PDA

View Full Version : Which Team?


Pages : [1] 2

Fitzgerald11
08-06-2007, 12:48 AM
Which team in the NFL has the most depth?

HerthaFootballFan
08-06-2007, 12:50 AM
Have to mention the pats just because so many of there guys are versatile as hell.

Bears are up there, 2 deep at QB and RB, a lot of receivers, 2 good TEs, a deep oline, good depth at DE, A lot of talented LBs and good secondary depth.

Mr. Stiller
08-06-2007, 01:10 AM
Homer alert..

Steelers:

We go 2 deep at QB (Roeth/Batch)
This year we can go 3-4 deep at RB.
We can go 4-5 deep at WR(Ward, Holmes, Wilson, Washington, Reid.. possibly even Young/Fowler/Baker)
We go 4 deep at TE right now... but 3 deep (Miller, Spaeth, Tuman/Boyd)

We have Willie Colon as a backup at any OL Position and one of the best.

3-4 DE we got 2 young guns (McBean/Jones)
3-4 NT we got 2 great NT's (Hampton and Chris Hoke(Was our fulltime NT our 15-1 season).

LB We got 2-3 deep at each position

CB: We don't have amazing starting depth.. but Ike and DeShea.. with Bmac, *** and Anthony Madison.

Safety.. I'd like to go on record saying we have the best backup safeties in the league.. Tyrone Carter stepped in and played like Troy last year... and Anthony Smith is a budding star who's playing behind the more consistant vet.

BlindSite
08-06-2007, 01:40 AM
Homer hat on

QB: Delhomme / Carr
RB: Foster / Williams / Shelton / Goings
WR: Smith / Carter / Colbert / Jarrett
OLine: 3 tackles with starting experience, 2 starting calibre centres, former probowl LG and another two gaurd/centre tweeners with starting experience

DLine: Lewis, Carstens, Jenkins, kemoeatu, Peppers, Rucker, McClover, Lavalais, all with playing time, rookie, Charles Johnson
LBer: Davis, Morgan, Diggs, Anderson, Seward all with playing time, rookies: Shaw and Beason
CB: Ken Lucas, Chris Gamble, Dion Byrum, Richard Marshall
Safety: Minter, Chris Harris no real depth there.

Pretty homer, but thought I'd throw them in there for consideration especially along the lines, at QB and at CB

awfullyquiet
08-06-2007, 01:42 AM
Have to mention the pats just because so many of there guys are versatile as hell.

Bears are up there, 2 deep at QB and RB, a lot of receivers, 2 good TEs, a deep oline, good depth at DE, A lot of talented LBs and good secondary depth.

I'd agree. Pats and Bears have a lot of veteran depth and have no real weaknesses at any point.

everyone else has one or two off of no depth or just lots of mediocre talent across the boards.

Dam8610
08-06-2007, 02:30 AM
If it's offensive depth, then I'll argue for my Colts. They have no chance when it comes to overall depth though.

Bills2083
08-06-2007, 07:58 AM
I'd agree. Pats and Bears have a lot of veteran depth and have no real weaknesses at any point.

everyone else has one or two off of no depth or just lots of mediocre talent across the boards.

I know that they have a great QB in Brady, but Matt Cassell is their backup. He isn't that good of a backup IMO

Splat
08-06-2007, 09:14 AM
I have to go with NE and to me it ain't really that close.

Smooth Criminal
08-06-2007, 09:39 AM
I don't get all the NE love. Even though they are the most talent team in the league they have no depth at QB and weak depth at RB, DB, and LB.

Sure they are a great team but they don't have the most depth. If a guy like Brady or Maroney goes down they are gonna be in some trouble.

Just because your the best team in the league doesn't mean you have to be considered number 1 in everything. This thread is about the best depth and the Pats definately don't.

BrownsTown
08-06-2007, 09:42 AM
Chargers have some good depth.

Smooth Criminal
08-06-2007, 09:45 AM
The Chargers do have very good depth at most positions. Only weak areas in my mind are at QB, WR, and DB.

CC.SD
08-06-2007, 10:06 AM
I don't get all the NE love. They ahve no depth at QB and weak depth at RB, DB, and LB.

Sure they are a great team but they don't have the most depth. If a guy like Brady or Maroney goes down they are gonna be in some trouble.

This is what I've been saying all offseason; the Pats will be good, but they are not a lock for anything.

The Bolts have some pretty crazy depth; Volek has proven he can step in at QB and he's been in the system for a year now.

Michael Turner is the best backup RB out there. Our WR isn't dynamic, but we have a lot of guys who can make catches. I'll admit it's probably the weakest area though.

The LBers lost Donnie Edwards and Randall Godfrey, and we are still 3 deep. The DBs have 3 starting quality CBs, and we're solid enough at safety with guys like Bhawoh Jue and Eric Weddle waiting in the wings.

Smooth Criminal
08-06-2007, 10:10 AM
I actually forgot that the Chargers had Billy Volek. I like him alot.

WR is definatelt the weakest area esspecially after losing Eric Parker.

Turtlepower
08-06-2007, 10:29 AM
I believe it is Colts for offense and Bears for defense. But don't forget that it is also different team's systems that create a lot of depth. Wade Phillips created some good depth for LBs in San Diego while Denver's zone blocking scheme gives good depth for running backs.

JoeMontainya
08-06-2007, 10:34 AM
Homer alert..

Steelers:

We go 2 deep at QB (Roeth/Batch)
This year we can go 3-4 deep at RB.
We can go 4-5 deep at WR(Ward, Holmes, Wilson, Washington, Reid.. possibly even Young/Fowler/Baker)
We go 4 deep at TE right now... but 3 deep (Miller, Spaeth, Tuman/Boyd)

We have Willie Colon as a backup at any OL Position and one of the best.

3-4 DE we got 2 young guns (McBean/Jones)
3-4 NT we got 2 great NT's (Hampton and Chris Hoke(Was our fulltime NT our 15-1 season).

LB We got 2-3 deep at each position

CB: We don't have amazing starting depth.. but Ike and DeShea.. with Bmac, *** and Anthony Madison.

Safety.. I'd like to go on record saying we have the best backup safeties in the league.. Tyrone Carter stepped in and played like Troy last year... and Anthony Smith is a budding star who's playing behind the more consistant vet.

WOW, most the guys you used in your example have never even played an NFL down yet, but there great depth? I guess you were right on when you said "homer alert".

bigbluedefense
08-06-2007, 10:39 AM
Philadelphia has great oline depth. Dallas has great linebacker depth. Miami also has great LB depth, as does NE. The Giants could have great WR depth this year (finally) if Smith and Moss pan out. Chicago has great dline depth. NO has great WR depth.

As for overall, I think its between NE and Baltimore.

Bearsfan123
08-06-2007, 10:58 AM
Bears also have the Best QB depth. (if our starter plays like he should) 3 guys who have started in the league and won. Grossman, Griese, and Orton. Only team that comes close is Baltimore with McNair, i think his name is Boller, and T Smith. The Bears weakest point (depth wise) is O-line. We have 5 starters and definately not enough good backups. During the season, the Bears should be able to claim to be on par with Dallas for TE depth if Olsen pans out.

For RB its gotta be between the Chargers who have 2 guys who could start with no problem whatsoever, or the Pats who have 3 quality players. If i missed someone here sorry, just chime in and tell me.

Go_Eagles77
08-06-2007, 10:59 AM
Philadelphia has great oline depth

We have great D-Line depth too

DE - Trent Cole, Darren Howard
DT - Mike Patterson, Montae Reagor, Lajuan Ramsey
DT - Brodrick Bunkley, Ian Scott
DE - Jevon Kearse, Juqua Thomas (unknown but a great pass rusher), and Victor Abiamiri

draftguru151
08-06-2007, 11:10 AM
Philadelphia has great oline depth. Dallas has great linebacker depth. Miami also has great LB depth, as does NE. The Giants could have great WR depth this year (finally) if Smith and Moss pan out. Chicago has great dline depth. NO has great WR depth.

As for overall, I think its between NE and Baltimore.

Our depth at LB isn't really anything special. I love Pope inside but outside all we really have is Donnie Spragan and rookie Abraham Wright. If we still had Bowens I'd agree with you but I'm actually worried about our back up OLB if Wright and Akbar Gbaja-Bialmila don't step up.

JK17
08-06-2007, 11:19 AM
Bears also have the Best QB depth. (if our starter plays like he should) 3 guys who have started in the league and won. Grossman, Griese, and Orton. Only team that comes close is Baltimore with McNair, i think his name is Boller, and T Smith.

Really? I mean the Bears may have three guys who have played in the league and won, but I wouldn't be thrilled with that depth. I don't have anything against Grossman, but Griese hasn't played in a while, and Orton was nothing special at all, just a guy they plugged into the offense, and for Baltimore McNair has shown he was a good QB, and is still a decent one, but Boller never proved anything, and Smith is a 5th round draft pick.

As a homer, I could just say San Diego is better then all of those listed with Rivers/Volek/Whitehurst, but I also think your overrating the need for three quarterbacks in order to "have depth". I would rather have a great/good QB, decent backup, and not much behind that, Like the Panthers and Jets have just off the top of my head, then the situation that at least CHI has, and maybe BAL.

skinzzfan25
08-06-2007, 11:20 AM
Pats at WR. I'd say the skins DBs are pretty good depth wise, or at least 10 times better than last year.

Turtlepower
08-06-2007, 11:37 AM
People are looking at too many unproven guys who were just drafted and adding them to how much depth they have at there position. I believe the Giants might have depth at WR with Plex, Toomer, Moss, and Steve Smith, but will I say that now with Toomer and Moss coming off injuries and Smith never playing a down, no.

HerthaFootballFan
08-06-2007, 03:03 PM
I don't get all the NE love. Even though they are the most talent team in the league they have no depth at QB and weak depth at RB, DB, and LB.

Sure they are a great team but they don't have the most depth. If a guy like Brady or Maroney goes down they are gonna be in some trouble.

Just because your the best team in the league doesn't mean you have to be considered number 1 in everything. This thread is about the best depth and the Pats definately don't.

they have a lot of versatile guys who can play many positions. Personally I'm a fan of Matt Cassel and so think they have good QB depth. At RB and LB there depth is good, not great.

bearsfan_51
08-06-2007, 03:13 PM
The Bears just traded their 4th safety to the Panthers, and he could probably start at both of their safety positions.

We've got a guy that was 2nd team All-Pro DE as our backup.

It's the Bears.

doingthisinsteadofwork
08-06-2007, 03:24 PM
Raiders have some pretty good DL and S depth.CB and LBs leave alot to be desired.
WR and FB are the only positions where we have good depth on offense.

Mr. Stiller
08-06-2007, 03:27 PM
WOW, most the guys you used in your example have never even played an NFL down yet, but there great depth? I guess you were right on when you said "homer alert".

Do you follow me around trying to prove me wrong because I'm a steeler fan?

We don't have great depth?

We have arguably one of the best backup QB's in the league.

We have a great Trio of WR's.

We have a great 1-2 punch in Parker-Davenport.

We have good Depth at the OL. Colon is one of the best backups in the league. Plays any position.

Our DE's aren't nearly as deep, but Chris Hoke is probably the top Backup NT in the league.

We always have had great Depth at LB.

we have 2 young corners in BMac and Colclough. Ike and DeShea are a solid duo. *** is looking great and Madison is starting to come into his own as well.

As for Safety. I think we have the best backup safeties in the league..

As FS either Ryan Clark or Anthony Smith are the backup and are definitely above average.

At SS we have Tyrone Carter.. Who plays possessed like Troy anytime he's called upon.

duckseason
08-06-2007, 03:58 PM
For most fans, there is only one team for which they can name all the reserves without looking it up. I know my Cowboys have incredible depth at many positions, but I'm not in a position to rank their overall depth amongst the rest of the league because I can only name a handful of the league's backup FS's or TE's or RG's off the top of my head. In other words, there really aren't many of us here at NFLDC who hold a very accurate opinion on this subject. I think that for the most part, the overall talent in the NFL is dispersed quite evenly. There's not as much separating top-tier teams from bottom-tier teams as some of us make it seem.

HawkeyeFan
08-06-2007, 05:52 PM
Rams Offense:

QB Bulger | Frerotte | Fitzpatrick
RB Jackson | Leonard/Minor | Minor/Leonard
FB Hedgecock/Leonard | Leonard/Hedgecock
WR Holt | Bruce | Bennett | Hall | Looker/Stanley | Stanley/Looker
TE McMichael | Klopfenstein | Byrd

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
08-06-2007, 06:58 PM
Denver... not. Well, I suppose cutler could play every position at the same time if he wanted. So yeah, deepest team in the league. :).

PackerLegend
08-06-2007, 07:16 PM
how about picking teams to find the most depth at each poistion?

just a quick example not how i would actually put them

QB-Packers- Favre, Rodgers, Martin
HB-Chargers- LT,Turner ,Sporles
WR- Lions- Williams, Johnson, Furrey, McDonald, Drummond

Remember i was just wondering if people want to give each position to a team and that is not how i would do it just a quick example of how it would be done, please give thoughts.

keylime_5
08-06-2007, 07:30 PM
Patriots, Chargers, Bears and Eagles.

Freddy G
08-06-2007, 07:38 PM
Browns have good depth at......ummmmm...?????......well,.............uhhh hhhh......long snapper. yeah, our long snappers are great!!!

bearsfan_51
08-06-2007, 07:53 PM
Do you follow me around trying to prove me wrong because I'm a steeler fan?

We don't have great depth?

We have arguably one of the best backup QB's in the league.

We have a great Trio of WR's.

We have a great 1-2 punch in Parker-Davenport.

We have good Depth at the OL. Colon is one of the best backups in the league. Plays any position.

Our DE's aren't nearly as deep, but Chris Hoke is probably the top Backup NT in the league.

We always have had great Depth at LB.

we have 2 young corners in BMac and Colclough. Ike and DeShea are a solid duo. *** is looking great and Madison is starting to come into his own as well.

As for Safety. I think we have the best backup safeties in the league..

As FS either Ryan Clark or Anthony Smith are the backup and are definitely above average.

At SS we have Tyrone Carter.. Who plays possessed like Troy anytime he's called upon.
Yeah sorry dude, you're being a huge homer. You basically just named everyone on your team and said "they're one of the best backups in the league". Granted I said the Bears had the best depth, but even I'm not that delusional.

For example, Najah Davenport? He got cut by the ******* Packers who have NOBODY at runningback. I wouldn't even want Davenport on my team, let alone as my #2.

Charlie Batch? What has Charlie Batch ever done in his entire career to justify being one of the best backups in the league? He had like two good games in place of Big Ben. Steelers fans only think he's good because they haven't had to watch him play for an extended period of time. He's a decent backup, I would even say above average, but I certainly wouldn't put him any higher than guys like Gus Frerotte and Brad Johnson. In fact I'd put him slightly below.

Who the hell is Colon?

Ryan Clark? Ryan Clark is the best backup safety in the league? Ryan Clark. Yeah...ok.

Shiver
08-06-2007, 07:59 PM
Atlanta has the best depth. Why you may ask? Because Atlanta is my favorite team.

CASE CLOSED

LSUALUM99
08-06-2007, 08:15 PM
Great Depth is often an indicator of a team with not alot of top tier talent. Top tier talent is typically expensive and thus you can't afford top tier back ups.

Teams like NE and Philly are the exception more than the rule. Although, I really think Philly is out of time to make a run in the NFC. Chicago, if they can get the QB play more consistant, looks to be the dominant team in the NFC for a while.

The Colts are the ANTI-Patriots. They have Highly paid stars and very few great backups. The Colts are one of the best teams, but I'd argue they are the thinnest.

BTW - having alot of depth is only advantageous if your starters leave/get hurt. For one game I'd take a team with several stars any day.

duckseason
08-06-2007, 08:29 PM
BTW - having alot of depth is only advantageous if your starters leave/get hurt.
For certain positions, yes. But it's a big advantage to have the d-line depth of a team like the Bears, or CB depth like many teams have. Having multiple capable TE's or RB's can be quite useful as well. There's a lot of "backup" guys around the league who make significant and consistent contributions to their respective teams.

LSUALUM99
08-06-2007, 08:42 PM
For certain positions, yes. But it's a big advantage to have the d-line depth of a team like the Bears, or CB depth like many teams have. Having multiple capable TE's or RB's can be quite useful as well. There's a lot of "backup" guys around the league who make significant and consistent contributions to their respective teams.


In context of my quote, it was in reference to having depth as opposed to stars.

I'll take Champ Bailey with a total scrub backing him up vs. two halfway decent CB's.

I'll take Antonio Gates and a scrub versus two halfway decent TE's also. Two RB's like say JJ and MBIII are ok, but I'd rather have LT and a 4th stringer.

For instance, the conversation revolved around depth at QB earlier in the post. Depth at QB is only a good thing if your starter sucks or gets hurt. I'd rather have Peyton / Sorgi than the bears with 3 guys who have started in the NFL. So, while it's never bad to have good backups, it's not always relevant.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
08-06-2007, 08:47 PM
Atlanta has the best depth. Why you may ask? Because Atlanta is my favorite team.

CASE CLOSED

You are mistaken sir. It is very clear to myself, and anyone else who can count to five for that matter, that it is in fact my most preferred team who is the best at everything. Your favoured team, on the other hand, should probably play baseball instead, for they are so incompetent they mustn't be playing football. As a matter of fact, it would not shock me if the players on your team enjoyed sexual relations with members of the same sex, as they are that dissatisfactory on the football field.

BuckNaked
08-06-2007, 08:48 PM
The Vikings have great RB and S Depth, but everywhere else is mediocre to below average.

Go_Eagles77
08-06-2007, 09:06 PM
Although, I really think Philly is out of time to make a run in the NFC.

Please explain. I'm not gonna make an argument until I hear your (or someone else's) case on the subject.

LSUALUM99
08-06-2007, 09:20 PM
I think Philly's contention threat in the NFC has always been about McNabb. I personally think he's losing favor with management and with the players. I don't think TO was entirely to blame for the failure there and alot of the players seem to have sided with TO in the TO v. McNabb bashing. That, with his injury status preventing him from playing full seasons 3 of the last 4 years leads me to believe McNabbs on the backside of his career.

Dawkins is getting old, Michael Lewis is gone, Kearse can't stay healthy, their OL is not as good as it has been (Andrews is still a stud though). When McNabb is in the game they feel compelled to throw the ball 75% of the time even though Westbrook is a good RB option and their WR corp is still not very good. As long as McNabb plays at a ProBowl level they will always be competitive but I think his best days are behind him.

Dam8610
08-06-2007, 09:21 PM
The Colts are the ANTI-Patriots. They have Highly paid stars and very few great backups. The Colts are one of the best teams, but I'd argue they are the thinnest.

On offense? You'd be mistaken. The Colts are deep at OL, WR, and TE with mostly known and proven commodities. Defensively you're dead on, but the Colts are a very deep offensive team.

Go_Eagles77
08-06-2007, 09:50 PM
I think Philly's contention threat in the NFC has always been about McNabb. I personally think he's losing favor with management and with the players. I don't think TO was entirely to blame for the failure there and alot of the players seem to have sided with TO in the TO v. McNabb bashing. That, with his injury status preventing him from playing full seasons 3 of the last 4 years leads me to believe McNabbs on the backside of his career.

Dawkins is getting old, Michael Lewis is gone, Kearse can't stay healthy, their OL is not as good as it has been (Andrews is still a stud though). When McNabb is in the game they feel compelled to throw the ball 75% of the time even though Westbrook is a good RB option and their WR corp is still not very good. As long as McNabb plays at a ProBowl level they will always be competitive but I think his best days are behind him.

You make a few good points, but a few confusing ones.

You're right about McNabb, the eagles really need him to stay healthy, it may be a make-or-break year for him. No arguing that. But I believe he has a much better chance to stay healthy than many people think, not 1 of his injuries was related, it may be hard to believe but most of his injuries were just freak accidents. In the event he does go down again, AJ Feeley is a lot like Garcia in the way that he thrives in the West Coast offense, sure he had little success in Miami, but that was a completely different offense, just like how Garcia was mediocre in Cleveland and Detroit. In week 17 AJ Feeley was the NFL.com QB of the week against Atlanta's 1st string Defense, with the eagles' 2nd string offense. But a healthy McNabb is clearly a top QB in the league.
Dawkins is getting up there in age, but he's still a top 3 safety in the league, he is showing no signs of slowing down this season, Dawk's age has no effect on the eagles' chances this season.
Michael Lewis was benched in the middle of the season last year, he was and I'm sure still is terrible in coverage, our current starter, Sean Considine, is very good in coverage, he gained around 15 pounds in the off-season so that could improve his tackling.
If Kearse goes down, we have one of the deepest D-Lines in the NFL, I'm blanking out right now and I actually don't remember if he was injured in the 2005 season, the important thing is he's healthy right now, but if we keep him fresh and rotate our D-Line a lot that shouldn't be too much of an issue.
I'm not quite sure why you don't think the O-Line isn't as good as it has been, this may be the best it has been. ever. It is the biggest line in the league and they are very injury resistant, last year they stayed each together all year and if they do that again, with the younger players getting more experience, it could be scary. Our future is bright at the Oline too, with Winston Justice and Max Jean-Gilles waiting in the wings.
Andy Reid and Marty Morninwig have said that we will run the ball much closer to 50/50, and we can clearly see that they want to stick with that by drafting 2 RBs in the draft, Tony Hunt and Nate Ilaoa (who's a long shot to make the roster) but Tony Hunt is absolutely lighting it up in camp, steam-rolling over would-be tacklers.
Kevin Curtis is a very pleasant surprise in TC, he's catching everything that comes his way and he has great break-away ability, and is great at getting separation from the DBs, yesterday he had a diving catch and collided with the goal post, held on the football and popped right back up. Reggie Brown has another year of experience and he is dominating in TC, his hands aren't quite as good as Curtis' but he is a great playmaker, Jason Avant and Hank Baskett are both very young and looking very impressive as well, both have great hands and are hard to cover and bring down. Baskett, an UDFA last year, had the 2 longest receptions of any reciever last year, both in the mid 80s, even though he was known as a red-zone guy coming out of college, and is definitely gonna be threat again this year. Greg Lewis is another guy who makes a living at the other end of the 1st down marker, he's a very reliable guy.

There's my argument, a little longer than I expected but I hope you read it and give some feedback.

JK17
08-06-2007, 10:18 PM
You are mistaken sir. It is very clear to myself, and anyone else who can count to five for that matter, that it is in fact my most preferred team who is the best at everything. Your favoured team, on the other hand, should probably play baseball instead, for they are so incompetent they mustn't be playing football. As a matter of fact, it would not shock me if the players on your team enjoyed sexual relations with members of the same sex, as they are that dissatisfactory on the football field.

Excellent Reference...funny and fitting to the conversation. Props.

TitleTown088
08-06-2007, 10:34 PM
Oh, it's gotta be the Packers because [b]I[/b ]know the names of the backups and the backups of the backups on my team. Right( some) Panther and Steelers fans? I mean, come on guys. How can a team that didn't even make the wild card have the best dept in the NFL? It's like the title said " name the backups on your team" to some of these people... my god.

Mr. Stiller
08-06-2007, 10:34 PM
Yeah sorry dude, you're being a huge homer. You basically just named everyone on your team and said "they're one of the best backups in the league". Granted I said the Bears had the best depth, but even I'm not that delusional.

For example, Najah Davenport? He got cut by the ******* Packers who have NOBODY at runningback. I wouldn't even want Davenport on my team, let alone as my #2.

Charlie Batch? What has Charlie Batch ever done in his entire career to justify being one of the best backups in the league? He had like two good games in place of Big Ben. Steelers fans only think he's good because they haven't had to watch him play for an extended period of time. He's a decent backup, I would even say above average, but I certainly wouldn't put him any higher than guys like Gus Frerotte and Brad Johnson. In fact I'd put him slightly below.

Who the hell is Colon?

Ryan Clark? Ryan Clark is the best backup safety in the league? Ryan Clark. Yeah...ok.

Najeh Davenport got cut by the packers because his ankle injury. I would certainly take Najeh over Adrian Peterson or Garrett Wolfe.

Charlie Batch is 3-0 as a starter in replacement of Ben. He's accurate and can come in at any time and play great. Sorry I didn't say he was "The best". I said one of. You named 2 guys you think are better backup QBs. If they're "The best" and Batch is #3, I'd say thats "One of the best".

Willie Colon is a fiery Backup OL. He plays every position. He is the one that shut down Adalius Thomas and Trevor Pryce in last years baltimore game.. which wasn't bad considering the time before Starks gave up 4 sacks.

Ryan Clark? I said he was above average. Please don't act to be above me by putting words in my mouth. Ryan Clark is a very consistent Veteran. Maybe not all big plays, but he's in on the play a lot of the time. He did great for us last year.

I would say:

QB: Roeth/Batch

WR: Ward- Holmes - Wilson - Washington - Reid is pretty deep.

TE: Miller - Spaeth - Tuman/Boyd

NT: Hampton - Hoke

S: Smith - Polamalu - Clark - Carter

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
08-06-2007, 10:45 PM
Najeh Davenport got cut by the packers because his ankle injury. I would certainly take Najeh over Adrian Peterson or Garrett Wolfe

Scared me for a minute when I didn't know which Adrian Peterson you were talking about :P

Mr. Stiller
08-06-2007, 10:53 PM
Scared me for a minute when I didn't know which Adrian Peterson you were talking about :P

I had a feeling someone would do that.

TitleTown088
08-06-2007, 11:01 PM
Najeh Davenport got cut by the packers because his ankle injury. I would certainly take Najeh over Adrian Peterson or Garrett Wolfe.



Najeh Davenport got cut by the Packers because he sucks donkey balls. If you cannot make the Green Bay Packers as a RB, you suck.

Bearsfan123
08-06-2007, 11:51 PM
Really? I mean the Bears may have three guys who have played in the league and won, but I wouldn't be thrilled with that depth. I don't have anything against Grossman, but Griese hasn't played in a while, and Orton was nothing special at all, just a guy they plugged into the offense, and for Baltimore McNair has shown he was a good QB, and is still a decent one, but Boller never proved anything, and Smith is a 5th round draft pick.

As a homer, I could just say San Diego is better then all of those listed with Rivers/Volek/Whitehurst, but I also think your overrating the need for three quarterbacks in order to "have depth". I would rather have a great/good QB, decent backup, and not much behind that, Like the Panthers and Jets have just off the top of my head, then the situation that at least CHI has, and maybe BAL.

Okay lets look at this

Rivers=Grossman- At this point you cant argue otherwise. Rivers was more consistent by far but Grossman showed flashes of brilliance that eclipsed him and games far beneath him. Grossman went deeper in the playoffs and with his flashes of brilliance i think it should be called a draw.

Volek=Griese- On this one I dont know so much. I MIGHT give the nod to Volek but neither has shown me in any action that either deserves a nod over the other.

Orton>Whitehurst- Orton has pro wins. No argument can be made against that.

So by a hair Bears win IMO. If you change the Volek ruling then you have a Chargers V by ruling of second string to third string but it would again be by a hair.

PACKmanN
08-06-2007, 11:57 PM
Okay lets look at this

Rivers=Grossman- At this point you cant argue otherwise. Rivers was more consistent by far but Grossman showed flashes of brilliance that eclipsed him and games far beneath him. Grossman went deeper in the playoffs and so with the previously mentioned thoughts along with that fact i think its a draw.

Volek=Griese- On this one I dont know so much. I MIGHT give the nod to Volek but neither has shown me in any action that either deserves a nod over the other.

Orton>Whitehurst- Orton has pro wins. No argument can be made against that.

So by a hair Bears win IMO. If you change the Volek ruling then you have a Chargers V by ruling of second string to third string but it would again be by a hair.

Whitehurst is given a chance to start is better then Orton and the only reason Orton has those wins is because his defense stop every dumb move he made. Volek is like Griese good back ups. Rivers by far is the better player and its not even close. I haven't even seen Rivers make a throw that cost them the game.

Bearsfan123
08-07-2007, 12:05 AM
I dont understand your first sentence about Whitehurst and Orton. Orton may not have won those games but he got the W and didnt lose them. And to my knowledge Whitehurst is putting up a big goose egg in the wins category and really thats what matters.

I dont agree with the Rivers comment because I believe in Grossman and I think Grossman's play at the beginning of last season speaks to how good he can be. While I mentioned he hasnt been consistent, those first 5 games everyone thought he was playing great. And again Grossman has more wins. You can argue how he got them, but as of right now he went 13-3 and got them to the Super Bowl. Rivers failed to make the play when he desperately needed to against the Pats. Although I dont think it was his fault, regardless he didnt get the win and three years from now hes going to have that L on his record, while Grossman will have the W.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
08-07-2007, 12:08 AM
I'm sorry, but it is just blatantly homeristic to think that Grossman is on par with Phillip Rivers. I'm a big defender of Grossman, but even in my defense of him I only say he's average when people think he's the worst. And I hate Rivers, and the Chargers but he is probably top 10 at this point. There are very few teams who would not want Phillip Rivers. I guarantee you the Bears are not one of those teams.

kmartin575
08-07-2007, 12:12 AM
This is what I've been saying all offseason; the Pats will be good, but they are not a lock for anything.

The Bolts have some pretty crazy depth; Volek has proven he can step in at QB and he's been in the system for a year now.

Michael Turner is the best backup RB out there. Our WR isn't dynamic, but we have a lot of guys who can make catches. I'll admit it's probably the weakest area though.

The LBers lost Donnie Edwards and Randall Godfrey, and we are still 3 deep. The DBs have 3 starting quality CBs, and we're solid enough at safety with guys like Bhawoh Jue and Eric Weddle waiting in the wings.

-Maurice Jones-Drew: 941 yards, 5.7 average, 13 touchdowns
-Ladell Betts: 1,154 yards, 4.7 average, 5 touchdowns
-Marion Barber: 654 yards, 4.8 average, 14 touchdowns
-whoever is the backup in New Orleans between Bush and McAllister

It's kind of hard to call Michael Turner the best backup RB out there. Turner isn't the first guy to look great as a backup. Lamont Jordan looked great and then he sucked when given an opportunity to start.

Heck, if he can stay healthy Michael Bennett is a better backup than Turner. At least Bennett has been to the pro bowl and unlike Turner, Bennett is one of the fastest guys in the NFL.

neko4
08-07-2007, 12:13 AM
I dont understand your first sentence about Whitehurst and Orton. Orton may not have won those games but he got the W and didnt lose them. And to my knowledge Whitehurst is putting up a big goose egg in the wins category and really thats what matters.


Whitehurst has never been given the chance to start, its not like Orton won the job in TC

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
08-07-2007, 12:15 AM
Turner is excellent. I'd say he's a better RB than Mo Drew(at this point), Barber, and Bush. And a whole hell of a lot better than Bennett. Turner is incredibly large, and has excellent breakaway speed. He averaged over 6 per carry.

GB12
08-07-2007, 12:22 AM
I'd like to thank Mr Stiller and Bearsfan123 for giving me some good laughs.

TitleTown088
08-07-2007, 12:31 AM
Yeah sorry dude, you're being a huge homer. You basically just named everyone on your team and said "they're one of the best backups in the league". Granted I said the Bears had the best depth, but even I'm not that delusional.

For example, Najah Davenport? He got cut by the ******* Packers who have NOBODY at runningback. I wouldn't even want Davenport on my team, let alone as my #2.





I'll agree with you that Davenport is garbage, but NEVER insult Brandon Jackson again.

JK17
08-07-2007, 01:08 AM
Okay lets look at this

Rivers=Grossman- At this point you cant argue otherwise. Rivers was more consistent by far but Grossman showed flashes of brilliance that eclipsed him and games far beneath him. Grossman went deeper in the playoffs and with his flashes of brilliance i think it should be called a draw.

Volek=Griese- On this one I dont know so much. I MIGHT give the nod to Volek but neither has shown me in any action that either deserves a nod over the other.

