As I predicted months ago

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

No you predicted they would get pressure and no sacks. That is a very bad prediction through three games

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

No, I predicted that you would be using pressures as the key metric, which you are doing implicitly with your post

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

No, you said they would get pressures and not sacks and GB fans would be unhappy with their actual sack production. That hasn't happened.

And if you haven't noticed I'm just reposting stuff I come across on my Twitter feed. If you want to compare sack numbers between our teams we can do that, but I don't think you want to.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I'm not going to worry about any comparisons after three games, although your implication is that there would be a remarkable difference in the two, which there is not. I believe the difference is 1 sack. I do know two offenses changed their entire system to avoid the Bears pass rush and the one that didn't dug itself a 28 point hole.

I do also know that months ago I wrote that Packer fans would be keying on pressures as primary indication of defensive quality and boom, steak dinner.

I mean, Nostradamus wrote Hisler instead of Hitler in his prophecies before the fact

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

That tweet wasn't written by a Packers fan. It was written by The official Twitter account of the NFL Media Research Department, bringing you the best stats from around the League.

You're struggling more than Baker Mayfield so far this year.

Also, if you know that GB "changed their entire system" for Chicago, then please explain what their current offensive system is. Because I don't know, neither do Packers reporters, and my guess is Rodgers and LeFleur would struggle to answer that question as well. Denver also has a new playcaller, meaning you don't know their system and how it changed for Chicago either. But yes, congrats on beating one of the three worst teams in the NFL by a couple touchdowns.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

but you ARE a Packer fan and your reposting it here with the added notation that they are "just wrecking shit" is an endorsement of the content contained therein

You should have starred in 50 Shades of Grey because you seem to enjoy the abuse you knew was coming with that post

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

It's an endorsement in the sense that it is true and a fact, yes. Are you under the impression Packers fans invented pressure rates?

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I would never attribute mathematical calculations to Packer fans.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

Yup!

2nd lowest PPG in the NFL along with all the pressures, sacks and turnovers. I'll take it!

The reason for this is that teams are not afraid of the Packers defense.

It’s funny you keep going to this. As much as you want it to be, “the packers defense is not good because I don’t want it to be good” is not a good rebuttal to anything we posted.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

They just aren't.

I watched the Bears and Packers play the same opponent one week apart. The Broncos abandoned the idea of running the ball before the game even started, look at the carries.

Then literally one week later the Broncos directly attacked Kenny "Aaron Donald" Clark and Preston "Khalil Mack" Smith to obscene effect. They had no fear of being outmatched physically by the Packers. Nobody does. They are soft as hell.

Yes, because they couldn’t pass the ball effectively on us like they could you. It’s really that simple.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I dont think they want to use Joe Flacco more than thirty times a game unless they have literally no alternative.

Saw it with Keenum yesterday too. Teams can pass on the Bears a lot easier than they can against GB.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I'll take a RB averaging 4.2 YPC and the other 3.9Y YPC as struggling against the run. I wonder how low it'll go when the Packers play well!

Yea those five turnovers were really the hallmark of an effective passing game.

Again, congrats on beating one of the 3 worst teams in the league, but yeah the last two games were closer than they should have been because of how easily guys like Flacco and Keenum threw the ball in you guys in the second half.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Most teams, including the Bears, will deliberately give up underneath routes and trade field position or even points for minutes off the clock. Also Mack played less than 50% of the snaps in the second half and Hicks & Floyd took themselves out. That's because the Bears are clearly the NFL's best defense and dont need to stat pad against beaten opponents to prove it.

The Packers on the other hand are too busy getting gashed on the ground every week to put themselves in a position where they can just relax on a fat lead. The Bears starters already have a full half less of wear and tear than the Packer's starters do. That matters way more than meaningless statistical distinctions.

I really do enjoy all the nonsensical arguments you try to use.

The Packers and Bears have faced one common opponent, GB did decidedly better against that one opponent.

Green Bay beat the Bears in Chicago already.

Green Bay beat Minnesota already.

Green Bay has, by any measure available including the eye test, one of the top 5 defenses in the league right now.

But you're trying to talk shit because the Bears ended up beating one of the worst teams in the NFL in a game that was two scores closer than it should have been.

I can’t wait to see what your defense mechanisms bring us next.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Aside from the Dolphins the Packers are surely at or very nearly at the worst rush defense in the league. I dont care to look it up, but they've been shredded twice in three weeks so I'm fairly certain they are least the bottom five. The statistics dont even matter though, you watch them and you see how soft they are. Nobody on the Packers except Zadarius Smith seems at all interested in hitting anyone. Whereas on the Bears all of the front seven are basically addicted to doling out physical punishment and even secondary players like Buster Skrine and especially Eddie Jackson relish opportunities to establish physical dominance.

Just different identities. The Packers want to play 7 on 7, the Bears want to play NFL football. This difference will become very apparent in a couple months when the weather turns to shit.

Green Bay built a 2019 defense and its excelling so far. Rushing yards don’t mean much when they contribute to 10 ppg for opposing offenses. Meanwhile, the Bears defense is built to allow huge chunk plays which we have already seen in every game.

I’m glad the you think the Bears approach is smarter and I’m also glad my team built a team to stop passing offenses, not rushing offenses. And as Kirkwood noted, Cook is shredding everyone but the Bears were too scared to run on GB and Denver wasn’t all that efficient at it and it allowed GB to win comfortably, something the Bears can’t say against Denver.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

The only reason you say rush yards don't matter is because the Packers can't stop the run. If it were the other way around you'd be saying how little it mattered that the Packers were terrible against the pass and how much more meaningful it is that they are stalwart against the run.

You're not looking at a results and finding a narrative. Instead you have your narrative already made and are only looking at results that support it. Any result that doesn't support it is in your eyes irrelevant, even if it something as glaringly important as being absolutely hopeless at defending the rushing game.

I follow the NFL closer than anyone here, so no, it’s not a coincidence I believe stopping passing offenses is significantly more important than stopping rushing offenses today. Literally all the data supports that opinion to the point even the meatballs are starting to get it.

Also, your suggestion the Packers can’t stop the run isn’t even true. Cook has gashed everyone. We’ll see what he does against the Bears. The Broncos ran a lot, and never very efficiently, and the Bears didn’t run at all on GB, and they’ve won all three games relatively comfortably.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

You thought the Packers beat the Bears by a "comfortable" margin? OK, big guy.

_________________

You dont need your stupid gay "data" or analytics to know that defending the pass is more important. Follow the money. Who gets paid most on the defensive side of the ball? Pass rushers and cornerbacks. But at the same time nobody is going to agree with you that defending the pass is so important that being utterly incapable of defending the run is an acceptable tradeoff. And again the Packers are exploitable in the secondary but since they've played probably five of the worst currently starting NFL QB's they have looked way better than they actually are.

Also where the hell does "winning comfortably" come from? Every game the Packers have played this year has been a one-score game in the fourth quarter. If you're really going to get in here and complain that the Bears barely staved off a Redskins comeback (that never got within ten points) then there's no way you can tell me all these one-score wins by the Packer have been comfortable.

Last year the Pats, Rams and Chiefs allowed the highest YPC...

Gotta stop the run!

A team gives up twenty-five yards on five rushes and you think they got run over

YPC doesn't tell the story. Overall rushing yards dont even tell the story. Your stats are useless.