Rowand44 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I'll say the Packers win something like 21-17. EDIT: BTW, I've pretty much been completely wrong on the NFC side of the playoffs, so there's your blessing, Bears fans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) ugh, if anyone is partaking in the Bill Simmons chat on espn.com, he's claiming (and defending) that the Bears/Packers aren't a "rivalry" I'm beginning to hate that ass hate more and more. It's too bad, he's really good at what he does, he's just an east coast masshole. Edited January 21, 2011 by Jenksismybitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Uh, what? I'd love to see the chat logs to see what the hell he's trying to claim as support for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 01:11 PM) Uh, what? I'd love to see the chat logs to see what the hell he's trying to claim as support for that. Some portions of the chat: Mike (Indianapolis) Is Green Bay and Chicago really a huge rivalry as everyone is making it out to be? The last time they played each other in the playoffs was in the 1940s. Aren't they really just bitter divisional rivals in a crappy division. Bill Simmons (12:58 PM) Glad someone brought this up. I feel like I'm in the top 1% of diehard football fans and can't remember a single meaningful Bears-Packers game. I'm sure there have been a couple, I just can't remember any. Am I wrong on this? You are wrong. The rivalry comes from the fans. The proximity between Chicago and Wisconsin fuels this rivalry. Bears fans and Packers fans hate each other. Bill Simmons (1:02 PM) That's a separate issue - that makes it more of a feud. A rivalry means that it's a feud crossed with some sort of significant ongoing battle for the upper hand. If the fan bases are carrying this thing, then it's a feud. Ashley (Columbia, SC) Geez you are dumb. You can't credit anything that's not Boston related. Bears/Packers is a rivalry. They vie for the division every year and they hate each other. Only you would (and a few of your idiot readers) would try to downplay that. Bill Simmons (1:06 PM) Name me 3 great Packers-Bears games. Tim (Chicago) Can we define rivalry? Just confused on how bears/pack isnt. Bill Simmons (1:18 PM) There are different tiers to rivalries I think. The fan bases need to hate each other. You need to play each other fairly frequently. You need to have each been around for awhile. And you need to have had some great/memorable/classic games and a few clearcut battles for the upper hand. With the Bears and Packers, how many times were they good at the same time? I think that's where it falls apart a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 01:09 PM) ugh, if anyone is partaking in the Bill Simmons chat on espn.com, he's claiming (and defending) that the Bears/Packers aren't a "rivalry" I'm beginning to hate that ass hate more and more. It's too bad, he's really good at what he does, he's just an east coast masshole. I'd say Cutler - he'll throw you at least 2 a game, you just have to hold onto them. That was Seattle's biggest misfire last week, dropping the goal line INT he gave them. KC Joyner did a nice job of breaking down Cutler's possible flimsiness this week (Insider only): http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/20...&id=6038319 Hmm, I seem to remember only one against Seattle. And plenty of QB's have dropped interceptions. Simmons seems like he's still riding the Cutler 2009 storyline, just being lazy. His arguments against Bears-Packers rivalry is just him making up a new definition for "rivalry" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 01:21 PM) Hmm, I seem to remember only one against Seattle. And plenty of QB's have dropped interceptions. Simmons seems like he's still riding the Cutler 2009 storyline, just being lazy. His arguments against Bears-Packers rivalry is just him making up a new definition for "rivalry" It's a pretty dumb argument. They've obviously not had the post-season rivalry that others teams have had. But that's due to the fact that for 60 years they could only play each other in the regular season, and the casual sports fan doesn't remember regular season games from year to year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) Simmons is using the term rival wrong. He's using it like "Dunder Mifflin's paper rivals any other paper brand", which would mean equals. Whereas when people say the Bears and Packers are rivals or have a rivalry they are saying that they have been competing for the same goal for many years. Just because one side is more successful at the moment or over time does not mean there isnt a rivalry. For the last 60 years the Bears and Packers have been rivals for the NFC North or NFC title or however you slice it. Absolutely no way to correctly use the term rivals without it applying to Packers and Bears. Edited January 21, 2011 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 01:25 PM) Simmons is using the term rival wrong. He's using it like "Dunder Mifflin's paper rival's any other paper brand", which would mean equals. Whereas when people say the Bears and Packers are rivals or have a rivalry they are saying that they have been competing for the same goal for many years. Just because one side is more successful at the moment or over time does not mean there isnt a rivalry. For the last 60 years the Bears and Packers have been rivals for the NFC North or NFC title or however you slice it. Absolutely no way to correctly use the term rivals without it applying to Packers and Bears. Exactly. The way he describes it, OSU-Michigan football isn't a rivalry right now cause OSU has been dominating & Michigan hasn't been competing for any titles. You can say that the Bears/Packers rivalry hasnt been relevant recently, but not that it doesnt exist. EDIT: He's missing the fact that rivalries endure. Once Manning/Belichek are gone, no one is gonna give a s*** about Colts/Patriots. 30 years from now, Bears/Packers will still be heated. Edited January 21, 2011 by LittleHurt05 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 01:32 PM) Exactly. The way he describes it, OSU-Michigan football isn't a rivalry right now cause OSU has been dominating & Michigan hasn't been competing for any titles. You can say that the Bears/Packers rivalry hasnt been relevant recently, but not that it doesnt exist. EDIT: He's missing the fact that rivalries endure. Once Manning/Belichek are gone, no one is gonna give a s*** about Colts/Patriots. 