Orton>Whitehurst- Orton has pro wins. No argument can be made against that.

So by a hair Bears win IMO. If you change the Volek ruling then you have a Chargers V by ruling of second string to third string but it would again be by a hair.

I don't like to laugh when it looks like people put thought into what they say but I can't tell if you did...

Grossman=Rivers? By what stretch of the imagination did you come to that conclusion. Look at some of my posts on this site, and I've defended Grossman (almost) every time he's been attacked. He is inexperienced and has potential, and as much as I don't want to come off as a homer, in a thread where there is so much blatant homerism, at this point he can't hold Rivers' jockstrap. I don't remember anyone screaming for Volek to come in and play for Rivers, I don't remember Rivers' throwing interceptions left and right, or fumbling the ball often, and I sure as hell don't remember the Chargers' fan base being split down the middle over him, aside from when it was him vs. Brees. Match Grossman's best games vs Rivers' best games, and Rivers is still hanging in. Grossman wins that, but if you think his negatives don't outweigh his differences there, when compared to Rivers, then I'll just stop the debate here. Match Grossman's bad games with Rivers' bad games and he blows him away. Match their overall consistency and Rivers comes out ahead. You would really rather have a guy who you never know how he'll play then a guy who can play consistently (spare 2 games) well? Grossman went deeper in the playoffs, in a much weaker Conference, with a team who bailed him out much more then Rivers' did, so that is irrelevant anyway.

As for Volek there's not as much to back it up, but I don't think anyone takes Griese over him, one Griese is older, and two Volek has shown more in his stints with the Titans then Griese has of late...anywhere.

As for the third stringers, not only are they almost irrelevant because their value means so very little, as neither are much to brag about, Whitehurst came into the league wtih more potential then Orton, and there is no reason not to think Whitehurst could do better, though since he hasn't I'll be generous and give Orton the nod.

That gives us a better 1st, 2nd stringer, and you have a slightly better 3rd stringer.

I dont understand your first sentence about Whitehurst and Orton. Orton may not have won those games but he got the W and didnt lose them. And to my knowledge Whitehurst is putting up a big goose egg in the wins category and really thats what matters.

Ahh, in a much weaker conference Orton did all this, with a team that, at the time, was in an even better position in regards to their own talent vs. the teams' they played, that Orton would have had to be another Ryan Leaf to lose those games. Saying he got the W and didn't lose them is just a copout. Plug almost any other QB in the league, spare a couple, and they could have "got the W".

I dont agree with the Rivers comment because I believe in Grossman and I think Grossman's play at the beginning of last season speaks to how good he can be. While I mentioned he hasnt been consistent, those first 5 games everyone thought he was playing great. And again Grossman has more wins. You can argue how he got them, but as of right now he went 13-3 and got them to the Super Bowl. Rivers failed to make the play when he desperately needed to against the Pats. Although I dont think it was his fault, regardless he didnt get the win and three years from now hes going to have that L on his record, while Grossman will have the W.

In response to the bolded part, its good you have faith in your QB, but Rivers has shown just as much potential and played just as well, for more games, in addition to being a better prospect and player then Grossman is.

Rivers' failed to make the plays against the Pats? As far as I can remember Rivers was throwing beautiful balls, ones that his receivers couldn't hang onto because they choked under the pressure. Excuses aside, and assuming he had a bad game as well, he still took a final drive, with no timeouts, and got within decent field goal range to give any kind of hope, so that game is on anyone but his shoulders. Try the defense, the coaches, the recievers. All of this, not to mention, against the 12-4 Pats, in the AFC...not the 10-6 Saints, or any other weaker NFC team. And Rivers' had more wins in the regular season, which gives Rex a whopping one more win, if you include the postseason.

neko4
08-07-2007, 01:31 AM
Turner is excellent. I'd say he's a better RB than Mo Drew(at this point), Barber, and Bush. And a whole hell of a lot better than Bennett. Turner is incredibly large, and has excellent breakaway speed. He averaged over 6 per carry.

Best Backup RB's, IMO
1-Ladell Betts
2-Michael Turner
3-Marion Barber
4-Reggie Bush (Does he count?)
5-Maurice Jones-Drew
Could Suprise: Wali Lundy, I was pleased w/ how he played last year considering the conditions

GB12
08-07-2007, 01:35 AM
Drop Betts. Not just down, but off the list completely.

bearsfan_51
08-07-2007, 02:10 AM
Dude Rivers is a better QB than Grossman.

Race for the Heisman
08-07-2007, 09:38 AM
At this stage, Rivers should be ranked higher than Grossman and rightfully so. Both have had one year as 'the' guy and both carried their teams about the same distance (if you judge solely based on wins, which is ridiculous), but Rivers' performances were of a significantly different caliber, as noted by his stats. That alone would give the Chargers better quarterback depth in my eyes, with all else being relatively equal. If the third guy has to come in your probably f'd anyway.

As for the Eagles situation, I can understand where LSUALUM99 is coming from, but my take on it is totally different. If you can use a veteran as a stopgap and develop Kolb, I really think the Eagles are fine at quarterback. I don't think Kolb will have anything on McNabb, but:
- McNabb's presence makes the Eagles more one-dimensional, not because of any fault of his own but because of the play calling that occurs when he's on the field
- Westbrook proved he can be a real feature back when McNabb was out, a guy who can carry the ball 25 times per game
These two things make me think that when McNabb moves on the Eagles will be fine as far as his situation is concerned, because Kolb won't need to emulate McNabb's numbers for the offense to have a similar level of success.

However, if McNabb's departure coincides with Dawkins, and the play in the trenches drops a little bit due to age, or any of the aging guys really can't replicate their performances from previous seasons, I could see Phili struggling. That said, I think the Eagles organization is one of the best run in the business and they will be able to work through these issues, I would only be concerned if 5 leaks sprung at the same time as opposed being able to plug the holes one by one.

Finally, Ladell Betts belongs on the list of upper tier backups, and Adrian Peterson (Georgia Southern) is more than Davenport could aspire to be.

HerthaFootballFan
08-07-2007, 12:43 PM
Najeh Davenport got cut by the packers because his ankle injury. I would certainly take Najeh over Adrian Peterson or Garrett Wolfe.

Charlie Batch is 3-0 as a starter in replacement of Ben. He's accurate and can come in at any time and play great. Sorry I didn't say he was "The best". I said one of. You named 2 guys you think are better backup QBs. If they're "The best" and Batch is #3, I'd say thats "One of the best".

Willie Colon is a fiery Backup OL. He plays every position. He is the one that shut down Adalius Thomas and Trevor Pryce in last years baltimore game.. which wasn't bad considering the time before Starks gave up 4 sacks.

Ryan Clark? I said he was above average. Please don't act to be above me by putting words in my mouth. Ryan Clark is a very consistent Veteran. Maybe not all big plays, but he's in on the play a lot of the time. He did great for us last year.

Many I like a lot of steelers players and a lot fo their backups but to call them great backups is just not accurate. Dookey has a cool nick name but that's about it, he doesn't have speed, doesn't run with power, isn't a smart runner and doesn't cut back well, wwhile he is big and can catch that isn't enough to make him even a good backup, I hate Reuben Droughns and you can't argue that Davenport is better than Droughns.

I used to always get into arguments with Lions fans about their team and so finally started watching them, that was the point where I realized that Charlie Batch should never start more than 3 games every 3 years. He doesn't have an arm, his legs are going and he still tries to make plays again I'd take Anthony Wright over him.

WHile I agree that Colon has a great future he hasn't accomplished it yet so to refer to him as great depth guy is just like Vikings fans calling Ryan a great backup OL.

I've been watching Clark since his days as a giant and have realized that he stopped progressing his first year in washington and in the end his limited physical gifts make him unworthy of being anything more than a below average starter, a good depth guy, not a great one.

Now that that's out of the way i'm gunna mention the giants even though a lot of our depth is based on young guys who have yet to prove themselves.

At QB we're solid, Eli's the starter for sure and Wright is a proven backup in the league, nothing special but a proven backup is good enough. Also The Hefty Lefty has been tearing it up in TC by showing a much better command of the offense and the passing game, still hasn't done jack as a QB on sundays but as third stringer I'm happy with him since I didn't expect anything from him.

At RB Jacobs is largely untested but when he did get the ball last year he showed that he'll just mess people up, also he has the best breakaway speed of any RB we've had get significant pt in ages. Droughns was an average to below average starter, but he is a big guy who can spell Jacobs and give us about 4 yards a pop. The third spot should go to Ahmad Bradshaw who isn't much physically but is just a natural runner who waits for wholes, makes smart cuts and just knows how to get something out of every play, plus he's showing good hands. Hasn't proved jack again, but as a third RB I'd say he's above the league's average for a third string RB.

At WR I would say that we are 4 deep with starter caliber players, but Moss and Smith haven't gotten to show their stuff on the field despite both having a lot of talent. Smith seems to be Amani 2.0 in that he's tough, smart and has glue on his hands. Moss is explosive and is a nice foil to the more size possession style of game of Amani and the size od Plax. Beyond that Tyree is a guy who eli got comfortable throwing to last year when Toomer got injured, so for a #5 WR I think he's good, he isn't a burner or a giant but he's a hard worker who eli trusts.

At TE i'm really excited Shockey really seems to have learned to funnel his energy in a more team oriented direction and is really helping guys like Kevin Boss become good TEs, Boss is still really raw but he's a monster of a man and a great athlete, with Pope teaching him how to block he could become one of the better 2nd TEs in the league down the road.

On the Oline we again have a bunch of young unproven guys who I'm excited about, Whimper seems to be playing really well as he's taking away Diehl's first team snaps. If he becomes the starter Diehl would move back to LG, where he's one of the most under-rated players in the league, and move Seubert to becoming the top interior backup/blocking TE. Seubert is now completely healthy and will push both Snee and Diehl for PT, giving us great interior depth. On the outside I'm still uneasy though as Patrick doesn't have LT potential but could be a solid back up on the right side and Koets has potential but isn't there yet.

Overall I'd say that we're a team that has a lot of young guys who could be very quality contributers with experience, but this year our depth is very questionable, just like with the steelers, a lot of unproven guys who could turn out to actually be great depth but until they're proven they can't be considered great depth.

Bearsfan123
08-07-2007, 04:08 PM
Whitehurst has never been given the chance to start, its not like Orton won the job in TC


sorry some of the words were mispelled and i just couldnt read it. This is true, but Orton didnt lose the games. And the fact is he was a rookie quarterback who won 10 games. I think that should be enough to put him over Whitehurst.

As to all those who laugh at me, well i cant really say much of anything to them. All i can say is at the beginning of last season, Grossman was being considered an MVP candidate and I dont believe Rivers ever was. Sorry if that makes ppl laugh but if he can do that then I think its damn possible its a draw. I like Rivers alot and that he doesnt force anything and he has alot of poise, but I just believe that if for 5 weeks you can be considered an MVP candidate then its possible to be consistently close to that good. Yeah Grossman had very ****** games where he lost them on his own or should have lost them. Im not denying they happened, i just think that these two quarterbacks they should be considered equals until the other proves to be better than the other. Really 3 weeks into the season if everything is still going smoothly for Rivers I will have no problem admitting hes better if Grossman doesnt show it. But for now, in my eyes they are equal.

Dam8610
08-07-2007, 04:09 PM
He averaged over 6 per carry.

Facing worn down/backup defenses at the end of games that are also demoralized after a heavy dose of LT. He wouldn't find the same gaping holes in a starting role as he does in those situations.

yourfavestoner
08-07-2007, 04:27 PM
How about the Jaguars for defense? Injuries all across the board, yet they remained the second best defense in the league.

Vikes99ej
08-07-2007, 04:42 PM
Safety= Vikings!!

no love
08-07-2007, 06:59 PM
Bears also have the Best QB depth. (if our starter plays like he should) 3 guys who have started in the league and won. Grossman, Griese, and Orton. Only team that comes close is Baltimore with McNair, i think his name is Boller, and T Smith. The Bears weakest point (depth wise) is O-line. We have 5 starters and definately not enough good backups. During the season, the Bears should be able to claim to be on par with Dallas for TE depth if Olsen pans out.

For RB its gotta be between the Chargers who have 2 guys who could start with no problem whatsoever, or the Pats who have 3 quality players. If i missed someone here sorry, just chime in and tell me.

I think the Bears depth at QB isn't quite at the Buc level. If Plummer doesn't retire than there is no one in the league with more depth than the Bucs. Simms, Garcia and Gradkowski have all been starters in the league. Arizona and the Titans also have better depth. What the Bears do have is a lot of good/great d-linemen.

Boller has never been a winner, nor has he lived up to his draft status and Smith is a rookie. There are plenty of teams in this league with game manager qb's and a rookie qb... Raiders, Miami, and the Jets to name a few.

WR it's the Pats and the Colts (Dallas Clark is practically a WR). No question.

Chargers seem to have the best RB depth and maybe LB depth along with Miami and the Pats.

49ers actually have pretty good depth at corner, with 2 current probowlers at corner, plus Spencer (capable starter), and Terrell Brown (rookie impressing in camp). The Bronco's would have been here... =(

Safety's would either be the Raiders or the Patriots (taking into account the versatility of their players) . The Cowboys don't count because they have two SS and no FS.

Dam8610
08-07-2007, 07:15 PM
How about the Jaguars for defense? Injuries all across the board, yet they remained the second best defense in the league.

Fourth (http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/DEF-SCORING/2006/regular?sort_col_1=3), but still a valid point.

Dam8610
08-07-2007, 08:55 PM
Best Depth by position:

QB: Eagles - They have a top 5 NFL QB, a backup that has proven he can lead the team for a short period of time in Andy Reid's system, and a highly drafted rookie as their third string QB. The Eagles are the only team I could find that had a top notch starter and 3 QBs that I think they'd be comfortable playing.

Honorable Mentions: Colts, Chargers, Bears, Cowboys

RB: Chiefs - With the return of Priest Holmes, the Kansas City Chiefs now have 3 RBs that have been to a Pro Bowl on their roster. Larry Johnson was run into the ground last year, and if Herman wants to keep his All-Pro back healthy and happy, he's going to have to start spelling him at times with Holmes or Bennett, both of whom are very quality backups and should be able to provide LJ with some much needed breathers this season.

Honorable Mentions: Chargers, Jaguars, Vikings, Saints

WR: Cardinals - They have three very talented and proven young WRs for Leinart to throw to in Anquan Boldin, Larry Fitzgerald, and Bryant Johnson, and IMO poor QB play is the only thing that has really held this group back. There's a strong case for a couple of the teams listed below, but in the end I decided to go with them because they have a bunch of young, good WRs.

Honorable Mentions: Colts, Saints, Patriots, Broncos

TE: Colts - They have 3 TEs that saw extensive playing time last season, and all three are versatile, seeing action at more than one position on the field in 2006. Dallas Clark and Bryan Fletcher both played at the tradional TE position and in the slot, and Ben Utecht saw time at the TE and FB positions. The Colts used 2 TEs on almost every play in 2006, and all of them had a decent measure of success, which, combined with the fact that most teams don't have 2 TEs they use much (no other team has 2 TEs with over 250 yards apiece in 2006), let alone 3 (all 3 of the aforementioned TEs for the Colts had at least 200 yards in 2006), is why the Colts get the top spot here.

Honorable Mentions: Rams, Browns, Eagles, Bears

To be continued...

TitleTown088
08-07-2007, 09:13 PM
Safety= Vikings!!

Too bad none of them are any good. :)

LSUALUM99
08-08-2007, 12:18 AM
You make a few good points, but a few confusing ones.

You're right about McNabb, the eagles really need him to stay healthy, it may be a make-or-break year for him. No arguing that. But I believe he has a much better chance to stay healthy than many people think, not 1 of his injuries was related, it may be hard to believe but most of his injuries were just freak accidents. In the event he does go down again, AJ Feeley is a lot like Garcia in the way that he thrives in the West Coast offense, sure he had little success in Miami, but that was a completely different offense, just like how Garcia was mediocre in Cleveland and Detroit. In week 17 AJ Feeley was the NFL.com QB of the week against Atlanta's 1st string Defense, with the eagles' 2nd string offense. But a healthy McNabb is clearly a top QB in the league.
Dawkins is getting up there in age, but he's still a top 3 safety in the league, he is showing no signs of slowing down this season, Dawk's age has no effect on the eagles' chances this season.
Michael Lewis was benched in the middle of the season last year, he was and I'm sure still is terrible in coverage, our current starter, Sean Considine, is very good in coverage, he gained around 15 pounds in the off-season so that could improve his tackling.
If Kearse goes down, we have one of the deepest D-Lines in the NFL, I'm blanking out right now and I actually don't remember if he was injured in the 2005 season, the important thing is he's healthy right now, but if we keep him fresh and rotate our D-Line a lot that shouldn't be too much of an issue.
I'm not quite sure why you don't think the O-Line isn't as good as it has been, this may be the best it has been. ever. It is the biggest line in the league and they are very injury resistant, last year they stayed each together all year and if they do that again, with the younger players getting more experience, it could be scary. Our future is bright at the Oline too, with Winston Justice and Max Jean-Gilles waiting in the wings.
Andy Reid and Marty Morninwig have said that we will run the ball much closer to 50/50, and we can clearly see that they want to stick with that by drafting 2 RBs in the draft, Tony Hunt and Nate Ilaoa (who's a long shot to make the roster) but Tony Hunt is absolutely lighting it up in camp, steam-rolling over would-be tacklers.
Kevin Curtis is a very pleasant surprise in TC, he's catching everything that comes his way and he has great break-away ability, and is great at getting separation from the DBs, yesterday he had a diving catch and collided with the goal post, held on the football and popped right back up. Reggie Brown has another year of experience and he is dominating in TC, his hands aren't quite as good as Curtis' but he is a great playmaker, Jason Avant and Hank Baskett are both very young and looking very impressive as well, both have great hands and are hard to cover and bring down. Baskett, an UDFA last year, had the 2 longest receptions of any reciever last year, both in the mid 80s, even though he was known as a red-zone guy coming out of college, and is definitely gonna be threat again this year. Greg Lewis is another guy who makes a living at the other end of the 1st down marker, he's a very reliable guy.

There's my argument, a little longer than I expected but I hope you read it and give some feedback.


I think your WR corp is average at best. No true #1 and alot of average NFL quality WR's. It's always been Reid's system to do it that way. Reggie Brown has a high end #2 skillset and will always been a good #2 but sub par #1. Curtis is a decent #2 but good #3. Avant, Basket, Lewis are all serviceable #3 WR's. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but not a 'strength' of the team.

The O-Line may be one of the biggest in the league but that doesn't mean it's a good O-Line. Dallas has had a 'large' O-Line for years but the play of the OL has been bad that whole time. I don't value Justice or Max Jean-Giles nearly as highly as you do. That's just a matter of opinion. Time will tell.

The core of the Eagles is old. Kearse, Dawkins, McNabb, are all old and/or injury prone.

I just think that the Eagles are done as serious contenders in the NFC. They may still win the East but making the NFC championship game is not going to happen and their team is getting worse, not better. The NFC East is highly overrated at this point. The Cowboys may win the East, but even then making the NFC championship game is highly unlikely. The Eagles may win the East but won't make a huge run in the playoffs. Their team just isn't dominant on defense like it has been in the past. The Giants are finally going to come to their senses and realize Eli is a very mediocre NFL quarterback and stop thinking he is his brother. The Redskins are a terribly run franchise and won't ever contend until they overhaul the whole team.

Right now, there real up and comers in the NFC are in the West. I think the Bears are still the team to beat as long as Grossman gets his head out of his a$$.

I agree with Heisman insofar as the Eagles problems are that when McNabb is in the lineup, they seem to need to change the way they play football. Westbrook is a very underrated runner but they abandon that when McNabb is in there. Without a stellar defense, being one dimensional makes you very vulnerable.

Fitzgerald11
08-08-2007, 12:56 AM
Okay lets look at this

Rivers=Grossman- At this point you cant argue otherwise. Rivers was more consistent by far but Grossman showed flashes of brilliance that eclipsed him and games far beneath him. Grossman went deeper in the playoffs and with his flashes of brilliance i think it should be called a draw.

Volek=Griese- On this one I dont know so much. I MIGHT give the nod to Volek but neither has shown me in any action that either deserves a nod over the other.

Orton>Whitehurst- Orton has pro wins. No argument can be made against that.

So by a hair Bears win IMO. If you change the Volek ruling then you have a Chargers V by ruling of second string to third string but it would again be by a hair.

The Rivers to Grossman comparison was idiotic. Rivers is taller, doesn't have passes batted down, was more consistent, and threw only 9 interceptions.
I can't remember how many interceptions Grossman had off-hand, but I'm sure it was at least 18.

Grossman only got the Bears to the Super Bowl because of the defense. The defense killed the Saints in the championship game. It's pretty easy to score 40 points when you're defense gets 7 turnovers and you have 5+ possessions that start at your own 30 yard line. If Grossman doesn't get the ball in his own territory, he can't lead the offense to touchdowns. The Bears would have been nothing without their defense.

I'd take Rivers over Grossman any day.

Crazy_Chris
08-08-2007, 03:48 AM
Safety= Vikings!!

Too bad none of them are any good. :)

Too bad each and everyone of them are better than anyone the packers have. :)

bored of education
08-08-2007, 07:46 AM
Chiefs have depth at LB not worldy depth: Donnie Edwards, Derrick Johnson, Napoleon Harris, Bell, Fox, Kershaw and Rookie Nate Harris.

Chiefs RBs(assuming Larry is Back): Larry Johnson, Michael Bennett(finally entering a season healthy for the 1st time in 2 years), Kolby Smith, Priest Holmes and NFL EUROPA MVP Derrick Ross lol.

bearsfan_51
08-08-2007, 08:54 AM
Charlie Batch is 3-0 as a starter in replacement of Ben. He's accurate and can come in at any time and play great. Sorry I didn't say he was "The best". I said one of. You named 2 guys you think are better backup QBs. If they're "The best" and Batch is #3, I'd say thats "One of the best".
I'm not going to respond to all of this cause frankly I don't care, but I named two guys, that doesn't mean those are the only two guys. Brian Griese is better, David Carr is better, Trent Dilfer is better, hell Kyle Boller is better.

In fact, I would probably say that Charlie Batch might be the best backup on the Steelers, and he's still not even top 5 at his position.

And yes, you are correct, our runningback depth is weak. So is our OT depth. Unlike you, I don't think everything on my team is solid gold. But then again, when you go 8-8 I guess you have room to make grand statements. Yeah..I know...you won the Superbowl two years ago, and Coach Cowher just didn't care this year, that's why you slumped. It's not because you have slightly deteriorating talent or because the Steelers played WAY over their heads in the 2005 playoffs. Just hope that they make huge moves this year..otherwise your constant homerish comments are really going to bite you in the ass, assuming you're even around till then.

And I don't have any personal vendetta against you, in fact I didn't even notice till a few days ago, but it's pretty clear a LOT of people on here are aware of what a massive homer you are, and that's never a good thing. Just ask Tubby.

TPFKA#1SaintsFan
08-08-2007, 09:06 AM
The Saints are among the best in the league at RB depth, obviously - but that's about it. We've got NO depth in very key areas, which concerns me greatly. If Brees, a few O-Linemen, or one of our DE's go down, we're pretty much F'ed.

Mr. Stiller
08-08-2007, 12:04 PM
I'm not going to respond to all of this cause frankly I don't care, but I named two guys, that doesn't mean those are the only two guys. Brian Griese is better, David Carr is better, Trent Dilfer is better, hell Kyle Boller is better.

In fact, I would probably say that Charlie Batch might be the best backup on the Steelers, and he's still not even top 5 at his position.

And yes, you are correct, our runningback depth is weak. So is our OT depth. Unlike you, I don't think everything on my team is solid gold. But then again, when you go 8-8 I guess you have room to make grand statements. Yeah..I know...you won the Superbowl two years ago, and Coach Cowher just didn't care this year, that's why you slumped. It's not because you have slightly deteriorating talent or because the Steelers played WAY over their heads in the 2005 playoffs. Just hope that they make huge moves this year..otherwise your constant homerish comments are really going to bite you in the ass, assuming you're even around till then.

And I don't have any personal vendetta against you, in fact I didn't even notice till a few days ago, but it's pretty clear a LOT of people on here are aware of what a massive homer you are, and that's never a good thing. Just ask Tubby.

I tend to be a homer, and I agree. I also think a lot of the time, we get criticized and it's a joke.

I've heard last year about how Willie Parker isn't a great RB, he's just a mediocre RB behind a great OL. But then when you try to get credit for the OL it's that Willie Parker just had a lucky season.

It's at which point does our team get credit...?

We played over our heads in 2005? For someone as intelligent as yourself is it that hard to give credit to us? we went 15-1 a season earlier. Then we ran the table as the sixth seed. Yet "We played over our heads" or "We just got lucky"

Why is it physically impossible that any Steeler is good? We have had 2 losing seasons in the past 15 years... have qualified for the playoffs 10times out of the last 15. I believe we made the AFCC 4-5 times in the last 15 years. Yet our entire team is a bunch of no good role players?

Is there some bias against my team? I believe so. Which is why I probably come off as a massive homer. I would like to see my team and it's players get credit for its/their achievements.

I think Batch is one of the best backups. Why? Because any time he's been called in he can start cold. If he needs to start a game in spot work, he's undefeated. I certainly wouldn't take Kyle Boller over Batch. The others in my opinion are debatable.

As for Najeh. Yes I'm aware he's not the best #2 rb in the league. But he does what we need. He runs with a little power and he's quick. Perfect for the screens we run. Add Carey Davis and Gary Russell who are looking like guys that are going to provide. I though going 4 deep with decently talented guys is pretty good. Though I have to admit, I believe the chiefs are better.

as for what I was saying. I didn't mean we had the best backups at every position. I took it as "What team had the best all around depth". I thought we were one of them. If you analyze by individual positions.. I think next year we'd qualify in some categories like RB, Safety, and TE.


Again I didn't mean to take a shot. It's just very frustrating when you're rooting for a good team, they have talent. Some talent is elite, and everyone tries to take a shot at them.

Average OT LB
08-08-2007, 12:17 PM
The Grossman Rivers comparison is somewhat justifiable

Heres the argument. Grossman is very good, but just had a few bad games where his few fixable problems surfaced. Bears fans would lead you to believe that those problems will indeed be fixed and next year you will not see the bad rex all that often.
Rivers on the other hand is a consistnat qb who didnt really run into any kind of problems. So as bear fans see it, if grossman can just fix his problems and play well the whole season, he could easily surpass rivers and there will be no argument.

But the numbers simply do not lie-
In 10 games rex was great - 21 tds vs 2 int.. thats a very good ratio and is the basis for the argument.
His 6 bad games - 2 tds and 18 int ... is why its not one

Rex seems to be very good when the defense gets a quick turnover and he makes one pass and its a td.. thats speculation i have no proof. But what i can prove is that he is not very good when the game is close but Rivers is amazing.

when rex is behind.. he owns a 49 qb rating 48 completion% 7tds and 12int in 9 games..

when rivers is behind he owns a 100 qb rating 61 completion% 10tds and 2int in the same 9 games

the argument ends with rivers gets better when he has too, fights off LT for tds and still puts in a consistantly good effort. Rex battles injuries and himslef while relying on his defense to win games that he is doing his best to lose.

JK17
08-08-2007, 12:22 PM
The Grossman Rivers comparison is somewhat justifiable

Heres the argument. Grossman is very good, but just had a few bad games where his few fixable problems surfaced. Bears fans would lead you to believe that those problems will indeed be fixed and next year you will not see the bad rex all that often.
Rivers on the other hand is a consistnat qb who didnt really run into any kind of problems. So as bear fans see it, if grossman can just fix his problems and play well the whole season, he could easily surpass rivers and there will be no argument.

But the numbers simply do not lie-
In 10 games rex was great - 21 tds vs 2 int.. thats a very good ratio and is the basis for the argument.
His 6 bad games - 2 tds and 18 int ... is why its not one

Rex seems to be very good when the defense gets a quick turnover and he makes one pass and its a td.. thats speculation i have no proof. But what i can prove is that he is not very good when the game is close but Rivers is amazing.

when rex is behind.. he owns a 49 qb rating 48 completion% 7tds and 12int in 9 games..

when rivers is behind he owns a 100 qb rating 61 completion% 10tds and 2int in the same 9 games

the argument ends with rivers gets better when he has too, fights off LT for tds and still puts in a consistantly good effort. Rex battles injuries and himslef while relying on his defense to win games that he is doing his best to lose.

No doubt you could justify an argument...

but you can't justify the bolded statement...
Rivers=Grossman- At this point you cant argue otherwise. Rivers was more consistent by far but Grossman showed flashes of brilliance that eclipsed him and games far beneath him. Grossman went deeper in the playoffs and with his flashes of brilliance i think it should be called a draw.

Average OT LB
08-08-2007, 12:25 PM
No doubt you could justify an argument...

but you can't justify the bolded statement...


well yeah I'm just trying to put numbers to fit the words

Man_Of_Steel
08-08-2007, 12:27 PM
Okay lets look at this

Rivers=Grossman- At this point you cant argue otherwise. Rivers was more consistent by far but Grossman showed flashes of brilliance that eclipsed him and games far beneath him. Grossman went deeper in the playoffs and with his flashes of brilliance i think it should be called a draw.

I really hope your kidding. Rivers is far superior to Grossman. What are these "flashes of brillance" that Grossman showed? Are you sure it wasnt just the thrill of a completed pass?

Buckeyes
08-08-2007, 12:32 PM
Its true.. I'm pretty sure Thomas Jones, Devin Hester's punt returns, and the defense carried them to through the playoffs last year

Average OT LB
08-08-2007, 12:33 PM
I really hope your kidding. Rivers is far superior to Grossman. What are these "flashes of brillance" that Grossman showed? Are you sure it wasnt just the thrill of a completed pass?

hes talking about the pace grossman set that had he continued it for a full season would have had him throwing 34 tds and 3 interceptions..

of course he could also be talking about the 48 interceptions and 5 touchdown pace he was also on..

Fitzgerald11
08-08-2007, 12:34 PM
Its true.. I'm pretty sure Thomas Jones, Devin Hester's punt returns, and the defense carried them to through the playoffs last year

There's no doubt about it. Grossman can't lead a drive of more than 50 yards. The Bears had 5+ possessions inside their own 30 in the NFC Championship game against the Saints. That's why they won. Bottom line.

cardsalltheway
08-08-2007, 12:43 PM
I really hope your kidding. Rivers is far superior to Grossman. What are these "flashes of brillance" that Grossman showed? Are you sure it wasnt just the thrill of a completed pass?

How soon you forget that Grossman was putting up MVP-type numbers to start the season

Average OT LB
08-08-2007, 12:52 PM
How soon you forget that Grossman was putting up MVP-type numbers to start the season


ok yeah he was on pace for 34 tds and 3 interceptions.. that would surely cement him for an MVP

BUT...

48 interceptions and 5 touchdown would be history! legendary! that would be the worst season of any player.. remember favres 29 int season? imagine 48! not to mention he fumbled 5 times in those horrible 6 games, giviing him 5 games where he had 4 turnovers or more!

at that pace he was on pace for 61 turnovers...and by the way the oakland raider football team totaled 46 turnovers last season..

how quickly you forget..

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
08-08-2007, 12:54 PM
ok yeah he was on pace for 34 tds and 3 interceptions.. that would surely cement him for an MVP

BUT...

48 interceptions and 5 touchdown would be history! legendary! that would be the worst season of any player.. remember favres 29 int season? imagine 48! not to mention he fumbled 5 times in those horrible 6 games, giviing him 5 games where he had 4 turnovers or more!

at that pace he was on pace for 61 turnovers...and by the way the oakland raider football team totaled 46 turnovers last season..

how quickly you forget..

