Optimist, pessimist, or somewhere in-between?

[Cliff]

The Bears can play D. I don't know how we will even score against them. If our D allows this joke to score 20 something we won't win. We don't have a chance at that point. IMO it comes down to that. I'm not sure if Zimmer has Rodgers number. He's put up some points against him and has a winning record against him. That's far from having his number. The bottom line is the Pack team blows. They have one top flight player. Without him they can't beat any team.

I'm interested to see how the Packers do when they face a better offense. I'm Their defense played pretty well against Chicago but their offense was horrible. Rodgers has lost some zip for sure though. They only put up seven but that was enough to win so what do you say to that? It's impossible to know if they would have scored more points if they needed to.

[CharVike]

The Bears can play D. I don't know how we will even score against them. If our D allows this joke to score 20 something we won't win. We don't have a chance at that point. IMO it comes down to that. I'm not sure if Zimmer has Rodgers number. He's put up some points against him and has a winning record against him. That's far from having his number. The bottom line is the Pack team blows. They have one top flight player. Without him they can't beat any team.

I'm interested to see how the Packers do when they face a better offense. I'm Their defense played pretty well against Chicago but their offense was horrible. Rodgers has lost some zip for sure though. They only put up seven but that was enough to win so what do you say to that? It's impossible to know if they would have scored more points if they needed to.

You're correct. Rodgers just don't look like Rodgers. All players lose it over time. Of course Brady is the exception but he will get it eventually. At least the Pack don't have a future HOFer on the bench again. How can a team get that lucky? I hope our team can lay the wood to him. I would like to see that.

[StumpHunter]

The Bears can play D. I don't know how we will even score against them. If our D allows this joke to score 20 something we won't win. We don't have a chance at that point. IMO it comes down to that. I'm not sure if Zimmer has Rodgers number. He's put up some points against him and has a winning record against him. That's far from having his number. The bottom line is the Pack team blows. They have one top flight player. Without him they can't beat any team.

I'm interested to see how the Packers do when they face a better offense. I'm Their defense played pretty well against Chicago but their offense was horrible. Rodgers has lost some zip for sure though. They only put up seven but that was enough to win so what do you say to that? It's impossible to know if they would have scored more points if they needed to.

Trub was terrible in that game, and never made it past his second read. Just locked onto a guy and threw it to him whether he was covered or not. Montgomery was wide open multiple times for decent gains underneath, and Trub never looked his way. It was like watching a HS QB play.

I think the Bears are in real trouble at QB, and they need to figure out quickly that their identity on offense is not a wide open passing attack. It is short, game manager passes and a lot of running the football.

[CharVike]

I'm interested to see how the Packers do when they face a better offense. I'm Their defense played pretty well against Chicago but their offense was horrible. Rodgers has lost some zip for sure though. They only put up seven but that was enough to win so what do you say to that? It's impossible to know if they would have scored more points if they needed to.

Trub was terrible in that game, and never made it past his second read. Just locked onto a guy and threw it to him whether he was covered or not. Montgomery was wide open multiple times for decent gains underneath, and Trub never looked his way. It was like watching a HS QB play.

I think the Bears are in real trouble at QB, and they need to figure out quickly that their identity on offense is not a wide open passing attack. It is short, game manager passes and a lot of running the football.

Some mentioned before the season started that this is Trubs make or break season and that may be true. If he blows the Bears are in trouble. Sooner or later your QB needs to make a play. That D is dam good and will keep them in games. So maybe they can get by with just running and some dump offs. Plus Trub is a good runner himself. But I still think you need to pass at some point. Not 45 or 50 attempts but something.

[VikingLord]

The Bears can play D. I don't know how we will even score against them.

You thought the Bear defense looked that good? So good the Vikings can't score on them?

I think if the Vikings can demonstrate an ability to run, and not just run, but break off big chunks running, they're going to score plenty this season, against the Bears and any other defense.

Last year, the Bears were dominant against the run and created a lot of turnovers and points directly off turnovers. I don't think the Packers will be able to run the ball this year, so I don't think trying to measure the 2019 Bear run defense off that first game is helpful. Give it a few more games before you crown them dominant again. They could be, but they could also regress.

The one guy who really stood out for the Bear defense last year was Mack. He wrecked every offense he faced. I noticed him against the Packers, but didn't feel like he was nearly as dominant. If Mack isn't the same player this year that he was last year, that entire defense is going to take a big step back based on his regression alone.

