Jump to content

2016-2017 NFL Thread


Recommended Posts

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 6, 2016 -> 04:41 PM)
Holy s*** is this sad: the Bears have made the playoffs only 5 times AD (After Ditka). 5 times in 24 seasons (1992). It will soon be 25.

 

The late 90s were just dreadful. Then after the Super Bowl with Lovie, they were just right on the cusp of the playoffs year after year but rarely good enough. From 2007-2013, they went 60-52 but only made the playoffs once in 7 seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 6, 2016 -> 06:27 PM)
Like I said, I don't think Connor Barth is better. Maybe Gould has regressed that much during the off-season, but last year, Gould was better then Barth.

 

I honestly think it's a wash. Gould had a very good last 3-4 games after he destroyed our season when it counted. It's possible with more time, Barth could have hit 3-4 kicks in a row and been better, or been way worse. BUt statistically his modest gains in kickoffs are an improvement over Gould, and his 2% worse accuracy was not too significant given number of kicks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 6, 2016 -> 09:30 PM)
The late 90s were just dreadful. Then after the Super Bowl with Lovie, they were just right on the cusp of the playoffs year after year but rarely good enough. From 2007-2013, they went 60-52 but only made the playoffs once in 7 seasons.

The year Lovie was fired, and the Bears went 10-6 but missed the playoffs was a microcosm of Lovie's entire time in Chicago. That team was good enough to be talked about and noticed, but came up short every time when it mattered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 6, 2016 -> 06:27 PM)
Like I said, I don't think Connor Barth is better. Maybe Gould has regressed that much during the off-season, but last year, Gould was better then Barth.

 

 

Barth is better from inside 40. Bernstein said on the air yesterday that John Fox never trusted Gould and was looking to get rid of him. Hub also said that one day at practice prior to Browns game, Gould pushed 4/5 kicks wide right from 40-50 yard range. He had a really bad camp and they just decided they'd rather have the certainty of Barth inside 40. Gould was 42/51 on FG and 17/23 on FG from 40+ over the last 2 seasons. Barth might not be clearly better but he's not definitely worse and he's way cheaper.

Edited by Y2JImmy0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 09:00 AM)
The year Lovie was fired, and the Bears went 10-6 but missed the playoffs was a microcosm of Lovie's entire time in Chicago. That team was good enough to be talked about and noticed, but came up short every time when it mattered.

 

I will say though the stretch that we went 3-5 was pretty brutal schedule where every game we lost was to a pretty damn good team.

 

The year before was more heartbreaking, after we beat the chargers they looked on fire, then Jay goes down and we saw how bad Hanie was. That broncos game will haunt my dreams forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 10:37 AM)
I will say though the stretch that we went 3-5 was pretty brutal schedule where every game we lost was to a pretty damn good team.

 

The year before was more heartbreaking, after we beat the chargers they looked on fire, then Jay goes down and we saw how bad Hanie was. That broncos game will haunt my dreams forever.

I'd say the Seattle game was definitely winnable (Cutler got them in position to win the game twice IIRC and the defense blew them), and they choked against the Vikings, but they never really stood a chance against the other teams. Any team with a pass rush or that was capable of heavy blitzing wiped the offense out and the game was decided in the second quarter.

 

However, f*** Marion Barber forever for that Broncos game. He's also a big part of the Tebow nonsense from that year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 10:07 AM)
Me and some buddies combine to do a pretty high money survivor pool every year. We have to pick 2 teams a week. Seattle is our lock, the 2nd one is being debated like crazy. I'm leaning GB but not confident in that at all. Any thoughts?

 

It's a tough slate for sure. I would say the Chiefs, but the divisional matchup and Rivers' familiarity with them worries me. I think Green Bay and Jacksonville could be a shootout that comes down to the last score.

 

It sounds crazy, but right now I'd be leaning towards Arizona. It seems crazy to pick against New England. Garoppolo may end up being good, but he's not gonna go off debuting on a Sunday night in the desert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 11:07 AM)
Me and some buddies combine to do a pretty high money survivor pool every year. We have to pick 2 teams a week. Seattle is our lock, the 2nd one is being debated like crazy. I'm leaning GB but not confident in that at all. Any thoughts?

I'd choose Indy or Tennessee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 10:07 AM)
Me and some buddies combine to do a pretty high money survivor pool every year. We have to pick 2 teams a week. Seattle is our lock, the 2nd one is being debated like crazy. I'm leaning GB but not confident in that at all. Any thoughts?

 

 

This week is super hard. I picked Seattle for mine as well. I was trying to pick against Cleveland but they are playing Philly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 10:07 AM)
Me and some buddies combine to do a pretty high money survivor pool every year. We have to pick 2 teams a week. Seattle is our lock, the 2nd one is being debated like crazy. I'm leaning GB but not confident in that at all. Any thoughts?

 

I don't think GB is a good pick.

 

 

This week in general is pretty tough to pick. Maybe Indy or Philly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Sep 7, 2016 -> 02:36 PM)
Bears just gave Kyle Long a massive extension. Biggest ever for a guard, 4 years 40 million, 30 of it guaranteed. That's left tackle money but Kyle is worth it.

 

 

Kelechi Osemele got a 5 year deal for $58.5 million in offseason but only $25.5 million in guarantees. A few things about the Long deal: Long is signed for next year for $8 million. His extension takes effect the following season and is 4 years for $40 million with $30 million guaranteed ($23 million completely guaranteed). Long is already 27 years old and this deal will take him through his age 32 season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (shipps @ Sep 8, 2016 -> 03:46 PM)
I love football. Tonight is going to be fun.

 

I still miss the days of the gruesome brutality of the hits but this brand still gets my blood flowing.

 

With ya there bud, I don't really miss football that bad up until the 3rd preseason game when people start overreacting at the results and stats. I'm pumped for some meaningful football again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 8, 2016 -> 04:01 PM)
So Zaidman tweeted out that Whitehair is probably our starting C, that's the way coaches are talkin.

 

Would it hurt to let Larson start the first game and let Whitehair get a little extra time to get acclimated?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...