He isn't arguing that Grossman is better. We all know Grossman had some poor stretches. But he was also great at times. Obviously, when you take his whole performance, he's worse than Rivers, no doubt. But he DID show flashes of brilliance.

Average OT LB
08-08-2007, 12:57 PM
He isn't arguing that Grossman is better. We all know Grossman had some poor stretches. But he was also great at times. Obviously, when you take his whole performance, he's worse than Rivers, no doubt. But he DID show flashes of brilliance.

i dont recall reading a statement he wrote saying grossman is better.. im aware of that..

he cannot mention mvp and grossman and the same sentence.. not when he played maybe the worst 6 games in NFL history

as for flashes of brilliance.. thats such a general term ..

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
08-08-2007, 01:04 PM
i dont recall reading a statement he wrote saying grossman is better.. im aware of that..

he cannot mention mvp and grossman and the same sentence.. not when he played maybe the worst 6 games in NFL history

as for flashes of brilliance.. thats such a general term ..

Of course he can mention MVP and Grossman in the same sentence. For the first 5 games, Grossman was having an MVP type year.

Average OT LB
08-08-2007, 01:09 PM
Of course he can mention MVP and Grossman in the same sentence. For the first 5 games, Grossman was having an MVP type year.

ok fine i guess it doesnt bother you, but i have a problem with it. the way i see it rivers is a better quarteback and its insulting to say they're equal.

cardsalltheway
08-08-2007, 01:16 PM
ok fine i guess it doesnt bother you, but i have a problem with it. the way i see it rivers is a better quarteback and its insulting to say they're equal.

I wasn't saying he was and I don't think Chris was either. Just that Grossman has been a very good quarterback when he plays well, better than Rivers. He just can't play at that level consistently.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
08-08-2007, 01:19 PM
ok fine i guess it doesnt bother you, but i have a problem with it. the way i see it rivers is a better quarteback and its insulting to say they're equal.

Oh yeah, I agree it's insulting and everything even though I despise Rivers.

*gulp* He's the best QB in the division.


Uggh, I want to kill myself now.

JK17
08-08-2007, 01:32 PM
Oh yeah, I agree it's insulting and everything even though I despise Rivers.

*gulp* He's the best QB in the division.


Uggh, I want to kill myself now.

C'mon better then Cutler....no one is, don't be crazy.:p

If it makes it better, I'll concede Walker is hands down the best WR in the division...though it doesn't hurt quite as much, I've conceded San Diego won't have the best WR's...maybe ever...

draftguru151
08-08-2007, 01:35 PM
For the flashes of brilliance, I'd say leading the league in games of 100 QB rating is definitely showing flashes of brilliance. Even if he was terrible other games, Grossman was amazing at times.

And Chris, all you have to do is put "that started 16 games last year" after best QB in the division, because we all know what would have happened if Cutler started 16 games last year.

Average OT LB
08-08-2007, 02:05 PM
For the flashes of brilliance, I'd say leading the league in games of 100 QB rating is definitely showing flashes of brilliance. Even if he was terrible other games, Grossman was amazing at times.

And Chris, all you have to do is put "that started 16 games last year" after best QB in the division, because we all know what would have happened if Cutler started 16 games last year.

yeah brandon marshall wouldnt have escaped tacklers and sprinted 60 yards down the field to make cutlers numbers look better... its part of the game.. just not part of the game that happens 16 times..

bigbluedefense
08-08-2007, 02:18 PM
Grossman doesn't get enough credit. He did play some amazing games last year. People tend to forget that.

Im not saying he's peyton, but he's not Kyle Boller either.

draftguru151
08-08-2007, 02:27 PM
yeah brandon marshall wouldnt have escaped tacklers and sprinted 60 yards down the field to make cutlers numbers look better... its part of the game.. just not part of the game that happens 16 times..

So because Marshall made one great play Cutler's stats were inflated? Yea because that doesn't happen for every QB? I guess that perfect bomb to Walker was nothing, or the TD pass in the red zone that if 90% of QBs would have thrown it it would have been picked off. But yea because Marshall made one big play Cutler's stats were inflated.

princefielder28
08-08-2007, 02:29 PM
Grossman doesn't get enough credit. He did play some amazing games last year. People tend to forget that.

Im not saying he's peyton, but he's not Kyle Boller either.

He did play well in several occasions but for every game where his QB rating was around 100, there were games where they hardly made it out of the single digits.

Dam8610
08-08-2007, 08:26 PM
Oh yeah, I agree it's insulting and everything even though I despise Rivers.

*gulp* He's the best QB in the division.


Uggh, I want to kill myself now.

You should, your team has the best QB in the division. Yeah, I said it.

Dam8610
08-08-2007, 08:29 PM
He did play well in several occasions but for every game where his QB rating was around 100, there were games where they hardly made it out of the single digits.

Not true at all. 7 100+ rating games vs. 4 "hardly made it out of single digits" games, or almost 2 100+ rating games for every one "hardly made it out of single digits" game.

Bearsfan123
08-08-2007, 08:45 PM
O_O i was not expecting to find this argument continued onto the 5th page. I think since the season is so close tho we can end it and take a wait and see approach. In the first game of the season both QBs will be against tough defenses (each others) and it should help settle this debate whether they are equal, or if Rivers blows Grossman out of the water... Although I have to admit, I feel bad for Grossman, hes being blasted already....

Fitzgerald11
08-08-2007, 08:47 PM
O_O i was not expecting to find this argument continued onto the 5th page. I think since the season is so close tho we can end it and take a wait and see approach. In the first game of the season both QBs will be against tough defenses (each others) and it should help settle this debate whether they are equal, or if Rivers blows Grossman out of the water... Although I have to admit, I feel bad for Grossman, hes being blasted already....

Why shouldn't we blast him after:

1. He was wildly inconsistent in 2006.

2. He said after a New Year's Eve game that he wasn't focused on the game but on partying afterwords.

Boston
08-08-2007, 08:56 PM
Haha. I laugh at those saying the Bears have no major weaknesses.

remix 6
08-08-2007, 09:16 PM
I believe it is Colts for offense and Bears for defense. But don't forget that it is also different team's systems that create a lot of depth. Wade Phillips created some good depth for LBs in San Diego while Denver's zone blocking scheme gives good depth for running backs.

how the colts on offense?
-Sorgi hasnt proven anything..not his fault
-DeeDee Dorsey is the backup to Addai..how much has he played?
-who are the TEs behind Clark? Fletcher/
-With Glenn gone..a rookie and another young player


Patriots imo..a little homer but w.e

-behind Brady we have Cassell..played well at times. We are "supposed" to sign Vinny T again but right now that Matt Guitares (spelling) guy is there

at RB..we have Maroney..Kevin Faulk whos arguably 1 of the best 3rd down backs and receivers out of backfield. Morris has played a lot at Miami(last year) with experience at FB aswell while Evans is our starting FB

at TE.
-Watson..u know hes good
-Brady..a very good blocker..big guy
-Thomas..he played well when he started a few games last year. A lot of people know him from Texas while being Vince's favorite target
-Garrett Mills..he did well in college..set some records but injured last year..battling now

OL
-behind the starters..we have experience. Ryan O'Callaghan started half of last year before he got hurt..Hochstein is a pretty good backup at the guard and center spot
-Britt played a couple games last year. I think our OL is fine with depth..not GREAt but pretty good

WR
do i need to say it? Caldwell who led us last year with 750 yards is our 4th-5th WR!
Moss-Stallworth-Welker-Gaffney(he was great in the post season..tons of catches)-Caldwell-last year rookie Chad Jackson-Troy brown-Bam Childress(watch out..he might make it)-Kelly Washington(might get cut imo)

we have the best WR depth

defensivly..our front 3 is 1 of the best overall groups. Behind them we have Jarvis Green who played a lot over last few years..very good backup..could start quiet a few places. Wright doesnt have his name out there really but hes played quiet a bit between NT-DE

Linebacker depth might be hurting a little with age but our starters..u know are very good. Seau was 1 of the our best D players last year before getting hurt and now hes back. Pierre Woods is having an amazing offseason. Alexander starter in the playoffs and had like 10 tackles and a sack. 2 young guys..cant really tell how good t hey are yet but if anything..this is where we are lagging in depth. actually..with versatility it wouldnt be bad. if Bruschi gets hurt..Seau is in..dont miss a beat. Vrabel can play inside and out as can Thomas


secondary. If Asante shows..our CBs look pretty good. Samuel-Hobbs-***(hes not hurt anymore!)-James(declined with Bengals but hes done well in camp and hes not going to be asked to start really)-we had Chad Scott who was our starter next to Hobbs with Asante out but he went on IR :(

Safety depth is great. Harrison-Wilson starters..Meriweather has been playing both S and CB. James Sanders is 1 of the brightest stars in camp so far and he played a lot last year and did well. Hawkins played a lot last 2 years aswell ..not very good but hes reliable and a leader. Rashad Baker was doing well before he hurt his back in camp..still have Mel Mitchell aswell whos an ST demon and started a few games for Saints a few years back but hes on the bubble

remix 6
08-08-2007, 09:17 PM
Haha. I laugh at those saying the Bears have no major weaknesses.

their starting QB is a weakness..their WRs can use help. and on D..SS isnt an issue? if i recall..Archuleta was TERRIBLE last year. dont get high on him just yet.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
08-08-2007, 10:06 PM
So because Marshall made one great play Cutler's stats were inflated? Yea because that doesn't happen for every QB? I guess that perfect bomb to Walker was nothing, or the TD pass in the red zone that if 90% of QBs would have thrown it it would have been picked off. But yea because Marshall made one big play Cutler's stats were inflated.

That bomb to Walker was amazing. Oh, and that throw you were talking about at the goal line, I remember it, it was sick. I thought for sure it was a pick. Like there was no way Madieu Williams(Was it? I cant recall) didn't intercept that. Then I hear "Touchdown!" I'm like WTF? And then they show the replay, like WOW. And as for that one play to Marshall, okay, let's pretend that it didn't go for a TD, and that He didn't end up throwing a TD on that drive at all. That still puts him at a very good for a rookie 8 TDs-5 INTs, which is still a bunch better than Young or Leinart. Oh, and while we're at it, if he starts 16 games, he doesn't have 1/5 of his games as his first start, so the worst play anyone has ever made(arguably other than running a fumble return to the wrong endzone or throwing it 20 yards backwards) in his running away and heaving it up for a pick-six wouldn't have happened more than once. But then we just get into tons of speculation and I really don't wanna go there. Except for the fact that he kept improving, so by the end of the season he would have put up 40 TDs and 2000 yards per game. :).

And JK, I'll accept that Walker is the best WR in the div, as long as we never mention my conceding that dreadedness again.

And dam, nice to know you're smart. Although admittedly, I dunno if Cutler will surpass Rivers this year. Next year, maybe, although Rivers is a very good QB(*barf*).

Dam8610
08-08-2007, 10:29 PM
how the colts on offense?
-Sorgi hasnt proven anything..not his fault

Sorgi has played the majority of 2 games in his career (hasn't started one, but played all but one series against the Broncos in 04 and the Cardinals in 05), and in those games, his numbers are 36 for 55 for 375 yards, 4 TDs and 1 INT.

-who are the TEs behind Clark? Fletcher/

Yeah, Fletcher...is the #3. Clark, Utecht, and Fletcher are the deepest TE unit in the league IMO.

-With Glenn gone..a rookie and another young player

A young player that filled in for Ryan Diem admirably in the Super Bowl (not to mention in the Eagles game during the regular season and any other time Diem went down) and has the athleticism to play LT

Patriots imo..a little homer but w.e

A little? okay...

-behind Brady we have Cassell..played well at times. We are "supposed" to sign Vinny T again but right now that Matt Guitares (spelling) guy is there

You're going to claim Sorgi isn't proven then talk about how Cassel has "played well at times"? How hypocritical and incorrect of you.

at RB..we have Maroney..Kevin Faulk whos arguably 1 of the best 3rd down backs and receivers out of backfield. Morris has played a lot at Miami(last year) with experience at FB aswell while Evans is our starting FB

Decent, nothing incredible.

at TE.
-Watson..u know hes good
-Brady..a very good blocker..big guy
-Thomas..he played well when he started a few games last year. A lot of people know him from Texas while being Vince's favorite target
-Garrett Mills..he did well in college..set some records but injured last year..battling now

Two of those are largely unproven on an NFL field, Brady is inexplicably mediocre, and Watson is a very good player. So they go 1 1/2 deep with the potential for more.

OL
-behind the starters..we have experience. Ryan O'Callaghan started half of last year before he got hurt..Hochstein is a pretty good backup at the guard and center spot
-Britt played a couple games last year. I think our OL is fine with depth..not GREAt but pretty good

If you want to talk about overall OL depth, the team whose depth you just trashed has 4 players capable of starting at OG for them (Lilja, Scott, Gandy, DeMulling, the latter was considered a Pro Bowler prior to injuries derailing his season in 2004 as a Colt), 3 players they feel are capable of starting at OT (Diem, Johnson, Ugoh), and 2 players capable of starting at C (Saturday, Gandy).

WR
do i need to say it? Caldwell who led us last year with 750 yards is our 4th-5th WR!
Moss-Stallworth-Welker-Gaffney(he was great in the post season..tons of catches)-Caldwell-last year rookie Chad Jackson-Troy brown-Bam Childress(watch out..he might make it)-Kelly Washington(might get cut imo)

we have the best WR depth

Moss is a shadow of his former self if you believe his OC from 2006 (and, given his production over the past 3 years, there's not much reason not to believe him), both Moss and Stallworth have already begun the hammy tweaking that will likely haunt them throughout the season, and what happens when Moss doesn't get the ball enough? Do the Pats put up with his eventual act or do they cut him? If we're counting quality as well as quantity, I'm taking the Cardinals' and Colts' WR units before the Pats' set.

Bearsfan123
08-08-2007, 11:05 PM
Why shouldn't we blast him after:

1. He was wildly inconsistent in 2006.

2. He said after a New Year's Eve game that he wasn't focused on the game but on partying afterwords.

i wasnt talking about fans, i found an article that had a writer blasting Grossman for not trying hard enough to tackle the guy who intercepted and ran back the td in the SB which I find to be laughable.

Frankly at this point I no longer care what too many other teams fans think of Grossman, since most will only listen to what they hear on the media and all the media has to say is that hes terrible and the main reason the Bears lost the Super Bowl. Along with that he needs to do this better and that better. Grossman gets nearly as much negative press as fricken TO. I respect alot of people on this board but everyone I talk to (in real life) speaks of Grossman as a nothing and its pathetic. Every Packer fan i run into tells me how Grossman is going to suck bad enough to put the Bears back in the cellar, or that he'll lead us straight out of the playoffs. The media loves to destroy Grossman, I loved the beginning of last season because everyone who had been talking about the Bears DESPERATELY needing a new quarterback suddenly was on his jock. And fans finally had to shut up about the guy. I feel bad for him out of all other qbs because from the moment he was drafted everyone spoke of him being the "savior" of the franchise at QB it was sickening. So much pressure was put on him from day one Im shocked he hasnt gone insane yet.

later

bearsfan_51
08-09-2007, 05:06 PM
their starting QB is a weakness..their WRs can use help. and on D..SS isnt an issue? if i recall..Archuleta was TERRIBLE last year. dont get high on him just yet.
Archuleta was terrible on a Redskins team that had absolutely no idea what to do with him. It's the same old story for the Redskins, sign a guy because of name recognition and then not have a clue how to play him.

Arch played at a high level in the Tampa 2 under Lovie Smith and Bob Babich. There's no reason to think he can't agian.

But yeah....we have flaws. Obviously QB and depth at RB. I'm not worried about WR. We don't have any elite guys but we aren't a passing team anyway.

bearsfan_51
08-09-2007, 09:14 PM
He did play well in several occasions but for every game where his QB rating was around 100, there were games where they hardly made it out of the single digits.
Here's a fun fact. Brett Favre had more games with a sub 60 passer rating than Grossman did last year.

Average OT LB
08-11-2007, 01:06 PM
i wasnt talking about fans, i found an article that had a writer blasting Grossman for not trying hard enough to tackle the guy who intercepted and ran back the td in the SB which I find to be laughable.

Frankly at this point I no longer care what too many other teams fans think of Grossman, since most will only listen to what they hear on the media and all the media has to say is that hes terrible and the main reason the Bears lost the Super Bowl. Along with that he needs to do this better and that better. Grossman gets nearly as much negative press as fricken TO. I respect alot of people on this board but everyone I talk to (in real life) speaks of Grossman as a nothing and its pathetic. Every Packer fan i run into tells me how Grossman is going to suck bad enough to put the Bears back in the cellar, or that he'll lead us straight out of the playoffs. The media loves to destroy Grossman, I loved the beginning of last season because everyone who had been talking about the Bears DESPERATELY needing a new quarterback suddenly was on his jock. And fans finally had to shut up about the guy. I feel bad for him out of all other qbs because from the moment he was drafted everyone spoke of him being the "savior" of the franchise at QB it was sickening. So much pressure was put on him from day one Im shocked he hasnt gone insane yet.

later


Just to point out a few things, I dont think i just regurgitated info i heard from the media when i said i didnt think Grossman was as good as rivers.. I believe i came up with a bunch of stats.

As for the first few games of lsat year, but not the rest of the year yeah grossman was good. But so was quentin griffen that one game he was the starter in denver. so was drew bennett that year he had billy volek.

Just cause a player has a good game or two doesnt mean they're automatically mvp quality. Grossmans true colors shined and the media pounced... everyone agrees with each other because its true. You're a bears fan and maybe a little slow so you'll need a little time to see the light, but when your whole state starts calling for griese again.. and you're whole fan base thinks back to the days of having orton as a good thing... don't waste your breath stickin up for him here...

badgerbacker
08-11-2007, 01:43 PM
Here's a fun fact. Brett Favre had more games with a sub 60 passer rating than Grossman did last year.
Favre, however, never had a passer rating lower than 30, something Grossman did 3 times. Two of those included such gems as a 1.3 rating against the Vikings and a 0 spot against the Packers.

Edit: Looking back at the stats, Grossman had 4 games with a sub 30 passer rating. Sorry for the confusion.

Race for the Heisman
08-11-2007, 01:46 PM
Just to point out a few things, I dont think i just regurgitated info i heard from the media when i said i didnt think Grossman was as good as rivers.. I believe i came up with a bunch of stats.

As for the first few games of lsat year, but not the rest of the year yeah grossman was good. But so was quentin griffen that one game he was the starter in denver. so was drew bennett that year he had billy volek.

Just cause a player has a good game or two doesnt mean they're automatically mvp quality. Grossmans true colors shined and the media pounced... everyone agrees with each other because its true. You're a bears fan and maybe a little slow so you'll need a little time to see the light, but when your whole state starts calling for griese again.. and you're whole fan base thinks back to the days of having orton as a good thing... don't waste your breath stickin up for him here...

Talk about hypocrisy. You're willing to write off Grossman after one season while using the individual seasons of other players to justify your argument?

Everyone agrees with each other because its true? First, the whole world is not united against Grossman, as evidenced by the Bears organization sticking by him and the fans here sticking up for him. Second, even a total concensus doesn't create fact, no matter how much you want it to. I suppose death row inmates being exhonerated by DNA evidence means we are releasing killers since 100% of the jury believed in their guilt? A little round-a-bout, but how else can you counter such a silly argument to the contrary?

Besides, you know you've lost an argument when you start resorting to irrational insults based on unrelated affiliations and such.

princefielder28
08-11-2007, 01:52 PM
Favre, however, never had a passer rating lower than 30, something Grossman did 3 times. Two of those included such gems as a 1.3 rating against the Vikings and a 0 spot against the Packers.

Edit: Looking back at the stats, Grossman had 4 games with a sub 30 passer rating. Sorry for the confusion.

good stats to support Grossman is garbage

JK17
08-11-2007, 02:05 PM
Talk about hypocrisy. You're willing to write off Grossman after one season while using the individual seasons of other players to justify your argument?

If you read the other posts he made in the thread, he actually said you could make an argument for Grossman, but went on to conclude, using numbers and examples of poor leadership (Last game of the season), that he doesn't feel Rex can succeed, or at least on the level he did his first five games, which I don't think anyone doubts.

Everyone agrees with each other because its true? First, the whole world is not united against Grossman, as evidenced by the Bears organization sticking by him and the fans here sticking up for him. Second, even a total concensus doesn't create fact, no matter how much you want it to. I suppose death row inmates being exhonerated by DNA evidence means we are releasing killers since 100% of the jury believed in their guilt? A little round-a-bout, but how else can you counter such a silly argument to the contrary?

I don't know how you can say the fans there stuck with him. I'm sure some of them did, actually I know some of them did. But a whole bunch of them were calling for Griese to come in and start towards the end of the season. Yes, the coaching staff stuck with him, it was the best thing thing they could do, you can't mix up the QB like that towards the end of the year and playoffs, especially when you're still winning. The consensus is that Grossman struggled heavily last year, but still has potential. I don't even think AOTLB was trying to say Grossman can't succeed, but more that he won't succeed. And yes, you're right the whole world isn't united against Grossman. I'm not either, I think if he can focus a little more he'll be a good QB, but right now I have him average to below average. But what started this whole argument was bearsfan123 complaining if it wasn't for media coverage of Grossman, people would see he is equal to Philip Rivers, because he had a better five games, which is untrue. So I don't know what set you off by what AOTLB said, unless you feel Grossman is a top ten QB in the league right now.

Besides, you know you've lost an argument when you start resorting to irrational insults based on unrelated affiliations and such.

What about irrational and unrelated arguments, like your trial comparison? Besides, I'd like to know what argument you feel was lost, and I sure hope it wasn't that Rivers is worse then Grossman, but I don't know of any other arguments that were going around right now. The only things said bad about Grossman, that I have seen at least, are that he was not better then Rivers, that his bad matched his good in 2006, and then you cannot assume he is an MVP caliber QB because of five good games he played, against weak defenses.

For the record, my views on Grossman is that right now, he's a long way away from hitting his potential, yet I still feel he is in the 15-20 range of starting QBs in the NFL.

Which argument did you feel was lost?

bearsfan_51
08-11-2007, 02:27 PM
good stats to support Grossman is garbage

Actually I don't think anyone said otherwise. I'm just pointing out that Favre sucks at this point in his career too. You guys really need to let it go, he hasn't been any good since 2003. At least Grossman was in his first year as a starter, Favre is 38, and he sucks, and yet he's still your starting QB. Then again considering your coach was just a stooge hired to keep Favre around, there's really nothing to indicate that he'll be benched this year no matter how many stupid throws he makes.

JK17
08-11-2007, 02:29 PM
Actually I don't think anyone said otherwise. I'm just pointing out that Favre sucks at this point in his career too. You guys really need to let it go, he hasn't been any good since 2003. At least Grossman was in his first year as a starter, Favre is 38, and he sucks, and yet he's still your starting QB. Then again considering your coach was just a stooge hired to keep Favre around, there's really nothing to indicate that he'll be benched this year no matter how many stupid throws he makes.

Does this make Kitna the best QB in the NFC North :p ?

Packers-Cardinals
08-11-2007, 05:12 PM
I think the Patriots have the most depth. The only are they need to improve their depth at is linebacker.

Average OT LB
08-12-2007, 02:42 AM
If you read the other posts he made in the thread, he actually said you could make an argument for Grossman, but went on to conclude, using numbers and examples of poor leadership (Last game of the season), that he doesn't feel Rex can succeed, or at least on the level he did his first five games, which I don't think anyone doubts.



I don't know how you can say the fans there stuck with him. I'm sure some of them did, actually I know some of them did. But a whole bunch of them were calling for Griese to come in and start towards the end of the season. Yes, the coaching staff stuck with him, it was the best thing thing they could do, you can't mix up the QB like that towards the end of the year and playoffs, especially when you're still winning. The consensus is that Grossman struggled heavily last year, but still has potential. I don't even think AOTLB was trying to say Grossman can't succeed, but more that he won't succeed. And yes, you're right the whole world isn't united against Grossman. I'm not either, I think if he can focus a little more he'll be a good QB, but right now I have him average to below average. But what started this whole argument was bearsfan123 complaining if it wasn't for media coverage of Grossman, people would see he is equal to Philip Rivers, because he had a better five games, which is untrue. So I don't know what set you off by what AOTLB said, unless you feel Grossman is a top ten QB in the league right now.



What about irrational and unrelated arguments, like your trial comparison? Besides, I'd like to know what argument you feel was lost, and I sure hope it wasn't that Rivers is worse then Grossman, but I don't know of any other arguments that were going around right now. The only things said bad about Grossman, that I have seen at least, are that he was not better then Rivers, that his bad matched his good in 2006, and then you cannot assume he is an MVP caliber QB because of five good games he played, against weak defenses.

For the record, my views on Grossman is that right now, he's a long way away from hitting his potential, yet I still feel he is in the 15-20 range of starting QBs in the NFL.

Which argument did you feel was lost?

100% owned

RaiderNation
08-12-2007, 02:54 AM
da bears defence and colts offence

JagHombre22
08-12-2007, 10:05 AM
I'll argue for the Jaguars..

QB: Leftwich, Garrard, Gray, Couch
RB:Taylor, Jones-Drew, Jones
WR: Matt Jones, Ernest Wilford, Reggie Williams, Dennis Northcutt, Mike Walker
TE: Marcedes Lewis, George Wrighster, Jermaine Wiggins, Greg Estandia
OT:Khalif Barnes, Tony Pashos, Mo Williams, Richard Collier, Andrew Carnahan, Dennis Norman
OG: Vince Manuwai, Chris Naole, Stockar McDougle, Pete McMahon
C: Brad Meester, Dennis Norman, Dan Connolley

DE: Hayward, McCray, Spicer, Hawkins, James Wyche
DT: Stroud, Henderson, McDaniels, Meier
LB: Mike Peterson, Daryl Smith, Clint Ingram, Justin Durant,
CB: Rashean Mathis, Brian Williams, Scott Starks, Dee Webb, Terry Cousin
S: Reggie Nelson, Gerald Sensabaugh, Josh Gattis, Jaamal Fudge, Nick Sorensen

Race for the Heisman
08-12-2007, 10:32 AM
If you read the other posts he made in the thread, he actually said you could make an argument for Grossman, but went on to conclude, using numbers and examples of poor leadership (Last game of the season), that he doesn't feel Rex can succeed, or at least on the level he did his first five games, which I don't think anyone doubts.



I don't know how you can say the fans there stuck with him. I'm sure some of them did, actually I know some of them did. But a whole bunch of them were calling for Griese to come in and start towards the end of the season. Yes, the coaching staff stuck with him, it was the best thing thing they could do, you can't mix up the QB like that towards the end of the year and playoffs, especially when you're still winning. The consensus is that Grossman struggled heavily last year, but still has potential. I don't even think AOTLB was trying to say Grossman can't succeed, but more that he won't succeed. And yes, you're right the whole world isn't united against Grossman. I'm not either, I think if he can focus a little more he'll be a good QB, but right now I have him average to below average. But what started this whole argument was bearsfan123 complaining if it wasn't for media coverage of Grossman, people would see he is equal to Philip Rivers, because he had a better five games, which is untrue. So I don't know what set you off by what AOTLB said, unless you feel Grossman is a top ten QB in the league right now.



What about irrational and unrelated arguments, like your trial comparison? Besides, I'd like to know what argument you feel was lost, and I sure hope it wasn't that Rivers is worse then Grossman, but I don't know of any other arguments that were going around right now. The only things said bad about Grossman, that I have seen at least, are that he was not better then Rivers, that his bad matched his good in 2006, and then you cannot assume he is an MVP caliber QB because of five good games he played, against weak defenses.

For the record, my views on Grossman is that right now, he's a long way away from hitting his potential, yet I still feel he is in the 15-20 range of starting QBs in the NFL.

Which argument did you feel was lost?

I understand what you are saying about the fans, as a vast majority were calling for Grossman's head, I was merely pointing out that there is a significant difference between a portion and whole, even though the voice of the masses may drown out the smaller contingent.

Second, although I have already agreed that Rivers is clearly superior to Grossman at this point in their respective careers, surely you can see that if we left it at Grossman is maddeningly inconsistent he wouldn't be perceived at someone who is as far in Rivers' shadow as he currently is viewed. Rivers' situation is in many ways the more enviable of the two so while some of Grossman's struggles inevitably come down to him, if the relative numbers the duo put up along with the relative pressures of their jobs merits a comparison that its not unconceivable that Grossman could be the better quarterback, either in the future, or even now. Its not an argument I'm going to make, because I don't believe Grossman is a top 10 quarterback, you'd have to be insane or the biggest homer ever to subscribe to that belief. I agree with your assessment of 15-20, though, I think when you add up when he's done, both good and bad, its a good fit.

Next, I had already admitted that my outside example was not the most appropriate example, and I explained that sometimes you must combat fire with fire. One ridiculous statement merits another; besides, it was more a pyrotechnic that anything with real substance, much like the post I had quoted.

Although I was perhaps premature in stating that the argument was lost, what I meant was that the losing side of a dispute is the first to degenerate into petty insults. Part of winning an argument is having the fortitude to see it through to the end, or as long as it remains civil.

CC.SD
08-12-2007, 10:55 AM
Wow Rivers and Grossman isn't even close, I can't believe this is a discussion. Just watch the Cincy game, or Denver game again.

bearsfan_51
08-12-2007, 11:05 AM
I'll argue for the Jaguars..

QB: Leftwich, Garrard, Gray, Couch
RB:Taylor, Jones-Drew, Jones
WR: Matt Jones, Ernest Wilford, Reggie Williams, Dennis Northcutt, Mike Walker
TE: Marcedes Lewis, George Wrighster, Jermaine Wiggins, Greg Estandia
OT:Khalif Barnes, Tony Pashos, Mo Williams, Richard Collier, Andrew Carnahan, Dennis Norman
OG: Vince Manuwai, Chris Naole, Stockar McDougle, Pete McMahon
C: Brad Meester, Dennis Norman, Dan Connolley

DE: Hayward, McCray, Spicer, Hawkins, James Wyche
DT: Stroud, Henderson, McDaniels, Meier
LB: Mike Peterson, Daryl Smith, Clint Ingram, Justin Durant,
CB: Rashean Mathis, Brian Williams, Scott Starks, Dee Webb, Terry Cousin
S: Reggie Nelson, Gerald Sensabaugh, Josh Gattis, Jaamal Fudge, Nick Sorensen
Bad argument.

JK17
08-12-2007, 12:26 PM
I understand what you are saying about the fans, as a vast majority were calling for Grossman's head, I was merely pointing out that there is a significant difference between a portion and whole, even though the voice of the masses may drown out the smaller contingent.

Second, although I have already agreed that Rivers is clearly superior to Grossman at this point in their respective careers, surely you can see that if we left it at Grossman is maddeningly inconsistent he wouldn't be perceived at someone who is as far in Rivers' shadow as he currently is viewed. Rivers' situation is in many ways the more enviable of the two so while some of Grossman's struggles inevitably come down to him, if the relative numbers the duo put up along with the relative pressures of their jobs merits a comparison that its not unconceivable that Grossman could be the better quarterback, either in the future, or even now. Its not an argument I'm going to make, because I don't believe Grossman is a top 10 quarterback, you'd have to be insane or the biggest homer ever to subscribe to that belief. I agree with your assessment of 15-20, though, I think when you add up when he's done, both good and bad, its a good fit.

Next, I had already admitted that my outside example was not the most appropriate example, and I explained that sometimes you must combat fire with fire. One ridiculous statement merits another; besides, it was more a pyrotechnic that anything with real substance, much like the post I had quoted.

Although I was perhaps premature in stating that the argument was lost, what I meant was that the losing side of a dispute is the first to degenerate into petty insults. Part of winning an argument is having the fortitude to see it through to the end, or as long as it remains civil.

Fair, I don't think anything you said we could really disagree with there.

