Why the Chicago Bears Stand Virtually No Chance Against the Green Bay Packers
Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images
No, don't get your hopes up, I'm not returning to bleacher report. I am merely clearing up all the ridiculous hooplah surrounding this next game in the NFC Championship. I know I said I quit, but I just had to point out what everyone seems to be so dearly forgetting about these two teams, and bleacher report is the only way I have of getting this message out.
If you watch the media these days, the hype surrounding the first Bears-Packers NFC Championship game showdown is going to be one for the ages. And many have jumped on board the idea that Chicago, despite looking overwhelmingly like the underdogs, has a legit chance to win.
Take, for example, Tom Waddle of the NFL Network, who after being shown the Packers-Bears highlight real insisted with all the confidence and zeal in the world that Chicago will win.
Tom did admit he may be a homer, but admitting that obviously didn't keep him from being extremely biased. Especially for one whose job to is to study each team inside and out.
His greatest reasoning was simply that Chicago kept Green Bay's offense to only 10 points in the last meeting, with absolutely nothing to play for anyway, and therefore that gives them the edge.
Here's the problem that I don't understand though, when we talk about that game, why doesn't anybody mention what else happened in that game? How do people know for certain that Chicago was only playing a vanilla game?
I mean, I get it, Green Bay's offense being limited to only 10 points was impressive, and stood out more than anything else. But what about what Green Bay did to Devin Hester, for example?
Yes, I know it's not as important as what Chicago's D did that day, but it's still important to note isn't it? Chicago's special teams unit is supposed to be one of the best in the NFL, while Green Bay's is regarded as one of the worst, and here the Green Bay Packers kept them from making any huge impact, especially with Hester.
If we're going to be talking about that game, why not talk about how Green Bay was able to bring consistent pressure on Jay Cutler?
Green Bay has accumulated over 14 sacks in their last three games, including five against Matt Ryan who was sacked only 23 times in the regular season.
If you look at how Green Bay's defensive front, or the front seven, they have managed to become very healthy, just in time for the playoffs.
Clay Matthews had two sacks against Matt Ryan, and one against Michael Vick. His shin injury is almost completely gone, and looks healthy enough to play at full speed in this next game.
Cullen Jenkins had a club cast in the Week 3 matchup and wasn't even there for the second contest. He will be another week removed from his calf injury, and won't be playing with a cast this time around.
B.J. Raji has five sacks in his last seven games, a clear indication of just how impactful Clay Matthews' ability to draw double and even triple teams at times.
And Erik Walden, despite coming from virtually nowhere, has had the opportunity to develop in Green Bay's player development program, and has had a massive impact in the very limited time that he's played.
And I haven't even talked about Green Bay limiting Michael Vick, LeSean McCoy, and even Michael Turner! Ever since Cullen Jenkins returned to the field, his impact on the field has been felt immediately, keeping those three to only a total of 126 yards. And they're supposed to be some of the most impactful runners in the entire league!
Now understand that Green Bay and Chicago understand each other very well, and that I know that nobody truly knows what's going to happen in this game.
But on paper, you just have to admit, it looks darn near impossible for Chicago's offense come this Sunday to get anywhere. We can talk all we want about Chicago limiting Green Bay's offense, but I want some answers from Chicago's front line first before we talk about that.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?