Bears Lead Up - Bennett Released, Page 2

[humanrefutation]

The last time we lost Rodgers, we lost three games before tying against Minnesota. Granted, that was with three different replacement QBs, but it took time for the offense to adjust.

I'm not one to advocate for tanking until we're definitely out of it. Until we've got 7 losses, I think we'll still be in the conversation. Can't see us making it at 9-7 or 8-8 (or 8-7-1), but who the **** knows because I don't trust Minnesota or Detroit.

This game will give us some insight as to whether there's any hope going forward. The Bears are the worst team in our division, but they aren't terrible. We saw flashes from Hundley, and I think he'll look better.

[ReasonablySober]

Read on Twitter

Great.

[humanrefutation]

Read on Twitter

Great.

Ah, **** hell.

[Ron Swanson]

Weird to say that a 4-4 team is basically out of it, but damn, that Bulaga news is just another gut punch. Win and get to 5-4 with a 2-2 division record and a relatively soft schedule the rest of the way. Lose? It's over.

[Flames24Rulz]

Yeah, if they lose on Sunday, I'm rooting for them to lose out the rest of the way.

[Kerb Hohl]

Weird to say that a 4-4 team is basically out of it, but damn, that Bulaga news is just another gut punch. Win and get to 5-4 with a 2-2 division record and a relatively soft schedule the rest of the way. Lose? It's over.

With the Lions schedule and a 2 game deficit on the Vikings it's over already IMO.

[MickeyDavis]

I don't care about draft position, beat the **** Bears

[ReasonablySober]

Le Batard opens the national show and absolutely eviscerates the Packers for not doing more to help Rodgers over the last decade.

[Kerb Hohl]

Given that the oddsmakers probably have us pegged now after 2.5 games - the fact that we're +5 @Chicago means we're 2-3 points better than the Browns and 49ers on a neutral field. About the 29th or 30th best team, right in the mix with the Jets and Colts. Would be a pick 'em @Cleveland if played tomorrow.

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Great.

This is his right knee. He tore the ACL on the left knee in 2013. Just sucks he couldn't stay healthy after a good year in 2016.

Looks like Spriggs will get his chance after he comes back from IR. But chalk up RT as another position of need.

[FAH1223]

On a brighter note, did Charles Woodson never do a Lambeau Leap in his time as a Packer? I could have sworn he did one returning a INT or fumble for a TD...

[rilamann]

Why am I not surprised homer supreme Ron Swanson still hasn't figured out that the Packers are the soft schedule.Some of these posts are more entertaining than the game was Monday.

Heads will roll in Cleveland if the Browns lose to the Packers, and rightfully so.

[Prickle]

For those rooting for losses and a potential top-10 pick, I get it, and maybe that actually is this best thing for the team, at this point. My only problems with this train of thought are: A) I've never rooted for a Packer loss in my life, so I'm not gonna start now. B) Even if we get a top-10 pick, I'm not exactly confident that TT won't manage to f*ck it up. Every draft is a crapshoot, no matter where you pick; there are very few "can't miss" draft picks. So let's not act like a top-10 pick is some guarantee that we'll land a difference maker. Odds are, we won't. And even if we do, it seems like this team is a place where great talent comes to die. For the better part of a decade now, it seems that talented players have had to adjust to schemes that don't fit them, instead of schemes being adjusted to allow their talents to shine. For example....take a player like JJ Watt. Does anyone actually think he wins multiple DPOY awards if he was a Packer? If the Pack drafted him, he likely would've gone down as one of those talented players who just "never was able to live up to his potential." Today, no one would even know his name.

People like to give TT a lot of credit for picking AR in '05 (his defining moment), and yes, it turned out to be franchise-changing pick, but let's not pretend that it wasn't also just "lucky." And if we're being honest....if the Packer's draft spot had been a few slots earlier, they likely would've never even considered Rodgers, like the many teams before them. Draft a few spots earlier, and we would've just had another underachieving no-namer to add to the list.

Listen, the bottom line is: no top pick (regardless of how great) is gonna change the course for this team. This team has deep, fundamental problems that no single player acquisition will solve. It's going to take at least a minor, if not major, overhaul (coaching/philosophy) before this TEAM is elite, and not just a mediocre team that's overly reliant on an elite QB. Having AR automatically makes the team competitive each year, but with him out, it's painfully obvious why they haven't been close to winning more titles.