TacticaLion
08-12-2007, 04:24 PM
The Bears just traded their 4th safety to the Panthers, and he could probably start at both of their safety positions.

We've got a guy that was 2nd team All-Pro DE as our backup.

It's the Bears.
Oh no! Really? A safety and a DE? Talk about depth!

Bears fans are hilarious. Best QB depth? Yeah, right. Considering Grossman would sit for most teams and Orton is average at best, I'd say the Bears are about middle-of-the-pack in terms of QB depth. 15-20 range.

With Thomas Jones, the Bears MIGHT be high on the RB depth list, but... they don't have him, so they aren't. Benson has some large shoes to fill and, behind him, everyone else is either average or unproven. 20-25 range.

WR? No way. The Moose is old, Berrian is inconsistent and Bradley has yet to break out. 20-25 range.

They have a great LB group, but the depth is weak. Urlacher, Briggs and Hillenmeyer make an outstanding trio, but there's nothing special behind them. 10-15 range.

Tillman and Vasher are emerging studs, but the rest of the group is inconsistent. 15-20.

The one position the Bears have great depth at is DE... Mark Anderson, Alex Brown, Adewale Ogunleye and Dan Bazuin... 3 great performers and a rookie with loads of potential. 1-5 range.

I don't need to continue... Bears fans can't claim to have the "best depth" when they are weak at most offensive positions. Yes, we know, you made it to the Super Bowl... that doesn't automatically put you in every "best" football conversation. (You'd probably miss the playoffs if you played in the AFC...)

JagHombre22
08-12-2007, 06:09 PM
Bad argument.

Please tell me how that is not one of the deepest defenses in the league?

Sure, the offense doesn't light it up like the colts and chargers but there is obvious depth at each position...

bearsfan_51
08-12-2007, 06:50 PM
Oh no! Really? A safety and a DE? Talk about depth!

Bears fans are hilarious. Best QB depth? Yeah, right. Considering Grossman would sit for most teams and Orton is average at best, I'd say the Bears are about middle-of-the-pack in terms of QB depth. 15-20 range.

With Thomas Jones, the Bears MIGHT be high on the RB depth list, but... they don't have him, so they aren't. Benson has some large shoes to fill and, behind him, everyone else is either average or unproven. 20-25 range.

WR? No way. The Moose is old, Berrian is inconsistent and Bradley has yet to break out. 20-25 range.

They have a great LB group, but the depth is weak. Urlacher, Briggs and Hillenmeyer make an outstanding trio, but there's nothing special behind them. 10-15 range.

Tillman and Vasher are emerging studs, but the rest of the group is inconsistent. 15-20.

The one position the Bears have great depth at is DE... Mark Anderson, Alex Brown, Adewale Ogunleye and Dan Bazuin... 3 great performers and a rookie with loads of potential. 1-5 range.

I don't need to continue... Bears fans can't claim to have the "best depth" when they are weak at most offensive positions. Yes, we know, you made it to the Super Bowl... that doesn't automatically put you in every "best" football conversation. (You'd probably miss the playoffs if you played in the AFC...)

Ugh...your annoying ass is back? God I can't wait to kick the **** out of the Lions again like we do every year. Usually it's a ho-hum game but I'll have fun knowing that you're sad somewhere.

I'm not going to address them all, but depth at QB has nothing to do with the starter. Griese and Orton is one of the best 2-3 combinations in football. Off the top of my head I can't think of anyone I'd rather have. Hell, our 5th string Quarterback at the start of the offseason is currently the Lions 2nd stringer. That should say something.

Average OT LB
08-13-2007, 01:59 PM
Ugh...your annoying ass is back? God I can't wait to kick the **** out of the Lions again like we do every year. Usually it's a ho-hum game but I'll have fun knowing that you're sad somewhere.

I'm not going to address them all, but depth at QB has nothing to do with the starter. Griese and Orton is one of the best 2-3 combinations in football. Off the top of my head I can't think of anyone I'd rather have. Hell, our 5th string Quarterback at the start of the offseason is currently the Lions 2nd stringer. That should say something.


that is simply the dumbest thing i have ever heard. I award you no points. If rivers was so bad that he was making griese (who was run out of town in his previous team) look like the answer.. that must say something. Who cares about ortons wins? what does that mean? that means he wont screw anything up. how much trade value does he have, i guess alot because he can win 10 games for every team just like he did the bears?

depth at the quarterback starts with the starter- if you got petyon manning who never gets hurt thats all the depth you need. Of course bears fans would say the opposite, because they dont have that now do they?

Addict
08-13-2007, 02:04 PM
Ugh...your annoying ass is back? God I can't wait to kick the **** out of the Lions again like we do every year. Usually it's a ho-hum game but I'll have fun knowing that you're sad somewhere.

I'm not going to address them all, but depth at QB has nothing to do with the starter. Griese and Orton is one of the best 2-3 combinations in football. Off the top of my head I can't think of anyone I'd rather have. Hell, our 5th string Quarterback at the start of the offseason is currently the Lions 2nd stringer. That should say something.

let's not forget who's starting for the bears before you go and laugh at Lions QB's...

http://mycasualthoughts.com/pictures/2007February/Eww.jpg lol
Rex: awww the ball is too heavy for my nimble body! <breaks down in tears>

TheChampIsHere
08-13-2007, 03:08 PM
The Chargers do have very good depth at most positions. Only weak areas in my mind are at QB, WR, and DB.

i dont see the weakness there

QB - Rivers, Volek, Whitehurst - great group of QBs in my mind
WR - Jackson, Floyd, Parker, Craig Davis, Osgood - no standouts but 5 good receivers and I think Jackson and Floyd are both breakout candidates and Davis is a 1st rounder with loads of potential
CB - Jammer, Florence, Cromartie, Paul Oliver, Gordon - no big stars but the first 3 are all good, Oliver has plenty of potential
S - Weddle, McCree, Jue, Hart - Not a lot of star power but McCree is solid and Weddle should be good and the other guys are solid backups

Overall, Id say they have great depth at all those positions. They might not have star players at the positions but lots of good players.

bearsfan_51
08-13-2007, 04:05 PM
depth at the quarterback starts with the starter- if you got petyon manning who never gets hurt thats all the depth you need. Of course bears fans would say the opposite, because they dont have that now do they?
Depth is your backups. Are the Colts or Patriots deep at QB? **** no. Anyone that argues otherwise doesn't know what depth means.

bearsfan_51
08-13-2007, 04:06 PM
let's not forget who's starting for the bears before you go and laugh at Lions QB's...

http://mycasualthoughts.com/pictures/2007February/Eww.jpg lol
Rex: awww the ball is too heavy for my nimble body! <breaks down in tears>

And yet he's still better than anyone on the Lions. In fact, I would take Griese over Kitna, and would barely take Kitna over Orton. I mean...your backup QB is J.T O'Sullivan. I don't care who your recievers are, you can't have a high octane offense is you don't have anyone to distribute it.

Average OT LB
08-13-2007, 04:10 PM
i dont see the weakness there

QB - Rivers, Volek, Whitehurst - great group of QBs in my mind
WR - Jackson, Floyd, Parker, Craig Davis, Osgood - no standouts but 5 good receivers and I think Jackson and Floyd are both breakout candidates and Davis is a 1st rounder with loads of potential
CB - Jammer, Florence, Cromartie, Paul Oliver, Gordon - no big stars but the first 3 are all good, Oliver has plenty of potential
S - Weddle, McCree, Jue, Hart - Not a lot of star power but McCree is solid and Weddle should be good and the other guys are solid backups

Overall, Id say they have great depth at all those positions. They might not have star players at the positions but lots of good players.

I agree, no star power (except rivers) but big time depth.. but there is kinda a rex grossman effect with the S how the 3rd best safety might be better than the first

TimD
08-13-2007, 04:14 PM
bears > lions... how are lions fans even saying anything bears fans... you guys are idiots... have a .500 season then talk

Average OT LB
08-13-2007, 04:19 PM
bears > lions... how are lions fans even saying anything bears fans... you guys are idiots... have a .500 season then talk

the lions organization may be foolish but as far as fans go that is not true...

what has it been a season since mangini has been at the helm? i hope you havent forgotten the half decade you spent crying behind the patriots in the standings

Addict
08-13-2007, 04:20 PM
And yet he's still better than anyone on the Lions. In fact, I would take Griese over Kitna, and would barely take Kitna over Orton. I mean...your backup QB is J.T O'Sullivan. I don't care who your recievers are, you can't have a high octane offense is you don't have anyone to distribute it.

low blow, and kitna is a very servicable QB, nothing spectacular I agree, but he's not as bad as you make him out to be. And don't take everything so serious, just be a man and admit that your team's biggest flaw is an average QB.

bearsfan_51
08-13-2007, 04:23 PM
low blow, and kitna is a very servicable QB, nothing spectacular I agree, but he's not as bad as you make him out to be. And don't take everything so serious, just be a man and admit that your team's biggest flaw is an average QB.
Haha..."be a man". You realize this is the internet right? Obviously our biggest question mark is at QB, but as I've said I don't consider starters depth. The thread is about best depth, if depth included starters it would be "best team", which is a totally different discussion.

Average OT LB
08-13-2007, 04:25 PM
Depth is your backups. Are the Colts or Patriots deep at QB? **** no. Anyone that argues otherwise doesn't know what depth means.


so then every team with a quarterback constroversy has great depth? because each one can be the starter? i know what depth means but theres a larger picture here.

I'm not arguing that the colts have a better 2nd and 3rd qb than the bears (like anyone cares) what im arguing is that there are alot of teams that dont have to worry about their starter so they let guys like griese go to the teams that need them - the bears. If back up qb meant something than the penny pinchers in chicago sure as hell wouldnt be able to out bid the abundance of teams going to get a backup.

its not really a fair argument to compare qb depth if only a couple of teams really care to participate, like the colts and pats do.

bearsfan_51
08-13-2007, 04:31 PM
so then every team with a quarterback constroversy has great depth? because each one can be the starter? i know what depth means but theres a larger picture here.

I'm not arguing that the colts have a better 2nd and 3rd qb than the bears (like anyone cares) what im arguing is that there are alot of teams that dont have to worry about their starter so they let guys like griese go to the teams that need them - the bears. If back up qb meant something than the penny pinchers in chicago sure as hell wouldnt be able to out bid the abundance of teams going to get a backup.

its not really a fair argument to compare qb depth if only a couple of teams really care to participate, like the colts and pats do.
The reason why people care about depth is because every position is one injury away from someone else being your starter. If Manning goes down the Colts are instantly a 2-14 team. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it never will. Obviously I would rather have their QB situation than ours, but that's not the subject. For you to try to revert that by jokes or smartass comments doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

By the way, the Bears payroll is above the average in the league. We spent about 30 million this offseason just on signing bonuses for our cornerbacks alone. We aren't the Redskins, Colts, or Cowboys, but the perception that the Bears are unwilling to spend money is false.

Addict
08-13-2007, 04:39 PM
The reason why people care about depth is because every position is one injury away from someone else being your starter. If Manning goes down the Colts are instantly a 2-14 team. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it never will. Obviously I would rather have their QB situation than ours, but that's not the subject. For you to try to revert that by jokes or smartass comments doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

By the way, the Bears payroll is above the average in the league. We spent about 30 million this offseason just on signing bonuses for our cornerbacks alone. We aren't the Redskins, Colts, or Cowboys, but the perception that the Bears are unwilling to spend money is false.

that's a bit harsh, their O-line, Harrison and Wayne, Addai and an okay defense in a division with the Titans and Texans should still get them a few wins, maybe 6-10 at worst. Still, a Manning injury would be devastating. to Manning's career, because Jimmy Sorgi will come in and make Manning look like a n00b

princefielder28
08-13-2007, 04:39 PM
The reason why people care about depth is because every position is one injury away from someone else being your starter. If Manning goes down the Colts are instantly a 2-14 team. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it never will. Obviously I would rather have their QB situation than ours, but that's not the subject. For you to try to revert that by jokes or smartass comments doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.


Don't say that about Jim Sorgi :)

Average OT LB
08-13-2007, 04:45 PM
The reason why people care about depth is because every position is one injury away from someone else being your starter. If Manning goes down the Colts are instantly a 2-14 team. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it never will. Obviously I would rather have their QB situation than ours, but that's not the subject. For you to try to revert that by jokes or smartass comments doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

By the way, the Bears payroll is above the average in the league. We spent about 30 million this offseason just on signing bonuses for our cornerbacks alone. We aren't the Redskins, Colts, or Cowboys, but the perception that the Bears are unwilling to spend money is false.


okay youre right that my argument doesnt change the fact that the bears have good depth. but it does change the argument another way.

say the bears had the number one depth.. there are 32 teams.. in my opinion the bears would then have the number one depth of say.. 16 teams cause there are just a bunch of teams that dont go for the griese's of the world nad dont have the inconsistancy in the qb position to have a guy like orton even get a chance.. it says something about the inconsistancy of the qb position if you know how good your third qb is.. (who is the 3rd qb on the colts)

as for depth, yes the colts are one injury away from being 2-14 and thats the importance of depth, but not everyone has the same approach to especially backup quarterbacks.. remember some teams recently didnt even have 3 qbs on the roster.. the colts just simply arent going to spend money on a backup qb when they could put it somewhere else.. which skews the argument

bearfan
08-13-2007, 05:07 PM
okay youre right that my argument doesnt change the fact that the bears have good depth. but it does change the argument another way.

say the bears had the number one depth.. there are 32 teams.. in my opinion the bears would then have the number one depth of say.. 16 teams cause there are just a bunch of teams that dont go for the griese's of the world nad dont have the inconsistancy in the qb position to have a guy like orton even get a chance.. it says something about the inconsistancy of the qb position if you know how good your third qb is.. (who is the 3rd qb on the colts)



Remember he was pretty much the manager when Grossman went down in I think it was '05? As a rookie, asked not to make to many mistakes, and then get 10 wins *im not saying he did it, but he did his job* gives us an idea of what he can do as a rookie. Now into his 3rd season, he is challenging Greise for the #2 spot. Griese is not amazing, but he is a solid player, and that says a lot about the progression of Kyle Orton if you ask me.

Then you bring up the fact that we went for Griese because of our QB inconsistancies... at the time Rex was labeled injury prone. And the inconsistancy came during the season after we had Griese. It was a roller coaster w/ him last season, but no one knew that it would be like that, it was because we needed a viable backup incase Rex went down again that we got Griese. It also doesnt hurt to have a good veteran precense *sp* for young QBs like Grossman, and Orton.

Anyone who thinks that the Bears have no real good depth needs to go check their facts. Not looking at anyone in specific *tactalion*.

TimD
08-13-2007, 05:23 PM
the lions organization may be foolish but as far as fans go that is not true...

what has it been a season since mangini has been at the helm? i hope you havent forgotten the half decade you spent crying behind the patriots in the standings

okay maybe calling lions fans idiots was too far... but i really don't think a team like the lions has bragging rights over a team like the bears... once again i apologize

Average OT LB
08-13-2007, 05:34 PM
Remember he was pretty much the manager when Grossman went down in I think it was '05? As a rookie, asked not to make to many mistakes, and then get 10 wins *im not saying he did it, but he did his job* gives us an idea of what he can do as a rookie. Now into his 3rd season, he is challenging Greise for the #2 spot. Griese is not amazing, but he is a solid player, and that says a lot about the progression of Kyle Orton if you ask me.

Then you bring up the fact that we went for Griese because of our QB inconsistancies... at the time Rex was labeled injury prone. And the inconsistancy came during the season after we had Griese. It was a roller coaster w/ him last season, but no one knew that it would be like that, it was because we needed a viable backup incase Rex went down again that we got Griese. It also doesnt hurt to have a good veteran precense *sp* for young QBs like Grossman, and Orton.

Anyone who thinks that the Bears have no real good depth needs to go check their facts. Not looking at anyone in specific *tactalion*.

What i meant by inconsistancy was not only poor play but the lack of a consistant starter ie injuries... both played a part in the bears having to go get griese and having orton start...

i know thats a news flash i meant it more to clarify than anything else

TheChampIsHere
08-13-2007, 06:01 PM
Oh no! Really? A safety and a DE? Talk about depth!

Bears fans are hilarious. Best QB depth? Yeah, right. Considering Grossman would sit for most teams and Orton is average at best, I'd say the Bears are about middle-of-the-pack in terms of QB depth. 15-20 range.

With Thomas Jones, the Bears MIGHT be high on the RB depth list, but... they don't have him, so they aren't. Benson has some large shoes to fill and, behind him, everyone else is either average or unproven. 20-25 range.

WR? No way. The Moose is old, Berrian is inconsistent and Bradley has yet to break out. 20-25 range.

They have a great LB group, but the depth is weak. Urlacher, Briggs and Hillenmeyer make an outstanding trio, but there's nothing special behind them. 10-15 range.

Tillman and Vasher are emerging studs, but the rest of the group is inconsistent. 15-20.

The one position the Bears have great depth at is DE... Mark Anderson, Alex Brown, Adewale Ogunleye and Dan Bazuin... 3 great performers and a rookie with loads of potential. 1-5 range.

I don't need to continue... Bears fans can't claim to have the "best depth" when they are weak at most offensive positions. Yes, we know, you made it to the Super Bowl... that doesn't automatically put you in every "best" football conversation. (You'd probably miss the playoffs if you played in the AFC...)


Youre not giving the Bears enough credit and when we talk about who has the best depth, whether or not they have great starters doesnt have much to do with the conversation.

QB - Yes Grossman is a poor starter but Griese and Orton are both good backups. Griese has done great things as a backup for other teams and they won a lot of games when Orton had to play.
HB - Yes, losing Thomas Jones is a blow to their depth but Adrian Peterson is a very underrated backup and they picked up Garrett Wolfe, they also have a FB Im a big fan of JD Runnells.
TE - Clark is one of the top backup TEs in the league
WR - Moose, Berrian, Bradley, Davis and Hester....With Berrian, Bradley and Hester yet to realize their potential and Moose declining there is no standout in the unit really but theres a lot of talent in that group and considering how young Berrian Bradley and Hester are we have to expect improvement from them.
OL - not great depth but some decent guys in Ruben Brown, Josh Beekman and John St. Clair
DL - Great depth here Mark Anderson and Bazuin coming off the bench, Darwin Walker, Dusty Dvoracek, a lot of bodies to come off the bench and complement their great group of starters.
LB - yes great starting lineup but the backups arent as bad as you pretend. Leon Joe aint bad and Okwo is a talented rook who could very easily be starting next year, assuming Briggs walks. Not the deepest unit, but in the cover 2 you dont need to have an abundance of bodies at LB nor do you need to have great backups because average players can be plugged in and be servicable starters.
DB - Hmmm...You say they just have Tillman and Vasher but sorry thats just dumb. Ricky Manning gets hated on but hes a good nickel back. Yes hes a risk taker and gets beat a good amount but the dude is a playmaker, 53 tackles, 5 INT, 2 sacks, 2 FR and a TD from a nickel back is pretty damn impressive. Now Im not gonna hype him and act like hes as good of a player as those stats might suggest, because those are borderline pro-bowl numbers, but to say hes not a good nickel back is ludicrous. Also as backups in their secondary, they have Archuleta and Dante Wesley....The fact that they could just deal off Chris Harris the way they did speaks to the depth of their secondary.

DaBears9654
08-13-2007, 10:43 PM
Oh no! Really? A safety and a DE? Talk about depth!

Bears fans are hilarious. Best QB depth? Yeah, right. Considering Grossman would sit for most teams and Orton is average at best, I'd say the Bears are about middle-of-the-pack in terms of QB depth. 15-20 range.

With Thomas Jones, the Bears MIGHT be high on the RB depth list, but... they don't have him, so they aren't. Benson has some large shoes to fill and, behind him, everyone else is either average or unproven. 20-25 range.

WR? No way. The Moose is old, Berrian is inconsistent and Bradley has yet to break out. 20-25 range.

They have a great LB group, but the depth is weak. Urlacher, Briggs and Hillenmeyer make an outstanding trio, but there's nothing special behind them. 10-15 range.

Tillman and Vasher are emerging studs, but the rest of the group is inconsistent. 15-20.

The one position the Bears have great depth at is DE... Mark Anderson, Alex Brown, Adewale Ogunleye and Dan Bazuin... 3 great performers and a rookie with loads of potential. 1-5 range.

I don't need to continue... Bears fans can't claim to have the "best depth" when they are weak at most offensive positions. Yes, we know, you made it to the Super Bowl... that doesn't automatically put you in every "best" football conversation. (You'd probably miss the playoffs if you played in the AFC...)
A Kittens fan saying the 2-years-running division (and defending conference) champs are average. Let's see. Regular season records over the last 2 years.
Bears: 24-8
Kittens: 8-24

Last time I checked, an "average" team would have been more around 16-16 in 2 years, not 24-8 with 2 division titles.

neko4
08-13-2007, 10:47 PM
A Kittens fan saying the 2-years-running division (and defending conference) champs are average. Let's see. Regular season records over the last 2 years.
Bears: 24-8
Kittens: 8-24

Last time I checked, an "average" team would have been more around 16-16 in 2 years, not 24-8 with 2 division titles.

Did he ever say that the Lions had better depth?

bearfan
08-13-2007, 10:53 PM
What i meant by inconsistancy was not only poor play but the lack of a consistant starter ie injuries... both played a part in the bears having to go get griese and having orton start...

i know thats a news flash i meant it more to clarify than anything else


Well then you are correct there, and my apologies for jumping the gun. Up until Grossman this past year, we didnt have a bonafide starter EVER.

DaBears9654
08-13-2007, 11:02 PM
Did he ever say that the Lions had better depth?
It's true that he didn't, (if he had that would have been hilarious) but there was obviously no logic behind what he did say. Rooting for one of the 2 worst teams in the conference (maybe even the league) was merely icing on the cake of his not poor points.

TacticaLion
08-26-2007, 04:13 PM
bears > lions... how are lions fans even saying anything bears fans... you guys are idiots... have a .500 season then talk
That's true... fans of sub .500 teams shouldn't be able to post. Good idea.

I'll toss that suggestion to the mods... because, as we all know, the only fans that rate a perspective are fans of good teams (Pats, Colts, Broncos, Chargers, Ravens) and fans of average teams in horrible divisions (Bears). And, yes... I call the Bears average. Why? They play the worst teams in the NFL on a regular basis... which is why they have a 24-8 record. Look back to the 2006 schedule... how many "elite" teams did they play? 2. What was their record against those teams? 0-2.

No... that's not fair, is it? OK... lets take a look at the rest of the teams the Bears played (and their 2007 draft positions):

Detroit - 2nd pick (2 wins)
Tamp Bay - 4th pick (1 win)
Arizona - 5th pick (1 win)
Minnesota - 7th pick (2 wins)
Miami - 9th pick (1 loss)
San Fran - 11th pick (1 win)
Buffalo - 12th pick (1 win)
St Louis - 13th pick (1 win)
Green Bay - 16th pick (1 win, 1 loss)

8 of the Bears 13 wins came against sub .500 teams, and another 2 wins came against .500 teams. 10 of their 13 wins... hmm...

9 of the 16 regular season games the Bears played in 2006 were played against sub .500 opponents. Lets take a look at real teams and their schedules:

11 of the 16 games the Colts played in 2006 were played against against .500 or higher opponents.

11 of the 16 games the Broncos played in 2006 were played against .500 or higher opponents.

10 of the 16 games the Chargers played in 2006 were played against .500 or higher opponents.

10 of the 16 games the Ravens played in 2006 were played against .500 or higher opponents.

Which is why I remind Bears' fans that their team is average at best. Sure, you've got a stout defense... against some of the worst offenses in the NFL. Sure, you made the playoffs... in the worst division in football. And, sure... you won 13 games... most against average/below average football teams.

Stop entering your team into every "best of" conversation... you're nowhere near that level. Be thankful you play in the NFC North and not anywhere in the AFC... you'd miss the playoffs.

Average OT LB
08-26-2007, 04:18 PM
That's true... fans of sub .500 teams shouldn't be able to post. Good idea.

I'll toss that suggestion to the mods... because, as we all know, the only fans that rate a perspective are fans of good teams (Pats, Colts, Broncos, Chargers, Ravens) and fans of average teams in horrible divisions (Bears). And, yes... I call the Bears average. Why? They play the worst teams in the NFL on a regular basis... which is why they have a 24-8 record. Look back to the 2006 schedule... how many "elite" teams did they play? 2. What was their record against those teams? 0-2.

No... that's not fair, is it? OK... lets take a look at the rest of the teams the Bears played (and their 2007 draft positions):

Detroit - 2nd pick (2 wins)
Tamp Bay - 4th pick (1 win)
Arizona - 5th pick (1 win)
Minnesota - 7th pick (2 wins)
Miami - 9th pick (1 loss)
San Fran - 11th pick (1 win)
Buffalo - 12th pick (1 win)
St Louis - 13th pick (1 win)
Green Bay - 16th pick (1 win, 1 loss)

8 of the Bears 13 wins came against sub .500 teams, and another 2 wins came against .500 teams. 10 of their 13 wins... hmm...

9 of the 16 regular season games the Bears played in 2006 were played against below average (sub .500) opponents. Lets take a look at real teams and their schedules:

11 of the 16 games the Colts played in 2006 were played against against average/above average (.500 or higher) opponents.

11 of the 16 games the Broncos played in 2006 were played against average/above average (.500 or higher) opponents.

10 of the 16 games the Chargers played in 2006 were played against average/above average (.500 or higher) opponents.

10 of the 16 games the Ravens played in 2006 were played against average/above average (.500 or higher) opponents.

Which is why I remind Bears' fans that their team is average at best. Sure, you've got a stout defense... against some of the worst offenses in the NFL. Sure, you made the playoffs... in the worst division in football. And, sure... you won 13 games... most against average/below average football teams.

Stop entering your team into every "best of" conversation... you're nowhere near that level. Be thankful you play in the NFC North and not anywhere in the AFC... you'd miss the playoffs.


yeah good call, they should've changed their opponents to get the high quality wins. Or maybe they shoul've just changed divisions, either way winning games against those teams are no good.

You just called a super bowl team bad.

TacticaLion
08-26-2007, 04:29 PM
yeah good call, they should've changed their opponents to get the high quality wins. Or maybe they shoul've just changed divisions, either way winning games against those teams are no good.

You just called a super bowl team bad.
They can't control the schedule they play and I never said they should... but they should also realize that they're not the elite team they think they are.

And, no, I never called them "bad"... I called them "average". Big difference. And, if they had to play more than 1 AFC team in the playoffs, they wouldn't be a "super bowl team".

bearsfan_51
08-27-2007, 01:32 AM
That's true... fans of sub .500 teams shouldn't be able to post. Good idea.

I'll toss that suggestion to the mods... because, as we all know, the only fans that rate a perspective are fans of good teams (Pats, Colts, Broncos, Chargers, Ravens) and fans of average teams in horrible divisions (Bears). And, yes... I call the Bears average. Why? They play the worst teams in the NFL on a regular basis... which is why they have a 24-8 record. Look back to the 2006 schedule... how many "elite" teams did they play? 2. What was their record against those teams? 0-2.

No... that's not fair, is it? OK... lets take a look at the rest of the teams the Bears played (and their 2007 draft positions):

Detroit - 2nd pick (2 wins)
Tamp Bay - 4th pick (1 win)
Arizona - 5th pick (1 win)
Minnesota - 7th pick (2 wins)
Miami - 9th pick (1 loss)
San Fran - 11th pick (1 win)
Buffalo - 12th pick (1 win)
St Louis - 13th pick (1 win)
Green Bay - 16th pick (1 win, 1 loss)

8 of the Bears 13 wins came against sub .500 teams, and another 2 wins came against .500 teams. 10 of their 13 wins... hmm...

9 of the 16 regular season games the Bears played in 2006 were played against sub .500 opponents. Lets take a look at real teams and their schedules:

11 of the 16 games the Colts played in 2006 were played against against .500 or higher opponents.

11 of the 16 games the Broncos played in 2006 were played against .500 or higher opponents.

10 of the 16 games the Chargers played in 2006 were played against .500 or higher opponents.

10 of the 16 games the Ravens played in 2006 were played against .500 or higher opponents.

Which is why I remind Bears' fans that their team is average at best. Sure, you've got a stout defense... against some of the worst offenses in the NFL. Sure, you made the playoffs... in the worst division in football. And, sure... you won 13 games... most against average/below average football teams.

Stop entering your team into every "best of" conversation... you're nowhere near that level. Be thankful you play in the NFC North and not anywhere in the AFC... you'd miss the playoffs.
Even assuming that the top 4 teams in the AFC were better than the Bears, that still made us the 5th best team in the NFL. We shutout the 5th seed in the AFC (Jets) and there's no logical argument to say the Chiefs were better than we were. Clearly we were the best team in the NFC last year. Considering that there are 32 teams, that's not average, that's top 15%, at the very worst. I know it must be pathetically boring being a fan of the Lions, but really, get a life.

neko4
08-27-2007, 01:34 AM
Even assuming that the top 4 teams in the AFC were better than the Bears, that still made us the 5th best team in the NFL. We swept the 5th seed in the AFC (Jets) and there's no logical argument to say the Chiefs were better than we were. Clearly we were the best team in the NFC last year. Considering that there are 32 teams, that's not average, that's top 15%, at the very worst. I know it must be pathetically boring being a fan of the Lions, but really, get a life.

yay, the packers beat the fins, but the bears didnt!

bearsfan_51
08-27-2007, 01:37 AM
yay, the packers beat the fins, but the bears didnt!

Behold the beauty of Grossman.

Average OT LB
08-27-2007, 04:10 AM
They can't control the schedule they play and I never said they should... but they should also realize that they're not the elite team they think they are.

And, no, I never called them "bad"... I called them "average". Big difference. And, if they had to play more than 1 AFC team in the playoffs, they wouldn't be a "super bowl team".

So basically you just wanted to say that the bears were a very good team, just not elite.

are they a top 5 team?

TacticaLion
08-27-2007, 10:57 AM
So basically you just wanted to say that the bears were a very good team, just not elite.

are they a top 5 team?

No, I never said the Bears were "very good" either. Wow... you seem to have a hard time reading/understanding this. Is it the font? Language?

I said the Bears were "average". Not "bad". Not "very good". Average. That's it.

And, no, they're not a top 5 team.

My Top 12 Teams:
Chargers
Patriots
Broncos
Colts
Ravens
Saints
Jets
Steelers
Eagles
Cowboys
Bears
Bengals

The Eagles and/or Cowboys could dominate the NFC North if in it instead of the Bears... and they still post solid records with the hardest NFC schedules. Both have solid teams. If the Bears actually played a record, it would be easier to understand.

Even assuming that the top 4 teams in the AFC were better than the Bears, that still made us the 5th best team in the NFL. We shutout the 5th seed in the AFC (Jets) and there's no logical argument to say the Chiefs were better than we were. Clearly we were the best team in the NFC last year. Considering that there are 32 teams, that's not average, that's top 15%, at the very worst. I know it must be pathetically boring being a fan of the Lions, but really, get a life.Get a life, huh? Good point. I should do something besides... posting... on... a forum, huh? If to suggest that posting on a forum is to "not have a life", lets all enjoy the irony:

bearsfan_51
Join Date: 12-15-2004
PostsTotal Posts: 15,733 (15.97 posts per day)

TacticaLion
Join Date: 12-23-2005
PostsTotal Posts: 1,640 (2.68 posts per day)

From your standards, who really needs the life? Good one, champ.

And, if you'd like to bring up "logical arguments", lets do so. The Bears shutout the Jets... and that's your reasoning as to why the Jets aren't better than the Bears, right? The Bears also lost to the Dolphins... a sub .500 team. Are the Dolphins better than the Bears? Which is it? Hell, the Colts smacked the Bears (Grossman) around in the SB... and the Colts lost to the Titans and Texans. Are THEY better than the Bears? Does 1 win or 1 loss really tell everything about two teams? No, it doesn't.

What does, then? What factors tell the most about how good (or bad) a team is? The level of competition a team plays and the success that team has against top competition. As previously stated, you played average/below average teams on a regular basis... which is why you can't put your record against most AFC teams' records and prove a point.

Yung Flippa
08-27-2007, 12:20 PM
Ravens Defense.
Homer Pick.

PalmerToCJ
08-27-2007, 12:45 PM
The Jets played one of the easiet AFC schedules if that helps anything.

duckseason
08-27-2007, 01:37 PM
There's no such thing as an easy schedule in the NFL. Especially if the SOS rankings are done prior to the season in question. First, there isn't as much separating one team from another in this league in terms of talent and coaching as most people like to believe. Secondly, a given team often shows multiple personalities over the coarse of an entire season. So, the Bengals team that the Bucs saw in week 6 might be a bit different than the team the Browns saw in week 12. This alone renders the task of quantifying strength of schedule as a futile endeavor. To further my point, let's not forget match ups. No team matches up the same with any other. A coach may have the perfect game plan for one team this week, while his opposition has the perfect game plan for him the following week. Different schemes produce different results when matched up against different schemes. Different players match up differently against different players. There's key injuries to consider also.

Now, obviously there are weaker teams and stronger teams in this league. We all know the Patriots are a very difficult team to beat right now. But, for all we know the Jets might have an easier time beating them than the Ravens will have beating the Browns this year. Throw the SOS out the window because it's too close to call in this league. The bottom line is that if you win the majority of your games, you're a very good team. There's no way to accurately determine whether or not a given team truly had an easier road than another. Although I'm certain some teams get luckier than others one way or another once everything shakes out. But I think that determining SOS based solely off opposing overall records is a very inaccurate way to look at it. Especially in the pre-season.

TacticaLion
08-27-2007, 02:39 PM
The Jets played one of the easiet AFC schedules if that helps anything.
True.

The Bears and the Jets played the same number of +.500 teams in 2006 (7 each). But, the Jets had to face the Pats twice (and once in the playoffs), while the Bears have no one at that level in their division.

So, in other words... an easy schedule in the AFC is still harder than what the Bears face.

TacticaLion
08-27-2007, 02:51 PM
Throw the SOS out the window because it's too close to call in this league. The bottom line is that if you win the majority of your games, you're a very good team. There's no way to accurately determine whether or not a given team truly had an easier road than another. Umm... huh? We aren't talking about the upcoming year, but looking back on what happened in 2006. And, I determined the "strength of schedule" AFTER the season, not before. It isn't the traditional "SOS", and that's fine... what I came up with tells a lot about the top teams and the quality of their opponents.

What you're suggesting is that, if we put the Chargers, Ravens, Patriots and Colts in the same division (division A) and had another division (division B) with the Raiders, Lions, Browns and Broncos... the two teams with the best records should be considered the two best teams, regardless of the opponents they played... and it just isn't true. Having three great teams in one division makes for a harder schedule than having one good team and three horrible teams in one division.

The AFC is stronger than the NFC... period. The opponents a team faces week in and week out tell more about that team than their overall record.

duckseason
08-27-2007, 03:46 PM
Umm... huh? We aren't talking about the upcoming year, but looking back on what happened in 2006. And, I determined the "strength of schedule" AFTER the season, not before.
Where did I quote you? All I read was the post above mine. I was making general statements about perceived SOS.
What you're suggesting is that, if we put the Chargers, Ravens, Patriots and Colts in the same division (division A) and had another division (division B) with the Raiders, Lions, Browns and Broncos... the two teams with the best records should be considered the two best teams, regardless of the opponents they played... and it just isn't true. Having three great teams in one division makes for a harder schedule than having one good team and three horrible teams in one division.
You must be misunderstanding my post. Read the whole thing. What I'm saying is valid. I'm not suggesting anything other than what I actually said. Of course there are some divisions that are slightly stronger than others. Teams play 6 divisional games though. There are 10 others to consider. When you factor in some of the points I made, you'll realize that it's quite possible that a team in the best division actually ends up playing an easier schedule than a team from what's perceived as the worst division. Also, you need to consider that a team in a division featuring 3 strong teams will only face 2 strong teams if they happen to be one of the 3 strong ones. Likewise, a team in a perceived weaker division featuring just two strong teams will face two strong teams if they happen to be one of the two weak teams. See how there's more to this than just strong division this and opponents' record that? I never said that a successful team in a weak division is better than a mediocre team in a strong division, although that sometimes may be the case. I'm strictly speaking of the perceptions surrounding SOS and just reality in general. It's not accurate to grade teams based on the statistical strength of schedule they play and their resulting record. It is accurate to actually watch the team in question on a regular basis and judge for yourself how strong they are compared to others.
The AFC is stronger than the NFC... period.
When did I say different?
The opponents a team faces week in and week out tell more about that team than their overall record.
Not necessarily. Both things will tell you a lot if looked at from the proper vantage point. And actually, you're somewhat contradicting yourself here. You're judging the strength of a particular team based on their success against a given SOS. Saying that a 13-3 team who plays a weak statistical SOS is not as strong as a 13-3 team who plays a difficult statistical SOS. But what is SOS based on? Yeah, the overall records of your opponents. So are those records valid or not? Re-read my previous post and you should realize that what I'm saying is true. And the snippet you quoted is in reference to the traditionally used SOS. I agree that some teams do indeed play more difficult schedules than others. The central points I am trying to get across are 1) those scheduling differences likely aren't as great as many of us like to believe, and 2) there is no realistic way to accurately determine the true strength of a given teams' schedule. The closest you can come to doing that is to watch every single game a given team plays in a given season, and see just how tough each opponent really was each week. Then, in order to compare that to any other team, you've got to do it again. Like I said, the Giants of week 3 aren't necessarily the same Giants of week 12. For reasons that are obvious as well as numerous. The bottom line is that SOS has no place in a discussion about whether or not one team is truly better than another. Unless of course you've somehow managed to accurately determine both teams' true SOS, which seems nearly impossible from where I sit. Stats are often misunderstood and abused. This is one of those times. All the SOS stat really tells you is the overall record of a given teams' collective opponents. It tells nothing of how difficult each individual game truly was. Were the Colts as difficult a matchup for the Jaguars in week 14 as they were for their opponents in the playoffs?

TacticaLion
08-27-2007, 04:55 PM
Where did I quote you? All I read was the post above mine. I was making general statements about perceived SOS.
Wow. General statements about perceived SOS, huh? I appreciate it... I really do... but I wasn't talking about typical SOS. I was comparing the records of the opponents that a certain team played the previous year... not, in any way, predicting the success a team will have in the future.

SOS is a prediction, as what I was doing is fact. It's a fact that the Bears played some of the worst teams in the NFL on a regular basis last year... and their 13-3 record is a big part of that. I'm not arguing the accuracy of the current SOS process and I don't want to sit here and toss incomparable situations around with you. Were the Colts as difficult a matchup for the Jaguars in week 14 as they were for their opponents in the playoffs? Great. Now, we can sit back and say "NO! They tried harder in the playoffs...", right? Fun. What does that even prove? Nothing.

All we can use are facts... and the facts are that the Bears played 9 of their 16 games against sub .500 opponents. Compare that to 5 each for the Colts and Broncos and 6 for the Ravens and Chargers... a difference of 4 and 3 games.

The opponents a team plays on a regular basis have a lot to do with how "easy" that team's schedule is. You didn't disagree that the AFC is stronger than the NFC, and the Bears play 12 of their 16 games against NFC opponents (1 of those teams, the Seahawks, had a winning record of 9-7). This isn't a mathematical equation... but what actually happened last year.

bearsfan_51
08-27-2007, 05:31 PM
The fact that you have three NFC teams ahead of us is ******* ********. We swept the NFC South in 2005, we swept the NFC West in 2006. We clobbered the Giants, we beat the Seahawks and killed the Saints (who you have well better than us). The only two teams that have beat us from the NFC in the last two years where we were actually playing our starters is the Panthers of 2005 in the playoffs and the Redskins back in Sept of 2005. I agree that using comparisons of one game isn't the best, but really, what have the Eagles, Saints, Cowboys, or Jets done in the last two years to be up there. The Steelers I could see an argument for if you think they underplayed severely last year. I mean...you can talk all you want about Bears fans being homers (and you do) but your perspective is beyond skewed. You can talk all you want about who has beaten whom, but when the Saints played the AFC they got absolutely smacked around, and when they played the Bears, they got absolutely smacked around. It's not that complicated.

Average OT LB
08-27-2007, 06:55 PM
This is just typical of someone who is a fan of a losing team, with a much better team in their division that everyone praises. Statistics can be used to prove anything, and any kind of math wiz could tell you that. Is there a case to present citing the bears middle of the road talent? sure. Is it realistic? The bears won 13 games and went to the super bowl. Despite what any one person may say, they still have a fabulous defense which as all NFL fans know dictates wins and losses.

If those stats prove anything, it proves only that the offense benefited from playing sub par teams and that the bears can win when they are supposed to. Its hard to win, but to deliver constantly and meet high expectations is quite another and the bears have managed to do both. Don't listen to the kittens fan hes just angry.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
08-27-2007, 07:49 PM
If it's based on last year, the Broncos weren't better than the Bears. We went on a tear early by playing crappy teams and our defense was playing amazing while Jake Plummer lead our offense to just barely enough to win. Then when the actual meat of our schedule hit, our defense ran out of gas and it wasn't enough to compensate for the improvement of the offense when Cutler got in. I'd say, best teams of last year:

Chargers
Colts
Ravens
Bears
Pats

With 3,4 and 5 not separated by much. The Bears, when Grossman didn't blow(which contrary to popular belief was more than half of his games), were nearly unstoppable. If Brown and Harris were healthy, they probably would have beaten anyone on that list except the Colts and maybe Chargers. Rex didn't even play *THAT* bad. Yes, he was bad. But the defense lost them that game. The Colts receivers had so much room to operate after the caught it and the Bears got no pressure. And of course, as 51 said, theyre easily better than anyone else in the NFC. They won HFA by three games for christ's sake. and then raped everyones darlings, the Saints.

TacticaLion
08-27-2007, 09:48 PM
This is just typical of someone who is a fan of a losing team, with a much better team in their division that everyone praises. Statistics can be used to prove anything, and any kind of math wiz could tell you that. Is there a case to present citing the bears middle of the road talent? sure. Is it realistic? The bears won 13 games and went to the super bowl. Ha. Funnnnny.

They won 13 games and went to the Super Bowl? REALLY!? That's amazing... it really is... considering the Eagles, Cowboys and Saints could do the same (if not better) if they were in the NFC North instead of the Bears (and that's just other NFC teams).

I'm not ranking teams based on their 2006 record... is that not evident by now? I'm taking into consideration the division (and conference) the team plays in, the consistency the team plays with and the talent the team has. The Bears aren't high on those lists... regardless of what their record is.

The fact that you have three NFC teams ahead of us is ******* ********. We swept the NFC South in 2005, we swept the NFC West in 2006. We clobbered the Giants, we beat the Seahawks and killed the Saints (who you have well better than us). The only two teams that have beat us from the NFC in the last two years where we were actually playing our starters is the Panthers of 2005 in the playoffs and the Redskins back in Sept of 2005. I agree that using comparisons of one game isn't the best, but really, what have the Eagles, Saints, Cowboys, or Jets done in the last two years to be up there. The Steelers I could see an argument for if you think they underplayed severely last year. I mean...you can talk all you want about Bears fans being homers (and you do) but your perspective is beyond skewed. You can talk all you want about who has beaten whom, but when the Saints played the AFC they got absolutely smacked around, and when they played the Bears, they got absolutely smacked around. It's not that complicated.You swept the NFC South in 2005?! Are you SERIOUS!? Wait... allow me to change my entire perspective because of the 2005 season... right? I mean, come on... that's when the Saints began their dominance, right? Oh wait... 3 wins. Hmm. Great point. No.

Oh, but wait... you also swept the NFC West in 2006... which does prove a point. Which point is that? You beat teams that I didn't mention. Hmm... ouch. I mean, bragging about beating the second worst division in football (the best team in that division posted a 9-7 record in 2006)... that's something impressive.

What have the Eagles, Saints, Cowboys or Jets done? Let's see...

The Saints have one of the top offenses in the NFL and a solid defense... and play in a reasonably tough division. They've got the pieces to be great.

The Eagles and Cowboys play in one of the toughest divisions in football... and BOTH made the playoffs. With a healthy McNabb, the Eagles are nearly dominant... and the Cowboys have a stout defense with a bright, young offense. Either of these two teams could dominate the NFC North.

And... the Jets. Two of the Jets losses in 2006 were by 7 or less points... to the Pats (by 7) and the Colts (by 3). These are teams that are tops in the NFL (both teams smacked the Bears). Think about it... a 10-6 record, nearly a 12-4 record, in the AFC? If they played a NFC team in round 1, they would've seen round 2.

My point throughout this entire thing is this: the Bears are overrated. They're an average team who wouldn't make it against stiff competition on a weekly basis. Without the teams they play, their inconsistencies would be exploited and they'd be fighting for a wild card spot, not leading a division. No, the Lions aren't better... neither are the Falcons, Panthers, Packers, Vikings, Bucs, 49ers, Cardinals, Redskins or Rams... but that says more about those teams and nothing about the Bears.

draftguru151
08-27-2007, 10:12 PM
Ha. Funnnnny.

They won 13 games and went to the Super Bowl? REALLY!? That's amazing... it really is... considering the Eagles, Cowboys and Saints could do the same (if not better) if they were in the NFC North instead of the Bears (and that's just other NFC teams).

Those teams could have gone to the SB if they were in the NFCN? How does division matter when their in the playoffs? Didn't the Saints LOSE to the Bears in the playoffs a game away from the SB last year? You can say whatever you want about their 13-3 record (even if it doesn't make sense), but the Bears BEAT the Saints and the Seahawks to get to the SB last year, the Bears being in the NFCN is completely irrelevant with getting to the SB.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
08-27-2007, 10:25 PM
And they beat the Saints HANDILY. It wasn't close. They were three points from tripling up on them. Not to mention, they won the conference by three games. If any other team in the NFC was better than mediocre, and the Bears only won by a game, maybe 2, you might have a point. But they blew the conference out of the water, it was not close. Being in a certain division does not equal three or more wins. You can't fault the Bears for winning the games they were supposed to, which is what you're doing.

Tubby
08-27-2007, 10:49 PM
Being a homer (like everybody else in this thread), I'd have to say the Seahawks. When the only position you need to draft is tight end, you know your team is deep.

Average OT LB
08-27-2007, 11:16 PM
Ha. Funnnnny.

They won 13 games and went to the Super Bowl? REALLY!? That's amazing... it really is... considering the Eagles, Cowboys and Saints could do the same (if not better) if they were in the NFC North instead of the Bears (and that's just other NFC teams).

I'm not ranking teams based on their 2006 record... is that not evident by now? I'm taking into consideration the division (and conference) the team plays in, the consistency the team plays with and the talent the team has. The Bears aren't high on those lists... regardless of what their record is.

i dont know where to start.. those teams had their chance and still lost. The saints even lost to the bears, that must have been an oversight. The cowboys by the way dont have a young offense. That was probably another oversight. If they dont have owens and glenn, it would be very hard for them to move the ball. SO if the eagles stayed healthy they would be the best team? i guess its too bad that injuries are apart of the game... think about it. Mcnabb was on pace to break all kinds of passing records.. as far as attempts go and such.. and he got hurt? thats wierd.. i gues the style of play ended up in injuries.. but maybe if those things didnt happen they would be the best. that opens up the argument to places you probably dont intend on defending - like 'if our defense wasnt tired we would have stopped the run better' .. stuff like that...


If you want to say the NFC is weaker than the AFC i agree. I think most people do. But you have a longggg way to go if you intend on proving the bears are not a top 2 team in the NFC. I'd say the defense alone is a good enough reason to put them number one.

TacticaLion
08-28-2007, 04:59 AM
You can't fault the Bears for winning the games they were supposed to, which is what you're doing.I'm not faulting the Bears for anything... it's just the truth of the situation. They play a weak schedule, which is why they can play mediocre football and pull off 13 wins.

TacticaLion
08-28-2007, 05:17 AM
i dont know where to start.. those teams had their chance and still lost. The saints even lost to the bears, that must have been an oversight. The cowboys by the way dont have a young offense. That was probably another oversight. If they dont have owens and glenn, it would be very hard for them to move the ball. SO if the eagles stayed healthy they would be the best team? i guess its too bad that injuries are apart of the game... think about it. Mcnabb was on pace to break all kinds of passing records.. as far as attempts go and such.. and he got hurt? thats wierd.. i gues the style of play ended up in injuries.. but maybe if those things didnt happen they would be the best. that opens up the argument to places you probably dont intend on defending - like 'if our defense wasnt tired we would have stopped the run better' .. stuff like that...


If you want to say the NFC is weaker than the AFC i agree. I think most people do. But you have a longggg way to go if you intend on proving the bears are not a top 2 team in the NFC. I'd say the defense alone is a good enough reason to put them number one.
I think they're better teams... are you missing that part? "But, the Bears BEAT them 1 game!" Yes... we went over that. The Dolphins also beat the Bears one game. Are they better? No.

Taking record completely out of it, for the sake of this conversation, I think the Saints are a better team. Period. The Saints' offense is almost as dominant as the Bears' defense... and the Saints defense is far better than the Bears offense. Give them a 3 game playoff... and not just 1 game... and I think the Saints take it.

Wow... you point out 2 WRs on the Cowboys offense to suggest that it's old... what about Romo, MBIII and Jones? HA. There's 3 players to counter your 2... so good one.

Oh, and yes... I know injuries are a part of the game... but I didn't look back and say "If he was healthy...". I'm saying that, with a healthy McNabb, the Eagles are a great team. I'm not talking for the past, but for what they currently are. Are we getting that now?

Why do the Bears look like a top team in the NFC? What does everyone reference when talking about that? Their record. If the Saints (or Eagles or Cowboys) were 13-3 over the last 2 years, they'd probably be considered the "top team in the NFC"... and, they probably would be with a schedule like the Bears have.

Average OT LB
08-28-2007, 05:29 AM
I think they're better teams... are you missing that part? "But, the Bears BEAT them 1 game!" Yes... we went over that. The Dolphins also beat the Bears one game. Are they better? No.

Taking record completely out of it, for the sake of this conversation, I think the Saints are a better team. Period. The Saints' offense is almost as dominant as the Bears' defense... and the Saints defense is far better than the Bears offense. Give them a 3 game playoff... and not just 1 game... and I think the Saints take it.

Wow... you point out 2 WRs on the Cowboys offense to suggest that it's old... what about Romo, MBIII and Jones? HA. There's 3 players to counter your 2... so good one.

to the first part, point taken. I cannot consider the bears better then the saints because they ripped them apart because it is only one game. But i think its easier for me to say that they are better, because they did win. The best team doesnt win every time, there are never any undefeated teams because of it. But who are you to say New orleans is better? since you love stats, id like to see some proving the defense is better than the bears offense.

As for romo, MB2 and jones... like i said... owens and glenn allow those players to have success. I dont think i should have to explain why... remember parcells wasnt satisfied with romo.

TacticaLion
08-28-2007, 11:10 AM
to the first part, point taken. I cannot consider the bears better then the saints because they ripped them apart because it is only one game. But i think its easier for me to say that they are better, because they did win.But that logic just doesn't work in the NFL. The Cowboys beat the Colts last year... are they better? Too many fans do just that... stare at one game (or one stat) to evaluate a team. If the Browns played in the NFC North, they might actually have a good shot at posting a reasonable record. But... they don't. They have to face the Steelers, Bengals and Ravens twice each (not to mention the Pats, Seahawks, Rams and Jets). If the Bears were in that division, they'd probably be sitting on the bottom... again.

The best team doesnt win every time, there are never any undefeated teams because of it. But who are you to say New orleans is better? since you love stats, id like to see some proving the defense is better than the bears offense. OK, and, at the same time, who are you to say that the Bears are better? You can sit back and compare the overall records and reference that one game, but it isn't enough to honestly say that one team is better than another. Fans need to use their heads and realize that there's more to a team than its record... a lot more. If the Saints went 15-1 with an incredibly easy schedule, and the Bears were 10-6 in the same year, which team would everyone say is better (not considering a playoff)? The team with the highest record... and it isn't always accurate.

As for romo, MB2 and jones... like i said... owens and glenn allow those players to have success. I dont think i should have to explain why... remember parcells wasnt satisfied with romo.Owens and Glenn allow Romo, MB and Jones to have success? What? Since when? Sure, Owens draws attention, but how can you say that these two receivers (and only these two receivers) are the reason for the Cowboys' offensive success? You can't. Sure, they help... but they aren't the sole reason.

And, if I can quote BBD, who basically spelled it out:
7. Its not how good you are, its how good THEY are.
Scheduling and strength of schedule is a huge factor during the regular season, and is often overlooked. Having a great team isn't necessarilly the recipe for success in today's NFL. With parity at an all time high, the teams that usually go deep in the playoffs are usually teams who have had easy schedules. The Pats, Saints and Bears, all rode easy schedules to the conference championship game. The Jets made the playoffs because of an easy schedule. Expect a similar trend this year. There will be quality teams that miss the playoffs because of scheduling, likewise, there will be teams that overachieve because of it. This is nothing new, but quite often an overlooked aspect of the season. The strength of schedule has a huge impact on a team's season.

bearsfan_51
08-28-2007, 12:19 PM
Ok so by your logic, who did the Cowboys (that you have above the Bears) beat last year over the course of the season to legitimize them being better? Because that's the gist of your argument correct, that if the Bears played a schedule similar to the Cowboys they would be a .500 team (less than the Cowboys, who you say are better).

Dallas' record against teams .500 or better last year was 3-6, and the game against the Titans was pre-Vince Young (though pre-Romo as well to be fair). The only impressive win they really had all year was against the Colts.

The Bears' record against teams .500 or beter last year was 6-3. They beat the Seahawks twice (something the Cowboys could not do), beat the Giants and Jets on the road by double digits, blew out the Saints, not to mention the 41-10 and 40-7 drubbings they put on the Niners and Bills.

Honestly...you keep talking about schedules, but if you take most of the other NFC teams' records against winning teams and they are no more impressive. Your assumption that the teams in the East and South would win 13 games (not to mention somehow magically make the Superbowl) is completely unfounded and largely based on bias.

TacticaLion
08-28-2007, 08:08 PM
Ok so by your logic, who did the Cowboys (that you have above the Bears) beat last year over the course of the season to legitimize them being better? Because that's the gist of your argument correct, that if the Bears played a schedule similar to the Cowboys they would be a .500 team (less than the Cowboys, who you say are better).

Dallas' record against teams .500 or better last year was 3-6, and the game against the Titans was pre-Vince Young (though pre-Romo as well to be fair). The only impressive win they really had all year was against the Colts.

The Bears' record against teams .500 or beter last year was 6-3. They beat the Seahawks twice (something the Cowboys could not do), beat the Giants and Jets on the road by double digits, blew out the Saints, not to mention the 41-10 and 40-7 drubbings they put on the Niners and Bills.

Honestly...you keep talking about schedules, but if you take most of the other NFC teams' records against winning teams and they are no more impressive. Your assumption that the teams in the East and South would win 13 games (not to mention somehow magically make the Superbowl) is completely unfounded and largely based on bias.It seems that you're completely missing the point... but I'll play your silly game.
Ok so by your logic, who did the Cowboys (that you have above the Bears) beat last year over the course of the season to legitimize them being better?
First of all, to answer your question, the Cowboys beat the Colts who, in turn, spanked the Bears. So, although it doesn't make a difference to me, there's the answer to your question.

Niners and Bills, oh my! Not those 2006 powerhouses! And, to correct your "research", the Cowboys had 4 wins against .500 or better teams (they went 4-5), while the Bears were 5-2 against .500 teams. We're only considering regular season games, which basically explains the difference in opponents: the Cowboys played 2 more .500 or better teams in the 2006 regular season than the Bears did. 2 more. Considering they still won 9 games, and played harder opponents, that says a lot.

Look at these schedules and tell me which you'd prefer:

2006 Dallas Cowboys Schedule
Sep 10 at Jacksonville - L (17-24) - 8-8
Sep 17 Washington - W (27-10) (sub .500)
Oct 1 at Tennessee - W (45-14) - 8-8
Oct 8 at Philadelphia - L (24-38) - 10-6
Oct 15 Houston - W (34-6) (sub .500)
Oct 23 N.Y. Giants - L (22-36) - 8-8
Oct 29 at Carolina - W (35-14) - 8-8
Nov 5 at Washington - L (19-22) (sub .500)
Nov 12 at Arizona - W (27-10) (sub .500)
Nov 19 Indianapolis - W (21-14) - 12-4
Nov 23 Tampa Bay - W (38-10) (sub .500)
Dec 3 at N.Y. Giants - W (23-20) - 8-8
Dec 10 New Orleans - L (17-42) - 10-6
Dec 16 at Atlanta - W (38-28) (sub .500)
Dec 25 Philadelphia - L (7-23) - 10-6
Dec 31 Detroit - L (31-39) (sub .500)

2006 Chicago Bears Schedule
Sep 10 at Green Bay - W (26-0) - 8-8
Sep 17 Detroit - W (34-7) (sub .500)
Sep 24 at Minnesota - W (19-16) (sub .500)
Oct 1 Seattle - W (37-6) - 9-7
Oct 8 Buffalo - W (40-7) (sub .500)
Oct 16 at Arizona - W (24-23) (sub .500)
Oct 29 San Francisco - W (41-10) (sub .500)
Nov 5 Miami - L (13-31) (sub .500)
Nov 12 at N.Y. Giants - W (38-20) - 8-8
Nov 19 at N.Y. Jets - W (10-0) - 10-6
Nov 26 at New England - L (13-17) - 12-4
Dec 3 Minnesota - W (23-13) (sub .500)
Dec 11 at St. Louis - W (42-27) - 8-8
Dec 17 Tampa Bay - W (34-31 OT) (sub .500)
Dec 24 at Detroit - W (26-21) (sub .500)
Dec 31 Green Bay - L (7-26) - 8-8

There just isn't a debate here. They play a harder division and had success. You walked through easy teams just to get embarrassed in the Super Bowl.

Average OT LB
08-28-2007, 08:20 PM
This debate has clearly shifted towards AFC vs NFC.. who is to say that tennessee carolina and new york are better than green bay st louis and seattle....

those two records show nothing positive for the cowboys..

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
08-28-2007, 08:33 PM
The fact that you think it's possible to completely rape your conference, get 13 regular season wins and then make the super bowl is possible while playing mediocre football is simply laughable.

TacticaLion
08-28-2007, 08:55 PM
This debate has clearly shifted towards AFC vs NFC.. who is to say that tennessee carolina and new york are better than green bay st louis and seattle....

those two records show nothing positive for the cowboys..
Except that they play 2 more games against .500 opponents and play harder opponents on a weekly basis. If you need the breakdown, I'll hand it out tomorrow.

The fact that you think it's possible to completely rape your conference, get 13 regular season wins and then make the super bowl is possible while playing mediocre football is simply laughable.
Unless you have an incredibly easy schedule. Wanna know what I think is laughable? Having the easiest schedule in the NFL, barely winning your first playoff game (in OT) and getting smacked in the Super Bowl... yet people still think you're an incredible team. That's laughable.

PalmerToCJ
08-28-2007, 09:42 PM
The Bears were a playoff team in any NFC division but I think what really helped them about the NFCN is the fact that they got home field in the championship game. If that game was in New Orleans I think the Saints would've won but who's to say that would actually be the case.

JK17
08-28-2007, 09:49 PM
Unless you have an incredibly easy schedule. Wanna know what I think is laughable? Having the easiest schedule in the NFL, barely winning your first playoff game (in OT) and getting smacked in the Super Bowl... yet people still think you're an incredible team. That's laughable.

So who has more credibility? The team's that couldn't beat them, or couldn't win those games? You talk about NFC teams like the Saints, Eagles, etc....they were all in the playoffs? Why didn't they make it as far, especially the Saints, who were just one game away, playing the Bears one on one, from the Super Bowl?

Who is so much better in the AFC? The AFC is top heavy and is clearly the best conference, but you don't think the Bears would at least be a top 5 team in the AFC? The Jets or Chiefs were better?

What's so terrible about the Bears anyway last year, aside from the fact you were a Lions' fan? The Quarterback who played great at times, although admittedly lousy at others? There are teams much worse off at QB, but I'll give you that one. The two running backs Thomas Jones, and Cedric Benson, who did great all year long together? The emerging receivers in Berrian, the stable force in Muhammad? A good O-Line? The Best defense in football? A kick returner who set records? You think all that is mediocre?

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
08-28-2007, 10:00 PM
Except that they play 2 more games against .500 opponents and play harder opponents on a weekly basis. If you need the breakdown, I'll hand it out tomorrow.


Unless you have an incredibly easy schedule. Wanna know what I think is laughable? Having the easiest schedule in the NFL, barely winning your first playoff game (in OT) and getting smacked in the Super Bowl... yet people still think you're an incredible team. That's laughable.

The Bears spanked the Saints far worse in the NFCCG than the Colts "spanked" the Bears in the SB. If you even wanna call 12 points a "spanking". It's obvious you are blindly hating right now. Their offense is much better than the Saints defense. Their offense was pretty damn good. Average QB, great running game, solid receiving corps. If everyone disagrees with you, that's usually a good indicator that you're wrong.

bearsfan_51
08-29-2007, 01:31 AM
We're only considering regular season games,
Since when? And why? If anything the playoffs are the best example of how a team does against tougher competition. The Bears made the Superbowl, the Cowboys lost in the first round. To make the argument that the Bears didn't play any tough teams and then not include the playoffs is stupid. You're proving yourself more wrong and biased on each post, and everyone is calling you out on it.

TacticaLion
08-29-2007, 05:13 AM
Since when? And why? If anything the playoffs are the best example of how a team does against tougher competition. The Bears made the Superbowl, the Cowboys lost in the first round. To make the argument that the Bears didn't play any tough teams and then not include the playoffs is stupid. You're proving yourself more wrong and biased on each post, and everyone is calling you out on it.Considering my entire point throughout this thread has been that the Bears play a lower level of teams on a regular basis... why would I count the playoffs? I'm explaining why they made it there with such ease.
If everyone disagrees with you, that's usually a good indicator that you're wrong.Really? If 4 other posters on an internet site (one being a Bears fan) think I'm wrong for thinking that the Bears play a ridiculously easy schedule (which they do), I should just tuck and run? Right. Good one. Believe me... I'm not suprised that people disagree with me. Most fans stare only at the overall record (or a few stats) and believe that the team is incredible, when they completely ignore the schedule that team plays. It actually says more about you guys than it does about me...

What's so terrible about the Bears anyway last year, aside from the fact you were a Lions' fan? The Quarterback who played great at times, although admittedly lousy at others? There are teams much worse off at QB, but I'll give you that one. The two running backs Thomas Jones, and Cedric Benson, who did great all year long together? The emerging receivers in Berrian, the stable force in Muhammad? A good O-Line? The Best defense in football? A kick returner who set records? You think all that is mediocre?Are you serious? You sit back and say all of this about the Bears, yet are blind to my entire argument: they play a lower level of competition on a regular basis. Sure, they throw up great numbers: against average teams. Sure, that defense is incredible... against struggling offenses. In their first 7 games, only 1 team scored more than 16 points. What happened when they played the Giants, Patriots, Rams, Seahawks (playoffs), Saints (playoffs) and Colts (playoffs) later in the season? They each scored over 16 points. Sure, that almighty Bears defense is "great"... when it plays lesser teams.

