Cody Whitehair grades for the PFF lovers

pboer323

Member
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
170
Liked Posts:
66
Location:
Grand Rapid
Would like to see if he can play tackle in the NFL
 

Montucky

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 21, 2020
Posts:
9,519
Liked Posts:
814
The Packers are kinda soft in the front seven but the night-and-day difference between the running game in their first meeting and their second pretty much solidifies the idea that Whitehair-Mustipher-Bars have genuinely turned around that facet of the team. No need for PFF grades to make that point, its pretty undeniable at this point.

So can Daniels play RG?
Bars has come to match, and sometimes exceed, Daniels level of play from earlier in the season. The Bears have one of those "good problems" at guard now.
 

tgmxd

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 21, 2010
Posts:
1,253
Liked Posts:
892
How big is the sample size with him at LG?

Definitely playing great right now but that also could be a result of bad defenses like Mitch
 

Montucky

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 21, 2020
Posts:
9,519
Liked Posts:
814
Would like to see if he can play tackle in the NFL
Please no more forcing major position changes on the offensive line. Let's let players be the players they are and fit the scheme around it rather than cramming square pegs into round holes.
 

fx1718

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
2,887
Liked Posts:
2,109
Location:
Atlanta
How big is the sample size with him at LG?

Definitely playing great right now
He played there year one and played well, no? Its what he was drafted to play.
 

Montucky

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 21, 2020
Posts:
9,519
Liked Posts:
814
Definitely playing great right now but that also could be a result of bad defenses like Mitch
If your offensive line can physically impose on half the league then its a good offensive line. Were past the point of questioning the strength of competition now, the Bears line play has looked consistently fantastic for long enough now for it to be undeniable that they've made substantial progress.
 

tgmxd

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 21, 2010
Posts:
1,253
Liked Posts:
892
If your offensive line can physically impose on half the league then its a good offensive line. Were past the point of questioning the strength of competition now, the Bears line play has looked consistently fantastic for long enough now for it to be undeniable that they've made substantial progress.

Progress yes. How much progress though is still not certain

I'd need to see more than one game against a solid defense before I'd go anywhere near calling them good

This Saints game though will tell us a lot
 

Montucky

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 21, 2020
Posts:
9,519
Liked Posts:
814
Progress yes. How much progress though is still not certain

I'd need to see more than one game against a solid defense before I'd go anywhere near calling them good

This Saints game though will tell us a lot
If the Bears treat the Saints like they've treated their opponents over the last five or so weeks then you are suddenly thinking this offensive line is not just in the middle-third of the league, but one of the NFL's best.
 

dennehy

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 29, 2015
Posts:
11,027
Liked Posts:
12,343
Location:
Jewels to get a case of Squirt
The Packers are kinda soft in the front seven but the night-and-day difference between the running game in their first meeting and their second pretty much solidifies the idea that Whitehair-Mustipher-Bars have genuinely turned around that facet of the team. No need for PFF grades to make that point, its pretty undeniable at this point.


Bars has come to match, and sometimes exceed, Daniels level of play from earlier in the season. The Bears have one of those "good problems" at guard now.
Their running game was far more productive in the first GB game, more yards and over 2x the yards per carry.

Also pretty sure Whitehair, Mustipher and Bars all played every snap in both GB games.
 

Montucky

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 21, 2020
Posts:
9,519
Liked Posts:
814
Their running game was far more productive in the first GB game, more yards and over 2x the yards per carry.

Also pretty sure Whitehair, Mustipher and Bars all played every snap in both GB games.
Montgomery had a massive sixty yard run in that game that skews the statistics in a major way. In terms of being consistently physical in the trenches the Bears were way better yesterday than they were before now that the new line combination has had time to gel.
 

dennehy

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 29, 2015
Posts:
11,027
Liked Posts:
12,343
Location:
Jewels to get a case of Squirt
Montgomery had a massive sixty yard run in that game that skews the statistics in a major way. In terms of being consistently physical in the trenches the Bears were way better yesterday than they were before now that the new line combination has had time to gel.
Haha, whatever you say. Even without Monty's big run they averaged almost 1 ypc more in the first game.

And you obviously thought there was a different lineup in the first game.
 

Montucky

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 21, 2020
Posts:
9,519
Liked Posts:
814
Haha, whatever you say. Even without Monty's big run they averaged almost 1 ypc more in the first game.

And you obviously thought there was a different lineup in the first game.
Statistics almost never tell the whole story. If you cling to them it just means you are incapable of actually conceptualizing what you saw and describing it. Though its clear you are just looking to start a bitter internet fight, so I'll leave you alone.
 

dennehy

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 29, 2015
Posts:
11,027
Liked Posts:
12,343
Location:
Jewels to get a case of Squirt
Statistics almost never tell the whole story. If you cling to them it just means you are incapable of actually conceptualizing what you saw and describing it. Though its clear you are just looking to start a bitter internet fight, so I'll leave you alone.
So describe to me what you watched that got you so enthused from the first to second Packers game.
 

Montucky

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 21, 2020
Posts:
9,519
Liked Posts:
814
So describe to me what you watched that got you so enthused from the first to second Packers game.
Bears offensive line consistently moved the LOS, consistently opened running lanes and most important consistently protected the quarterback. I dont really buy the theory that Mitch Trubisky has this sack-repellant aura about him. As bad as the Packers can be against the run they are a pretty good pass rushing team and their pass rush did not meaningfully change the course of yesterday's game.
 

dennehy

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 29, 2015
Posts:
11,027
Liked Posts:
12,343
Location:
Jewels to get a case of Squirt
Bears offensive line consistently moved the LOS, consistently opened running lanes and most important consistently protected the quarterback. I dont really buy the theory that Mitch Trubisky has this sack-repellant aura about him. As bad as the Packers can be against the run they are a pretty good pass rushing team and their pass rush did not meaningfully change the course of yesterday's game.
Not really, if you consistently move the LOS you actually get yards. They were fair yesterday, a few decent holes but not many. There might have been two or three runs where an RB was not touched into the second level. And never past that.

The reason there were few sacks was because the ball was out of Trubisky's hand in under 2 seconds or, more rarely, they max protected (as on the bomb to Mooney).
 

Montucky

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 21, 2020
Posts:
9,519
Liked Posts:
814
Not really, if you consistently move the LOS you actually get yards. They were fair yesterday, a few decent holes but not many. There might have been two or three runs where an RB was not touched into the second level. And never past that.

The reason there were few sacks was because the ball was out of Trubisky's hand in under 2 seconds or, more rarely, they max protected (as on the bomb to Mooney).
I'm not talking about sacks. I dont care about statistics. There wasn't pressure, the pass rush of the Packers simply was not impacting the game at all. You can say this was the Bears getting the ball out quickly but even then I have distinct memories of the rush affecting even quick timing plays earlier in the season.

Also in crucial situations, like the first four fourth down calls, the offensive line beat the Packers defensive front. They stepped up. It wasn't until the Bears pulled a playcall from the depths of hell that the Bears failed to convert.

I'm not even sure what your point is, are you saying the Bears offensive line hasn't improved in the second half of the season?
 

Top