Are the bears a bad 8-3 team?

[ QUOTE ]
Had the kicker made the FG, the Bears would have lost in OT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please. You can't make that statement, and follow it up with this one:

[ QUOTE ]
So far this year they've won 2 straight games against teams I thought going in they'd lose to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously your prophesies aren't always reliable.

There are a million variables that go into an overtime. Just because TB moved the ball on the Bears for a drive and a half at the end of regulation does not mean they were a slam dunk to win in OT. The Bears have won at least 4 OTs on defense in the past 5 years (maybe more). That is just a ridiculous statement.

[imported_CaseClosed326]

[ QUOTE ]
People will always overrate teams that win on offense and have no defense, and always underrate teams that win with only defense and no offense because offense is just that much more sexy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so very true.

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
Who, besides Indianapolis, DO you think is good?

[/ QUOTE ]

cinci, pittsburgh, seattle. the rest are all parodys.

[Shajen]

[ QUOTE ]
Please. You can't make that statement, and follow it up with this one:

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure I can. I can do whatever I want.


[ QUOTE ]
So far this year they've won 2 straight games against teams I thought going in they'd lose to.

[/ QUOTE ]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously your prophesies aren't always reliable.

[/ QUOTE ] I never said they were? WTF?

[ QUOTE ]
There are a million variables that go into an overtime. Just because TB moved the ball on the Bears for a drive and a half at the end of regulation does not mean they were a slam dunk to win in OT. The Bears have won at least 4 OTs on defense in the past 5 years (maybe more). That is just a ridiculous statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

two things:

1) the Bucs were dominant in the second half, especially the 4th quarter. While the Bears are a helluva team, and play especially aggressive in OT, the Bucs were owning them. I felt, watching that game, that it was over if the kicker made his kick.

2) I never claimed to be some mystical predictor of football games. I merely state what I think. I guess I should also state I've been a Bears fan for about 25 years now, for full disclosure.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Because thats what the were the 5th or 6th best team. I don't think anybody back then would have ranked them anything higher. My point isn't that they aren't at the lesser end of 13-3 teams, just that it is unfair that they get ripped a part for being lucky. It hurts my feelings and I know it hurts theirs. They were a good team, just like this years team is a good team. Why not pick on the panthers or the giants or any other good but flawed team?

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I am concerned, the giants are on the other end of the opportunism/luck spectrum. They could VERY easily be 9-2 right now.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not sure where you get the "5th or 6th best team" thing, as it never came up, but they were the #1 Seed in the NFC that year I believe, and got stomped at home.

Oh, and they got lucky in that 49er's game.

[/ QUOTE ]
They were the #2 seed and lost to an Eagles team basically because Miller got knocked out of the game. Really I think the Vikings team that went 15-1 and was blown out by the Giants was really a bad team because blah, blah, blah. Or was that the team that blew the game to a Falcons team that played good defense, ran the ball and never scored many points.

Here is the point about the Bears this year. They have the best defense in the NFL and one of the best offensive lines. Is the quarterback a rookie who barely survives most games and trying to grow a beard, yes. Can they control the clock and play great defense, yes.

Outside of the Colts name one team in the NFL that doesn't have a glaring weakness somewhere. Because I can't find one.

The Bears finish the season playing Pittsburgh, Atlanta, the Packers twice and the Vikings to end the year. And acording to the ESPN guys, who picked the Vikings to win the divison, they are on fire and are making a great run.

I'm not sure if that will be enough to make them a legit team, but let us know when it meets your standards.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, I wasn't sure if they were a # 1 or #2, but either way, THey were already down I'm pretty sure when Miller went out, so to say they lost because he went out is plain wrong.

Also, the 15-1 VIkes lost in OT to Atlanta in the NFC championship game; the team you are thinking about was 12-4 I believe.

Point isn't that the Bears aren't a good team, just that they are overachieving.

What exactly are Denver, Seattle, and NYG's "glaring weaknesses", by the way, or at least one as big as CHi's O.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
People will always overrate teams that win on offense and have no defense, and always underrate teams that win with only defense and no offense because offense is just that much more sexy.

For example, everyone always picked the 'great' Vikings teams of the late 90s and Colts teams of the early 00's (not including this year, cause they have a defense now) to go to the Super Bowl because 'you just can't stop their offenses.'
But obviously these less than stellar defenses are always exposed in the playoffs when they give up 30-40 points.

The defense carried teams are always accused of winning ugly and lucky. It will always be like that.

Overall, this Bears team compares fairly well to the 2000 Ravens . Defensively they are very similiar, and the Ravens offense was slightly better. Maybe that difference could be made up by Rex Grossman. Who knows? But this is a very good Bears team that could very well lose to anyone in the playoffs, or beat anyone, especially in the NFC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well Said. The irresistible force always does seem to get more credit than the immovable object.

Let's see how the Atlanta and Pittsburgh games go, if they win those 2 games, that is 4 wins over quality opponents in a 5 game stretch. The cleveland loss was a game they had the lead and blew and they could have easily won the Washington game also. The only game they've been dominated in is Cincy, who is a top 5 team not in their conference, what more do they the Bears need to do to prove they are a good team?

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I am concerned, the giants are on the other end of the opportunism/luck spectrum. They could VERY easily be 9-2 right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

The chargers and cowboys could easily be unbeaten right now, or one of them 10-1 since they played eachother.

[Sluss]

[ QUOTE ]
What exactly are Denver, Seattle, and NYG's "glaring weaknesses", by the way, or at least one as big as CHi's O.


[/ QUOTE ]
Jake Plummer (although I will admit he has had a good year and that the Broncos are easily the second best team in the NFL right now)
Pass Defense/ special teams
Pass Defense/Left Tackle/ablity to play consistently for four quarters.

Also you keep bringing up the Bears offense like it is a real weakness. Yes, they do not throw the ball well. But they run the ball very effectively and with the exception of this past weekend, which may have had more to do with the heat, have worn teams down and run the ball down their throat in the second half.

Hey, the Rams and the Cardinals throw the ball great. I don't see them winning a lot of games.

They have the 6th most rushing yards in the NFL. They have allowed the fewest total yards, the fewest passing yards are 6th against the rush and have allowed the fewest amount of points by almost a touchdown a game. Their defense line has dominated and their offensive line has shut down the two best front fours in the league the last two weeks. They don't score a lot because they don't have too. If they score 20 points they win. Hell, if they score 13 they have a great shot to win. They are more concerned about not giving the other team a short field.

That if anything will be the undoing of this team. They have to be very careful about turning the ball over. If they can stop doing that, there isn't a team in the NFC that wouldn't have to play a perfect game to beat them.