And, no, the defense isn't "horrible"... it's solid... but play a real schedule against top competition and then you can brag about how good your defense is. The Ravens can brag... their defense gave up the fewest YPG last year and actually faced tough opponents.

duckseason
08-29-2007, 09:07 AM
I hate the Bears, and want to minimize their accomplishments of last year. yada yada yada, blah blah blah. SOS this, SOS that. dum diddy dum dum, I beat a big wooden drum. Bears are weak. Cowboys go 15-1 in the north. timbuktu what I say is not true. humpty dumpty sat on a wall, the Bears in the east would have a great fall.

Like I said earlier, there are no easy wins in the NFL. If you're winning the majority of your games, you're a good team. If you win 13 games you're a very good team. No team plays the Pats and Colts every week with a little Ravens sprinkled in. Everybody plays bottom tier teams throughout the season. At the end of the season, you can add up all your opponents' wins and losses and say a team had an easy or difficult schedule, but then you're going against your own logic, as the overall records of the opponents may or may not be valid depending on how difficult their schedule was- according to their opponents' record. See? You'll run in circles like a dog chasing it's tail with that kind of reasoning.

Do some teams end up playing more difficult schedules than others? Of course. The problem is that there is no accurate way to determine this. You can only use your own eyes while watching the games. Like I've said time and again, sometimes the weaker teams play their best game of the season against one team, while laying an egg the next week. A team may be 4-12 at the end of the season, but they were a more difficult matchup for team A than they were for team B. Key injuries and game conditions play a factor in this, along with many other things such as clashing or meshing schemes. So, knowing that, it would be foolish to give them the exact same grade on every one of their opponents' SOS report card, which is what is commonly done. You're currently subscribing to and perpetuating this abecedarian and erroneous line of thought. Do yourself and this board a favor and recognize that.

I've previously pointed these things out to you, but you dismissed me as being far too sensible to even attempt a legitimate argument against me. One would think you may have recognized your errors at that point, seeing as solid logic was shining brightly upon them. Instead, you chose to alter and give different meaning to my words on their way from your monitor to your retina. Others were somehow lost in the jumbling. And your resulting response reflected this.

I may agree with you that the Bears are slightly overrated, but I certainly don't agree with the faulty logic behind the conclusion. I may agree that the Bears played a weaker schedule than some teams, but I definitely don't think it's as big a difference as you make it out to be. This is the damn NFL. All these teams are very talented. Dominating weaker opponents shows your strength just as much as it shows your opponents weakness in the face of said strength. The Bears often dominate weaker opponents, and they beat the top-tier teams with regularity as well. That is not easy to do in this league. No matter how you slice it, the Bears were one of the very best teams in the NFL last year. If I think the Cowboys or Saints or whoever is a better team, it's based on my own cogent and unadulterated perceptions and opinions surrounding those 3 teams. Not based on who played the statistically "easier" schedule.

In short, the ratiocinative mind will look much deeper than a simple 1+1=2 equation while attempting an accurate evaluation of the true strength of NFL teams. Only a simpleton will blindly assume that the domination of weaker overall opponents equals inferiority to those who play a theoretically slightly stronger schedule with slightly less successful results. Like I said, throw SOS out the window until you find a way to calculate it accurately. You're more than welcome to express your opinion, and many people might actually agree with you. But presenting it as a melting candle on a crapcake will only invite negative criticism.

TacticaLion
08-29-2007, 09:51 AM
Like I said earlier, there are no easy wins in the NFL. If you're winning the majority of your games, you're a good team. If you win 13 games you're a very good team. No team plays the Pats and Colts every week with a little Ravens sprinkled in. Everybody plays bottom tier teams throughout the season. At the end of the season, you can add up all your opponents' wins and losses and say a team had an easy or difficult schedule, but then you're going against your own logic, as the overall records of the opponents may or may not be valid depending on how difficult their schedule was- according to their opponents' record. See? You'll run in circles like a dog chasing it's tail with that kind of reasoning.

Do some teams end up playing more difficult schedules than others? Of course. The problem is that there is no accurate way to determine this. You can only use your own eyes while watching the games. Like I've said time and again, sometimes the weaker teams play their best game of the season against one team, while laying an egg the next week. A team may be 4-12 at the end of the season, but they were a more difficult matchup for team A than they were for team B. Key injuries and game conditions play a factor in this, along with many other things such as clashing or meshing schemes. So, knowing that, it would be foolish to give them the exact same grade on every one of their opponents' SOS report card, which is what is commonly done. You're currently subscribing to and perpetuating this abecedarian and erroneous line of thought. Do yourself and this board a favor and recognize that.

I've previously pointed these things out to you, but you dismissed me as being far too sensible to even attempt a legitimate argument against me. One would think you may have recognized your errors at that point, seeing as solid logic was shining brightly upon them. Instead, you chose to alter and give different meaning to my words on their way from your monitor to your retina. Others were somehow lost in the jumbling. And your resulting response reflected this.

I may agree with you that the Bears are slightly overrated, but I certainly don't agree with the faulty logic behind the conclusion. I may agree that the Bears played a weaker schedule than some teams, but I definitely don't think it's as big a difference as you make it out to be. This is the damn NFL. All these teams are very talented. Dominating weaker opponents shows your strength just as much as it shows your opponents weakness in the face of said strength. The Bears often dominate weaker opponents, and they beat the top-tier teams with regularity as well. That is not easy to do in this league. No matter how you slice it, the Bears were one of the very best teams in the NFL last year. If I think the Cowboys or Saints or whoever is a better team, it's based on my own cogent and unadulterated perceptions and opinions surrounding those 3 teams. Not based on who played the statistically "easier" schedule.

In short, the ratiocinative mind will look much deeper than a simple 1+1=2 equation while attempting an accurate evaluation of the true strength of NFL teams. Only a simpleton will blindly assume that the domination of weaker overall opponents equals inferiority to those who play a theoretically slightly stronger schedule with slightly less successful results. Like I said, throw SOS out the window until you find a way to calculate it accurately. You're more than welcome to express your opinion, and many people might actually agree with you. But presenting it as a melting candle on a crapcake will only invite negative criticism.Wait... lets take a second here:
I may agree that the Bears played a weaker schedule than some teams,
Ok... you may agree that they played a weaker schedule than some teams. Got it. Next?
Like I said, throw SOS out the window until you find a way to calculate it accurately.
Woah... now we're throwing SOS "out the window"? You just said the Bears play a weaker schedule... what happened to that?

You said it best yourself...
You'll run in circles like a dog chasing it's tail with that kind of reasoning.
... as you run in circles.

They dominated weaker opponents? Ohmygosh! Considering they play weaker opponents with more regularity than other teams, can we now see exactly what I'm getting at? Or, no... let me guess: i'll get another 1000 word essay about candles and cupcakes.

And... they beat the "top-tier teams" with "regularity"? Are you kidding me? My take: there are 3 groups of teams in the NFL... the "Elite", the "Weak" and the rest. There are 5 "Elite" teams... teams that are truly talented and can/will contend for the Super Bowl: the Pats, the Colts, the Ravens, the Chargers and the Broncos. How many of those teams did the Bears play in 2006? Two. What was their record against these teams? 0-2. If you consider the Jets, Cowboys, Giants or Seahawks to be "Elite", that's just the way you see things. But they aren't. Sure, they're all in the hunt for playoff spots (along with the Rams, Eagles, Jags, Bengals, Steelers and Saints), but they're not Elite.

Why don't I address everything you say? You keep saying the same **** over and over again: SOS isn't a big factor. And it's ********. Just wrong. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that the Bears play an easier schedule in an easier division... which is why they won 13 games. If the Bengals played their schedule, they'd have a similar record. Same with the Steelers. But, they don't. I've been saying one thing all along: the Bears play an easy schedule.

JK17
08-29-2007, 11:02 AM
Are you serious? You sit back and say all of this about the Bears, yet are blind to my entire argument: they play a lower level of competition on a regular basis. Sure, they throw up great numbers: against average teams. Sure, that defense is incredible... against struggling offenses. In their first 7 games, only 1 team scored more than 16 points. What happened when they played the Giants, Patriots, Rams, Seahawks (playoffs), Saints (playoffs) and Colts (playoffs) later in the season? They each scored over 16 points. Sure, that almighty Bears defense is "great"... when it plays lesser teams.

And, no, the defense isn't "horrible"... it's solid... but play a real schedule against top competition and then you can brag about how good your defense is. The Ravens can brag... their defense gave up the fewest YPG last year and actually faced tough opponents.

Am I serious? I want an explanation on how, out of all the average teams in the NFL, you assume the Bears are worse then all of them? Stop looking at their schedule, every team in the NFC has a weak schedule, no matter what they play. The Bears are the best team in the NFC. That puts them in at least hte middle of the NFL, and even if you want to say the Saints are ahead of them, which is riduclous, be my guest. Now look at the AFC. Clearly the better conference but after the top four teams, a lot of those teams were average. Denver, Kansas City, New York...not many superstars there. But lets assume there are 8 AFC teams better then Chicago. And New Orleans. That still amkes Chicago a top ten team in the NFL. How you think they are mediocre is ridiculous.

duckseason
08-29-2007, 11:44 AM
Wait... lets take a second here:
I may agree that the Bears played a weaker schedule than some teams

Ok... you may agree that they played a weaker schedule than some teams. Got it. Next?
Yes, I may agree that the Bears played a weaker schedule than some teams.

Like I said, throw SOS out the window until you find a way to calculate it accurately.
Woah... now we're throwing SOS "out the window"? You just said the Bears play a weaker schedule... what happened to that?
You need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Once again, you're misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I actually said by twisting my words. Look up the word "may." Then decongest your pons and think about how I used it. I said I may agree that the Bears play a weaker schedule than some teams. The point I was trying to get across should be made clear with what follows the comma. That any real differences in schedule strength in this league aren't as great as people like you make them out to be. Further, you're disregarding the point that these possible agreements regarding the Bears actual strength would be based on something far more legitimate than statistical SOS. Such as how good they look when I watch them. Indeed, throw the freakin bs SOS out the window until you figure out a way to calculate it accurately. Come with something that holds merit. Black and white interpretation of the statistical SOS is worthless and has no place in this discussion. As I said earlier, all it tells you is the overall record of a given team's opponents in a particular season. It tells nothing of the true difficulty level of the actual games played. Some teams may have an easier time beating 11-5 team A, while they struggle against 5-11 team B. This can be due to numerous pertinent reasons that aren't reflected in a stat such as SOS. This is why you often see strong teams losing to weaker teams and vice versa. What's so hard to understand about that?

They dominated weaker opponents? Ohmygosh! Considering they play weaker opponents with more regularity than other teams, can we now see exactly what I'm getting at? Or, no... let me guess: i'll get another 1000 word essay about candles and cupcakes.
Crapcakes. Your feebly flickering candle is standing crooked atop a crapcake. As in a pile of stank feces.

Again you missed the point of that paragraph. I said this-
Dominating weaker opponents shows your strength just as much as it shows your opponents weakness in the face of said strength.
Only a simpleton will blindly assume that the domination of weaker overall opponents equals inferiority to those who play a theoretically slightly stronger schedule with slightly less successful results.
Read it and understand it. I shouldn't have to break down every sentence for you so that it's easier for you to digest. I shouldn't have to pull your high-chair closer to the table. Grab your damn fork and eat.

And... they beat the "top-tier teams" with "regularity"? Are you kidding me?
No. I'm not kidding you. Perhaps making a futile attempt at educating, but definitely not kidding. You do not go to the Super Bowl without beating some of the best teams in the league. I'm not saying the Bears are the best or even 2nd best team in the league here. I'm just making the point that they are a team to be respected. I'm not saying they beat top-level teams with any more regularity than some of the other great teams in this league. Just that they've proven that they can hang with the best and that their status as an elite team is legitimate. No team wins all their games. Do the bears need to be perfect to be considered elite?

My take: there are 3 groups of teams in the NFL... the "Elite", the "Weak" and the rest. There are 5 "Elite" teams... teams that are truly talented and can/will contend for the Super Bowl: the Pats, the Colts, the Ravens, the Chargers and the Broncos.
Ok, you're certainly entitled to your opinion and I have no problem with it. Those are all very good teams. But this is the NFL. Things are constantly changing. The power shifts as often as week to week during the season. Lines are blurry between many teams in that upper crust. I might think all 5 of those teams are better than the Bears. But I wouldn't blindly base that opinion on statistical SOS at all. I'd just watch them play and watch other teams play and just follow the entire league as best I could and then make an informed evaluation. See, I'm not expressing much disagreement with your conclusion. It's the manner in which you arrived at it that I'm taking issue with here.

How many of those teams did the Bears play in 2006? Two. What was their record against these teams? 0-2.
Yet, the Broncos and Patriots both lost 3 games against your "elites." How is that possible for an elite team to lose to another? Hmm. Maybe because all games have 1 winner and 1 loser? And what about all the mediocre teams they lost to? What about all the mediocre teams that all 5 of your "elite" teams lost to? How is that any less relevant than anything regarding the Bears schedule and results? You're entitled to your opinion that the Broncos are superior to the Bears. But your reasoning expressed herein this thread is contradictory to say the least.

If you consider the Jets, Cowboys, Giants or Seahawks to be "Elite", that's just the way you see things. But they aren't. Sure, they're all in the hunt for playoff spots (along with the Rams, Eagles, Jags, Bengals, Steelers and Saints), but they're not Elite.
Of the first 4 teams you mention above, the 3 that actually faced at least one of your "elite" teams posted a victory against them. A subjective opinion should not be stated as fact.

Why don't I address everything you say? You keep saying the same **** over and over again: SOS isn't a big factor. And it's ********. Just wrong. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that the Bears play an easier schedule in an easier division... which is why they won 13 games. If the Bengals played their schedule, they'd have a similar record. Same with the Steelers. But, they don't.
The reason I keep repeating myself is because you keep dismissing and misrepresenting the validity of the content within my posts, and then follow them up with yet another string of faulty logic despite the fact that it's been exposed as such. Like I said, it's certainly up for debate as to exactly how difficult the Bears schedule actually was last year. And I actually agree that it was probably slightly less difficult than the slates of many other teams. However, statistical SOS has nothing to do with that opinion, because it's largely irrelevant as it's unquestionably an inaccurate barometer of the true difficulty of a given team's overall schedule. Further, an "easier" schedule in the NFL is not "why" a team would win 13 games. They won 13 games because they beat 13 other NFL teams on 13 different occasions. No matter how you slice that, it is quite an accomplishment in today's NFL. Your claim that the Bengals and Steelers would have won 13 games with that schedule is born of your imagination and is based on supposition. Both of those teams had losses last season to NFC bottom feeders. Such as powerhouses Tampa Bay and Atlanta.

TacticaLion
08-29-2007, 11:49 AM
Am I serious? I want an explanation on how, out of all the average teams in the NFL, you assume the Bears are worse then all of them? Stop looking at their schedule, every team in the NFC has a weak schedule, no matter what they play. The Bears are the best team in the NFC. That puts them in at least hte middle of the NFL, and even if you want to say the Saints are ahead of them, which is riduclous, be my guest. Now look at the AFC. Clearly the better conference but after the top four teams, a lot of those teams were average. Denver, Kansas City, New York...not many superstars there. But lets assume there are 8 AFC teams better then Chicago. And New Orleans. That still amkes Chicago a top ten team in the NFL. How you think they are mediocre is ridiculous.Assume? It's called an opinion. Stop looking at their schedule? OK... only if you stop looking at their record and start considering the team they are. When I consider the team they are, and other teams around the NFC, I don't feel the Bears are the best team. Period. The Saints, Cowboys and Eagles could all have that title.

This is how I can consider them mediocre: they're only considered a top team in the NFC because of their record. And, their record is the way it is because of their schedule. If they went 9-7 or 8-8 last year, they'd be considered "average" too... and wouldn't be a top 10 team. If they played a reasonable schedule, that record might've been a reality.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
08-29-2007, 11:53 AM
Assume? It's called an opinion. Stop looking at their schedule? OK... only if you stop looking at their record and start considering the team they are. When I consider the team they are, and other teams around the NFC, I don't feel the Bears are the best team. Period. The Saints, Cowboys and Eagles could all have that title.

This is how I can consider them mediocre: they're only considered a top team in the NFC because of their record. And, their record is the way it is because of their schedule. If they went 9-7 or 8-8 last year, they'd be considered "average" too... and wouldn't be a top 10 team. If they played a reasonable schedule, that record might've been a reality.

Did you even read half of his post? You are grasping at straws right now. Please go back to wherever you were when you were gone, this was a much better place.

Average OT LB
08-29-2007, 12:28 PM
I agree with what JK17 said, i think he had the best approach. Every team in the NFC plays a weak schedule. thats because the NFC is weak. IF they changed divisions they'd only be going to a weak division without the kittens..

Since when are we playing college football? Sos... we dont poll here in the big leagues..

Average OT LB
08-29-2007, 01:07 PM
Team / (Opponent's winning percentage)

Cincinnati Bengals (.543)
New York Giants (.543)
New Orleans Saints (.539)
Tampa Bay Buccaneers (.539)
Pittsburgh Steelers (.531)
Kansas City Chiefs (.527)
Tennessee Titans (.527)
Baltimore Ravens (.523)
Houston Texans (.523)
Philadelphia Eagles (.520)
Oakland Raiders (.516)
Washington Redskins (.516)
Denver Broncos (.516)
Cleveland Browns (.512)
St. Louis Rams (.508)
Atlanta Falcons (.508)
Carolina Panthers (.504)
Dallas Cowboys (.504)
Arizona Cardinals (.500)
San Diego Chargers (.488)
Jacksonville Jaguars (.488)
Indianapolis Colts (.484)
San Francisco 49ers (.477)
Buffalo Bills (.477)
Detroit Lions (.473)
New England Patriots (.473)
Miami Dolphins (.469)
New York Jets (.465)
Minnesota Vikings (.457)
Seattle Seahawks (.457)
Green Bay Packers (.449)
Chicago Bears (.445)


just gonna put this out there to show hes got an argument for those who disagree choose your words carefully because there are a few ways to determine strength of schedule.. one being win percentage of opponents, but the loophole there is one or two games against a bad team (the lions) will hurt that %

TacticaLion
08-29-2007, 03:16 PM
Did you even read half of his post? You are grasping at straws right now.Grasping at straws? I made a reasonable response to his post. He wanted an explanation as to how the Bears aren't a top team, and I gave him the reasons: they're only considered a top team because of the record they had, and had that record becuase of the schedule they played. Is it that hard to get?
Yes, I may agree that the Bears played a weaker schedule than some teams.This is why you're pointless to respond to. You may agree? Ok... do you, or do you not agree? And, some teams? Ok... which teams? You either agree or don't agree with the statement. If you agree, what the hell are you arguing about? If you don't agree, why'd you say that you "may" agree? It seems you just run type ****, in circles, for the sake of typing ****.
Black and white interpretation of the statistical SOS is worthless and has no place in this discussion.Ha. Funny... considering this entire conversation has been about SOS and the Bears' schedule. There will never be a perfect SOS formula because teams change and injuries happen. That doesn't mean SOS doesn't exist... it does and is a big factor in the NFL. Any NFL fan can see how the Bears' schedule is easier than most and how it benefits them. If you need, we can make a poll.
Please go back to wherever you were when you were gone, this was a much better place.Or, don't read/respond to the topic. I haven't forced you to respond, so be a big boy and don't if you don't want to.

JK17
08-29-2007, 04:56 PM
Assume? It's called an opinion. Stop looking at their schedule? OK... only if you stop looking at their record and start considering the team they are. When I consider the team they are, and other teams around the NFC, I don't feel the Bears are the best team. Period. The Saints, Cowboys and Eagles could all have that title.

This is how I can consider them mediocre: they're only considered a top team in the NFC because of their record. And, their record is the way it is because of their schedule. If they went 9-7 or 8-8 last year, they'd be considered "average" too... and wouldn't be a top 10 team. If they played a reasonable schedule, that record might've been a reality.

Actually I explained their strengths, and barely even mentioned their record. All those other teams could have had the titel. But they didn't. If they were so much clear-cut better, theyd have had it. Stop. Now.

TacticaLion
08-29-2007, 05:33 PM
Team / (Opponent's winning percentage)

Cincinnati Bengals (.543)
New York Giants (.543)
New Orleans Saints (.539)
Tampa Bay Buccaneers (.539)
Pittsburgh Steelers (.531)
Kansas City Chiefs (.527)
Tennessee Titans (.527)
Baltimore Ravens (.523)
Houston Texans (.523)
Philadelphia Eagles (.520)
Oakland Raiders (.516)
Washington Redskins (.516)
Denver Broncos (.516)
Cleveland Browns (.512)
St. Louis Rams (.508)
Atlanta Falcons (.508)
Carolina Panthers (.504)
Dallas Cowboys (.504)
Arizona Cardinals (.500)
San Diego Chargers (.488)
Jacksonville Jaguars (.488)
Indianapolis Colts (.484)
San Francisco 49ers (.477)
Buffalo Bills (.477)
Detroit Lions (.473)
New England Patriots (.473)
Miami Dolphins (.469)
New York Jets (.465)
Minnesota Vikings (.457)
Seattle Seahawks (.457)
Green Bay Packers (.449)
Chicago Bears (.445)


just gonna put this out there to show hes got an argument for those who disagree choose your words carefully because there are a few ways to determine strength of schedule.. one being win percentage of opponents, but the loophole there is one or two games against a bad team (the lions) will hurt that %
Wow. Bears are dead last... surprise.
Actually I explained their strengths, and barely even mentioned their record. All those other teams could have had the titel. But they didn't. If they were so much clear-cut better, theyd have had it. Stop. Now.All those other teams could have had the title? Yes, you're right... and, if they played a schedule like the Bears, they would've had that title. The best team doesn't always have the best record, and having an easier schedule helps. This isn't rocket science... it's logic. Easier schedule - easier games.

Look at that chart: Bengals, Steelers and Ravens in the top 8 for most opponent wins... and Chicago, Green Bay, Minnesota and Detroit in the bottom 8. Stop trying to argue this... it's a fact of football.

TacticaLion
08-29-2007, 05:43 PM
Wow... just a quick note: I've received quite a bit of negative rep over this thread... voicing my opinions in, what I consider to be, a reasonable way. Lets take a look:

Do you know anything about the Bears?I'll go ahead and reference that chart on this one. Honestly... can anyone say that the Bears don't play an easy schedule? Good one.

GO CHARGERS!!!!!Interesting. Worth the negative rep. Next!

You just don't get it. Take my post for what it is in it's entirety. I've already adressed both things you're commenting on here.Interesting... also worth the negative rep. My argument: the Bears have an easy schedule. I don't get it? Next!

Your ignorant...and a homerUh oh... calling names. Red card! Honestly... this one is kinda funny. A homer? I never once said that the Lions should've beaten them... just that they play an easy schedule. Is that not true? Next!

you cant win 13 games by being mediocre.Probably the most reasonable of the group. Sure, it doesn't seem like it, and no one will admit it, but I just don't think they're the dominant force everyone thinks they are. The defense is great... but benefits from playing horrible offenses on a regular basis. The offense? Riiiight. Same thing. Either way, I think they did.

That's all so far (at least that I can still read). If you'd like to throw some more negative, "internet popularity" my way for voicing my opinion (and stating facts), please feel free. Whatever gets you through the day.

DaBears9654
08-29-2007, 05:48 PM
just gonna put this out there to show hes got an argument for those who disagree choose your words carefully because there are a few ways to determine strength of schedule.. one being win percentage of opponents, but the loophole there is one or two games against a bad team (the lions) will hurt that %
Now that, I will agree with. Tactica can point out a "weak schedule" all he wants, but the Bears play all 5 other NFC playoff teams from last year plus 2 more from the AFC West (Chargers & Chiefs). The only reason they have such a low opponents' combined winning % is that they have 2 games vs. the 3-13 Lions and 1 against the 2-14 Raiders.

TacticaLion
08-29-2007, 05:53 PM
Now that, I will agree with. Tactica can point out a "weak schedule" all he wants, but the Bears play all 5 other NFC playoff teams from last year plus 2 more from the AFC West (Chargers & Chiefs). The only reason they have such a low opponents' combined winning % is that they have 2 games vs. the 3-13 Lions and 1 against the 2-14 Raiders.
Let me go ahead and help you out: they didn't play the Raiders. Also, playing the Lions may seem like it drops their "opponents winning %"... which it does... but think about it: THE LIONS WENT 3-13... second worst record in the NFL last year! What does that tell us? THEY PLAYED EASY TEAMS!? 9 other teams beat the Lions (two twice)... in a 16 game season. They were "easy games".

It should drop the record. They played one of the worst teams in the NFL... twice.

TacticaLion
08-29-2007, 06:17 PM
OK... due to this whole "BUT THEY PLAY THE LIONS!" argument, I took the Lions' winning % completely out of the equation. The "Opponent's winning percentage" for the Bears went from .445 to .469... tied with Miami and now only above the Packers, Seahawks, Vikings and Jets. Wow... talk about swaying the percentage, huh? Those damn Lions and their record was really the main reason the Bears had a low "Opponent's winning percentage", huh?

Such a joke. I know it's not their fault that they mostly played the worst teams in the NFL on a weekly basis... but come on. Face it. It's what happened.

Average OT LB
08-29-2007, 06:39 PM
OK... due to this whole "BUT THEY PLAY THE LIONS!" argument, I took the Lions' winning % completely out of the equation. The "Opponent's winning percentage" for the Bears went from .445 to .469... tied with Miami and now only above the Packers, Seahawks, Vikings and Jets. Wow... talk about swaying the percentage, huh? Those damn Lions and their record was really the main reason the Bears had a low "Opponent's winning percentage", huh?

Such a joke. I know it's not their fault that they mostly played the worst teams in the NFL on a weekly basis... but come on. Face it. It's what happened.

I didnt mean to start that liions argument i was just pointing out the flaw. Because the bears beat alot of the teams they faced, it adds a loss to each team, giving their opponents a worse record. Thats all i meant by that i just didnt explain it. I put the chart out there to show that there is an argument to be made and its not so cut and dry. But i do agree with the majority, i feel its too hard for a mediocre team to win 13 games in the NFL. Remember the seahawks also made the super bowl with the worst SOS and we all know what happened to them after... but to be fair they were plagued by injuries.

JK17
08-29-2007, 07:20 PM
Wow... just a quick note: I've received quite a bit of negative rep over this thread... voicing my opinions in, what I consider to be, a reasonable way. Lets take a look:

I'll go ahead and reference that chart on this one. Honestly... can anyone say that the Bears don't play an easy schedule? Good one.

Interesting. Worth the negative rep. Next!

Interesting... also worth the negative rep. My argument: the Bears have an easy schedule. I don't get it? Next!

Uh oh... calling names. Red card! Honestly... this one is kinda funny. A homer? I never once said that the Lions should've beaten them... just that they play an easy schedule. Is that not true? Next!

Probably the most reasonable of the group. Sure, it doesn't seem like it, and no one will admit it, but I just don't think they're the dominant force everyone thinks they are. The defense is great... but benefits from playing horrible offenses on a regular basis. The offense? Riiiight. Same thing. Either way, I think they did.

That's all so far (at least that I can still read). If you'd like to throw some more negative, "internet popularity" my way for voicing my opinion (and stating facts), please feel free. Whatever gets you through the day.


You deserve all the negative rep you got, whatever the comments next to them are. You're ignorance is amazing. Regardless of the "schedule" they played, if these other teams were so much better, as you claim they are by saying those other teams would have won the NFC, they would have done so. They didn't that makes the Bears a better team.

Voicing your opinion is one thing but when you circle around the same argument, that really has little relevance (please argue to me that one of these teams is actually better, not that their schedule was more diffcult), its different.

TacticaLion
08-29-2007, 08:20 PM
You deserve all the negative rep you got, whatever the comments next to them are. You're ignorance is amazing. Regardless of the "schedule" they played, if these other teams were so much better, as you claim they are by saying those other teams would have won the NFC, they would have done so. They didn't that makes the Bears a better team.

Voicing your opinion is one thing but when you circle around the same argument, that really has little relevance (please argue to me that one of these teams is actually better, not that their schedule was more diffcult), its different.

Riiiight. So, whatever the comment was, I deserved it. Especially the "GO CHARGERS!!!!!" comment, huh? I wouldn't expect someone who disagrees with me to say anything different... especially someone who also gave me negative rep.

My ignorance is amazing? Wow. Read this one over again:
if these other teams were so much better, as you claim they are by saying those other teams would have won the NFC, they would have done so.
So, that means that the best team is always the team that wins that division/conference, regardless of that team's schedule or the situation? And I'm the ignorant one? Wow. Good one.

So, wait... if the best team always wins, who was the best team in the AFC? The team with the best record, or the team that won the Super Bowl? Hmm... interesting one, huh? I'd like an answer to this one, ok? Which AFC team last season was the very best: the Colts, the Chargers or the Pats? This one will be good.

News flash: the best team doesn't always win. There's always a chance for any team to win any game on any given day. If there's a 1/1000 chance that a high school team could beat the Browns, and they play 1 game, and that team happens to win that 1 game, whose the better team? (If you don't like the example, look past it for the point.) What's the point? A record is not a team.

This is all a joke, though. I'm the one that's called ignorant while others try to say that SOS doesn't matter... or that the best team has the best record. Good stuff. Keep 'em coming.

duckseason
08-29-2007, 08:50 PM
This is all a joke, though. I'm the one that's called ignorant while others try to say that SOS doesn't matter... or that the best team has the best record. Good stuff. Keep 'em coming.

It's not that SOS doesn't matter. It's the way you're using it. Commonly used statistical SOS is truly inaccurate and therefore irrelevant. However, different teams do indeed play more difficult schedules than others. Like I've said time and again, once you figure out a way to accurately determine true SOS, then you can enter it with merit into a conversation such as this.

As I pointed out before, you're questioning the validity of the Bears 13 wins by claiming that it's a result of playing a schedule riddled with opponents who have below average records. This is flawed logic. Are the Bears the only team in the league with a record that inaccurately reflects their true strength? If not, then you must admit that statistical SOS is garbage, seeing as SOS is entirely based on the overall records of a given teams opponents. You're contradicting yourself here. That 13-3 record contributes to the .543 SOS of the Giants and the .539 of the Bucs. It also works against the Bears since they gave the majority of their opponents a loss. As I've previously stated, I agree that the Bears didn't have one of the most difficult schedules in the league last year. But I didn't arrive at that conclusion by blindly following a meaningless stat and using shoddy logic.

JK17
08-29-2007, 10:08 PM
Riiiight. So, whatever the comment was, I deserved it. Especially the "GO CHARGERS!!!!!" comment, huh? I wouldn't expect someone who disagrees with me to say anything different... especially someone who also gave me negative rep.

My ignorance is amazing? Wow. Read this one over again:

So, that means that the best team is always the team that wins that division/conference, regardless of that team's schedule or the situation? And I'm the ignorant one? Wow. Good one.

So, wait... if the best team always wins, who was the best team in the AFC? The team with the best record, or the team that won the Super Bowl? Hmm... interesting one, huh? I'd like an answer to this one, ok? Which AFC team last season was the very best: the Colts, the Chargers or the Pats? This one will be good.

News flash: the best team doesn't always win. There's always a chance for any team to win any game on any given day. If there's a 1/1000 chance that a high school team could beat the Browns, and they play 1 game, and that team happens to win that 1 game, whose the better team? (If you don't like the example, look past it for the point.) What's the point? A record is not a team.

This is all a joke, though. I'm the one that's called ignorant while others try to say that SOS doesn't matter... or that the best team has the best record. Good stuff. Keep 'em coming.

This really isn't worth my time anymore, but even if you say they aren't the best team, even in the NFC, there is no possible way they are mediocre, and not one person will or has agreed wtih you. And no, that isn't always what matters, but for the most part, when you can't find one person to agree, you do need to rethink ur case.

No one is even saying the Bears are the best in the NFC, though they are, but saying they are mediocre...you just don't know what your talking about.

