Steve9347 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 04:12 PM) Dead-on. The Bears are actually very similar to the White Sox, as they've failed spectacularly at adapting to the obvious changes in the modern NFL. Running games are almost moot these days. They're still very important. But it's not 1992 anymore. The game is more than ever geared towards the pass. Teams are winning with explosive aerial attacks as their strength, with the running game as more of a supplement. The run no longer sets up the pass. It's the other way around now. The Bears keep going into every season with thrift-shop style offenses in hopes that they run into some luck and that the defense/ST will do what they've done during most of Lovie's tenure. I really have a hard time condemning a team that made it to the NFC Championship Game last year and was the second hottest team in football prior to their franchise QB getting injured this year. Their fault lies with having zero depth. They lost 3 starts on the offensive line, the most productive rb in the league, and Jay Cutler in a span of weeks. That'd ruin any team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 04:16 PM) I really have a hard time condemning a team that made it to the NFC Championship Game last year and was the second hottest team in football prior to their franchise QB getting injured this year. Their fault lies with having zero depth. They lost 3 starts on the offensive line, the most productive rb in the league, and Jay Cutler in a span of weeks. That'd ruin any team. And you know Bears management will probably roll with that same loser-style attitude. "Well, we were playing so well before Cutler got hurt, we don't need to make any real changes." You're not winning anything in today's NFL with such mediocre WR/OL corps. The best they could've hoped for was an NFC rematch with the Packers in which the ass-whooping would've taken place in Lambeau instead of Soldier Field. Edited December 19, 2011 by Jordan4life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 05:29 PM) And you know Bears management will probably roll with that same loser-style attitude. "Well, we were playing so well before Cutler got hurt, we don't need to make any real changes." You're not winning anything in today's NFL with such mediocre WR/OL corps. The best they could've hoped for was an NFC rematch with the Packers in which the ass-whooping would've taken place in Lambeau instead of Soldier Field. Personally I still think the Bears are set up pretty well long term on the O-Line, they have literally lost 2 first round picks this year and that would hurt any line a lot. They need to sign additional depth at the tackle position and cut Omiyale loose so that he stops being the worst O-Lineman in the league, but then just get the 2 high picks back, healthy, and into their spots. The difference before and after Williams went out, for example, is pretty big...they were incredibly effective using him to get out front of Forte. But I do agree that they absolutely need help at the WR position. The other "Night and day" moment for the offense on the Bears thsi year was when Bennett came back...they went from having 0 competent receivers to 1, and suddenly Cutler was immensely more effective. Give him a legit actual WR threat he's comfortable with, put Bennett on the other side, and whatever else the Bears can put together in the slot, and this offense suddenly would be able to do real damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Your best case scenario really isnt best case at all, its what we call "the most likely scenario". Best case scenario would have been Packers are eliminated their first game, Bears are the highest seed to advance, Bears make Super Bowl and beat the Tebow lead Broncos. Thats a best case scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 04:40 PM) Your best case scenario really isnt best case at all, its what we call "the most likely scenario". Best case scenario would have been Packers are eliminated their first game, Bears are the highest seed to advance, Bears make Super Bowl and beat the Tebow lead Broncos. Thats a best case scenario. Most realistic scenario? Your scenario would be dismissed by those that made "Angels in the Outfield." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 04:37 PM) Personally I still think the Bears are set up pretty well long term on the O-Line, they have literally lost 2 first round picks this year and that would hurt any line a lot. They need to sign additional depth at the tackle position and cut Omiyale loose so that he stops being the worst O-Lineman in the league, but then just get the 2 high picks back, healthy, and into their spots. The difference before and after Williams went out, for example, is pretty big...they were incredibly effective using him to get out front of Forte. But I do agree that they absolutely need help at the WR position. The other "Night and day" moment for the offense on the Bears thsi year was when Bennett came back...they went from having 0 competent receivers to 1, and suddenly Cutler was immensely more effective. Give him a legit actual WR threat he's comfortable with, put Bennett on the other side, and whatever else the Bears can put together in the slot, and this offense suddenly