Thread: Can the Bears keep pace with the Packers?Thre

Originally Posted by 4th and 26

The depth they have is something I noticed also. I think we have about the same defense except for the secondary but I think Capers runs his defense a hell of a lot more aggressive then Rod. I don't think Rod Marinelli is good at all and seeing how the packers run their defense make me believe he is a yes man to lovies system. The packers are not that good on kick offs, teams seem to run through them. I think the kicking game is close but I give gould the edge. If we could remove Jerry Angelo from drafting players or trading picks away and get someone that knows football then maybe we can catch up to the packers in a few years.

I think we are in 100000% agreement about Angelo, his track record speaks for itself. But, sadly we don't see that happening anytime soon. As most at Halas seem to think his formula works.. and to some extend they are right. People are still showing up in droves to the games..

As for kickoff, how much did that have to do with their injuries? and how much was it bad coverage? Time will tell on that.

I think IMO the Bears need to be more concerned with the Lions than the Packers. The lions are seeming to get it when drafting, the bears could take a note from them. The Packers, are set.. and should be very good next year. The Lions, on who they draft could surpass the Bears next year.. And then what?

If by keeping pace is meant bridging the talent gap it will have to happen with aggressive FA, spending a bit more, and relying on now Ruskell and a new scouting regime to come in cold and make decent strides.
In years perhaps yes in short term NO.

Originally Posted by The Benjamin

Mass suicide from people jumping off the wagon?

I was never on the wagon.. so hard to jump off

Originally Posted by dabears54

packers special teams have STUNK for years, nothing to do with 2010 if being realistic and not just looking to pretend the bears not better at aspects... we haven't had a year go by in think 6 years now where we haven't either returned kicks for TDs or blocked kicks/Fg's from the packers...

bears "D" and packers "D" very similar, bears run "D" much better #2 at 90 and packers #18 at 115 - and by total yards packers 5th at 309, bear's 8th at 314...5 yards very close.

By turnover's bears #2 with 36 and packers #5 with 33 -packers 2nd in INt with 25, bear 5th with 21, bears #5 in fumbles recovered with 15, packers 24th with 8, packers #2 with 47 sacks, bears 17th with 34

Packers #2 in points at 15ppg bears #4 17.9

so despite all how close the 2 D's are, not sure how this can be if the bears cpaches suck and much worse and the packers "D' players much better.. its a christmas miracle!.. or maybe some are just over-estimating the packers and undervaluing the bears would make more sense.

Of course. Anything slightly snubbing the Bears to you is somehow them "undervaluing" them. It couldn't possibly be fact. There are people at both the 'the Bears are horrible and couldn't win a game if their lives depended on it' and the "the Bears can do no wrong and all the other teams in the league are worse than them' ends of the spectrum. You would definitely be the latter.

The fact of the matter is the Packers not only beat the Bears twice this season, but they also won the Super Bowl with 15 players on IR, a lot of which WERE starters or players replacing starters that were already injured. Sure there were some a few garbage players on IR, but that could be said about any team in the league as well. We were just fortunate enough to have awesome depth and in most cases the replacements came in and performed as well as, or in some cases better than the original starter which bodes well for us as that only makes our team as a whole better.