EDIT: And you wanted an answer, so I'll give it to you. I never said the best team always wins, but moreso mocked your theory that those other teams would have done something, when they had the chance to do it and didn't. But if you want an answer, in terms of playing as a team when it mattered, the Colts did the best of all three. They pulled it together when they had to , and the Chargers and Pats didn't. Now if you want to look at rosters, its another story. But if you wanna look at rosters, the Bears' isnt to shabby, so you don't have an argument there either.

No one says SOS doesn't matter, or the best team has the best record, you're reaching to try and make your argument sound better. Its okay I would resort to that too if I was losing. But if you actually think a 13-3 team, NFC Champion with a good roster is mediocre your just wrong. They may be overrated, but mediocre? No, they are not.

DaBears9654
08-29-2007, 10:13 PM
Give it up, Tactica. You will never win, especially when you consider that "weak schedules" didn't seem to help the 49ers, Bills, your Lions, Dolphins, and Vikings, all of whom finished 7-9 or worse (i.e.-losing records) against teams with combined win percentages < .500.

Average OT LB
08-29-2007, 11:04 PM
This really isn't worth my time anymore, but even if you say they aren't the best team, even in the NFC, there is no possible way they are mediocre, and not one person will or has agreed wtih you. And no, that isn't always what matters, but for the most part, when you can't find one person to agree, you do need to rethink ur case.

No one is even saying the Bears are the best in the NFC, though they are, but saying they are mediocre...you just don't know what your talking about.

EDIT: And you wanted an answer, so I'll give it to you. I never said the best team always wins, but moreso mocked your theory that those other teams would have done something, when they had the chance to do it and didn't. But if you want an answer, in terms of playing as a team when it mattered, the Colts did the best of all three. They pulled it together when they had to , and the Chargers and Pats didn't. Now if you want to look at rosters, its another story. But if you wanna look at rosters, the Bears' isnt to shabby, so you don't have an argument there either.

No one says SOS doesn't matter, or the best team has the best record, you're reaching to try and make your argument sound better. Its okay I would resort to that too if I was losing. But if you actually think a 13-3 team, NFC Champion with a good roster is mediocre your just wrong. They may be overrated, but mediocre? No, they are not.

but thats kinda playing into what hes been saying the whole time-- that if they had played the schedules of the other teams they would not be 13-3 and NFC champions and maybe the roster wouldnt look so good then. (its not like the players would get worse but as we all know problems get magnified against good teams. Maybe the cbs are slow- rex is bad etc..winning fixes all problems- losses creates them)


What this conversatin needs, is for each team to be have their records broken down- just how the conversation started. Its time to put numbers in instead of words..

TacticaLion
08-30-2007, 05:16 AM
Give it up, Tactica. You will never win, especially when you consider that "weak schedules" didn't seem to help the 49ers, Bills, your Lions, Dolphins, and Vikings, all of whom finished 7-9 or worse (i.e.-losing records) against teams with combined win percentages < .500.

Surprised you even pulled that out... considering how weak it is. I don't think the Bears are much of a team, but they're definitely better (last year) than those teams. They had a solid defense, a good offensive line and a decent running game... three things that, against below-average teams, gives them a definite edge.

I'll never win? Win what? A vacation? A grill? This isn't about "winning"... this is just me defending the point I originally made... especially against weak arguments. I don't expect everyone to just stop and say "Yannow what? He's right..."... because that just wouldn't happen. It's easier for everyone to just keep saying "Tactica, you're an idiot..." instead of admitting that it's probably true. Either way, I don't care. No one can say how good or bad the Bears would've been last year had they not played the weakest schedule in the NFL... but, my opinion is that they're a middle-of-the-pack team (in terms of talent) in a great opportunity.

This really isn't worth my time anymore, but even if you say they aren't the best team, even in the NFC, there is no possible way they are mediocre, and not one person will or has agreed wtih you. And no, that isn't always what matters, but for the most part, when you can't find one person to agree, you do need to rethink ur case.When I can't find one person to agree with me? Considering we've had the same 5 people (2 Bears fans) yelling back and forth, I'm not surprised that the perspectives haven't changed. It's not like the entire site has been in on this... and a poll was made... to say that I'm wrong. Keep in mind, we're talking about a situation that can't be proven... no one know what the Bears might've done with a hard schedule, but, considering the easy schedule they had, the talent on their roster and their success against top teams, I don't view them as a dominant team... by any means. As I said, middle-of-the-pack.

No one is even saying the Bears are the best in the NFC, though they are, but saying they are mediocre...you just don't know what your talking about.Really? Check this out:
if these other teams were so much better, as you claim they are by saying those other teams would have won the NFC, they would have done so. They didn't that makes the Bears a better team. Wow. Because "other teams in the NFC" didn't have the best record in the NFC, that makes the "Bears a better team" than those other teams, right? Well... I hope you agree... because it's what you said. So, you are saying it.

For example: I like the Jets as a team right now. They went out and made an attempt to build that offensive line up and, in the process, saw 10 wins. Definitely impressive. I also like the talent on the roster and feel that they're more than just a team that benefited from an easy schedule. But... they still had an easy schedule (just not as easy as the Bears). Could someone consider the Jets a middle-of-the-pack team? Sure they could. Would they have a point? Of course... the schedule was quite weak, so they've got something to prove. But, just because the Bears pulled off 13 wins (and home field advantage) and made it to the big game, people will never say that. But it could definitely be the case.

Note: this kinda makes me think of when I simulated a few season, with the Lions, in Madden 08. Sim 1: they went 4-12. Sim 2: they went 10-6 and the Bears went 5-11. Sim 3: they went 8-8. What am I getting at? The best team (the team with the most talent) doesn't always win. I think that's a lot like the NFL.

EDIT: And you wanted an answer, so I'll give it to you. I never said the best team always wins, but moreso mocked your theory that those other teams would have done something, when they had the chance to do it and didn't. But if you want an answer, in terms of playing as a team when it mattered, the Colts did the best of all three. They pulled it together when they had to , and the Chargers and Pats didn't. Now if you want to look at rosters, its another story. But if you wanna look at rosters, the Bears' isnt to shabby, so you don't have an argument there either.

No one says SOS doesn't matter, or the best team has the best record, you're reaching to try and make your argument sound better. Its okay I would resort to that too if I was losing. But if you actually think a 13-3 team, NFC Champion with a good roster is mediocre your just wrong. They may be overrated, but mediocre? No, they are not.Overrated?! You just called them the best team in the NFC!No one is even saying the Bears are the best in the NFC, though they are, but saying they are mediocre...Wow. So, by saying "they may be", are you saying they are overrated or that they aren't overrated? Which is it? If you think they are, then how are they also the best team in the NFC? If you think they aren't, whythehell did you even say it?

And, I do think the Bears roster (mainly their offense) is weak to look at. Things start from the QB position, and I'd take almost every QB in the NFL over Grossman. I'd rather have consistency than whatever he brings to the table. The backs were solid last year, although TJones was the workhorse. WR? Weak, in my opinion. Berrian is emerging, but he isn't there yet. Moose? Getting older and isn't much of a force anymore. Neither is a true #1. OLine? Solid. Not incredible, but OK.

And, after that's all said and done, I think there are other teams in the NFC that have MUCH better roster than the Bears.

Average OT LB
08-30-2007, 06:36 AM
Surprised you even pulled that out... considering how weak it is. I don't think the Bears are much of a team, but they're definitely better (last year) than those teams. They had a solid defense, a good offensive line and a decent running game... three things that, against below-average teams, gives them a definite edge.

I'll never win? Win what? A vacation? A grill? This isn't about "winning"... this is just me defending the point I originally made... especially against weak arguments. I don't expect everyone to just stop and say "Yannow what? He's right..."... because that just wouldn't happen. It's easier for everyone to just keep saying "Tactica, you're an idiot..." instead of admitting that it's probably true. Either way, I don't care. No one can say how good or bad the Bears would've been last year had they not played the weakest schedule in the NFL... but, my opinion is that they're a middle-of-the-pack team (in terms of talent) in a great opportunity.

When I can't find one person to agree with me? Considering we've had the same 5 people (2 Bears fans) yelling back and forth, I'm not surprised that the perspectives haven't changed. It's not like the entire site has been in on this... and a poll was made... to say that I'm wrong. Keep in mind, we're talking about a situation that can't be proven... no one know what the Bears might've done with a hard schedule, but, considering the easy schedule they had, the talent on their roster and their success against top teams, I don't view them as a dominant team... by any means. As I said, middle-of-the-pack.

Really? Check this out:
Wow. Because "other teams in the NFC" didn't have the best record in the NFC, that makes the "Bears a better team" than those other teams, right? Well... I hope you agree... because it's what you said. So, you are saying it.

For example: I like the Jets as a team right now. They went out and made an attempt to build that offensive line up and, in the process, saw 10 wins. Definitely impressive. I also like the talent on the roster and feel that they're more than just a team that benefited from an easy schedule. But... they still had an easy schedule (just not as easy as the Bears). Could someone consider the Jets a middle-of-the-pack team? Sure they could. Would they have a point? Of course... the schedule was quite weak, so they've got something to prove. But, just because the Bears pulled off 13 wins (and home field advantage) and made it to the big game, people will never say that. But it could definitely be the case.

Note: this kinda makes me think of when I simulated a few season, with the Lions, in Madden 08. Sim 1: they went 4-12. Sim 2: they went 10-6 and the Bears went 5-11. Sim 3: they went 8-8. What am I getting at? The best team (the team with the most talent) doesn't always win. I think that's a lot like the NFL.

Overrated?! You just called them the best team in the NFC!Wow. So, by saying "they may be", are you saying they are overrated or that they aren't overrated? Which is it? If you think they are, then how are they also the best team in the NFC? If you think they aren't, whythehell did you even say it?

And, I do think the Bears roster (mainly their offense) is weak to look at. Things start from the QB position, and I'd take almost every QB in the NFL over Grossman. I'd rather have consistency than whatever he brings to the table. The backs were solid last year, although TJones was the workhorse. WR? Weak, in my opinion. Berrian is emerging, but he isn't there yet. Moose? Getting older and isn't much of a force anymore. Neither is a true #1. OLine? Solid. Not incredible, but OK.

And, after that's all said and done, I think there are other teams in the NFC that have MUCH better roster than the Bears.

In response to the bolded comments

1. I agree they are better those teams because of the basic essentials that you listed. But that simultaneously proves they are capable of beating teams they are supposed to.. not as easy said then done..

2. I understand there are only 5 or so people disagreeing but do you think others agree with your side of the argument? If you think that is the case, and let me know. Ill start a thread with that very question, with a poll, and get an answer for you. Of course we'll have to duplicate the argument you made here, because without it i doubt people would think twice as you would suspect.

3. I'm really not a nit-picker but JK17 is a fellow charger fan so i should point out that you mis read him quote by accident.. He said that the people here arent even arguing they are the best in the NFC, but rather a top ranked team. He then goes on to say that he thinks they are. That is not a contradiction. He is pointing out that they are not arguing to the fullest extent and have instead settled for trying to prove they are a top ranked team...

4. let me clean it up.. you proved that hte bears earned a respect by winning more games and making it to the super bowl, and you dont think they should be looked at all too differently.. which i think you would agree is an unconventional approach. That doesnt mean its wrong of course, but wouldn't you also agree that a team that some felt didnt belong would be questioned much like how you would like it? That didnt happen though..

5. I agree. That is a very non-bias and fair way of evaluating the bears roster. as i stated earlier, if the bears didnt win so much the problems in the lineup would be clear - but since winning solves everythign and they won so much everything seems just peachy.

However that doenst mean there is an NFC team better. By the way, i notice that you forgot to analyze the defense..

JK17
08-30-2007, 08:37 AM
I'm not going to quote you're whole thing. It's pointless. No one said the Bears had a hard schedule. No One said they didn't benefit from having a weaker one. But I'd like to see proof any of the other teams you mentioned would have done better with it. I'd like to see proof, that any of those other on the bubble teams are actually better then the Bears. I'd also like to see a list of 15 teams you think are better, if you say they are middle of the pack.

TacticaLion
08-30-2007, 01:27 PM
I'm not going to quote you're whole thing. It's pointless. No one said the Bears had a hard schedule. No One said they didn't benefit from having a weaker one. But I'd like to see proof any of the other teams you mentioned would have done better with it. I'd like to see proof, that any of those other on the bubble teams are actually better then the Bears. I'd also like to see a list of 15 teams you think are better, if you say they are middle of the pack.
Wow. So, instead of realizing that having an easier schedule can make a team look (a lot) better, you'd rather me provide you with... proof?! Ok. Allow me. I'll call Mr. Goodell up and ask him to hold a special 2006 season... one where every team plays every other team 3 times and with the same roster they had in 2006. That's possible, right? Let me guess... then you'll think that, because I can't prove it, I don't have any reason to argue this perspective. Interesting.

Here's my bottom line: the Bears played an easy schedule. Is that a fact? That's my point to this whole thing... they played the easiest schedule in the NFL last year. If we took a poll of which team played the easiest schedule in 2006, would the Bears win? I bet they would.

Now, I'll take it 1 step further. If it was determined that they played the easiest schedule in the NFL, isn't it possible that a lot of the stats they put up are against those weak teams that they play on a weekly basis? If they played a higher level of competition, wouldn't it be possible that their defense wouldn't be as great as it was and their offensive weaknesses would be exploited with more regularity?

Take two random basketball players of equal talent... and have one play a 12 year old and the other play Kobe Bryant. If one put up crazy stats against the 12 year old, while the other struggled against Kobe, and a random fan compared the basic statistics, they'd probably think that one player (with the great stats) was better... when, in reality, the level of competition was that far off.

Yes, that example is extreme, but highlights my point: bad looks better against worse than it does against good.

I just made that up... kinda like it.

Ok... here. My list of teams that I think are better than or equal to the Bears:

Bengals
Steelers
Ravens
Colts
Jaguars
Chargers
Broncos
Cowboys
Eagles
Saints
Panthers
Seahawks
Rams

If those teams had the easiest schedule in the NFL in 2007, I think they'd put up a nice record. Sure, there's not 15 teams up there, but I said they're "middle-of-the-pack", which, to me, puts them in that main group of teams fighting for a playoff spot.

In response to the bolded comments

1. I agree they are better those teams because of the basic essentials that you listed. But that simultaneously proves they are capable of beating teams they are supposed to.. not as easy said then done..

2. I understand there are only 5 or so people disagreeing but do you think others agree with your side of the argument? If you think that is the case, and let me know. Ill start a thread with that very question, with a poll, and get an answer for you. Of course we'll have to duplicate the argument you made here, because without it i doubt people would think twice as you would suspect.

3. I'm really not a nit-picker but JK17 is a fellow charger fan so i should point out that you mis read him quote by accident.. He said that the people here arent even arguing they are the best in the NFC, but rather a top ranked team. He then goes on to say that he thinks they are. That is not a contradiction. He is pointing out that they are not arguing to the fullest extent and have instead settled for trying to prove they are a top ranked team...

4. let me clean it up.. you proved that hte bears earned a respect by winning more games and making it to the super bowl, and you dont think they should be looked at all too differently.. which i think you would agree is an unconventional approach. That doesnt mean its wrong of course, but wouldn't you also agree that a team that some felt didnt belong would be questioned much like how you would like it? That didnt happen though..

5. I agree. That is a very non-bias and fair way of evaluating the bears roster. as i stated earlier, if the bears didnt win so much the problems in the lineup would be clear - but since winning solves everythign and they won so much everything seems just peachy.

However that doenst mean there is an NFC team better. By the way, i notice that you forgot to analyze the defense..Good response. You seem to be one of the few posters that can disagree in a respectful way.

2. If there was a poll asking which team in the NFL had the easiest schedule in 2006, it would prove my point. Arguing if they're "mediocre" or "great" is pointless because it's the opinion of the fan, but it's a fact that they had one of, if not the easiest, schedule in the NFL. Once again, that whole level of competition and statistical advantage thing comes into play... which is, once again, speculation.

3. I guess I responded that way to him because, in a previous post, he said how if there was a better team, that better team would've won more games. Then, he said that no one said that the Bears were the best team in the NFC. He did, in a previous post, which was what I was responding to.

4. I guess that whole "record - SB" thing makes me think back to Madden. You can simulate the 2006 season 10 times in a row, without injuries, and get different standings every time. To me, the NFL would be similar. A few close games here and there for a few teams and everything shifts (imagine if VY played the entire season for Tenn). So, to me, it comes back down to the schedule the Bears played. If they won 10 games, not 13, and didn't have HFA in the playoffs, things could've been different.

Oh... and, for you, the Bears defense:

DE - Outstanding group with experience and youth. Mark Anderson is a promising young player who made the most of his opportunities last year, and Bazuin was a perfect addition to the group. Ogunleye is a solid performer and Brown is still a great pass rusher. A+

DT - Harris is a beast and Walker should help the unit forget about the loss of Tank. Not great depth but still a solid unit. B

OLB - Briggs is a great player and Hillenmeyer is solid. Perfect compliment to Urlacher and, together, form one of the top units in the NFL. Lacks proven depth. B

MLB - Urlacher. Urlacher, Urlacher, Urlacher. Although I hate him, he's, in my opinion, the top MLB in the NFL. Sure, I'll hear the "He's a system player..." chants, but he's complete, fast-as-hell, has great instincts and is a great leader. The total package. Depth? Who needs depth? A

CB - A group that, although the players are solid, I feel is a bit overrated. Vasher is a young talent and Tillman is becoming a stud, but "good" corners can usually look "great" in the Tampa 2 defense. Manning Jr is a good nickel but the depth isn't great. C

S - Mike Brown is solid, but missed some time in 2006. Archuleta had loads of talent, but I'll have to see him perform to believe that he's the Archuleta of old. The rest are unproven. C-

Once again, I think the schedule helped the defense look "dominant", but the unit is still a very good unit.


(Note: the Sept 3rd Sporting News lists the divisions from strongest to weakest. Strongest: the AFC North (Bengals, Steelers, Ravens, Browns). Weakest: the NFC North (Bears, Lions, Vikings, Packers).)

duckseason
08-30-2007, 01:42 PM
Are you 4? "I'm telling mommy!!!"

In order to have a conversation about football or anything else, you really do need to listen to and digest what's being said on the other side of the discussion. There's nothing reasonable about your shortsighted posts that litter this thread.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
08-30-2007, 02:13 PM
Okay, math time! Let's say there's a 10-6 team, and a 13-3 team. Now, let's say their SOS is completely even. Did you know the 13-3 team played a harder schedule? The 3 extra wins this 13-3 team got get translated as losses to other teams, weakening SOS. Just like the three extra losses the 10-6 team got are translated to wins for their opponents, strengthening SOS. There is a reason why traditionally teams with great records are near the bottom schedule-wise, and bad teams have a high SOS.

TacticaLion
08-30-2007, 04:12 PM
Are you 4? "I'm telling mommy!!!"

In order to have a conversation about football or anything else, you really do need to listen to and digest what's being said on the other side of the discussion. There's nothing reasonable about your shortsighted posts that litter this thread.Sorry... I'm not the one that started censoring profanity in the first place... it's the site. And, a moderator should be following the rules he enforces.

You keep saying that I'm not listening, yet I give reasonable responses to everything said my way (regardless as to how stupid it is).
Okay, math time! Let's say there's a 10-6 team, and a 13-3 team. Now, let's say their SOS is completely even. Did you know the 13-3 team played a harder schedule? The 3 extra wins this 13-3 team got get translated as losses to other teams, weakening SOS. Just like the three extra losses the 10-6 team got are translated to wins for their opponents, strengthening SOS. There is a reason why traditionally teams with great records are near the bottom schedule-wise, and bad teams have a high SOS.Tell me, right now, that the Bears didn't play one of the easiest schedules in the NFL last year. Just say it.

That applies to everyone. If you can honestly say that the Bears didn't play one of the easiest schedules in 2006, you have a reason to talk.

SuperMcGee
08-30-2007, 04:42 PM
Give it up, Tactica. You will never win, especially when you consider that "weak schedules" didn't seem to help the 49ers, Bills, your Lions, Dolphins, and Vikings, all of whom finished 7-9 or worse (i.e.-losing records) against teams with combined win percentages < .500.

What was posted was the preseason SOS for 2006. When it was all said and done, the Bills finished the season with the hardest SOS in the league. I don't feel like reading this whole argument, just poniting something out.

JK17
08-30-2007, 05:16 PM
Wow. So, instead of realizing that having an easier schedule can make a team look (a lot) better, you'd rather me provide you with... proof?! Ok. Allow me. I'll call Mr. Goodell up and ask him to hold a special 2006 season... one where every team plays every other team 3 times and with the same roster they had in 2006. That's possible, right? Let me guess... then you'll think that, because I can't prove it, I don't have any reason to argue this perspective. Interesting.

Everyone has already agreed to the fact the Bears played an easy schedule. But I guess if that was my only point, I'd bring it up a lot too.

Here's my bottom line: the Bears played an easy schedule. Is that a fact? That's my point to this whole thing... they played the easiest schedule in the NFL last year. If we took a poll of which team played the easiest schedule in 2006, would the Bears win? I bet they would.

Oh man, thats a bold statement, I'd hardly say the worst schedule...But geez even if they did, that schedule automatically discounts everything they accomplished in the season right? Because it was easy for them?

Now, I'll take it 1 step further. If it was determined that they played the easiest schedule in the NFL, isn't it possible that a lot of the stats they put up are against those weak teams that they play on a weekly basis? If they played a higher level of competition, wouldn't it be possible that their defense wouldn't be as great as it was and their offensive weaknesses would be exploited with more regularity?

You're right. Those 2 extra games the Bears played against weak opponents compared to other teams is what inflated their numbers. How did I not see that? Because the other teams all played difficult, even games weak in and weak out. Orrr.....instead of just trying to shut down the Bears as the only team who benefits from weak scheduling and/or a weak conference, maybe the other teams don't have as good numbers or competition because the Bears shut them down.? The Bears weren't the only team that got to play weak teams.

Take two random basketball players of equal talent... and have one play a 12 year old and the other play Kobe Bryant. If one put up crazy stats against the 12 year old, while the other struggled against Kobe, and a random fan compared the basic statistics, they'd probably think that one player (with the great stats) was better... when, in reality, the level of competition was that far off.

In essence, you just compared playing a weak NFL team, say the Lions, to a 12 year old. Now call me crazy, but the level of competition between Kobe Bryant and a 12 year old, is probably a little more extreme then the Lions and the Bears. Just a thoguht.

Yes, that example is extreme, but highlights my point: bad looks better against worse than it does against good.
They sure didn't look bad against the Saints, a team you had said was good. They sure didnt look bad throughout the playoffs, and at many times during the season.

Ok... here. My list of teams that I think are better than or equal to theBears:

Bengals
Steelers
Ravens
Colts
Jaguars
Chargers
Broncos
Cowboys
Eagles
Saints
Panthers
Seahawks
Rams


Why are those teams clear cut better, or even equal to the Bears? Teams that did nothing, nothing notable at all? Because they played 1 or 2 more "hard" teams, its automatically assumed they would do better if they had the Bears schedule. That's such a dumb, or ridiculous assumption you make. The Broncos had so many issues on defense towards the end of the year, not to mention a young QB. The Cowboys fell apart down the stretch too, every NFC East team did, their defense was poor, Romo was making mistakes, etc. The Eagles were up and down for all of 2006, so how are they so much better then the Bears? The Panthers?! Seahawks?! Rams?! All those teams had just as many, if not more issues then the Bears, and failed to make the playoffs, in the NFC(except SEA)! While records don't tell the whole story when teams lose 8 games in the regular season, how you can say they are on par with a team that only lost 3, is beyond me.

If it were reversed, and Seattle had the Bears schedule, went 13-3, and the Bears had Seattle's and went 9-7, what stops someone now from saying the Bears were the best team, but missed out on a good schedule? The only reaosn this argument wouldn't have come up is because you can't give the Bears credit because they are in the Lions' division.

If those teams had the easiest schedule in the NFL in 2007, I think they'd put up a nice record. Sure, there's not 15 teams up there, but I said they're "middle-of-the-pack", which, to me, puts them in that main group of teams fighting for a playoff spot.

So what you mean is, now that you realize they are not middle of the pack, you are going to redefine middle of the pack to be playoff contender. Desperate move in my opinion. But I'm sure those teams could have put up a nice record...did they? Were their schedules really so much harder, because of one or two games? Not to mention half the teams you listed could hardly be considered better then the Bears anyway.

awfullyquiet
08-30-2007, 05:20 PM
What was posted was the preseason SOS for 2006. When it was all said and done, the Bills finished the season with the hardest SOS in the league. I don't feel like reading this whole argument, just poniting something out.

That's mathing it.

SOS is really only reliable when you talk from a week-to-week change. from preseason ranking to end of season ranking.

TacticaLion
08-30-2007, 05:26 PM
Everyone has already agreed to the fact the Bears played an easy schedule. But I guess if that was my only point, I'd bring it up a lot too.



Oh man, thats a bold statement, I'd hardly say the worst schedule...But geez even if they did, that schedule automatically discounts everything they accomplished in the season right? Because it was easy for them?



You're right. Those 2 extra games the Bears played against weak opponents compared to other teams is what inflated their numbers. How did I not see that? Because the other teams all played difficult, even games weak in and weak out. Orrr.....instead of just trying to shut down the Bears as the only team who benefits from weak scheduling and/or a weak conference, maybe the other teams don't have as good numbers or competition because the Bears shut them down.? The Bears weren't the only team that got to play weak teams.



In essence, you just compared playing a weak NFL team, say the Lions, to a 12 year old. Now call me crazy, but the level of competition between Kobe Bryant and a 12 year old, is probably a little more extreme then the Lions and the Bears. Just a thoguht.


They sure didn't look bad against the Saints, a team you had said was good. They sure didnt look bad throughout the playoffs, and at many times during the season.



Why are those teams clear cut better, or even equal to the Bears? Teams that did nothing, nothing notable at all? Because they played 1 or 2 more "hard" teams, its automatically assumed they would do better if they had the Bears schedule. That's such a dumb, or ridiculous assumption you make. The Broncos had so many issues on defense towards the end of the year, not to mention a young QB. The Cowboys fell apart down the stretch too, every NFC East team did, their defense was poor, Romo was making mistakes, etc. The Eagles were up and down for all of 2006, so how are they so much better then the Bears? The Panthers?! Seahawks?! Rams?! All those teams had just as many, if not more issues then the Bears, and failed to make the playoffs, in the NFC(except SEA)! While records don't tell the whole story when teams lose 8 games in the regular season, how you can say they are on par with a team that only lost 3, is beyond me.

If it were reversed, and Seattle had the Bears schedule, went 13-3, and the Bears had Seattle's and went 9-7, what stops someone now from saying the Bears were the best team, but missed out on a good schedule? The only reaosn this argument wouldn't have come up is because you can't give the Bears credit because they are in the Lions' division.



So what you mean is, now that you realize they are not middle of the pack, you are going to redefine middle of the pack to be playoff contender. Desperate move in my opinion. But I'm sure those teams could have put up a nice record...did they? Were their schedules really so much harder, because of one or two games? Not to mention half the teams you listed could hardly be considered better then the Bears anyway.
You're pointless.

You agreed that the Bears played an easy schedule, yet yet are unwilling to consider that they aren't the top team in the NFC? You, like others, seem to think that wins are impressive, regardless of the opponent. Typical ignorance.

Point proven.

draftguru151
08-30-2007, 05:31 PM
Why can't the Bears be a top team and play a crappy schedule? Why does having an easy schedule eliminate a team from being a top in the conference?

TacticaLion
08-30-2007, 07:22 PM
Why can't the Bears be a top team and play a crappy schedule? Why does having an easy schedule eliminate a team from being a top in the conference?
Knowing the schedule they play, how can you know they're a top team? They've got some holes on offense and have a below average QB. They won many of their games with their defense against weak teams... and won in spite of Grossman. When you compare the talent on their team to some of the top teams, you see the holes wonder how they pulled off 13 wins.

They've got to prove they're dominant in the big games... in the same way that Peyton needed a SB ring, they need the big wins... or their record wont matter. An average fan who looks at their schedule can see that they played lesser competition and thrived because of it.

LonghornsLegend
08-30-2007, 08:34 PM
well for all the bashing, at least you guys have to give tactica credit, he really hasnt been acting immature about the whole argument, at least he's gone through the time each post to explain in detail and give reasoning behind his responses....


and duckseason does have a point about the best teams usually having a soft SOS and the bad teams having a tough SOS, the wins and losses alter that....although i dont think anyone is going to argue how bad the NFC north is/was, and how easy the bears schedule was...


but they did beat the saints and seahawks, whether at home or not, bad or mediocre teams probably wouldnt of pulled that off...the seahawks were a former super bowl team and experienced, they know how to win on the road, if the bears were really that bad they would of lost...

but yes if the season was played again they could of won 9 games, thats the way rex played...its kinda a moot point, and i doubt its coming to any agreement

draftguru151
08-30-2007, 09:20 PM
Knowing the schedule they play, how can you know they're a top team? They've got some holes on offense and have a below average QB. They won many of their games with their defense against weak teams... and won in spite of Grossman. When you compare the talent on their team to some of the top teams, you see the holes wonder how they pulled off 13 wins.

They've got to prove they're dominant in the big games... in the same way that Peyton needed a SB ring, they need the big wins... or their record wont matter. An average fan who looks at their schedule can see that they played lesser competition and thrived because of it.

How does the schedule effect the team? It may affect their record, but in no way does who they play change the talent of the team. If they played the best teams in the NFL every week would the talent of the team change? Their record might, but I don't see how them playing bad teams makes them a bad team. The Bears lost 4 games last year, one to the Dolphins (not a big game) and one the last week of the regular season. The lost to the Patriots by 4 points and the lost the SB. The dominated in the 2nd biggest game they played last year, the NFC championship game, they whooped the Saints 39-14. How is that not dominating in big games? So they didn't dominate in the other big game, the lost the SB, does that mean their not a good team (or not as good as their record indicates, whatever it is your saying).

The Bears had a great rushing attack with Jones/Benson. They have a great OL, a good TE in Clark, a solid WR group with Moose, Berrian, Davis, Bradley. They have a great defense when healthy. Great DEs, stud in Harris and the rest of the DTs did well, one of if not the best LB groups in the NFL, two great CBs, and an above average group of safeties. I don't know how you can say what you've been saying about the Bears. The biggest negative is Grossman, and he even played great for half the season. Last season the Bears did not have many holes.

You say you can see that because they played lesser competition they thrived because of it, but aren't you assuming that those teams are bad because of their records? Your arguments have been based entirely on numbers and nothing to actually do with the Bears, and not only is using only numbers never valid for an argument, you're using numbers that contradict your own arguments.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
08-30-2007, 09:27 PM
Knowing the schedule they play, how can you know they're a top team? They've got some holes on offense and have a below average QB. They won many of their games with their defense against weak teams... and won in spite of Grossman. When you compare the talent on their team to some of the top teams, you see the holes wonder how they pulled off 13 wins.

They've got to prove they're dominant in the big games... in the same way that Peyton needed a SB ring, they need the big wins... or their record wont matter. An average fan who looks at their schedule can see that they played lesser competition and thrived because of it.

You mean the dominance they showed in the NFCCG against the Saints? That's a pretty big game, against a team you say is better than them, and it was a thumping.

JK17
08-30-2007, 10:02 PM
You're pointless.

You agreed that the Bears played an easy schedule, yet yet are unwilling to consider that they aren't the top team in the NFC? You, like others, seem to think that wins are impressive, regardless of the opponent. Typical ignorance.

Point proven.

Except, I said they might not be the best team in the NFC, but I did say that there's no reason to think they aren't. There is definitely no reason to think they are middle of the pack, despite an easy schedule. A lot of teams, had a weak schedule. The Chargers had a weak schedule too, does that make them not elite?