[IIsweet]

Disagree completely. Mack is a beast.... Probably 1 of the 3 best defensive players in NFL. He was very disruptive, but because he is such, the other DL were able to completely dominate the LOS.
Do not be fooled, Mack is the elite ! We will be addressing coverage to attempt to contain him.

I am very impressed with this week 1 start.

[CharVike]

The Bears can play D. I don't know how we will even score against them.

You thought the Bear defense looked that good? So good the Vikings can't score on them?

I think if the Vikings can demonstrate an ability to run, and not just run, but break off big chunks running, they're going to score plenty this season, against the Bears and any other defense.

Last year, the Bears were dominant against the run and created a lot of turnovers and points directly off turnovers. I don't think the Packers will be able to run the ball this year, so I don't think trying to measure the 2019 Bear run defense off that first game is helpful. Give it a few more games before you crown them dominant again. They could be, but they could also regress.

The one guy who really stood out for the Bear defense last year was Mack. He wrecked every offense he faced. I noticed him against the Packers, but didn't feel like he was nearly as dominant. If Mack isn't the same player this year that he was last year, that entire defense is going to take a big step back based on his regression alone.

I know one game means nothing. But they still played good D. Giving up 10 to Rodgers is very good.Will they do that every week? No. Teams will get them. Balanced teams always present a problem.

[VikingLord]

I know one game means nothing. But they still played good D. Giving up 10 to Rodgers is very good.Will they do that every week? No. Teams will get them. Balanced teams always present a problem.

But do you think Rodgers looked good in that game? He was throwing off his back foot a lot. He was inaccurate and indecisive, many times missing despite the absence of any real pressure on him. Plus, it's not like the Packers ran the ball for diddly. They, like the Bears, seemed intent on throwing it.

I don't discount the Bear defense. They should be good this year. The question for me is how good? Are they going to be dominant, or is this a good, but not great, defense? If good, how good?

Let's see how the Vikings fare against the Packers next week. The Packers did a good job of shutting the Bears down on the road, so it stands to reason if that defense is for real, they'll be able to do the same against the Vikings in Lambeau. And likewise, as far as Rodgers is concerned, let's see how he and the Packer offense fares against the Vikings defense. He looked bad against the Bears. Was that because the Bears defense is so good, or the Packers offense isn't so great? Next week will help fill in that part of the picture, too.

[VikingLord]

Disagree completely. Mack is a beast.... Probably 1 of the 3 best defensive players in NFL. He was very disruptive, but because he is such, the other DL were able to completely dominate the LOS.
Do not be fooled, Mack is the elite ! We will be addressing coverage to attempt to contain him.

I'm not saying Mack isn't elite - he was last season and he may very well be again this season.

I'm just saying that I didn't notice him having the same out-sized impact he had most of last year in that first game against the Packers.

Let's give it a few games yet to see how things shake out regarding Mack. From what I saw, both the Packers and Bears starters looked like they were playing in the preseason on both sides of the ball. I include Mack in that assessment.

[J. Kapp 11]

I know one game means nothing. But they still played good D. Giving up 10 to Rodgers is very good.Will they do that every week? No. Teams will get them. Balanced teams always present a problem.

But do you think Rodgers looked good in that game? He was throwing off his back foot a lot. He was inaccurate and indecisive, many times missing despite the absence of any real pressure on him. Plus, it's not like the Packers ran the ball for diddly. They, like the Bears, seemed intent on throwing it.

I don't discount the Bear defense. They should be good this year. The question for me is how good? Are they going to be dominant, or is this a good, but not great, defense? If good, how good?

Let's see how the Vikings fare against the Packers next week. The Packers did a good job of shutting the Bears down on the road, so it stands to reason if that defense is for real, they'll be able to do the same against the Vikings in Lambeau. And likewise, as far as Rodgers is concerned, let's see how he and the Packer offense fares against the Vikings defense. He looked bad against the Bears. Was that because the Bears defense is so good, or the Packers offense isn't so great? Next week will help fill in that part of the picture, too.

I think the Bears (read Trubisky) missed out on a lot of opportunities. They had open receivers, but Trubisky made poor decisions and threw into coverage a lot. And the Bears only called 15 running plays, so nobody really knows if the Packers can stop the run.

We'll find out next week!

