Buchanty

My son helped me see where "lopsided" applied in my post, pointing to my picky complaint on the 12 man on the field penalty as exhibit 1. He also pointed out the Bears D did turn up. I was remiss on not referencing the pressure they put on GB.

GB generated pressure which Cutler wilted under, in fact the front 7 had there way all night against a Chicago O'line that just wanted to be far from Lambeau. Cutler was the victim of both the Pack onslaught, the Bears Maginot line and his own "imaginotion" (see stats at GB). GB is in no way a "bad" team, and rebounded from week 1. I already sense the media circus ready to crown Rogers and the O elite again in 2012, yet they are still out of synch, as you say. I cant separate the Pack from the Pats as they appear to be roughly at the same stage of development. Much improved defense, greater depth in D, but Offense and QB not quite in rhythm.

I suspect both will be much improved come November.

Appreciate the post - and I echo - peace out.

I don't disagree with what you say, my man. By "lopsided", I meant that you made it sound as if the Packers had nothing to do with Cutler gift-wrapping some balls and delivering them to their hands. Cutler was horrible. But the Packers' pass rush had a lot to do with that--and last year the Packers had none. Their secondary also blanketed Chi's receivers very well--another change from last year.

As for more talent, their rookies Jerel Worthy, Casey Hayward and a couple of others have given the Packers depth that they didn't have last year. You're right about who made the big plays, but overall the defensive unit is just playing better.



GB is in no way a *good* team right now. Their offense is off. Why do I think that might change? Because they have the talent and were one of the most productive offenses in the league not very long ago. That means they *can* do it, but will they? We're all just making guesses anyway.

Peace out.