Please Register or Log in to Remove this Advertisement! Henry and I have been fighting and fighting and fighting about what this team needed to do to win, well you saw it tonight, at least in part. A 9 min drive to keep the D off the field until it was to late for the GB O to really create a drive and look at that, the Bears won. Chicago O: I'll give credit were it's do, McCown looked okay, ya not great, sorry but 50% comp is not great, but he did look good. And the coaches had seen enough that when the game was on the line they took the ball out of his hands and let the rb's do the work. All the same he did look good, and it screams about what Trestman can do w/a qb, McCown said he'd never been more prepared to start a game then this week under trestman, and it showed. Trestman really is the QB whisperer, imaging what he could do w/a young talented qb! Forte, Marshal, Jeffery all stepped up big time, and we even saw Bush make some plays. The speculation of Garza's demise seem exagerated at this point, and the OL did look good. Forte actaully ended up w/more yards then Lacy, not rushing but rush/pass and that's all that really matters. Wanna know how the team started? 3 min drive TD, 1min drive punt, 3 min drive punt, 3 min drive TD 1min drive punt, 4 min drive fg in the first half. See how much better the D can look when they aren't on the field? That being said they still looked like shit, but when they aren't on the field the entire first half they look a lot better. That stumbled in the 3rd and GB got back into it, but was finished off w/a 9 min drive and the Team pulled it off. It allowed the O to control ToP 33 to 26, Henry and I have been saying this is exactly what the O needed and they did it. Chicago D: Finally they showed up a little from the DL, and all it took was taking out the QB. Finally the DL got some pressure. But the LB's and Safeties still looked bad. our Rookie LB's were out of place and so were the vet safeties, the D is bad folks, they just don't have the horses, but they did step up, got a few sacks and got a TO or two. Special thanks to Peppers and Shea w/huge sacks and a int. I've as critical of Shea as I have of McCown and Cutler, but again credit where it's due, he finally showed up and stepped up big. They still couldn't stop a RB, 200 yards+ rushing? Really?!?!? REALLY?!?!? Chicago ST's: man what a mixed bag, Hester looked pretty good at times, Gould is Gould, but a blocked punt? A missed onside kick? It wasn't pretty. Chicago Coaches: I think we see what Trestman's O can look like when the QB isn't to aggressive, but it did faulter in the 3rd qtr. I mocked the idea that Tucker was down on the field for the first time, but did it matter? Maybe the fact that Peppers and Tillman got 2 weeks off allowed them to finally catch their breath and get fully healthy, but all the same, I hope Tuck stays down there. GB O: Well w/out Rodgers you see the opposite of a vet qb, and the standard of what most do, they look like crap, but it doesn't help a qb when you have no one worth a damn to throw to, and he didn't, it just goes to show how absolutely great Rodgers is. Lacy is an absolute stud, and Starks is a hell of a backup. But their OL is awfull. GB D: They are solid, and were the, what, 4th rated rush D? But that's proves that stats can lie, b/c when in a close game or behind they couldn't stop the Bears from running. Their pass D isn't all that great either. Again it's makes a D a whole lot better when you have Rodgers giving you a huge lead....this D is over rated imo and I think Trestman is going to have a field day w/it. GB ST's: that onside K in the 3rd right after a TD was really nice, and you saw a kicker that understood how to do a kick, hope Gould looks at that tape. GB coaches: hard to knock the coaches, they just don't have the horses, and if you don't believe that matters, for those that have blasted Tucker, well take a look at how bad the GB O looked w/out Rodgers and w/out a bunch of starting quality WR's to bail out their backup, it makes a difference and you saw it on the opposite side of the field for a change.