[CharVike]

Disagree completely. Mack is a beast.... Probably 1 of the 3 best defensive players in NFL. He was very disruptive, but because he is such, the other DL were able to completely dominate the LOS.
Do not be fooled, Mack is the elite ! We will be addressing coverage to attempt to contain him.

I'm not saying Mack isn't elite - he was last season and he may very well be again this season.

I'm just saying that I didn't notice him having the same out-sized impact he had most of last year in that first game against the Packers.

Let's give it a few games yet to see how things shake out regarding Mack. From what I saw, both the Packers and Bears starters looked like they were playing in the preseason on both sides of the ball. I include Mack in that assessment.

Maybe teams are preparing different for him. With our OL and the inability to pass block through game one he might kill somebody. But Mack is top notch and will create problems. Don't think he will lay down. It's only one week so there's not much to go on. But what happened is what happened. That Pack D looked good. Are they a 3 points allowed every game team? I doubt that very much. My hope is we go in there and try and pound the ball again. If it's stuffed and we need to throw we will be in trouble. Our OL can't handle that. Elf will be a swinging gate which will make our center have problems along with everyone else.

[VikingLord]

Maybe teams are preparing different for him. With our OL and the inability to pass block through game one he might kill somebody. But Mack is top notch and will create problems. Don't think he will lay down.

It will be interesting to see if Mack is in 2018 form by the time the Vikings head to Soldier Field. We'll have 3 games under the belt by that point to see if he's still the difference-maker he was last season.

[Cliff]

I probably need to change my answer to pessimist.

Even after that great win. The team played great on opening day which should inspire all the optimism in the world, right? Instead I find myself thinking "Well, it looks like Atlanta is going to finish sub .500 ... "

If I'm still finding a way to be any kind of gloomy after a win like that I've got be pessimistic on the team.

[J. Kapp 11]

I probably need to change my answer to pessimist.

Even after that great win. The team played great on opening day which should inspire all the optimism in the world, right? Instead I find myself thinking "Well, it looks like Atlanta is going to finish sub .500 ... "

If I'm still finding a way to be any kind of gloomy after a win like that I've got be pessimistic on the team.

Well I, for one, appreciate your honesty.

But the truth is you're not that far off. Even though we looked really great yesterday, we weren't as good as we could have been. As the game wore on, we became more and more conservative. I'm not talking about the run/pass ratio, but in the types of runs we were doing. In the first half, there was a great mix of up the gut, outside zone and misdirection. Once we were up 28, everything was between the guards. That's a little too conservative for me. If the idea is to shorten the game, the best way to do that is to sustain drives. You can't do that running up the gut play after play.

For what it's worth, Atlanta is probably not a sub-.500 team. They may not be in the championship hunt, and they may even miss the playoffs. But they've got a good roster. I'd be shocked if they don't finish with a winning record.

Here's my question. Does Kirk Cousins get credit for beating a team with a winning record if Atlanta finishes, say, 9-7 or 10-6?

[Rhodes Closed]

I probably need to change my answer to pessimist.

Even after that great win. The team played great on opening day which should inspire all the optimism in the world, right? Instead I find myself thinking "Well, it looks like Atlanta is going to finish sub .500 ... "

If I'm still finding a way to be any kind of gloomy after a win like that I've got be pessimistic on the team.

Well I, for one, appreciate your honesty.

But the truth is you're not that far off. Even though we looked really great yesterday, we weren't as good as we could have been. As the game wore on, we became more and more conservative. I'm not talking about the run/pass ratio, but in the types of runs we were doing. In the first half, there was a great mix of up the gut, outside zone and misdirection. Once we were up 28, everything was between the guards. That's a little too conservative for me. If the idea is to shorten the game, the best way to do that is to sustain drives. You can't do that running up the gut play after play.

For what it's worth, Atlanta is probably not a sub-.500 team. They may not be in the championship hunt, and they may even miss the playoffs. But they've got a good roster. I'd be shocked if they don't finish with a winning record.

Here's my question. Does Kirk Cousins get credit for beating a team with a winning record if Atlanta finishes, say, 9-7 or 10-6?

His pundits will say no, and his apologists will say yes.

I say a win is a win against a loaded team like the Falcons.

If the Vikings beat Green Bay next week thanks to a good running game complimented by a good Kirk passing game, then I think the narrative should change about Kirk.