the positive side of things living in WI come Monday. It is rare occurence for me to have that happen, but people have me believing this damn near guaranteed.

I do remember this one time though, not so many years ago, where the Packers were starting a WR (Montgomery) as their RB and people laughed and laughed. I think he had around 180 yards rushing against us and we lost. Weird things can happen but it is good to know it won't this weekend.

 

[didshereallysaythat]

All of this, much like virtually all analysis on this board, is based on everything being positive for the Bears and negative for everyone else. People rationalize ways that the Bears will be far better and rivals far worse every single offseason, and it rarely works out that way.

Rodgers has Davante Adams, Cobb and they added Jimmy Graham, and unlike Seattle, they'll use him properly. He'll be a red zone nightmare with someone as accurate as Rodgers targeting him. Their ground game outgained opposing teams by over a half ypc last year, so the assumptions that both their backfield and defense suck are not grounded in factual evidence. They have three really good young corners too. They're the 2nd largest favorites in week 1's points spreads for a good reason.

This is yet to be determined. Your other points are correct.

 

[bearmick]

No, I think it's worded fine. This is an offense that can beat teams on it's own.

Based on what? They looked lost for the most part in the preseason and are just beginning to learn a complicated system that even its own architects say takes 5 years to really master.

What evidence are possibly using to base the assertion that this offense as it is now, in 2018, "can beat teams on its own"? There's absolutely no rational evidence at this point to suggest that. This is just pure bear goggle kool aid stuff, sorry.

 

[Bearin' Down]

For those of you who were unaware, if you took the number of pass attempts Carson Wentz had as rookie, and you extrapolated that to Mitch, he would have thrown for 4,000 yards. And that doesn't adjust for the fact that he was getting better all season.

 

[bearmick]

The more threads I read here the more I'm excited that I'll be the one on the positive side of things living in WI come Monday

By all means be positive and hopeful, but if you're taking your pre-game analysis from the homer gibberish posted on CCS, well, you might as well get a weather forecast from reading tea leaves.

 

[playthrough2001]

This fan base has developed an inferiority complex when it comes to the Packers. Rodgers is an amazing player but he's like any other QB when it comes to pressure. If they can pressure him consistently and contain him in the pocket, they'll have a puncher's chance.

I think the Bears' O is going to move the ball at will on the Pack D.

Cutler gave them so many games with his ididocy, it makes us all a little gun shy when we see them on the schedule.

 

[Bearin' Down]

All of this, much like virtually all analysis on this board, is based on everything being positive for the Bears and negative for everyone else. People rationalize ways that the Bears will be far better and rivals far worse every single offseason, and it rarely works out that way.

Rodgers has Davante Adams, Cobb and they added Jimmy Graham, and unlike Seattle, they'll use him properly. He'll be a red zone nightmare with someone as accurate as Rodgers targeting him. Their ground game outgained opposing teams by over a half ypc last year, so the assumptions that both their backfield and defense suck are not grounded in factual evidence. They have three really good young corners too. They're the 2nd largest favorites in week 1's points spreads for a good reason.

Actually it is grounded in fact. What factual basis do you have to assume Rodgers is going to use Graham like the saints did? Brees had Graham when he was much younger. Brees is a quick strike qb. Rodgers likes to extend plays. Different systems. Historically, you can't back up this statement.

And yes, their ypc was good last year because they had Aaron Jones (5.5 ypc) and Brett Hundley (7.5 ypc). Neither will be playing in this game. Now they are relying on Jamaal Williams (3.6 ypc) and ty Montgomery (3.8 ypc).

Got any other hot takes I can disprove?

 

[pepethebear]

No, I think it's worded fine. This is an offense that can beat teams on its own. And I do think not discussing the bears in the context of a Superbowl is silly.

If pace thought this offense could beat teams on its own I dont think he would have bothered trading for mack. So I'll defer to his judgement on that

Could this offense be good? Sure. But you're setting yourself up for disappointment taking that as a given at this point. Its rational to say they'll be better than last year but that bar is not high.

If the bears win sunday the defense will probably be the biggest reason

 

[Washington]

By all means be positive and hopeful, but if you're taking your pre-game analysis from the homer gibberish posted on CCS, well, you might as well get a weather forecast from reading tea leaves.

mick, I think you know me better than that by now. There is no sarcasm font unfortunately. I could have made it green I suppose.