Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chicago Bears Discussion

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by johbur
    Originally posted by bearsfan_51
    Originally posted by bigbluedefense
    We lost fair and square. No denying it. We got outcoached, outperformed, everything, top to bottom.

    I think these 2 teams are the best in the NFC though, and I wouldn't be surprised if we meet again, but I have a feeling it will be at your house if it happens.
    I don't think there's any question. The Bears are 3 games up on the Giants with only 7 games left to play. If we finish 12-4 HFA should be ours. That's 4-3 over the next 7 games, barring a collapse I think that's well within reach. Even if we lose the next two games, the only remaining even remotely difficult one is the road one against the Rams, and that's just because it's in a dome. Obviously we can't take any game for granted, but still...
    There's also your year-end loss to the Packers.
    Hopefully we do lose that game, that means all of our starters are rested and we'll have everything wrapped up.


    Nobody cares about your stupid fantasy team.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by johbur
      Originally posted by bearsfan_51
      Originally posted by bigbluedefense
      We lost fair and square. No denying it. We got outcoached, outperformed, everything, top to bottom.

      I think these 2 teams are the best in the NFC though, and I wouldn't be surprised if we meet again, but I have a feeling it will be at your house if it happens.
      I don't think there's any question. The Bears are 3 games up on the Giants with only 7 games left to play. If we finish 12-4 HFA should be ours. That's 4-3 over the next 7 games, barring a collapse I think that's well within reach. Even if we lose the next two games, the only remaining even remotely difficult one is the road one against the Rams, and that's just because it's in a dome. Obviously we can't take any game for granted, but still...
      There's also your year-end loss to the Packers.
      Hopefully we do lose that game, that means all of our starters are rested and we'll have everything wrapped up.


      Nobody cares about your stupid fantasy team.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by bearsfan_51
        Originally posted by johbur
        Originally posted by bearsfan_51
        Originally posted by bigbluedefense
        We lost fair and square. No denying it. We got outcoached, outperformed, everything, top to bottom.

        I think these 2 teams are the best in the NFC though, and I wouldn't be surprised if we meet again, but I have a feeling it will be at your house if it happens.
        I don't think there's any question. The Bears are 3 games up on the Giants with only 7 games left to play. If we finish 12-4 HFA should be ours. That's 4-3 over the next 7 games, barring a collapse I think that's well within reach. Even if we lose the next two games, the only remaining even remotely difficult one is the road one against the Rams, and that's just because it's in a dome. Obviously we can't take any game for granted, but still...
        There's also your year-end loss to the Packers.
        Hopefully we do lose that game, that means all of our starters are rested and we'll have everything wrapped up.
        that's cool....i'd gladly take a win against your JV squad...although, as a gambling man...we already saw "good rex" in september, so the odds are in our favor that we'd see "bad rex" in december and be able to beat your starters too. :D

        Comment


        • Originally posted by drowe
          Originally posted by bearsfan_51
          Originally posted by johbur
          Originally posted by bearsfan_51
          Originally posted by bigbluedefense
          We lost fair and square. No denying it. We got outcoached, outperformed, everything, top to bottom.

          I think these 2 teams are the best in the NFC though, and I wouldn't be surprised if we meet again, but I have a feeling it will be at your house if it happens.
          I don't think there's any question. The Bears are 3 games up on the Giants with only 7 games left to play. If we finish 12-4 HFA should be ours. That's 4-3 over the next 7 games, barring a collapse I think that's well within reach. Even if we lose the next two games, the only remaining even remotely difficult one is the road one against the Rams, and that's just because it's in a dome. Obviously we can't take any game for granted, but still...
          There's also your year-end loss to the Packers.
          Hopefully we do lose that game, that means all of our starters are rested and we'll have everything wrapped up.
          that's cool....i'd gladly take a win against your JV squad...although, as a gambling man...we already saw "good rex" in september, so the odds are in our favor that we'd see "bad rex" in december and be able to beat your starters too. :D
          No.


          Nobody cares about your stupid fantasy team.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by bigbluedefense
            We lost fair and square. No denying it. We got outcoached, outperformed, everything, top to bottom.

            I think these 2 teams are the best in the NFC though, and I wouldn't be surprised if we meet again, but I have a feeling it will be at your house if it happens.

            But if we plan on meeting you guys again, it only happens if Eli Manning can learn to control his arm, he's been throwing up way too many picks. The offensive scheme is horrendous as well, but still, Eli needs to control himself.

            The local media has been destroying Coughlin and Huffnagel on the radio today. I personally want a coaching change, but I doubt it happens. But to get on subject, we lost fair and square. I don't care if we were hurt, we just lost, period. No excuses.
            I like your avy...

            ^Thanks to Eaglez.Fan for the sweet sig!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by SevenNationArmy
              Originally posted by sweetness34
              Ok yea, we're getting creamed by about 10 other teams in the post count. Where the hell are all the Bear fans?

              Where did you go to KBear and toonster?
              Did i say you could talk?
              Might want to learn that when you say "I," it's supposed to be capatlized. Just some food for thought in your future posts.


              Another sig courtesy of BoneKrusher

              Originally posted by JBCX
              Despite looking better against an underachieving Eagles team, I still think the Bears are one of the worst teams in the NFL. I smell a blowout victory by the Lions this week and a division sweep.

              Comment


              • So we have the Jets coming up. I can see us winning this game. And that would make me very very happy, because we'd have finished with a winning record on the road trip. It will come down to keeping Grossman up and giving him time to throw.

                sig by VLS
                Originally posted by Smokey Joe
                I don't care...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Hurricane Ditka
                  So we have the Jets coming up. I can see us winning this game. And that would make me very very happy, because we'd have finished with a winning record on the road trip. It will come down to keeping Grossman up and giving him time to throw.
                  It will come down to whether or not we can run the ball as well and like you said if we can protect Rex.

                  That and our D needs to just beat the hell out of the Jets. Get all over Pennington in the 1st Half and get him jittery. He's a good QB when he's on so we need pressure.

                  My biggest concern about this game though is beating ourselves. We did it against Miami and we did it against Arizona. We need to limit TO's and penalties on Sunday as well. 5 false starts by our veteran OL is unacceptable. Hang on to the football, Rex play smart (ie OL protect him), OL no dumb penalties, and WR's catch the ball. If we do that I think we'll be ok.


                  Another sig courtesy of BoneKrusher

                  Originally posted by JBCX
                  Despite looking better against an underachieving Eagles team, I still think the Bears are one of the worst teams in the NFL. I smell a blowout victory by the Lions this week and a division sweep.

                  Comment


                  • Lovie Smith is badass.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by sweetness34
                      Originally posted by SevenNationArmy
                      Originally posted by sweetness34
                      Ok yea, we're getting creamed by about 10 other teams in the post count. Where the hell are all the Bear fans?

                      Where did you go to KBear and toonster?
                      Did i say you could talk?
                      Might want to learn that when you say "I," it's supposed to be capatlized. Just some food for thought in your future posts.
                      Ha, people do this a lot more lately, and it could be done all day.

                      Hitman D

                      "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." - Henry David Thoreau

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Boston
                        Originally posted by sweetness34
                        Originally posted by SevenNationArmy
                        Originally posted by sweetness34
                        Ok yea, we're getting creamed by about 10 other teams in the post count. Where the hell are all the Bear fans?

                        Where did you go to KBear and toonster?
                        Did i say you could talk?
                        Might want to learn that when you say "I," it's supposed to be capatlized. Just some food for thought in your future posts.
                        Ha, people do this a lot more lately, and it could be done all day.
                        It's a hard word to spell. He capitalized the word "Did" and didn't capitalize "i." :?

                        He's a jag anyway so really don't care.


                        Another sig courtesy of BoneKrusher

                        Originally posted by JBCX
                        Despite looking better against an underachieving Eagles team, I still think the Bears are one of the worst teams in the NFL. I smell a blowout victory by the Lions this week and a division sweep.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by drowe
                          that's cool....i'd gladly take a win against your JV squad...although, as a gambling man...we already saw "good rex" in september, so the odds are in our favor that we'd see "bad rex" in december and be able to beat your starters too. :D
                          Hmmm.... Rex has had two awful games (we saw "Bad Rex," in your parlance, vs. Arizona and Miami), one mediocre game (vs. Vikings), and six terrific games. Someone on the Tribune site pointed out when Sunday Night Football put the graphic up comparing Eli's 4th-quarter performance this season vs. Rex's 4th-quarter performance, Eli's numbers blew Rex's away--but that's because Rex hasn't had to play very much in the 4th quarter this year, and in several of the games he has played deep into the 4th, he's been handing off 80% of the time.

                          So really, "Bad Rex" comes out less than 1/3 of the time :roll: . I think that ratio bore up in the Giants game, too. For the first 20 minutes, he struggled. Then for 5 minutes or so he was OK. Then for 35 minutes, he looked good.

                          As much as I disagree with resting starters for an entire game, I have the feeling that the Bears go into week 17 not needing to win. I hold Lovie to his word, though, in that he takes the Green Bay rivalry seriously, so I don't see anyone without a valid injury (e.g., Clark's nagging ankle injury, Urlacher if his toe is ouchy) sitting for that whole game. Sure, the starters get pulled at halftime, but the rivalry counts for something, and I think (despite what 51 would say) that there is something lost when players sit out games.

                          Oh, and 51, remember what I said about Mike Brown being the 2nd-most important player to the defense...?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by IBleedNavyandOrange
                            Originally posted by drowe
                            that's cool....i'd gladly take a win against your JV squad...although, as a gambling man...we already saw "good rex" in september, so the odds are in our favor that we'd see "bad rex" in december and be able to beat your starters too. :D
                            Hmmm.... Rex has had two awful games (we saw "Bad Rex," in your parlance, vs. Arizona and Miami), one mediocre game (vs. Vikings), and six terrific games. Someone on the Tribune site pointed out when Sunday Night Football put the graphic up comparing Eli's 4th-quarter performance this season vs. Rex's 4th-quarter performance, Eli's numbers blew Rex's away--but that's because Rex hasn't had to play very much in the 4th quarter this year, and in several of the games he has played deep into the 4th, he's been handing off 80% of the time.

                            So really, "Bad Rex" comes out less than 1/3 of the time :roll: . I think that ratio bore up in the Giants game, too. For the first 20 minutes, he struggled. Then for 5 minutes or so he was OK. Then for 35 minutes, he looked good.

                            As much as I disagree with resting starters for an entire game, I have the feeling that the Bears go into week 17 not needing to win. I hold Lovie to his word, though, in that he takes the Green Bay rivalry seriously, so I don't see anyone without a valid injury (e.g., Clark's nagging ankle injury, Urlacher if his toe is ouchy) sitting for that whole game. Sure, the starters get pulled at halftime, but the rivalry counts for something, and I think (despite what 51 would say) that there is something lost when players sit out games.
                            ok, so bad rex comes out 1/3 of the time...Packers play the Bears twice...still gives us pretty good odds doesn't it?


                            also, even if the bears play their starters in week 17, they still won't give a crap. they'll be playing it conservative and looking ahead to the playoffs and their week off. ........make whatever you want outa that.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by IBleedNavyandOrange
                              Originally posted by drowe
                              that's cool....i'd gladly take a win against your JV squad...although, as a gambling man...we already saw "good rex" in september, so the odds are in our favor that we'd see "bad rex" in december and be able to beat your starters too. :D
                              Hmmm.... Rex has had two awful games (we saw "Bad Rex," in your parlance, vs. Arizona and Miami), one mediocre game (vs. Vikings), and six terrific games. Someone on the Tribune site pointed out when Sunday Night Football put the graphic up comparing Eli's 4th-quarter performance this season vs. Rex's 4th-quarter performance, Eli's numbers blew Rex's away--but that's because Rex hasn't had to play very much in the 4th quarter this year, and in several of the games he has played deep into the 4th, he's been handing off 80% of the time.

                              So really, "Bad Rex" comes out less than 1/3 of the time :roll: . I think that ratio bore up in the Giants game, too. For the first 20 minutes, he struggled. Then for 5 minutes or so he was OK. Then for 35 minutes, he looked good.

                              As much as I disagree with resting starters for an entire game, I have the feeling that the Bears go into week 17 not needing to win. I hold Lovie to his word, though, in that he takes the Green Bay rivalry seriously, so I don't see anyone without a valid injury (e.g., Clark's nagging ankle injury, Urlacher if his toe is ouchy) sitting for that whole game. Sure, the starters get pulled at halftime, but the rivalry counts for something, and I think (despite what 51 would say) that there is something lost when players sit out games.

                              Oh, and 51, remember what I said about Mike Brown being the 2nd-most important player to the defense...?
                              Untill I see some solid evidence that teams are more likely to lose in the playoffs by resting players my opinion will not change. The media likes to make something out of it becuase they need something to talk about. If you ask most players (and they have) they would prefer to rest their bodies for a week or two, it only makes sense. The playoffs are a ***** to get through either way, there are no "letdowns" because every team that gets at least to the second round is a pretty good team.

                              As for Mike Brown, you may have a point, but I still find it hard to believe that one man can make that big of a difference. Besides, our run D hasn't been stellar all year long. I think the biggest difference is the long runs. Manning/Johnson/Harris aren't the safety valve that Brown is, and that is definately an area of concern.


                              Nobody cares about your stupid fantasy team.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by bearsfan_51
                                Untill I see some solid evidence that teams are more likely to lose in the playoffs by resting players my opinion will not change. The media likes to make something out of it becuase they need something to talk about. If you ask most players (and they have) they would prefer to rest their bodies for a week or two, it only makes sense. The playoffs are a *********** to get through either way, there are no "letdowns" because every team that gets at least to the second round is a pretty good team.
                                I'm afraid there isn't any hard-and-fast empirics on that either way; like history, you end up arguing counterfactuals, and that's why history isn't a social science, but is instead under the 'humanities.'

                                Here's the way I look at it, though--and granted, I have no pro experience and only played one year of college ball--the bye week that the top two seeds get allows players to heal their dings and nicks. Most more-serious injuries don't heal up even with an extra week off. And considering that the week off really isn't a week "off"--you still practice; you still work out; you still use all the body parts that are achey and twinge-y--the only thing resting the starts does is save them from the 100% full-bore contact that only comes in games.

                                BUT

                                Thomas Jones didn't hurt his hamstring in a game. Neither did Urlacher, or Steve Smith. Tank Johnson didn't tear his quad in a game. Cedric Benson hurt his shoulder in practice--granted, a full-contact practice... but a practice nonetheless.

                                My point is that injuries happen all the time, and the "rest" players get by taking a week 17 bye is not all that much. If players are so out of gas that playing week 17 would make a significant difference in their playoff fortunes, then I argue that their fortunes weren't so good in the first place.

                                And yeah, two weeks off in a row does take an edge off. It's not like a bye week during the season, because the team doesn't know who their opponent is before the 17th week is over. But because of the potential that the second team players will get injured, the first-teamers still have to watch film and prepare for that week 17 game. They're spared the all-out contact of the game itself, but they've sat through all the film sessions, gone through all the practices, and maybe lost focus on the intensity they normally would have prepping for an important game. Maybe a guy starts a bad habit. Maybe he runs his mouth a bit (Wale?). Maybe two weeks off without that pressure of a game means a few bruises and strains have healed up, but the intensity isn't quite there.

                                Last year after the Cleveland collapse, Mike Brown lit into the defense. Yes, these are professional athletes at the peak of their prowess, but Brown's tirade (and, I would argue, his emotional presense in the defensive backfield) spurred the defense to perform better, to not lose their intensity. Maybe it was a 1% boost, a wee little edge.

                                I think the difference Brown's intensity, his emotional leadership, is like the slight edge we disagree about with the week 17 bye thing. I think that playing maintains that slight edge of intensity, and sitting during week 17 risks losing that edge. 51, you feel that the week 17 bye provides enough physical rest to give a team a slight edge, and playing during week 17 means that teams lose out on that slight physical edge.

                                It might be a wash... but I don't think we're going to agree on it either way.

                                But we do agree on one thing, don't we? The road to Super Bowl XLI goes through Chicago.

                                And, like in 1985 when the team remembered their embarrassing loss at San Francisco in the prior year's NFC championship, I don't think the Bears come out flat in their home playoff games--whether they rest, play in week 17, record the Super Bowl Shuffle Redux, or take on Paris Hilton in a 53-man (practice squad not included) gang-bang.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information