would be able to do real damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Thats why its a "BEST CASE" scenario. I know that you may disagree on many things, but Im pretty sure we can all agree that the word BEST means. Its almost like you dont even realize bad things could happen to other teams. If Rodgers got hurt instead of Cutler,do you think the BEST the Bears could have done was losing to the Packers? Thats why its a ridiculous statement. The Packers are just as fallible (if not more fallible) than half the teams in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 05:00 PM) Thats why its a "BEST CASE" scenario. I know that you may disagree on many things, but Im pretty sure we can all agree that the word BEST means. Its almost like you dont even realize bad things could happen to other teams. If Rodgers got hurt instead of Cutler,do you think the BEST the Bears could have done was losing to the Packers? Thats why its a ridiculous statement. The Packers are just as fallible (if not more fallible) than half the teams in the NFL. Um, nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 So you think Green Bay is good with out Rodgers? Offensive Rushing YPG: 99.7 good for 25th overall Defensive Passing YPG: 298.4 good for 31st overall Defensive Rushing YPG: 108.4 good for 12th overall With Rodgers, they won 5 games by 7 points or less. The Packers with Flynn are maybe 8-6., but Id guess they are 500 or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dasox24 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 06:12 PM) So you think Green Bay is good with out Rodgers? Offensive Rushing YPG: 99.7 good for 25th overall Defensive Passing YPG: 298.4 good for 31st overall Defensive Rushing YPG: 108.4 good for 12th overall With Rodgers, they won 5 games by 7 points or less. The Packers with Flynn are maybe 8-6., but Id guess they are 500 or worse. Fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 05:12 PM) So you think Green Bay is good with out Rodgers? Offensive Rushing YPG: 99.7 good for 25th overall Defensive Passing YPG: 298.4 good for 31st overall Defensive Rushing YPG: 108.4 good for 12th overall With Rodgers, they won 5 games by 7 points or less. The Packers with Flynn are maybe 8-6., but Id guess they are 500 or worse. Pffft please, Matt Flynns obvious progression indicates the packers would be no worse than 12-2. /J4L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 05:12 PM) So you think Green Bay is good with out Rodgers? Offensive Rushing YPG: 99.7 good for 25th overall Defensive Passing YPG: 298.4 good for 31st overall Defensive Rushing YPG: 108.4 good for 12th overall With Rodgers, they won 5 games by 7 points or less. The Packers with Flynn are maybe 8-6., but Id guess they are 500 or worse. Don't see what any of this is supposed to mean. You said the Packers were just as suspect or "fallible" then more than half the teams in the league. Which is watching Family Guy while drunk laughable. Edited December 19, 2011 by Jordan4life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 They are just as fallible. If they lose their starting QB they arent a Super Bowl contender, just like the Bears. In fact the Packers rely more on a single player than most of the NFL, hence they are more fallible. This isnt rocket science, anyone who watches the NFL understands that most teams dont have multiple All-Pro QB's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 The Packers response would be that they lost tons of guys last year and still won the Super Bowl. So it's definitely worth noting...the Bears didn't just lose their QB. They lost their QB, their RB, and 40% of their starting offensive line. They actually played pretty well and overcame some injuries early in the season (Barber, Wooten, Carimi, Bennett), but even last year's Packers didn't have to deal with what the Bears offense has lost this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 05:42 PM) They are just as fallible. If they lose their starting QB they arent a Super Bowl contender, just like the Bears. In fact the Packers rely more on a single player than most of the NFL, hence they are more fallible. This isnt rocket science, anyone who watches the NFL understands that most teams dont have multiple All-Pro QB's. Wait a minute? What point are you trying to make? MY point was that EVEN if Cutler doesn't go down, the Bears are still not in the class of the GB Packers. Yeah, they had a nice 4 game run before he got hurt. Fact is their offense, even with Cutler, is nowhere near as explosive as teams such as the Packers, Patriots and Saints. s***, maybe even throw the Giants in there. They don't have the weapons and never have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 06:48 PM) Wait a minute? What point are you trying to make? MY point was that EVEN if Cutler doesn't go down, the Bears are still not in the class of the GB Packers. Yeah, they had a nice 4 game run before he got hurt. Fact is their offense, even with Cutler, is nowhere near as explosive as teams such as the Packers, Patriots and Saints. s***, maybe even throw the Giants in there. They don't have the weapons and never have. None of those teams would throw the defensive quality out that the Bears can throw out though. The 49ers, Steelers, and