Are the bears a bad 8-3 team?

[LoaferGee12]

Man, this thread/the Bears remind me so much of the 2005 White Sox.

[lastchance]

I didn't imply that Chicago is better than Jacksonville or Cincinatti, did I?

I meant to imply that Chicago is nowhere near Cincinatti's level, and not on Jacksonville's level. They're in the NFC.

IMHO, this is a 10-6 team that will go 12-4/11-5 due to NFC schedule.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't imply that Chicago is better than Jacksonville or Cincinatti, did I?

I meant to imply that Chicago is nowhere near Cincinatti's level, and not on Jacksonville's level. They're in the NFC.

IMHO, this is a 10-6 team that will go 12-4/11-5 due to NFC schedule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, i misunderstood your meaning. A thousand pardons.

P.S. Don't look now, but that "weak" NFC still has 8 teams over .500, same # as AFC, if not the same strength at the top, also not as weak at the bottom.

[MCS]

I think they are the third best team in the NFC, behind New York and Seattle. They are about tenth overall.

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
Cleveland 20, Chicago 10

[/ QUOTE ]

anymore questions?

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cleveland 20, Chicago 10

[/ QUOTE ]

anymore questions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Denver 10, Miami 34.

Boy those Broncos are horrible.

In the real world, we analyse teams on more than one game. Post again when you're ready to do the same.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
That said, I can't help but think of the 2001 Bears that went 13-3 by being overly opportunistic

[/ QUOTE ]

In 2001 they had a very good defense and a not so good offense. They didn't get any luckier than any other teams, they simply lost to the teams that were better than them and beat the teams that weren't. Their QB was injury prone. Through some miracle he survived all season. In the playoffs the Eagles injured him, and the Bears pretty much no chance after that. If anything, the Eagles were oppertunistic in taking advantage of his brittleness, but regardless, the Eagles were better than they were, but the bears were still better than most of the teams in the league that year.

This team isn't bad either. They're offense is a little worse than the 2001 team, but they're defense is better. Are they historically a great team, no. Are they better than most teams in the league this year, yes.

They aren't a balanced team and werent in 2001 either, but that doesn't mean they were bad. It just means they were 5th or 6th best team in the league and not the 1st or 2nd. There is really nothing more to it.

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cleveland 20, Chicago 10

[/ QUOTE ]

anymore questions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Denver 10, Miami 34.

Boy those Broncos are horrible.

In the real world, we analyse teams on more than one game. Post again when you're ready to do the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry, i refuse to believe that anyone who loses to the browns this year are good. especially when they have 6 games against the packers, vikings, and lions.

ps. im not sold on the broncos either.

[lastchance]

The Steelers lost to the Ravens.
Jacksonville lost to STL.
Denver lost to Miami.
SD lost to the Eagles.
Dallas lost to Oakland.
Carolina lost to NO.
NYG lost to Minnesota a week ago.

In the NFL, good teams lose to bad ones. Doesn't mean they're bad. Hell, NE lost to Miami last year.

[Jack of Arcades]

Good teams lose to [censored] teams all the time. It happens.