[HKPackFan]

For those rooting for losses and a potential top-10 pick, I get it, and maybe that actually is this best thing for the team, at this point. My only problems with this train of thought are: A) I've never rooted for a Packer loss in my life, so I'm not gonna start now. B) Even if we get a top-10 pick, I'm not exactly confident that TT won't manage to f*ck it up. Every draft is a crapshoot, no matter where you pick; there are very few "can't miss" draft picks. So let's not act like a top-10 pick is some guarantee that we'll land a difference maker. Odds are, we won't. And even if we do, it seems like this team is a place where great talent comes to die. For the better part of a decade now, it seems that talented players have had to adjust to schemes that don't fit them, instead of schemes being adjusted to allow their talents to shine. For example....take a player like JJ Watt. Does anyone actually think he wins multiple DPOY awards if he was a Packer? If the Pack drafted him, he likely would've gone down as one of those talented players who just "never was able to live up to his potential." Today, no one would even know his name.

People like to give TT a lot of credit for picking AR in '05 (his defining moment), and yes, it turned out to be franchise-changing pick, but let's not pretend that it wasn't also just "lucky." And if we're being honest....if the Packer's draft spot had been a few slots earlier, they likely would've never even considered Rodgers, like the many teams before them. Draft a few spots earlier, and we would've just had another underachieving no-namer to add to the list.

Listen, the bottom line is: no top pick (regardless of how great) is gonna change the course for this team. This team has deep, fundamental problems that no single player acquisition will solve. It's going to take at least a minor, if not major, overhaul (coaching/philosophy) before this TEAM is elite, and not just a mediocre team that's overly reliant on an elite QB. Having AR automatically makes the team competitive each year, but with him out, it's painfully obvious why they haven't been close to winning more titles.

It's not in my DNA to root for loses but when the emotional part of me is not in charge I'm thinking not just about rooting for losses for a draft pick but for heads to roll.

[Prickle]

For those rooting for losses and a potential top-10 pick, I get it, and maybe that actually is this best thing for the team, at this point. My only problems with this train of thought are: A) I've never rooted for a Packer loss in my life, so I'm not gonna start now. B) Even if we get a top-10 pick, I'm not exactly confident that TT won't manage to f*ck it up. Every draft is a crapshoot, no matter where you pick; there are very few "can't miss" draft picks. So let's not act like a top-10 pick is some guarantee that we'll land a difference maker. Odds are, we won't. And even if we do, it seems like this team is a place where great talent comes to die. For the better part of a decade now, it seems that talented players have had to adjust to schemes that don't fit them, instead of schemes being adjusted to allow their talents to shine. For example....take a player like JJ Watt. Does anyone actually think he wins multiple DPOY awards if he was a Packer? If the Pack drafted him, he likely would've gone down as one of those talented players who just "never was able to live up to his potential." Today, no one would even know his name.

People like to give TT a lot of credit for picking AR in '05 (his defining moment), and yes, it turned out to be franchise-changing pick, but let's not pretend that it wasn't also just "lucky." And if we're being honest....if the Packer's draft spot had been a few slots earlier, they likely would've never even considered Rodgers, like the many teams before them. Draft a few spots earlier, and we would've just had another underachieving no-namer to add to the list.

Listen, the bottom line is: no top pick (regardless of how great) is gonna change the course for this team. This team has deep, fundamental problems that no single player acquisition will solve. It's going to take at least a minor, if not major, overhaul (coaching/philosophy) before this TEAM is elite, and not just a mediocre team that's overly reliant on an elite QB. Having AR automatically makes the team competitive each year, but with him out, it's painfully obvious why they haven't been close to winning more titles.

It's not in my DNA to root for loses but when the emotional part of me is not in charge I'm thinking not just about rooting for losses for a draft pick but for heads to roll.

I get that. If anything good comes out of this, it'll be significant coaching changes. But, sadly, there's still no guarantee that will happen. The team's deficiencies are being exposed right now, to the point where even the most casual fan is beginning to say "WTF." But anyone who knows anything about football has seen these same deficiencies for many years now, and nothing has changed. A franchise with no "owner" and an extremely tolerant fan base, is a recipe for disaster - those in charge aren't held to the same accountability that others in their positions around the league are. You think MM, DC, and TT don't know that their team has underachieved for years? Of course they do, but they like their jobs, and they're certainly not gonna fire themselves. They've all blessed with a HOF QB, and the fact that no one is looking over their shoulder. There is no such thing as the "hot seat" in GB, so long as Rodgers is your QB.

[HKPackFan]

For those rooting for losses and a potential top-10 pick, I get it, and maybe that actually is this best thing for the team, at this point. My only problems with this train of thought are: A) I've never rooted for a Packer loss in my life, so I'm not gonna start now. B) Even if we get a top-10 pick, I'm not exactly confident that TT won't manage to f*ck it up. Every draft is a crapshoot, no matter where you pick; there are very few "can't miss" draft picks. So let's not act like a top-10 pick is some guarantee that we'll land a difference maker. Odds are, we won't. And even if we do, it seems like this team is a place where great talent comes to die. For the better part of a decade now, it seems that talented players have had to adjust to schemes that don't fit them, instead of schemes being adjusted to allow their talents to shine. For example....take a player like JJ Watt. Does anyone actually think he wins multiple DPOY awards if he was a Packer? If the Pack drafted him, he likely would've gone down as one of those talented players who just "never was able to live up to his potential." Today, no one would even know his name.

