RolStoppable said:
I've watched the Packers defense for years and it's not normal that they can defend well against both the pass and the run; being effective against the run is why the Bears threw more than they would have liked. The Packers also got a lot more pressure than usual upfront. A better argument for Pack-hating is that week 1 doesn't mean much, because we've seen it time and time again that week 1 delivered shocking results and then a week later most of the surprise teams - be it good or bad surprise - became what they were expected to be. |
I never said that the Packers' defense wasn't improved, just that I'm putting the majority of Chicago's offensive struggles on the Bears rather than the Packers for the moment, at least until GB shows they can consistently do this.
The Bears' running attack was less effective than usual, sure, but their passing attack was also much less effective as well, and relative to rushing, even more so (the Bears averaged a full yard less per attempt passing compared with last season, versus half a yard less rushing per attempt compared with last season). So switching from something you're struggling with in order to focus on something you're struggling with even more, isn't exactly common sensical. It also doesn't make sense to give up on the rushing game that early, given that running the ball was the strength of the Bears offense last season. The Patriots/Packers/Saints wouldn't give up on throwing the ball if Brady/Rodgers/Brees was struggling after just 12 attempts, so why completely abandon the running game?