Ravens also don't have offenses that are anywhere near as explosive as the Packers, Patriots, and Saints, but those teams are going to be in the playoffs and may well be dangerous because they can (most of the time, Ravens) play some darn solid D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Your statement was the Bears best case was to lose to the Packers. That is not even close to the Bears best case. I then showed why the Packers without Rodgers, likely would be just as bad as the Bears, showing that the Packers are just as thin as the Bears, because losing a QB like Rodgers would have effectively ended their Super Bowl chances. I have no clue what you are arguing. It seemingly is all over the place. If your argument is that the Bears offense is not as good as the Packers, that is true. But the Bears defense is likely better, so once again, Im not sure where you are going. The point remains, no team is built to withstand the loss of Cutler/Forte. Notice how I said : Its almost like you dont even realize bad things could happen to other teams. If Rodgers got hurt instead of Cutler,do you think the BEST the Bears could have done was losing to the Packers? Thats why its a ridiculous statement. The Packers are just as fallible (if not more fallible) than half the teams in the NFL. You then said "nope", implying that the Packers are good without Rodgers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 05:51 PM) None of those teams would throw the defensive quality out that the Bears can throw out though. The 49ers, Steelers, and Ravens also don't have offenses that are anywhere near as explosive as the Packers, Patriots, and Saints, but those teams are going to be in the playoffs and may well be dangerous because they can (most of the time, Ravens) play some darn solid D. I have no problem admitting the Bears are easily a playoff team with Cutler. They could very well be the second best team in the conference with Cutler. That's not my argument. They don't have the requisite pieces on offense to get to and win the SB. And that's all that really matters. If management goes into next season with the thinking that, "Hey, if we don't lose Cutler, we're right there with the Packers - we don't need to make any major upgrades," then next season is already over before it begins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 05:56 PM) Your statement was the Bears best case was to lose to the Packers. That is not even close to the Bears best case. I then showed why the Packers without Rodgers, likely would be just as bad as the Bears, showing that the Packers are just as thin as the Bears, because losing a QB like Rodgers would have effectively ended their Super Bowl chances. I have no clue what you are arguing. It seemingly is all over the place. If your argument is that the Bears offense is not as good as the Packers, that is true. But the Bears defense is likely better, so once again, Im not sure where you are going. The point remains, no team is built to withstand the loss of Cutler/Forte. Notice how I said : You then said "nope", implying that the Packers are good without Rodgers. Then you created something that wasn't there. Of course the Packers would suffer immensely without Rodgers. Where did I imply they wouldn't? I assumed you were saying the Packers were just as suspect as half the teams in the NFL because of their supposed "weaknesses". Edited December 20, 2011 by Jordan4life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 06:58 PM) I have no problem admitting the Bears are easily a playoff team with Cutler. They could very well be the second best team in the conference with Cutler. That's not my argument. They don't have the requisite pieces on offense to get to and win the SB. And that's all that really matters. If management goes into next season with the thinking that, "Hey, if we don't lose Cutler, we're right there with the Packers - we don't need to make any major upgrades," then next season is already over before it begins. This team could have given the Packers a run for their money this year if their team had stayed healthy. They need to look to upgrade in a few spots, but IMO there is only 1 spot that can fit a major upgrade and that's WR. There are a number of places where upgrades could be a benefit, but WR is the gaping hole to my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I have no problem admitting the Bears are easily a playoff team with Cutler. They could very well be the second best team in the conference with Cutler. That's not my argument. They don't have the requisite pieces on offense to get to and win the SB. And that's all that really matters. If management goes into next season with the thinking that, "Hey, if we don't lose Cutler, we're right there with the Packers - we don't need to make any major upgrades," then next season is already over before it begins. Its hard to tell if you're ignorant or ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 QUOTE (dasox24 @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 05:18 PM) Fact. And Pwned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 08:49 PM) What the deuce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Was that a transformer exploding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts