Official 2010-11 NFL Thread

[Balta1701]

I know he was, but come on now, the Saints aren't going to shrivel up and die because of the cold. They played well offensively in the NFC Championship game in Soldier Field January of 06'. The difference was, their defense was a bit suspect then. Well, it isn't anymore.

I think it's safe to say that it's offense isn't playing nearly as well now (more TO's, fewer yards and points per game).

 

You could of course say the same thing about the Bears' offense.

[GoSox05]

The Saints D hasn't been as good as it was last year. Although it did look good last weekend.

[SoxFan1]

Huh?

 

I can feel the machismo leaking out of your brain.

 

I don't care if you hate the post or not, and I don't care how "manly" you want to be about it. I want to play the teams the Bears match up the best with. You can say you want to go the toughest route all day long, but the only thing that does is increase our chances of losing.

 

No one ever remembers the road a team took to win the Super Bowl...they only remember who won the Super Bowl.

You kidding me? This is the Chicago sports market. Sure, they'd be beloved by most (look at the 85 team, STILL) but I mean we've already been compared to a team winning the MAC.

 

And it has little to do with being manly or having machismo. Not sure where you're getting that from. Just how I feel about it. There is no easy road to winning the Super Bowl. The playoffs are the playoffs.

[iamshack]

The Saints have also played a relatively weak schedule, like all the NFC South teams, but I still view them as more complete than the Eagles or Falcons right now.

 

 

[iamshack]

You kidding me? This is the Chicago sports market. Sure, they'd be beloved by most (look at the 85 team, STILL) but I mean we've already been compared to a team winning the MAC.

Trust me, no team will ever eclipse that 85' team in terms of legend and folklore, so forget that even being a possibility.

 

I was speaking more about a Super Bowl team's legacy around the league and throughout history.

[iamshack]

You kidding me? This is the Chicago sports market. Sure, they'd be beloved by most (look at the 85 team, STILL) but I mean we've already been compared to a team winning the MAC.

 

And it has little to do with being manly or having machismo. Not sure where you're getting that from. Just how I feel about it. There is no easy road to winning the Super Bowl. The playoffs are the playoffs.

Ok, so then why do you care if I am looking at what I believe the easiest path is? Your previous post implied that we should relish the opportunity to play only the best teams, to play the most difficult road possible, because this is the NFL playoffs, and to wish for anything else would be a sign of weakness..

 

It had everything to do with machismo.

 

Now you seem to be backing off that a bit...

[SoxFan1]

Ok, so then why do you care if I am looking at what I believe the easiest path is? Your previous post implied that we should relish the opportunity to play only the best teams, to play the most difficult road possible, because this is the NFL playoffs, and to wish for anything else would be a sign of weakness..

 

It had everything to do with machismo.

 

Now you seem to be backing off that a bit...

I really don't understand where you get this idea from, or why you're attacking me really. I think you're over-analyzing what I said. Or you just think I'm a pompous idiot. It's the playoffs. Go f***ing play.

 

And again, I said I wasn't picking on you specifically, just that, in general, I don't care who we play. There is no easy route.

[iamshack]

I really don't understand where you get this idea from, or why you're attacking me really. I think you're over-analyzing what I said. Or you just think I'm a pompous idiot. It's the playoffs. Go f***ing play.

Attacking you?

 

I'm not attacking anyone.

 

I'm saying you responded to a post of mine saying essentially that I would rather play the Eagles and Falcons rather than the Saints/Packers or Saints/Falcons is weak or shows signs of weakness by stating "I hate posts like these."

 

I'm not picking on you, but in general, I hate posts like these. If you want to win the Super Bowl, you're going to have to beat the best teams. This is the playoffs. You can't be afraid anybody. I say bring on the Saints. They won it last year, it goes through them

 

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=2306632

 

I'm not sure how you could have such a strong reaction to my post unless there was some reason for it? And it seemed pretty clear that that reason is because you are of the attitude that you should prove your worthiness by playing the toughest road possible, otherwise, you are showing weakness.

 

I'm not really sure what else that post could mean...

Edited December 29, 2010 by iamshack

[SoxFan1]

Attacking you?

 

I'm not attacking anyone.

 

I'm saying you responded to a post of mine saying essentially that I would rather play the Eagles and Falcons rather than the Saints/Packers or Saints/Falcons by stating "I hate posts like these."

 

 

 

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=2306632

 

I'm not sure how you could have such a strong reaction to my post unless there was some reason for it? And it seemed pretty clear that that reason is because you are of the attitude that you should prove your worthiness by playing the toughest road possible, otherwise, you are showing weakness.

 

I'm not really sure what else that post could mean...

Perhaps I should have said "I don't like this line of thinking" instead of "I hate posts like these." My fault for bad wording.

[iamshack]

Perhaps I should have said "I don't like this line of thinking" instead of "I hate posts like these."

It's still pretty much the same thing though....

 

What exactly are you saying then, if it's not what implication I took from it?

 

That it is wrong to break down the best matchup for your team?

[SoxAce]

Shack, I think your doing your occasional "over-analyzing" a post there.

[iamshack]

Shack, I think your doing your occasional "over-analyzing" a post there.

No, I'm really not. I'm trying to determine what his post meant, if not what I thought it meant.

[SoxFan1]

No, I'm really not. I'm trying to determine what his post meant, if not what I thought it meant.

Please pretend I never said anything. You're quite obviously misconstruing my statements.

[iamshack]

Please pretend I never said anything. You're quite obviously misconstruing my statements.

Hah, honestly, I don't disagree with you much...but you're backing away from the only meaning which there could have possibly been.

 

It's really not a big deal, I was just trying to determine what else you could have possibly been trying to say.

[GoodAsGould]

No f***ing kidding, I'm still waiting for Green Bay to catch a break this year. Injuries were really the only potential setback keeping us from a 1 or 2 seed.

 

Really??? The Packers faced Detroit's 3rd string QB, GB probably loses to Philly if Vick started the whole game, and now you get to face a team that has nothing to play for to make the playoffs. I'm sure there are a couple other breaks the Packers have got too....

[lostfan]

Really??? The Packers faced Detroit's 3rd string QB, GB probably loses to Philly if Vick started the whole game, and now you get to face a team that has nothing to play for to make the playoffs. I'm sure there are a couple other breaks the Packers have got too....

And lost... btw. What good is a break like that if you blow it

[GoSox05]

And lost... btw. What good is a break like that if you blow it

 

 

Well it would have helped if our starting QB didn't get his bell rung in the 2nd quarter.

 

On another note, I think the Lions are getting good.

 

 

[DBAHO]

Well it would have helped if our starting QB didn't get his bell rung in the 2nd quarter.

 

On another note, I think the Lions are getting good.

All the Lions need is for their offensive players to stay healthy, add another impact player on defense (ideally in the secondary) and that's probably a .500 team next season if they stay healthy.

[ChWRoCk2]

Really??? The Packers faced Detroit's 3rd string QB, GB probably loses to Philly if Vick started the whole game, and now you get to face a team that has nothing to play for to make the playoffs. I'm sure there are a couple other breaks the Packers have got too....

What about Tuesdays game? Nobody thought Minny would beat Philly with Webb at the helm, pretty big break right there to help you guys secure a bye.

 

Bears faced Stanton too, lets not forget the 5 other teams that used backup QBs vs your team. And you guys managed to avoid any crucial long term injuries all year. Now that were circling back to week 1 you guys should have lost to Detroit had it not been for the dumbest penalty flag in the game and this could be a totally different season for you. I can continue with these stupid what if statements all day.

 

Your right you have absolutely nothing to play for if Carolina beats Atlanta and Tampa beats the Saints, please, and Lovie already indicated he would play his starters. As a Bears fan you should know this. Even if this doesn't happen do you really think Lovie would let up on us, after all it was his #1 goal to beat the Packers.