People like to give TT a lot of credit for picking AR in '05 (his defining moment), and yes, it turned out to be franchise-changing pick, but let's not pretend that it wasn't also just "lucky." And if we're being honest....if the Packer's draft spot had been a few slots earlier, they likely would've never even considered Rodgers, like the many teams before them. Draft a few spots earlier, and we would've just had another underachieving no-namer to add to the list.

Listen, the bottom line is: no top pick (regardless of how great) is gonna change the course for this team. This team has deep, fundamental problems that no single player acquisition will solve. It's going to take at least a minor, if not major, overhaul (coaching/philosophy) before this TEAM is elite, and not just a mediocre team that's overly reliant on an elite QB. Having AR automatically makes the team competitive each year, but with him out, it's painfully obvious why they haven't been close to winning more titles.

It's not in my DNA to root for loses but when the emotional part of me is not in charge I'm thinking not just about rooting for losses for a draft pick but for heads to roll.

I get that. If anything good comes out of this, it'll be significant coaching changes. But, sadly, there's still no guarantee that will happen. The team's deficiencies are being exposed right now, to the point where even the most casual fan is beginning to say "WTF." But anyone who knows anything about football has seen these same deficiencies for many years now, and nothing has changed. A franchise with no "owner" and an extremely tolerant fan base, is a recipe for disaster - those in charge aren't held to the same accountability that others in their positions around the league are. You think MM, DC, and TT don't know that their team has underachieved for years? Of course they do, but they like their jobs, and they're certainly not gonna fire themselves. They've all blessed with a HOF QB, and the fact that no one is looking over their shoulder. There is no such thing as the "hot seat" in GB, so long as Rodgers is your QB.

Bob Harlan had balls. Murphy I don't think so. I think he's been happy with the easiest job in the world. I'm sure his plan was autopilot until TT retired.

[Ron Swanson]

Why am I not surprised homer supreme Ron Swanson still hasn't figured out that the Packers are the soft schedule.Some of these posts are more entertaining than the game was Monday.

Heads will roll in Cleveland if the Browns lose to the Packers, and rightfully so.

Why am I not surprised that you still contribute nothing to threads and just bitch about everything regardless of whether the Packers are playing good or playing like trash? Oh, right, it's what people on this board have come to comically refer to as a "Rilamann take". Nothing to see here.

[Ron Swanson]

Given that the oddsmakers probably have us pegged now after 2.5 games - the fact that we're +5 @Chicago means we're 2-3 points better than the Browns and 49ers on a neutral field. About the 29th or 30th best team, right in the mix with the Jets and Colts. Would be a pick 'em @Cleveland if played tomorrow.

PFT dropped us down to 27th in the Power Rankings. Yeah, sounds about right. Even the local guys (Heller and Adias) were talking about they may only have two more winnable games on the schedule (CHI & CLE). We bad.

[Flames24Rulz]

Given that the oddsmakers probably have us pegged now after 2.5 games - the fact that we're +5 @Chicago means we're 2-3 points better than the Browns and 49ers on a neutral field. About the 29th or 30th best team, right in the mix with the Jets and Colts. Would be a pick 'em @Cleveland if played tomorrow.

PFT dropped us down to 27th in the Power Rankings. Yeah, sounds about right. Even the local guys (Heller and Adias) were talking about they may only have two more winnable games on the schedule (CHI & CLE). We bad.

I really don't think this game on Sunday is winnable, unless we see something totally drastic from both Hundley and the defense. The Bears have a good defense and a really good running game. I don't really see how Hundley's going to be successful on Sunday, but I hope I'm wrong.

[Kerb Hohl]

Given that the oddsmakers probably have us pegged now after 2.5 games - the fact that we're +5 @Chicago means we're 2-3 points better than the Browns and 49ers on a neutral field. About the 29th or 30th best team, right in the mix with the Jets and Colts. Would be a pick 'em @Cleveland if played tomorrow.

PFT dropped us down to 27th in the Power Rankings. Yeah, sounds about right. Even the local guys (Heller and Adias) were talking about they may only have two more winnable games on the schedule (CHI & CLE). We bad.

I really don't think this game on Sunday is winnable, unless we see something totally drastic from both Hundley and the defense. The Bears have a good defense and a really good running game. I don't really see how Hundley's going to be successful on Sunday, but I hope I'm wrong.

I think we'll lose, but we are a solid defense against the run and John Fox is gonna John Fox and try to run the ball 50 times to win this game. Conventional wisdom would say the Bears will find a way to score an extra touchdown, but the Bears are one of the few teams that might not shred our horrendous passing defense unless Fox unleashes Mitch.