JK17
08-30-2007, 10:04 PM
Your arguments have been based entirely on numbers and nothing to actually do with the Bears, and not only is using only numbers never valid for an argument, you're using numbers that contradict your own arguments.

Yeah, there's something I missed, and didn't bring up. All these "weak teams" that they played, you feel are weak becasue of their records, yet the records aren't an accurate reflection of the Bears?

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
08-30-2007, 10:06 PM
The Chargers easy schedule doesnt make them not elite, the fact that THEY SUCK makes them not elite.

duckseason
08-30-2007, 10:14 PM
Yeah, there's something I missed, and didn't bring up. All these "weak teams" that they played, you feel are weak becasue of their records, yet the records aren't an accurate reflection of the Bears?

Yeah I tried to pound that concept into TL's head numerous times, but to no avail. The fact that he thinks the Bears are the only team in the league with a record that inaccurately reflects their true strength shows how contradictory his entire argument is. Like I've said time after time, statistical SOS is complete garbage, and this is only one of the many reasons why.

TacticaLion
08-31-2007, 08:07 AM
The Chargers easy schedule doesnt make them not elite, the fact that THEY SUCK makes them not elite.

Wow, and I'm a homer?

Yeah I tried to pound that concept into TL's head numerous times, but to no avail. The fact that he thinks the Bears are the only team in the league with a record that inaccurately reflects their true strength shows how contradictory his entire argument is. Like I've said time after time, statistical SOS is complete garbage, and this is only one of the many reasons why.I've looked past SOS many times and listed the teams the Bears played in 2006... I even compared that level of competition against the other top teams. Allow me to repost:

the rest of the teams the Bears played (and their 2007 draft positions):

Detroit - 2nd pick (2 wins)
Tamp Bay - 4th pick (1 win)
Arizona - 5th pick (1 win)
Minnesota - 7th pick (2 wins)
Miami - 9th pick (1 loss)
San Fran - 11th pick (1 win)
Buffalo - 12th pick (1 win)
St Louis - 13th pick (1 win)
Green Bay - 16th pick (1 win, 1 loss)

8 of the Bears 13 wins came against sub .500 teams, and another 2 wins came against .500 teams. 10 of their 13 wins... hmm...

9 of the 16 regular season games the Bears played in 2006 were played against sub .500 opponents. Lets take a look at real teams and their schedules:

11 of the 16 games the Colts played in 2006 were played against against .500 or higher opponents.

11 of the 16 games the Broncos played in 2006 were played against .500 or higher opponents.

10 of the 16 games the Chargers played in 2006 were played against .500 or higher opponents.

10 of the 16 games the Ravens played in 2006 were played against .500 or higher opponents.

I've been saying this over and over again... yet you still don't seem to get it. Did the Bears play an easy schedule? Yes. The easiest in the NFL? Yes. Are there teams that played hard schedules? Yes. I have more respect for a team that went 8-8 with a hard as hell schedule than a team that walked to 13 wins with an easy schedule. If you can admit that the Bears had an easy schedule, then you should be able to understand that an average team looks better (statistically) when it plays weaker teams on a regular basis.

Another question for the many NFL experts on this site: does home field advantage in the playoffs make a difference? If you say yes, you must realize that, with their agreed easy schedule, it wasn't hard for them to achieve. If you say no, you better bring a good argument.

TacticaLion
08-31-2007, 09:01 AM
Your arguments have been based entirely on numbers and nothing to actually do with the Bears, and not only is using only numbers never valid for an argument, you're using numbers that contradict your own arguments.I wasn't going to respond to this, because it's pointless (since you obviously haven't read the thread)... but I will.

I've listed, time and time again, the flaws with the Bears. My initial argument really had nothing to do with a magical SOS formula, but was based on the actual teams they played. I've used random charts and stats to help support my argument, but, regardless of the numbers, look at the schedule they played! A lot of the teams were teams that struggled in 2006.

Read the entire thread before you state that my entire argument has been based on numbers and not on the Bears themselves.

JK17
08-31-2007, 09:12 AM
I wasn't going to respond to this, because it's pointless (since you obviously haven't read the thread)... but I will.

I've listed, time and time again, the flaws with the Bears. My initial argument really had nothing to do with a magical SOS formula, but was based on the actual teams they played. I've used random charts and stats to help support my argument, but, regardless of the numbers, look at the schedule they played! A lot of the teams were teams that struggled in 2006.

Read the entire thread before you state that my entire argument has been based on numbers and not on the Bears themselves.

Welll another problem is the teams you compared them too, can be argued as 5 of the best teams in the NFL, no one said the Bears were the best in the NFL. All I'm saying at least is its ridiculous to say they're medicore. All those teams you said were better then them, only because you think they'd have done better with the Bears schedule, were their schedules that much harder?

Also, if one of those teams did have the Bears' schedule and did about the same, why can't we just say that the team was weak because they played an easy schedule, like your doing?

TacticaLion
08-31-2007, 09:38 AM
OK, ladies and gentlemen... allow me to put this ******** "but their SOS is only low because they beat their opponents" argument to rest... because that's exactly what it is: ********.

The Reasoning

I decided to try something... I gave each of the Bears' opponents wins in the games that they played the Bears, as if the Bears had gone 0-16 in 2006. Each team improved by 1 win (and, for the Lions and Vikings, 2 wins) and the corresponding loss(es) was removed. Guess what I came up with?

.512

Yes... if the Bears had zero wins in 2006, they would have had a SOS of .512. Now, lets refer back to the SOS chart:

Team / (Opponent's winning percentage)

Cincinnati Bengals (.543)
New York Giants (.543)
New Orleans Saints (.539)
Tampa Bay Buccaneers (.539)
Pittsburgh Steelers (.531)
Kansas City Chiefs (.527)
Tennessee Titans (.527)
Baltimore Ravens (.523)
Houston Texans (.523)
Philadelphia Eagles (.520)
Oakland Raiders (.516)
Washington Redskins (.516)
Denver Broncos (.516)
Cleveland Browns (.512)
St. Louis Rams (.508)
Atlanta Falcons (.508)
Carolina Panthers (.504)
Dallas Cowboys (.504)
Arizona Cardinals (.500)
San Diego Chargers (.488)
Jacksonville Jaguars (.488)
Indianapolis Colts (.484)
San Francisco 49ers (.477)
Buffalo Bills (.477)
Detroit Lions (.473)
New England Patriots (.473)
Miami Dolphins (.469)
New York Jets (.465)
Minnesota Vikings (.457)
Seattle Seahawks (.457)
Green Bay Packers (.449)
As you can see, that puts them tied with the Browns and still below the Bengals, Giants, Saints, Bucs, Steelers, Chiefs, Titans, Ravens, Texans, Eagles, Redskins, Raiders, Broncos. Wow. No kidding? Interesting information, huh? If I increase the opponents winning percentage of every singe opponent the Bears beat in 2006, they are STILL tied for 14th. And... that's if they went 0-16, something no team did in 2006.

Good ****, huh? That's not even the end of it.

If you increase the wins of every opponent the Bears beat in 2006, it will raise every percentage for every team on the chart that played one of those teams. Teams below the Bears would move up the chart (some higher than the Bears) and teams above the Bears would move higher than they already are.

Get it? You can yell about one side of the situation all you'd like, but that second side exists and ruins that argument completely.

draftguru151
08-31-2007, 09:50 AM
I wasn't going to respond to this, because it's pointless (since you obviously haven't read the thread)... but I will.

I've listed, time and time again, the flaws with the Bears. My initial argument really had nothing to do with a magical SOS formula, but was based on the actual teams they played. I've used random charts and stats to help support my argument, but, regardless of the numbers, look at the schedule they played! A lot of the teams were teams that struggled in 2006.

Read the entire thread before you state that my entire argument has been based on numbers and not on the Bears themselves.

Your original argument was that they played bad teams and you posted the records of those teams. And then you go on to say the Bears aren't as good as their record indicates, but why are the teams they played automatically as bad as their record indicates? And your next argument was about the SOS, which the flaws have been pointed out over and over and over again. You continue to bring up the teams the Bears played and that is why they are an average team, but the only thing you said about the actual team was crap about Grossman and you gave grades to their defense, which weren't very accurate. You say they're average because they don't dominate big games, when they did dominate a big game, but the lost the super bowl and lost to the Patriots by 3 points and their average? It's amazing how you continue to ignore the arguments that are actually logical and continue to go on with the crap that people have proven is ridiculously flawed and is illogical in the first place. And you wonder why people give you neg rep? So go ahead and quote two lines of this that have nothing to do with the talent of the Bears and continue to argue about nonsense, and continue to act like you're smarter than everyone else on this board and how you're so superior to all of us. That's clearly the most obvious reason why every is arguing against this nonsense, it couldn't possibly be that you are so wrong that people can't even address your arguments because their so far off, so they rep you instead.

TacticaLion
08-31-2007, 10:05 AM
And your next argument was about the SOS, which the flaws have been pointed out over and over and over again.
Read my other post and show me the flaws.
OK, ladies and gentlemen... allow me to put this ******** "but their SOS is only low because they beat their opponents" argument to rest... because that's exactly what it is: ********.

The Reasoning

I decided to try something... I gave each of the Bears' opponents wins in the games that they played the Bears, as if the Bears had gone 0-16 in 2006. Each team improved by 1 win (and, for the Lions and Vikings, 2 wins) and the corresponding loss(es) was removed. Guess what I came up with?

.512

Yes... if the Bears had zero wins in 2006, they would have had a SOS of .512. Now, lets refer back to the SOS chart:

Team / (Opponent's winning percentage)

Cincinnati Bengals (.543)
New York Giants (.543)
New Orleans Saints (.539)
Tampa Bay Buccaneers (.539)
Pittsburgh Steelers (.531)
Kansas City Chiefs (.527)
Tennessee Titans (.527)
Baltimore Ravens (.523)
Houston Texans (.523)
Philadelphia Eagles (.520)
Oakland Raiders (.516)
Washington Redskins (.516)
Denver Broncos (.516)
Cleveland Browns (.512)
St. Louis Rams (.508)
Atlanta Falcons (.508)
Carolina Panthers (.504)
Dallas Cowboys (.504)
Arizona Cardinals (.500)
San Diego Chargers (.488)
Jacksonville Jaguars (.488)
Indianapolis Colts (.484)
San Francisco 49ers (.477)
Buffalo Bills (.477)
Detroit Lions (.473)
New England Patriots (.473)
Miami Dolphins (.469)
New York Jets (.465)
Minnesota Vikings (.457)
Seattle Seahawks (.457)
Green Bay Packers (.449)
As you can see, that puts them tied with the Browns and still below the Bengals, Giants, Saints, Bucs, Steelers, Chiefs, Titans, Ravens, Texans, Eagles, Redskins, Raiders, Broncos. Wow. No kidding? Interesting information, huh? If I increase the opponents winning percentage of every singe opponent the Bears beat in 2006, they are STILL tied for 14th. And... that's if they went 0-16, something no team did in 2006.

Good ****, huh? That's not even the end of it.

If you increase the wins of every opponent the Bears beat in 2006, it will raise every percentage for every team on the chart that played one of those teams. Teams below the Bears would move up the chart (some higher than the Bears) and teams above the Bears would move higher than they already are.

Get it? You can yell about one side of the situation all you'd like, but that second side exists and ruins that argument completely.

duckseason
08-31-2007, 10:45 AM
I've looked past SOS many times and listed the teams the Bears played in 2006... I even compared that level of competition against the other top teams. Allow me to repost:
See, but that's my point. All you're doing is posting statistical strength of schedule yet again. Referring to the records and draft positions of opponents is not an accurate method of determining the true difficulty level of a given team's schedule. I've given you mounds of insight as to why exactly that is, and you haven't even acknowledged the majority of these most basic concepts that I've laid out in front of your face. I won't repeat myself. Re-read those earlier posts. If you reply to this with anything other than agreement, then I'll just quote myself since everything regarding SOS that needs saying has been said. See, I've already agreed with you that I too, perceive the Bears schedule to be among the easier schedules in the league last year. Although I certainly don't put the gap nearly as wide as you seem to. Why can't you agree with me that looking at statistical SOS is not the correct way to arrive at that conclusion? Why can't you agree that there is indeed a vast gray area inherent within commonly used SOS rankings? Why haven't you acknowledged your repeated contradictions of yourself? Why did you ever start an argument with me in the first place when I brought nothing but objective insight to the table?


I've been saying this over and over again... yet you still don't seem to get it. Did the Bears play an easy schedule? Yes. The easiest in the NFL? Yes.
That is your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. However, it is far from being concrete fact. The fact you're misrepresenting here is that the Bears' 2006 opponents did indeed have the worst overall record than that of any other teams' opponents. That's as far as that fact goes though. It's all it reveals. You may think that the Bears did indeed play the easiest slate in '06, but you need to arrive at that conclusion by legitimate means if you want it to carry any weight among knowledgeable fans. And it will never be fact other than perhaps within individual minds. As far as I can tell, pinpointing exactly who played the easiest schedule in this league is a futile endeavor that cannot be accomplished by the human mind or modern computer.

Are there teams that played hard schedules? Yes. I have more respect for a team that went 8-8 with a hard as hell schedule than a team that walked to 13 wins with an easy schedule. If you can admit that the Bears had an easy schedule, then you should be able to understand that an average team looks better (statistically) when it plays weaker teams on a regular basis.
This is all opinion. I personally believe that no NFL wins comes easily. You need to be good to win games with regularity in this league. Being the better team on 15 out of 19 different occasions in one NFL season is a tremendous feat no matter how you slice it. They didn't play any directional schools. It's not like West Virginia gong 10-2. They're beating NFL teams, often badly. Can an 8-8 team be better than a 13-3 team? Perhaps. But that 8-8 team didn't prove it unless maybe they clearly beat the 13-3 team at their best. Any time 8 teams beat you in one season, you're definitely not one of the best teams in the league. If you thought you were, you failed to prove it. If you're 13-3, you may not have proved more in some peoples eyes, but you certainly haven't proven less. You mention all these teams who would have "easily" went 13-3 with the Bears record, but why do you dismiss the idea that the Bears may have went 13-3 with any of those other teams' records? Those are equal suppositions in my mind, and it seems odd to state one as fact while dismissing the other as impossible.

Another question for the many NFL experts on this site: does home field advantage in the playoffs make a difference? If you say yes, you must realize that, with their agreed easy schedule, it wasn't hard for them to achieve. If you say no, you better bring a good argument.
Of course home field is huge in this league. But like I've repeatedly stated, I don't consider the Bears' schedule to be easy just because I think it was easier than the slates of many other teams. I don't personally believe that the gap between any two teams' schedules is even half the size as you're making it out to be. Achieving home-field throughout the playoffs will always be hard to achieve in this league, imo. I can't fault you for disagreeing with me on this part, as it's all opinion. But I needn't "must realize" that "it wasn't hard" for the Bears to achieve HFA and the resulting Super Bowl berth.

duckseason
08-31-2007, 10:48 AM
OK, ladies and gentlemen... allow me to put this ******** "but their SOS is only low because they beat their opponents" argument to rest... because that's exactly what it is: ********.

The Reasoning

I decided to try something... I gave each of the Bears' opponents wins in the games that they played the Bears, as if the Bears had gone 0-16 in 2006. Each team improved by 1 win (and, for the Lions and Vikings, 2 wins) and the corresponding loss(es) was removed. Guess what I came up with?

.512

Yes... if the Bears had zero wins in 2006, they would have had a SOS of .512. Now, lets refer back to the SOS chart:


As you can see, that puts them tied with the Browns and still below the Bengals, Giants, Saints, Bucs, Steelers, Chiefs, Titans, Ravens, Texans, Eagles, Redskins, Raiders, Broncos. Wow. No kidding? Interesting information, huh? If I increase the opponents winning percentage of every singe opponent the Bears beat in 2006, they are STILL tied for 14th. And... that's if they went 0-16, something no team did in 2006.

Good ****, huh? That's not even the end of it.

If you increase the wins of every opponent the Bears beat in 2006, it will raise every percentage for every team on the chart that played one of those teams. Teams below the Bears would move up the chart (some higher than the Bears) and teams above the Bears would move higher than they already are.

Get it? You can yell about one side of the situation all you'd like, but that second side exists and ruins that argument completely.

I see that you're finally beginning to see why SOS is complete statistical garbage. That's what you're proving with this post. It reveals nothing about the Bears as a football team.

duckseason
08-31-2007, 10:50 AM
As far as I can tell, you're basically arguing that the two teams whose opponents end up with the best record should be the two teams in the Super Bowl. To hell with how many games a team wins! It's how many their opponents win!! DUH!

TacticaLion
08-31-2007, 12:54 PM
I see that you're finally beginning to see why SOS is complete statistical garbage. That's what you're proving with this post. It reveals nothing about the Bears as a football team.Actually... it reveals the flaws in the argument against it.

Everyone kept saying that the Bears "opponents win percentage" was only so low because of all the games they won. It makes sense... to a point. Sure, they won a lot of games, which would lower the record of their opponents and, in turn, lower that overall percentage, right? Well... not really. And I explained why.

Even without a win, the Bears "opponents win percentage" was middle of the pack... still lower than a lot of the other teams I put above of them. So, if your argument is that their "ow%" was so low because they beat most of their opponents, shouldn't it also be very high if they lost to most of their opponents? That wasn't the case. Even without recomputing the rest of the "ow%", which would raise most others above the Bears, they were still below a large number of teams I mentioned.

So, it had a lot to do with the topic at hand.

Conclusion
There are two information sources involved with a conversation/debate/argument like this (and most on this site): fact and opinion.

The Fact
The Bears had one of the easiest (if not the easiest) schedules in the NFL last year. That's nothing against them, but just the way the schedule (and division) played out.

The Opinion
Knowing this, I hesitate to give them too much credit for a 13-3 season. Looking back at the schedule, if the Bears were the powerhouse that everyone believes they were, there were at least 9 games that were complete mismatches in their favor (Detroit x2, Tampa Bay, Arizona, Minnesota x2, Miami, San Francisco and Buffalo). 9 games. In a weak division, that's a guaranteed playoff spot (if they're the team everyone claims they are).

I then look at teams and ask myself: which teams couldn't do that? Honestly, if a number of teams switched places with the Bears and played that schedule, they'd probably be welcoming HFA too. Keep in mind... this is my opinion, but I think it makes sense. Which teams couldn't make the playoffs in place of the Bears in the NFC North last year? A handful. That's it.

Bottom Line
If you agree that the Bears played an easy schedule in 2006 (which most do), how can you say their record wasn't an indication of that? Other teams had to claw and fight for a playoff spot against other playoff teams, while the Bears basically walked to the second round untouched. You can't just look at their record without considering their competition.

And, if having this opinion, derived from the "fact", makes me an idiot, ignorant, a homer and [insert random insult], so be it. It's a reasonable perspective, whether others believe it or not.

yodabear
08-31-2007, 12:58 PM
Eagles
Cowboys
Giants
Redskins
Bears
Packers
Vikings
Lions
Saints
Panthers
Falcons
Buccaneers
Seahawks
Rams
49ers
Cardinals
Jets
Bills
Dolphins
Ravens
Bengals
Steelers
Browns
Colts
Jaguars
Titans
Texans
Chargers
Chiefs
Broncos
Raiders

Its about the ring baby, and only 1 teams wins it, anything else is a disappointment.

TacticaLion
08-31-2007, 01:17 PM
Its about the ring baby, and only 1 teams wins it, anything else is a disappointment.I wouldn't be disappointed if the Lions went 12-4 and didn't win the SB (this year).

Might just be me.

JK17
08-31-2007, 01:40 PM
Actually... it reveals the flaws in the argument against it.

Everyone kept saying that the Bears "opponents win percentage" was only so low because of all the games they won. It makes sense... to a point. Sure, they won a lot of games, which would lower the record of their opponents and, in turn, lower that overall percentage, right? Well... not really. And I explained why.

Even without a win, the Bears "opponents win percentage" was middle of the pack... still lower than a lot of the other teams I put above of them. So, if your argument is that their "ow%" was so low because they beat most of their opponents, shouldn't it also be very high if they lost to most of their opponents? That wasn't the case. Even without recomputing the rest of the "ow%", which would raise most others above the Bears, they were still below a large number of teams I mentioned.

So, it had a lot to do with the topic at hand.

Conclusion
There are two information sources involved with a conversation/debate/argument like this (and most on this site): fact and opinion.

The Fact
The Bears had one of the easiest (if not the easiest) schedules in the NFL last year. That's nothing against them, but just the way the schedule (and division) played out.

The Opinion
Knowing this, I hesitate to give them too much credit for a 13-3 season. Looking back at the schedule, if the Bears were the powerhouse that everyone believes they were, there were at least 9 games that were complete mismatches in their favor (Detroit x2, Tampa Bay, Arizona, Minnesota x2, Miami, San Francisco and Buffalo). 9 games. In a weak division, that's a guaranteed playoff spot (if they're the team everyone claims they are).

I then look at teams and ask myself: which teams couldn't do that? Honestly, if a number of teams switched places with the Bears and played that schedule, they'd probably be welcoming HFA too. Keep in mind... this is my opinion, but I think it makes sense. Which teams couldn't make the playoffs in place of the Bears in the NFC North last year? A handful. That's it.

Bottom Line
If you agree that the Bears played an easy schedule in 2006 (which most do), how can you say their record wasn't an indication of that? Other teams had to claw and fight for a playoff spot against other playoff teams, while the Bears basically walked to the second round untouched. You can't just look at their record without considering their competition.

And, if having this opinion, derived from the "fact", makes me an idiot, ignorant, a homer and [insert random insult], so be it. It's a reasonable perspective, whether others believe it or not.


Other "Facts"

The Bears, despite their easy schedule, got to 13-3. That's about what you could expect from any of those other teams, at best in such a situation. The Bears beat many of these other teams. The Bears made it to the Super Bowl. Aside from Quarterback, the Bears have a very good roster. There is no guarantee that any of those other teams would have done better.

FACT: Your entire argument is based around IFs and Maybe's.

If the Eagles had the Bears schedule They might have gotten HFA. If they had HFA, they might have been able to win the NFC Championship. If the Bears had a harder schedule, they wouldn't have done the same things. If the Broncos, or other average AFC teams were in the NFC, they would have done what the Bears did.

Instead of speculating what other teams might have done why do you refuse to look at what the Bears HAVE done. Besides, what more do you want them to do. They're one game away from winning a Super Bowl. Do you honestly expect, any of those other teams to do something different, or better then what they did, even if they had their situation? It's incredibly ignorant to just grant them that status, with no evidence but you think they'd have done better.

Average OT LB
08-31-2007, 01:48 PM
Other "Facts"

The Bears, despite their easy schedule, got to 13-3. That's about what you could expect from any of those other teams, at best in such a situation. The Bears beat many of these other teams. The Bears made it to the Super Bowl. Aside from Quarterback, the Bears have a very good roster. There is no guarantee that any of those other teams would have done better.

FACT: Your entire argument is based around IFs and Maybe's.

If the Eagles had the Bears schedule They might have gotten HFA. If they had HFA, they might have been able to win the NFC Championship. If the Bears had a harder schedule, they wouldn't have done the same things. If the Broncos, or other average AFC teams were in the NFC, they would have done what the Bears did.

Instead of speculating what other teams might have done why do you refuse to look at what the Bears HAVE done. Besides, what more do you want them to do. They're one game away from winning a Super Bowl. Do you honestly expect, any of those other teams to do something different, or better then what they did, even if they had their situation? It's incredibly ignorant to just grant them that status, with no evidence but you think they'd have done better.

The whole argument is based on ifs and maybes because it is an opinion. The situation didnt happen so there are no facts. Which is why this argument has reached the point were both sides cannot win- its arguing one opinion vs another. Some may not see it that way, but it is, its just a very unconventional way of looking at things.

Ill be making a poll to find out who agrees to which side. Any proposals as to how the poll should be set up please post them. Ill try and make the thread within 24 hours.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
08-31-2007, 01:50 PM
TacticaLion doesn't need facts.

duckseason
08-31-2007, 02:05 PM
Actually... it reveals the flaws in the argument against it.
No, it really doesn't.

Everyone kept saying that the Bears "opponents win percentage" was only so low because of all the games they won. It makes sense... to a point. Sure, they won a lot of games, which would lower the record of their opponents and, in turn, lower that overall percentage, right? Well... not really. And I explained why.
I said far, far more than that. Every point I made explaining the flaws inherent within statistical SOS hold validity. Reread the posts, and understand them. The paragraph above indicates you've yet to do such. There's a reason you're not responding to my posts point by point like I'm doing with you. It's because there is no sensible counterpoints to be made without mangling my words.

Even without a win, the Bears "opponents win percentage" was middle of the pack... still lower than a lot of the other teams I put above of them. So, if your argument is that their "ow%" was so low because they beat most of their opponents, shouldn't it also be very high if they lost to most of their opponents? That wasn't the case. Even without recomputing the rest of the "ow%", which would raise most others above the Bears, they were still below a large number of teams I mentioned.
Again, the whole "varying records of the teams in question affecting SOS" thing was only one of many reasons why statistical SOS should not be taken at face value. It was mainly used to show critical errors in your thought process regarding the subject of SOS. Such as the fact that you've contradicted yourself on numerous occasions throughout this entire argument through faulty use of the numbers.

So, it had a lot to do with the topic at hand.

Conclusion
There are two information sources involved with a conversation/debate/argument like this (and most on this site): fact and opinion.

The Fact
The Bears had one of the easiest (if not the easiest) schedules in the NFL last year. That's nothing against them, but just the way the schedule (and division) played out.
It's unconscionable that you continue to spout this nonsense in the face of being proven otherwise time and again. That is NOT a fact. The FACT here is that the Bears opponents had a lower overall win percentage than that of any other given team in the league. What you've stated above is an opinion based on this fact. How do you not yet understand this? My entire argument here is to show the error you're making with this line of reasoning. To encourage you to throw the irrelevant BS out the window while attempting to explain your thoughts on the Bears perceived strength or weakness and to come with something meaningful. Sure, you can throw in a meaningless stat here and there to help illustrate and perhaps bolster your argument in a discussion such as this. But basing your entire argument on something so nugatory and to present it with such boisterous authority at the same time will only invite negative criticism. People like me will come in and expose your flawed logic for what it is and riddle your posts with more holes than were already there.

The Opinion
Knowing this, I hesitate to give them too much credit for a 13-3 season. Looking back at the schedule, if the Bears were the powerhouse that everyone believes they were, there were at least 9 games that were complete mismatches in their favor (Detroit x2, Tampa Bay, Arizona, Minnesota x2, Miami, San Francisco and Buffalo). 9 games. In a weak division, that's a guaranteed playoff spot (if they're the team everyone claims they are).

I then look at teams and ask myself: which teams couldn't do that? Honestly, if a number of teams switched places with the Bears and played that schedule, they'd probably be welcoming HFA too. Keep in mind... this is my opinion, but I think it makes sense. Which teams couldn't make the playoffs in place of the Bears in the NFC North last year? A handful. That's it.
Again, you're more than entitled to your opinion and I actually agree with parts of it (albeit it with much less fervor and to a lesser degree on the majority of it.) I just take issue with how you arrived at it and the way you presented it.

Bottom Line
If you agree that the Bears played an easy schedule in 2006 (which most do), how can you say their record wasn't an indication of that? Other teams had to claw and fight for a playoff spot against other playoff teams, while the Bears basically walked to the second round untouched. You can't just look at their record without considering their competition.

And, if having this opinion, derived from the "fact", makes me an idiot, ignorant, a homer and [insert random insult], so be it. It's a reasonable perspective, whether others believe it or not.
I'll just quote myself from earlier to remind you of another flaw here-

I personally believe that no NFL wins comes easily. You need to be good to win games with regularity in this league. Being the better team on 15 out of 19 different occasions in one NFL season is a tremendous feat no matter how you slice it. They didn't play any directional schools. It's not like West Virginia gong 10-2. They're beating NFL teams, often badly. Can an 8-8 team be better than a 13-3 team? Perhaps. But that 8-8 team didn't prove it unless maybe they clearly beat the 13-3 team at their best. Any time 8 teams beat you in one season, you're definitely not one of the best teams in the league. If you thought you were, you failed to prove it. If you're 13-3, you may not have proved more in some peoples eyes, but you certainly haven't proven less. You mention all these teams who would have "easily" went 13-3 with the Bears record, but why do you dismiss the idea that the Bears may have went 13-3 with any of those other teams' records? Those are equal suppositions in my mind, and it seems odd to state one as fact while dismissing the other as impossible.

TacticaLion
08-31-2007, 03:03 PM
Any time 8 teams beat you in one season, you're definitely not one of the best teams in the league. If you thought you were, you failed to prove it. If you're 13-3, you may not have proved more in some peoples eyes, but you certainly haven't proven less.
Couldn't disagree more.

A great team that plays a hard schedule will lose more games than an average team that plays an incredibly easy schedule. 13-3 against the worst teams and 8-8 against some of the best... is it that hard to look past the record and actually realize that a team's schedule affects that team's record?

I said far, far more than that. Every point I made explaining the flaws inherent within statistical SOS hold validity. Reread the posts, and understand them. The paragraph above indicates you've yet to do such. There's a reason you're not responding to my posts point by point like I'm doing with you. It's because there is no sensible counterpoints to be made without mangling my words.You may be arguing against "statistical SOS"... and that's great. Good on you. I might even toss you some rep. Congrats.

I'm not talking about "statistical SOS" in general, but about that one list (ow%) and the comments made to defend the Bears incredibly low %. The following comments were made:
It also works against the Bears since they gave the majority of their opponents a loss.
Okay, math time! Let's say there's a 10-6 team, and a 13-3 team. Now, let's say their SOS is completely even. Did you know the 13-3 team played a harder schedule? The 3 extra wins this 13-3 team got get translated as losses to other teams, weakening SOS. Just like the three extra losses the 10-6 team got are translated to wins for their opponents, strengthening SOS. There is a reason why traditionally teams with great records are near the bottom schedule-wise, and bad teams have a high SOS.
and duckseason does have a point about the best teams usually having a soft SOS and the bad teams having a tough SOS, the wins and losses alter that....I proved that, regardless of how many losses the Bears gave their opponents (I even went to 0), the ow% was still incredibly low... especially to be considered an elite team by many. I wasn't defending every "statistical SOS" formula in existence... but was pointing out that it wasn't just the Bears wins against those teams that lowered their ow%, but the fact that the teams the Bears played struggled in 2006.
It's unconscionable that you continue to spout this nonsense in the face of being proven otherwise time and again. That is NOT a fact.It isn't a fact that the Bears played one of the easiest schedules in the NFL last year? Wow. News to me (and most other NFL fans).

TacticaLion doesn't need facts.You're like that little, annoying, skinny kid in the back of the group... talking **** and letting the others handle it when it comes back your way. Funny, actually... and I'm not surprised you use the internet to compensate.

The whole argument is based on ifs and maybes because it is an opinion. The situation didnt happen so there are no facts. Which is why this argument has reached the point were both sides cannot win- its arguing one opinion vs another. Some may not see it that way, but it is, its just a very unconventional way of looking at things.

Ill be making a poll to find out who agrees to which side. Any proposals as to how the poll should be set up please post them. Ill try and make the thread within 24 hours.Actually, most of this site is based on "ifs and maybes"... because it's sports. The season lasts for only a few months, but the speculation about it never stops. Almost every thread on this site is based on projection and opinion... without opinion, most threads wouldn't exist.

But, you're right... as I was saying, this is just opinion. I'm quite certain that most will agree that the Bears had one of the easiest schedules in the NFL last year... and, if you make a poll, that should be the question. To a reasonable fan, that answer will tell him everything he needs to know (the level of competition a team plays affects that team's record).

Ah well.

bearsfan_51
08-31-2007, 03:12 PM
Do we really need a seperate poll and a thread? I mean...does anyone really care? Hell I'm a Bears fan and even I don't care, although this thread amuses me greatly.