 

I was purely speaking we haven't caught any breaks on the injury front, as in nobody is staying healthy, sure injuries isn't an excuse but if you told me we wouldn't be better with someone like Finley, Grant too name a few your a f***ing moron. Heck to be in this position with what 16 players on the IR I'm ecstatic and we still look like a team capable of winning the Super Bowl. Even if we miss the playoffs the front office should get a big pat on the back, goes to show what good drafting/scouting can do for your team's depth.

 

Pretty funny/pathetic how cocky Bear fans get when they make the playoffs, which doesn’t come around all too often

 

 

And lost... btw. What good is a break like that if you blow it

So losing Aaron Rodgers must have been a big break........ok

[Vote4Pedro]

Really??? The Packers faced Detroit's 3rd string QB, GB probably loses to Philly if Vick started the whole game, and now you get to face a team that has nothing to play for to make the playoffs. I'm sure there are a couple other breaks the Packers have got too....

REALLY? The packers have been one of the unluckiest teams in football this year. If any team in the NFL (definately including the bears in this one) were to lose their starting RB one of the top 2 CB on their roster at the time (Al Harris), their 2nd best reciever (donald driver missed a few games) their top TE for the season (Finley), Nick Barnett going down for the season, their defensive line has been banged up all season, not to mention aaron rodgers got a concussion in that detroit game so it was Matt Flynn against the 3rd string QB in the 2nd half of that game

Anyone who suggests the Bears are the superior of the two teams are crazy, i know they cant control who they play but their strength of schedule was horrible

 

Detroit is a far better team then they were at the beginning of the season when they should have beat the bears week one if the ref didnt blow the calvin johnson touchdown...

 

If Vick started the whole game Im sure the packers would have went into the game with a different gameplan on defense....

 

4 of the 6 losses GB has had has been by a field goal in OT or right at the end of regulation to end the game. The other 2 games have been lost by 4 pts...talk about the "breaks" the packers have got...jeez

Edited December 30, 2010 by beckham15

[Vote4Pedro]

All the Lions need is for their offensive players to stay healthy, add another impact player on defense (ideally in the secondary) and that's probably a .500 team next season if they stay healthy.

the lions have had alot of close games this season they could possibly be a 9-7 or 10-6 team next season especially if they can keep stafford healthy for the whole season although hill has filled in quite nicley

[ChWRoCk2]

All the Lions need is for their offensive players to stay healthy, add another impact player on defense (ideally in the secondary) and that's probably a .500 team next season if they stay healthy.

If they can get the LSU corner and idk Herzlich or some LB in the 2nd round they are in a lot better shape. I wouldn't discount them from being above .500 as they are usually active in the off season and have been making some solid additions.

[RockRaines]

REALLY? The packers have been one of the unluckiest teams in football this year. If any team in the NFL (definately including the bears in this one) were to lose their starting RB one of the top 2 CB on their roster at the time (Al Harris), their 2nd best reciever (donald driver missed a few games) their top TE for the season (Finley), Nick Barnett going down for the season, their defensive line has been banged up all season, not to mention aaron rodgers got a concussion in that detroit game so it was Matt Flynn against the 3rd string QB in the 2nd half of that game

Anyone who suggests the Bears are the superior of the two teams are crazy, i know they cant control who they play but their strength of schedule was horrible

That sounds alot like every NFL team. And so far the Bears are 1-0 vs Green Bay, so reality says they are the better team.

[Vote4Pedro]

"Injuries can happen at any time. But for us, the guys have prepared in the offseason to go through this year. We haven't had a lot of injuries. We're just gonna keep it going in that direction."

 

quote from Lovie Smith on ESPN Chicago

 

all im trying to show is that the Packers have not gotten the "breaks" like that post has mentioned. That win against us wasnt dominating. It was by a field goal at the end of regulation. Anyone who watched that game knows that the Bears werent dominating in that game.

[StrangeSox]

No one can deny that the Bears have been pretty lucky this year with the injuries.