Category: Green Bay Packers

Brad Biggs at the Chicago Tribune answers your questions:

“Why hasn’t Lamarr Houston been promoted to starter yet? I think he’s proven over the last few weeks that he’s the answer opposite Pernell McPhee. It can’t be because he’s a liability on first and second down, can it? All I heard and read when he came over from Oakland was what a great run defender he is. Not to mention he’s certainly being paid like a starter, as opposed to Sam Acho or Willie Young. — Nicholas D., Birmingham, Ala.”

Biggs points out that Houston’s snaps increased dramatically against the Packers.

“More important than the designation of who is starting is playing time, so that’s worth keeping in mind, too. I don’t think decisions on playing time should be based on money either. When you start putting players on the field because they have a bigger paycheck, that’s when you get in trouble. Young’s contract isn’t shabby either. He’s earning a base salary of $2.45 million this season. I like the way they’re moving guys in and out at outside linebacker and handling McPhee’s knee situation, which is clearly keeping him on the sideline more than anyone would like.”

I couldn’t agree more. Both Young and Houston have earned more playing time. I also feel the need to point out that Houston has a bad habit of disappearing until points in the game where the opponent absolutely has to pass and he can go all out after the quarterback without worrying about other responsibilities. I’d like to see him do it at other points in the game before I’ll become a real believer that he’s as good as his recent statistics indicate.

Mark Potash at the Chicago Sun-Times cites the “statistics” on the Bears defensive effort.

“According to Pro Football Focus, the Bears’ composite defensive rating against the Packers on Thursday night was minus-18.8. It was minus-3.2 in Week 1, when [Aaron] Rodgers had a 140.5 passer rating and threw three touchdown passes in a 31-23 victory.”

Do I really need to comment?

Rob Demovsky at ESPN reports that Packers head coach Mike McCarthy gave his players almost eight days off over their bye week. That’s nearly double the minimum four days that the NFL Players Union requires.

I find this to be interesting because Bears head coach John Fox went with the minimum four days rather than give the players the maximum amount of rest the way that McCarthy did.

I’m not saying that Fox did the wrong thing. The Bears are a young team who undoubtedly needed the extra work. I’m sure they did what most teams do over the bye – they tried to correct problems that have been identified via self-scouting. And I’m sure there are a lot of problems.

The Packers are a veteran team and one that’s undefeated at that. Perhaps there are some guys who still needed the work and perhaps there aren’t.  We’ll have to wait and see how they do but they undoubtedly have fewer things to worry about correcting than the Bears. McCarthy is a fantastic 8-1 after the bye during his tenure but Fox is a pretty respectable 10-3. I’d say both coaches know what they’re doing and what their team needs.

But there may have been one negative factor that fell out of Fox’s decision to work his team. It’s all well and good to get young players into the building for needed extra work but it’s quite another to ask veteran players to do it, correction of problems identified via self-scouting or not. A lot of these guys have families and they were undoubtedly looking forward to the time off. It doesn’t take much imagination to wonder whether veteran defensive tackle Jeremiah Ratliff wasn’t one of them and whether that factored into his decision to show up “in no condition for work” on Wednesday. Perhaps Ratliff had decided to take the extra day of the bye to relax and do whatever it is that he did a little early, team demands or not. Knowing that your biggest rival a couple hours away was giving the players more than a week probably didn’t help.

Again, I’m not saying that Fox did the wrong thing. But there are consequences that have to be weighed whenever a decision like this is made. The Bears may well have lost Ratliff as a consequence of this one. It’s well known that Ratliff was a mentor for the younger defensive linemen including rookie Eddie Goldman. Even rookie center Hroniss Grasu sought him out for advice.

Perhaps the best lesson Ratliff could have taught these players was his final one when he pushed the team over the edge and was released. Perhaps the long-term benefit of a few extra days of practice was worth the loss. And perhaps it wasn’t.

Dan Wiederer at the Chicago Tribune on quarterback Jay Cutler‘s performance Sunday:

“[C]an we take a quick intermission here for a PSA to remind our audience that Cutler’s career arc did not experience a dramatic shift based on Sunday’s final drive? Can you imagine how different the discussion would be this week had he and the offense not converted a fourth-and-5 from their own 25 with 1:30 to play to extend the game-winning drive?

“Yes, it’s acceptable to credit Cutler for another fourth-quarter comeback victory. But only if you also acknowledge that Sunday’s game probably should have become a routine Bears win had their quarterback simply added to a 19-17 lead earlier in the period rather than throwing a back-breaking interception.

“Cutler’s toughness? Documented long ago. Cutler’s error-prone tendencies in key moments? Documented long ago. Cutler’s ability to bounce back? Documented long ago. So give him credit for Sunday’s effort. It’s deserved. Let’s just slow down the parade proclaiming that the entire organization has now fully rallied behind him and will never look back.”

Amen.

Few people are more critical of Cutler than I am. So let me first say that I actually mean what I’m about to say – all credit to him for the game winning drive. I thought it was great and I’ll say that not every QB could have done it. Jimmy Clausen probably doesn’t move in the pocket like Cutler and probably doesn’t win Sunday. Some of those throws threaded the needle. Honestly, I was thrilled.

But I think its necessary to point out that it was at home against a below average team that has been a tire fire in the defensive backfield for four games now. It appalls me to see people like Hub Arkush at chicagofootball.com give Cutler an “A-“ for an effort that yielded a QB rating of 60 just as it disturbed me to see people heaping praise on him for an effort in week one against the Packers where that same rating was less than 30.

In any case, we’ve known for some time that Cutler can look good against teams like the Raiders under those conditions. The problem is that he saves his worst performances for when the team needs him most at his best – on the road against an very good teams in prime time.

Thanksgiving at Lambeau still looks like a very ugly match up to me. That’s not entirely because of Jay Cutler but its going to remain an ugly match up as long as he is the Bears quarterback.