Are the bears a bad 8-3 team?

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

In 2001, they had 4 games minimum where they won on a hail mary or a game-ending INT for a TD. Saying they beat the teams they should and lost to the teams they shouldn't implies they were a legitimate 13-3 team, which few people will agree to, especially considering effectively the same team the next year went 4-12 on a tougher schedule. I didn't hear many people saying "wow, we're lucky Jim Miller is here" in regards to their success, and they lost to the Eagles because theEagles were simply better and they manhandled them.

[MCS]

Who, besides Indianapolis, DO you think is good?

[Colonel Kataffy]

They obviously weren't a great team. I get sick of people saying that they got "lucky" in the famous 49ers game as if the 49ers rightly deserved to win. If they happened to lose two more games and went 11-5 they would have been just as good of a team. So what, if there is varience in poker there is verience in football. Either way, they were a good team, a legitimate playoff team. They were good.

I just don't understand why they are the only team in the league that has to win the superbowl, just to be considered the 5th or 6th best team in the league.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
They obviously weren't a great team. I get sick of people saying that they got "lucky" in the famous 49ers game as if the 49ers rightly deserved to win. If they happened to lose two more games and went 11-5 they would have been just as good of a team. So what, if there is varience in poker there is verience in football. Either way, they were a good team, a legitimate playoff team. They were good.

I just don't understand why they are the only team in the league that has to win the superbowl, just to be considered the 5th or 6th best team in the league.

[/ 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.

[MarkL444]

the bears are a better than average team in the NFC.

[Colonel Kataffy]

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?

[Sluss]

[ 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.

[Jack of Arcades]

The Colts have a glaring weakness: they can't stop the run.

[Shajen]

The Bears escaped with a win yesterday at a Tampa team that seemed to have figured them out in the second half. The Bear's secondary isn't as good as advertised.

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

Are they playing better than expected this year? Absolutely.

The NFC North having a bad year is definitely helping them, but they only play 6 games against their division opponents.

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

I expect them to split against GB* and lose the game against the Steelers. They should sweep MN this year, which is fine with me, you're supposed to beat teams worse than you. The Falcons game will be interesting, can that awesome D contain Vick and the two-headed running monster? Will be interesting.

Oh, and Daliman, don't hate on the Bears. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

*Favre might not be the Favre of old, but until proven otherwise, he still owns the Bears.

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.