30 years from now, Bears/Packers will still be heated. QFT On a side note...Bears 27 - Cheeseballs 17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 01:32 PM) Exactly. The way he describes it, OSU-Michigan football isn't a rivalry right now cause OSU has been dominating & Michigan hasn't been competing for any titles. You can say that the Bears/Packers rivalry hasnt been relevant recently, but not that it doesnt exist. EDIT: He's missing the fact that rivalries endure. Once Manning/Belichek are gone, no one is gonna give a s*** about Colts/Patriots. 30 years from now, Bears/Packers will still be heated. By his criteria the RedSox/Yankee rivalry wasn't real until this past decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 01:57 PM) By his criteria the RedSox/Yankee rivalry wasn't real until this past decade. By his definition rivalry is defined as "what ESPN currently hypes the most" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 01:28 PM) I really don't get why everyone (nationally) is dismissing the Bears. Yeah, they've been a bit of an enigma all season and yeah, the Packers have been playing very well in the playoffs. Everyone was going to dismiss the Bears. The Bears haven't had the big offensive showy wins that other teams have had, and its those big scoring wins that always sell the media on how good your team is, not winning games by defense. The Bears don't have a guy who is believed (yet) to be a top of the league QB. And the Bears have missed the playoffs a few years in a row. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexSoxFan#1 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 06:16 AM) The penalties in the first Packers game, it's not like those were ticky-tacky penalties. They were for the most part pretty blatant. No, that was because the Bears were lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexSoxFan#1 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 09:32 AM) Colin Cowherd chiming in this morning that should the Bears beat GB on Sunday, they would be the worst Super Bowl team ever. He then backed off a bit... And said the 05/06 Bears team might be worse... “You know who Tony Romo is? He’s Aaron Rodgers. He’s Matt Schaub, where fantasy football fans are much bigger fans than I am. Tony Romo is Aaron Rodgers.” – Cowherd, January 8th 2010 That jerkoff said Sanchez was better than Rodgers too, he's just an idiot douchebag and you'll lose brain cells listening to his yapping, STOP IT!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) I love me some Bill Simmons, but that's pretty dumb. He hypes the s*** out of Pats/Jets, when they've met a grand total of three times in the playoffs. Edited January 21, 2011 by Steve9347 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Skip Bayless picked the Bears. So not everyone is against you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 04:28 PM) Skip Bayless picked the Bears. So not everyone is against you. I don't think anyone in the world wants Skip Bayless on their side though. That being said, there have definitely been some analysts the last few days who are starting to sway towards the Bears a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeGone33 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Packer 31 Bears 17 Hester with a return Cutler 1 pick Rodgers 1 pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 QUOTE (HeGone33 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 04:38 PM) Packer 31 Bears 17 Hester with a return Cutler 1 pick Rodgers 1 pick Too high scoring. BTW, Ted Bruschi also picked the Bears. So this whole, "Us against the world" schtick needs to stop. It's ridiculously dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeGone33 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 05:01 PM) Too high scoring. No, it's not too high. Last four opponents in Soldier Field average 30 pts, so it is possible! And don't give me the crap about week 17, it doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 And the bad Jay, good Jay comes from reality. Yes, his receivers aren't the greatest, but at the same time, he makes passes that make you go "WTF?" and it's not because the receiver ran the wrong route or the game dictated it. For example, the near pick he threw last week against the Seahawks in the end zone. He already started running backwards because he knew that was an awful pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 06:10 PM) And the bad Jay, good Jay comes from reality. Yes, his receivers aren't the greatest, but at the same time, he makes passes that make you go "WTF?" and it's not because the receiver ran the wrong route or the game dictated it. For example, the near pick he threw last week against the Seahawks in the end zone. He already started running backwards because he knew that was an awful pass. I don't recall where but I believe I read that the video shows a receiver ran totally the wrong route and that was a timing pattern/throw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 QUOTE (HeGone33 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 05:06 PM) No, it's not too high. Last four opponents in Soldier Field average 30 pts, so it is possible! And don't give me the crap about week 17, it doesn't matter. I could care less about Week 17, even though Lovie admitted in the paper the other day, he treated the game like they needed it which goes against fans saying they vanilla'd their way through. With the cold, it's going to be a heavy ball they're throwing. Both QB's aren't going to be able to just sling it. I'm expecting at least 1 turnover from both sides. And the Packers don't have a great running game, despite what Starks has done. I don't think the Bears have a great one either, but they have a better one. I think a bunch of short passes are going to have to be completed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 05:01 PM) Too high scoring. BTW, Ted Bruschi also picked the Bears. So this whole, "Us against the world" schtick needs to stop. It's ridiculously dumb. Us against the world schtick? Care to elaborate? Also I didnt realize Ted Bruschi was the authority on who is the favorite to win a game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenryan Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 GB 24-16 Pitt 20-13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts