# Ot: The Bears Are Freaking Ridiculous



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

This is unreal.

Another ***-kicking being dished out @ Solider Field.

Bears + Bulls = Great Chicago Sports Winter.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I second that...of course this had to occur the instant I move away from Chicago.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

The Bears are dealing out a good old fashioned beatdown, and it's a joy to watch.


----------



## Wade2Bosh (Mar 31, 2004)

The Bears defense is amazing and now the offense is playing very good as well. They have to be considered the top team in the league right now.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

This is just nasty, in pretty much every facet of the game too.
Rex looks great.

And how bout Berrian?


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

And another touchdown!

40-0..


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

The Bears are amazing. I can't believe the way they are just dominating. I never would have thought they'd perform this way. :clap: :banana: :cheers:


----------



## Wishbone (Jun 10, 2002)

another good game in all facets. that first half was total domination

the bears got points on each of their first 5 possesions, the last three all TD's
just a thing of beauty

meanwhile, the Colts just barely squeak by the Titans, who have got to be among the bottom 3 three teams the in the league. there's no way you can say that the Colts are playing better than the Bears right now...so...for at least the moment: #1 team overall in the league.


we've been waiting a long time for this. so savor every game Bears fans! 2006 is a good time for Chicago!!!!!


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Wow. I loved every minute of it. Very exciting.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

It'll be interesting how they fare against a good team, but they look intriguing.

I still think that Philly is the cream of the crop in the NFC though.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

sloth said:


> It'll be interesting how they fare against a good team, but they look intriguing.
> 
> I still think that Philly is the cream of the crop in the NFC though.


Sloth they've played a few teams that were considered good prior to playing the Bears. :biggrin:


----------



## Bulls rock your socks (Jun 29, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> This is unreal.
> 
> Another ***-kicking being dished out @ Solider Field.
> 
> Bears + Bulls = Great Chicago Sports Winter.





Bulls + Bears = 2007 Champs!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Sixerfanforlife (Jun 23, 2005)

I think the Bears are a very pheneomonal team and to be honest, we don't match up with them. A great offensive line, a young and dominate QB in Rex Chapman. (I think I spelled the name right) and of course, that cold-***, hard-*** defense. We don't stand a chance. Thanks for the compliments though, it's been a good season here.


----------



## Sixerfanforlife (Jun 23, 2005)

We almost beat the NYG, actually not almost WE SHOULD have beat the Giants, and be 5-0 like you guys. Granted, we both have had easy schedules. (Well you had the Minnesota Vikings, who I thought Brad Childress turned around). I guess it's a wait and see thing. Our schedules will be fairly easy throughout the course of the season, so I guess, I'll see yall in the playoffs.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Sixerfanforlife said:


> I think the Bears are a very pheneomonal team and to be honest, we don't match up with them. A great offensive line, a young and dominate QB in *Rex Chapman.* (I think I spelled the name right) and of course, that cold-***, hard-*** defense. We don't stand a chance. Thanks for the compliments though, it's been a good season here.


 :laugh:


----------



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

:biggrin: We gave up 7pts.! You call that dominating? 40-7 good game,40-0 dominating! I expect total domination from our team and nothing less!!!!


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

7RINGS? said:


> :biggrin: We gave up 7pts.! You call that dominating? 40-7 good game,40-0 dominating! I expect total domination from our team and nothing less!!!!


yeah, no kidding. They didn't play a full 60 minutes! What a bunch of losers! 

Seriously though, through 5 games, the defense still hasn't given up a meaningful touchdown. Freaking awesome.


----------



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

ViciousFlogging said:


> yeah, no kidding. They didn't play a full 60 minutes! What a bunch of losers!
> 
> Seriously though, through 5 games, the defense still hasn't given up a meaningful touchdown. Freaking awesome.


Indeed it is my friend!


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

I think the Bears have both scored the most points in the league, and allowed the fewest points in the league. First time that has happened this late in the season since the 60's, I think? 

Things won't always be this smooth - but right now, they just look outstanding.

(Edit - that's still true, after DEN scored 13 against BAL tonight.)


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

anybody watching bears - niners match?

watching it on tvu via fox

damn are the bears awesome, and how pathetic are the niners? 3 consecutive turnovers!!!!!

24-0 already in the first


----------



## Bulls rock your socks (Jun 29, 2006)

yodurk said:


> I second that...of course this had to occur the instant I move away from Chicago.


i guess u were the bad luck haha. im just playing


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

31-0


----------



## Bulls rock your socks (Jun 29, 2006)

31-0. i think they should go for the record for most points in a game. that would totally make them the most dominant team even tho they already r.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

hollyshhhh 41-0


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

ugh i'm not buying into the hype. they got lucky against the one real team they played this year (The Vikings), and when they get to the playoffs, they are in for a surprise.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

CiMa said:


> ugh i'm not buying into the hype. they got lucky against the one real team they played this year (The Vikings), and when they get to the playoffs, they are in for a surprise.


and Seattle, you would have a point if the Bears weren't on pace to have the biggest point differential ever. The Bears have played bad teams but have destroyed them accordingly. 

Next week is another easy W. After that the bears have the Giants, Jets and Pats, all good teams(+ sports broadcoasting notices east coast first). When the Bears roll past those teams there will be no more doubt and the hype will be deserved and welcome.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

Hustle said:


> and Seattle, you would have a point if the Bears weren't on pace to have the biggest point differential ever. The Bears have played bad teams but have destroyed them accordingly.
> 
> Next week is another easy W. After that the bears have the Giants, Jets and Pats, all good teams(+ sports broadcoasting notices east coast first). When the Bears roll past those teams there will be no more doubt and the hype will be deserved and welcome.


Seattle? You mean that team without Shaun Alexander? Yeah, what a great team they are...

Bears have a cupcake schedule and it will catch up with them in the playoffs.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

CiMa said:


> Seattle? You mean that team without Shaun Alexander? Yeah, what a great team they are...


They're still a pretty good team without him (but without him AND Hasselbeck? ehh), and we didn't just win, we crushed them. The differential arguably makes up for the absence of Alexander.

The Bears are not as good as our season point differential by any means, but with the obvious exception of that horrific AZ game, they've done what good teams are supposed to do against the cupcakes in their schedule. Demolish them. The defense has still only given up 2 or 3 meaningful TDs all season and those were mostly against AZ when they had a short field after one of Rex's turnovers. 

I'm not going to get any more carried away than this until the Bears play the Giants and Pats, but I think they deserve most of the credit they get.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

ViciousFlogging said:


> They're still a pretty good team without him (but without him AND Hasselbeck? ehh), and we didn't just win, we crushed them. The differential arguably makes up for the absence of Alexander.


I think you're underestimating the impact of Shaun Alexander. There's a reason he won MVP. You can't just take the MVP off of a team and call them a "pretty good team" without him, because they aren't. Shaun Alexander changes the whole complexion of the game.

But that is really neither here nor there, it's in the past. Eli will be a test, but put the Bears D up against a Peyton or Palmer and I see exposure.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

CiMa said:


> I think you're underestimating the impact of Shaun Alexander. There's a reason he won MVP. You can't just take the MVP off of a team and call them a "pretty good team" without him, because they aren't. Shaun Alexander changes the whole complexion of the game.


I'm not taking anything away from Alexander.

Sure they were still a good team. Not a Super Bowl team, but still pretty good. This isn't the NBA where a team can become awful if they lose one guy - Alexander is one of 22 starters, not 5. Seattle beat the Rams without him, on the road, for example.

Not to mention, the complexion of the game was also changed by the fact that the Bears jumped ahead right away. That would have made it tough for Seattle to run Alexander 25-30 times anyway. 

Seems to me that a lot of people are really trying to find reasons why the Bears aren't actually that good. I think 7-0 and an utterly ridiculous points differential tells the tale. The Bears didn't decide who they have on their schedule - all they can do is win the games they play. So far, so good. The biggest tests are yet to come, no doubt. We'll see how they do in those games.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I'm not taking anything away from Alexander.
> 
> Sure they were still a good team. Not a Super Bowl team, but still pretty good. This isn't the NBA where a team can become awful if they lose one guy - Alexander is one of 22 starters, not 5. Seattle beat the Rams without him, on the road, for example.
> 
> ...


I'm not trying to take anything away from the Bears, but some of their fans are overrating them and it's kind annoying. This team has nothing on the 85 Bears and a game against a legit team would show that.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

CiMa said:


> I'm not trying to take anything away from the Bears, but *some of their fans are overrating them and it's kind annoying*. This team has nothing on the 85 Bears and a game against a legit team would show that.


It's a Chicago based board and I haven't heard anyone bring up the 85 Bears, except football analysts. Are most of the NFL analyst's annoying you.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

hammer said:


> And this is based on the experience of a 19 year old genius who wasn't even alive in 1985....
> 
> duhhhhhhhh
> 
> The football talk is not quite as bad as the basketball talk around here, but it's close. I see retards everywhere I look.


You don't have to be old to know that was the best defense ever, for things like that word gets around. You have no credibility as far as I'm concerned to call anyone names on this board much less generalize the board as being bad. 97 posts and that being one of them, you have a lot of work to do before you talk like that to CiMa or anyone else for that matter.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

CiMa said:


> I'm not trying to take anything away from the Bears, but some of their fans are overrating them and it's kind annoying. This team has nothing on the 85 Bears and a game against a legit team would show that.


 Just curious, but who are the legit teams? The Bears handled Seattle and pulled out a win against the Vikings in MN. Heck, who have the Colts beat? Eli and the Giants opening week and the Broncos today? The Bears aren't deserving of the '85 comparisons but they're hands down the best team in the NFC right now. Maybe in the league.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

Hustle said:


> It's a Chicago based board and I haven't heard anyone bring up the 85 Bears, except football analysts. Are most of the NFL analyst's annoying you.


I didn't mean this board in specific, it's pretty much any board or any Bears fan. And yes the analysts are very annoying, but most of them don't know what they are talking about, which is nothing new.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

sp00k said:


> Just curious, but who are the legit teams? The Bears handled Seattle and pulled out a win against the Vikings in MN. Heck, who have the Colts beat? Eli and the Giants opening week and the Broncos today? The Bears aren't deserving of the '85 comparisons but they're hands down the best team in the NFC right now. Maybe in the league.


Colts, Pats, Falcons, Bengals. Any one of those teams I would have no problem taking in a game against Chicago.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

CiMa said:


> Colts, Pats, Falcons, Bengals. Any one of those teams I would have no problem taking in a game against Chicago.



:laugh: 

the hypocrisy in talking about fans who overrate their teams.
feel free to name any number of excuses why your team isn't to blame for 
their record. it's the homer thing to do you know.
and of course, there are always SOME bear fans who overrate the team. but 
to not admit that the bears are the best team right now, that's just delusional.
but not even as delusional as putting the bengals in the same group as the pats 
and colts.

as for the falcons, wait let me laugh again :laugh:
have you even seen what we did to vick last year?

and for you to "have no problem" taking any of those teams against the bears, 
means that in your eyes they're a sure thing to win against us. sure thing.
the credibility is lost with that line.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

paxman said:


> :laugh:
> 
> the hypocrisy in talking about fans who overrate their teams.
> feel free to name any number of excuses why your team isn't to blame for
> ...


you don't have one valid point. who cares what you did last year? the cardinals exposed the bears, and any elite quarterback would have no problem putting them away. Manning, Vick, Palmer, Brady, etc. could get the job done. you must not watch any games besides Bears games if you think otherwise.

and i'm not being a homer, you clearly can't read. i said i would have no problem taking the colts, pats, falcons, or bengals in a game. does that mean they would win for sure? no, but i'd feel damn good about my chances. but you feel to read things the way you want to, i'm not going to waste my time discussing football with someone like you.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

The Bears have had one win against a quality team, and that was the closest game of the season for them by far. The Seattle win came when Seattle was without the MVP. 

It will be interesting to see them against a legit team like New England or the Giants.


----------



## pac4eva5 (Dec 29, 2005)

there defense is a bit overrated, but this team is rediculous. was there any doubt theyd come out of that monday night escape, get a bye week, and then completely kill the freaking niners? not from me!

bears-colts superbowl could be the greatest ever...


----------



## pac4eva5 (Dec 29, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> The Bears have had one win against a quality team, and that was the closest game of the season for them by far. The Seattle win came when Seattle was without the MVP.
> 
> It will be interesting to see them against a legit team like New England or the Giants.


winning is winning...no?


----------



## pac4eva5 (Dec 29, 2005)

CiMa said:


> Colts, Pats, Falcons, Bengals. Any one of those teams I would have no problem taking in a game against Chicago.


lol bengals dont have **** on anybody this year...horrible defense and no running game. ya chicago would win by 40...sorry.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

pac4eva5 said:


> lol bengals dont have **** on anybody this year...horrible defense and no running game. ya chicago would win by 40...sorry.


riiiight. do you even watch football?


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

CiMa said:


> you don't have one valid point. who cares what you did last year? the cardinals exposed the bears, and any elite quarterback would have no problem putting them away. Manning, Vick, Palmer, Brady, etc. could get the job done. you must not watch any games besides Bears games if you think otherwise.


If the Cardinals exposed the Bears it wasn't with their QB or offense it was with their defense, forcing Rex into 6 TO's. The Cardinals got the ball 4 times off of turnovers(6 total) in Bear's territory(25, 29, 33, and 32 yards) and only managed 23 points on the game. The passing game this season has been nice and all, but the Bears bread and butter has been far from exposed.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

Hustle said:


> If the Cardinals exposed the Bears it wasn't with their QB or offense it was with their defense, forcing Rex into 6 TO's. The Cardinals got the ball 4 times off of turnovers(6 total) in Bear's territory(25, 29, 33, and 32 yards) and only managed 23 points on the game. The passing game this season has been nice and all, but the Bears bread and butter has been far from exposed.


i recall the cards driving 70+ yards, which was total luck on the cardinals part. but take a good offensive team, and that will happen multiple times in a game. that, added to the fact that the bears offense is far from scary, i don't like the bears odds in a shootout.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

CiMa said:


> Colts, Pats, Falcons, Bengals. Any one of those teams I would have no problem taking in a game against Chicago.


The only teams I see as definatively better than the Bears are Indianapolis, Denver, and San Diego. I'd put the Bears in the same category as New England and Atlanta... so anywhere from #4 to #6.

That said, and anything can happen in the playoffs, which is why I think Bears fans are getting very excited. I think the Minnesota and Arizona games are enough for most fans to have a reality check, despite the undefeated record.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Hustle said:


> If the Cardinals exposed the Bears it wasn't with their QB or offense it was with their defense, forcing Rex into 6 TO's. The Cardinals got the ball 4 times off of turnovers(6 total) in Bear's territory(25, 29, 33, and 32 yards) and only managed 23 points on the game. The passing game this season has been nice and all, but the Bears bread and butter has been far from exposed.


Agreed. I wouldn't say the defense was exposed - aside from that one drive where AZ just marched into the endzone, the Bears' defense was very good that game considering that they had to start out in their own territory most of the night. 

I also wouldn't say the offense was "exposed", so much as Rex just had a nightmare of a game. Does that raise red flags about whether he can handle the pressure when he's playing against good defenses on the road or in the playoffs? You bet it does. Does it "expose" the offense as being unable to move the ball generally? I don't necessarily think so - I think the AZ game was a fluke. But like I said earlier, we have some good teams coming up in the next few weeks and that'll give us a better idea of what this team is really made of.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

CiMa said:


> i recall the cards driving 70+ yards, which was total luck on the cardinals part. but take a good offensive team, and that will happen multiple times in a game. that, added to the fact that the bears offense is far from scary, i don't like the bears odds in a shootout.


Currently the bears offense is number one in the league, oh I forgot the schedule adds points. They probably aren't very good.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Even when the opponents are poor, such as the Packers, Buffalo and San Fran, the Bears are not just winning games, they are destroying the other team. Destroying. They also whipped Seatlle, who is still a good team even without Alexander. If the Bears were beating these teams 21-10 it would be another story. Today's SF game was not a contest between two teams that should be in the same league. It was that dominating a performace.

But, it is true, they have not played the best of the best. The schedule has been soft. But, they are crushing the soft opponents, not just beating them. This game showed to me that the Arizona game was just a young, inexperienced QB (Rex) going through some growing pains. He played damn near perfect today.... no need to throw the ball 25 yards down the field every play.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

by the way, for those who don't know, here's a picture of CIMA's dad:










it's ok, angry boy. we won't crown their behind yet.
yes yes we know. we're who you thought we were, take it easy. breathe kid. breathe.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Does anybody else see the irony in CiMa's posts? He comes here to accuse Bears fans of overrating our team then proceeds to list the four teams in the entire league who he would feel comfortable taking against the Bears...The list maestro,

1.Colts(no arguments here, 7-0, Peyton)
2.Patriots(no arguments here, 6-1, knows how to win)
3.Falcons(no arguments, 5-2, amazing rushing attack plus Vick can throw now)
4.Bengals

And we're off. First, the Bengals are 4-3 with losses to the Buccaneers (bad team), Falcons (good team), and New England (good team). You snuck by a Carolina team in Cincinnati that just got blasted by an average Cowboys team in Carolina. The 8-pt win at Pittsburgh doesn't look so hot right now that the Steelers are 2-5.

The Bears have wins of 26, 27, 31 (twice), and 33. We've played five bad teams with the one slip-up coming against Arizona who we beat. 

Despite this stats, you feel the Bengals have a good shot against the Bears. It can't be because of what's happening on the field, so it must be because you are a Bengals fan. I'd go to the ESPN boards if I wanted people telling us how bad the Bears are b/c we haven't played anybody. Perhaps Lovie should have told the people who make the NFL schedule to just put them against the best team in the league every week. I didn't realize beating up on crappy teams and beating two good teams (btw Alexander doesn't account for 4 extra TDs on Sunday night against the Bears) makes you overrated. Honestly, I'm thinking 13-3 with losses against the Giants, Pats, and Rams. I also think we are the best team in the NFC by a mile.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

T.Shock said:


> Does anybody else see the irony in CiMa's posts? He comes here to accuse Bears fans of overrating our team then proceeds to list the four teams in the entire league who he would feel comfortable taking against the Bears...The list maestro,
> 
> 1.Colts(no arguments here, 7-0, Peyton)
> 2.Patriots(no arguments here, 6-1, knows how to win)
> ...


Let me explain my position on the Bengals and why I think they can beat the Bears.

1. Despite the injuries on the OL and the Texans' like play from the OL, the Bengals are still very competitive, and could very well easily be 6-1. New England flat out spanked us, I don't think even with a healthy OL we would have won that game. But, we lost to TB by 1 and Atlanta by 2, with 2 of our 3 most important OL injured.

2. The current OL sucks, but they're making slow improvements. Would I take the Bengals against the Bears say next week? Probably not. But in 2-4 weeks? You betcha. The Bengals chemistry is off right now because of the impact of injuries on the OL. With a healthy OL, the Bengals are scoring like they did last year. But, as the season goes along, the chemistry will improve, and they will get better.

3. While I would take the Bengals in a game against the Bears with no fear, I don't think the Bengals are as good as the Bears right now. But on any given sunday, anyone can win, and if the Bengals were in a shootout with the Bears, I would take the Bengals everyday. Palmer, CJ, TJ, Henry, CP23, and Rudi? You can't mess with that.

So don't be fooled by the 4-3 record, it could very easily be 6-1, cause we are talking losses of less than a FG. and that sir is why I like the Bengals chances.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

paxman said:


> by the way, for those who don't know, here's a picture of CIMA's dad:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


typical response from a typical Bears fan. denny knows the truth about you too, too bad you don't see it.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

CiMa said:


> But on any given sunday, anyone can win


Thats why the Bears had 2 close games


----------



## Simpleton (Feb 18, 2005)

The Bears are a very good team, a little better than I expected but still very good.

I told all of you guys to forget Koren Robinson because he isn't worth the trouble and that you could get similar production from someone like Berrian, and look at him now. Your defense is obviously very stout and plays great at home and your offense with a couple decent WR's, a good running game and a QB that isn't absolutely horrible (Quinn and Stewart come to mind) isn't just not losing games but they're winning them.

You're almost guaranteed a bye because of your easy schedule so you'll be in the second round at least and likely the NFC Championship game. I could easily see you guys making the Super Bowl, although I think you'd lose there since you'd be without the frigid conditions of Soldier Field but that's for another discussion.

The only thing I think you need to look out for on the NFC side of the bracket that could keep you out of the Super Bowl is a team that can match your physicality on defense (since your offense while good, still isn't great by any means) but also has elite players on offense that could hurt you a bit.

The only teams I think that can do that are probably the Giants, Cowboys and maybe the Panthers. The Giants have Barber, Shockey and Burress, the Cowboys have Owens, Glenn, Witten and Jones and the Panthers have Steve Smith, although that may not be enough. All their defenses are rather strong and I believe could match up with your offense as well.

But at any rate, you've got a great shot to make the Super Bowl.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

paxman said:


> by the way, for those who don't know, here's a picture of CIMA's dad:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lIY4saZ89mA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lIY4saZ89mA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

funniest video in a long time


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

wow. uhhmmm wow.


----------



## pac4eva5 (Dec 29, 2005)

lol at the bengals homer! the bengals are not going anywhere this season. they wont make the playoffs. seriously, a crappy rushing attack and crappy defense is the worst combo in football. to say they are an odds on favorite to smoke the bears is simply rediculous and quite embarrassing...


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

pac4eva5 said:


> lol at the bengals homer! the bengals are not going anywhere this season. they wont make the playoffs. seriously, a crappy rushing attack and crappy defense is the worst combo in football. to say they are an odds on favorite to smoke the bears is simply rediculous and quite embarrassing...


i'll be sure to bump this thread come playoff time


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Moving away from the Bengals for a minute: I'll bet the Bears are going to be underdogs coming into Boston; even if they continue their dominating ways. This Pats team is good; Brady may be the best quarterback I've ever seen. Their running game is having a resurgence, and the make better adjustments than any team in the league.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

CiMa said:


> Let me explain my position on the Bengals and why I think they can beat the Bears.
> 1. i am a fan of the bengals
> 2. i am not a fan of the bears
> 3. i am a massive homer


well if you put it that way


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

such sweet thunder said:


> Moving away from the Bengals for a minute: I'll bet the Bears are going to be underdogs coming into Boston; even if they continue their dominating ways. This Pats team is good; Brady may be the best quarterback I've ever seen. Their running game is having a resurgence, and the make better adjustments than any team in the league.


Maroney coming in and just giving them a variety of things has really given them that added spark, many thought they'd be missing coming into this year.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

nice sig pac  gotta love you bears fans


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

CiMa said:


> nice sig pac  gotta love you bears fans


and he comes for more.
everything ok with you?
mom's treating you well?
take care of yourself kiddo


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Bears strength of schedule ranking: 32

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl06.htm


----------



## pac4eva5 (Dec 29, 2005)

CiMa said:


> nice sig pac  gotta love you bears fans


what? i cant have a quote from u in my sig but u can have one from me?

btw, im not a bears fan. u think it would be pretty obvious from the avatar. but your sarcastic remark towards bears fans is kinda retarded u think? bears fans cant enjoy their undefeated season w/o some bengals [edit] making stupid claims that they would get killed by the crappy bengals. oh what irony...


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

let's keep it clean everyone. We can trade strongly-worded opinions without namecalling.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

pac4eva5 said:


> what? i cant have a quote from u in my sig but u can have one from me?
> 
> btw, im not a bears fan. u think it would be pretty obvious from the avatar. but your sarcastic remark towards bears fans is kinda retarded u think? bears fans cant enjoy their undefeated season w/o some bengals [edit] making stupid claims that they would get killed by the crappy bengals. oh what irony...



haha man oh man. first off your sig is false, since i never said that. and second off, i never said the bengals would "kill" the bears. good grief, learn how to read.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

The game to watch for is the Patriots. The Patriots attacked the Vikings Cover 2 flawlessly. That's what you have to do with the Bears....spread them out, flood the zones, protect the QB.

Brady can do that. The Patriots OL can protect Brady. And the Patriots WRs have played better. The Bears are weak in the secondary and thats how you attack them. Set up the passing game to attack via the run.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Bump.

Bears aren't so ridiculous today. We're not looking quite as sharp and the first drive by Miami had me a little concerned. We're up 3-0 but if we want to be Super Bowl contenders we need to destroy this 1-win, Joey Harrington led team.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Christ. Devin with the mufffed punt return on the 5 yard line. This has the feeling of the 'Zona game.

TD to Booker, Fins up.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

OH NO.

Grossman falling apart.

Berrian is out.

Shades of 1985?


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Rex with the nice pass to Taylor for the TD. Fins with 14 now.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Put In Kyle Orton!!!!


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

Well, they look ridiculous so far today, but not in a good way.
Gotta get our **** together, losing to the Dolphins at home is not tolerable.


----------



## -33- (Aug 6, 2002)

pay back for the 42 point *** whooping we had on Tuesday....Channing Crowder among others were in the house, they want to redeem the city of Miami

but...too much football for me to feel at all comfortable at all with a 14-3 lead


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Good Lord, another fumble. We lucked out with the recovery but good Lord, nothing is going our way today. Plenty of time in the game but let's see how Rex recovers. If he starts forcing things like the Arizona game then we might need to bench him and let Griese take the helm.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

WOW.

Great catch / pass by Moose / Grossman.

Ronnie Brown is running tough.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Just like in the Arizona game, it's clear that the Bears are vulnerable when they decide to hold the proverbial gun to their own heads. We gave the Dolphins 14 pts. Just gave it to them, like when you were kids and you'd spot the nerdy kids 14 to give them a shot. 14-10 Dolphins at the half.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Ronnie Brown is running tough. So is Benson. I really hope Cedric gets at least as many carries as Jones in the second half. He just does not look fun to tackle. And here's hoping nothing's seriously wrong with Berrian...


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Everyone on the Bears with a history of butter fingers has now coughed up the ball.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

This is just one of those games.

I'll say this much though - if losing to Miami means these guys get their butts in gear for this upcoming road stretch then I'll take it. This is a tough pill to take.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Vasher with the big INT. He played that beautifully. Offense needs to take advantage now.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

And Gould gets us within one score. Horrible series by the offense.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I'm telling you if I was a NFL Head Coach, my main line would be "NO TURNOVERS". I'm sorry but we are loads better than the Dolphins. We got lucky in Arizona after turning the ball over 6 times. Turnovers made the Minnesota game close. Now against the Dolphins, we've given them 21 pts on 5 turnovers. This game would be 13-3, 20-7, or something like that if not for the turnovers.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Hester with another fumble. That flag better be holding on the kicking team.

And Hester is benched the next game.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

WOW! We dodged a bullet there.

But constantly coughing up the ball will promise a short season. We can pull this against Arizona but against a team like NE, Indy or NY we're hosed.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Bears keep dodging them. Rex needs to do something with this series.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Down 15 with 10 minutes left. I'm not very hopeful.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Bear's offense owes the Bear's defense an apology if we lose this one.

What a difference a week makes. Chicago fans welcome to earth.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

If we wanna win this year, bench Grossman. Otherwise, this year is mainly for his development. He needs more seasoning to become a guy who can legitimately lead a Super Bowl contender.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> If we wanna win this year, bench Grossman. Otherwise, this year is mainly for his development. He needs more seasoning to become a guy who can legitimately lead a Super Bowl contender.


That's a tough call.

You might be right though.

The window of opportunity is so short in the NFL. We've seen plenty of Grossman. 

We're in the playoffs unless there is a meltdown. 5 tough games coming up. Let's see how Rex responds next week. Losing Berrian really affect this offense.

I hope to the heavens you want to see Griese in there if its not Rex.

If we give up running yards like we did today, we're not going to win many games anyway.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Nah, if anything we needed to bench Rex this game. It would have been one of those moves that could have whipped him into shape while giving us a chance to win the game. But a permanent change? Are we so quick to forget our early season success?


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> That's a tough call.
> 
> You might be right though.
> 
> ...


We gotta remember that Rex is kinda still a second year player. When he's in pressure situations, whether it be the pass rush or the game situation, Rex makes bad reads or bad throws, like a 2nd year QB might do. I honestly don't see him growing totally past that this season. 

And yeah, I'm talkin' about putting Griese in there. I'd never advocate putting Orton in there.

Philosophical question I have for the posters here: I was on the phone with one of my buddies, and I was saying that if Rex is playing the way he did today or like he did against Arizona, you gotta sub him out. He said no, benching him, if only for a partial game, would crush Rex's confidence. I personally feel that Rex is a grown man and if his confidence can't withstand a short benching, well, he probably doesn't have a strong enough makeup to be the guy.

Where do y'all stand?


----------



## Bulls rock your socks (Jun 29, 2006)

Bears suck period.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Lets not start a Bears Season Is a Wash thread just yet.

Only one 16-0 team ever.

Even the '85 Bears lost.

Not that I'd dare compare the 2. The '85 Bears still own.

I'm just sayin'...


----------



## Bulls rock your socks (Jun 29, 2006)

History will repeat itself. Bears will win the Superbowl.


----------



## Wishbone (Jun 10, 2002)

listening to this game on internet radio... 

was complete and utter misery. now I know, I know - it's just one game. and I'm really hoping this is the sort of thing gives them a real kick in the butt to get up for this upcoming stretch. the next five games are going to be the toughest stretch of the season, and are going to make the difference if we have home field for the playoffs or not.


my concern is, it would seem that the Bears have been SERIOUSLY exposed. two godawful teams have now really put it to the bears in two of their last three games. you think the Giant's coaches aren't going to watch this film, and start licking their chops?

sorry if I'm sounding like the sky is falling, but I'm getting the feeling like if there are any more performances like today's, that they'll start to become the norm and not the exception. yeah, I know. it's only one game, and we've dominated in most of the previous 7. but the world of the NFL is that you're only as good as you're last game... and man, I don't like where that is one bit.
I'm just hoping this is a real wakeup call, and that the coaches can get the guys heads back in the game and get their confidence back...

and I'm really, REALLY hoping that those injuries to Berrian and Urlacher are not serious


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Wishbone said:


> listening to this game on internet radio...
> 
> was complete and utter misery. now I know, I know - it's just one game. and I'm really hoping this is the sort of thing gives them a real kick in the butt to get up for this upcoming stretch. the next five games are going to be the toughest stretch of the season, and are going to make the difference if we have home field for the playoffs or not.
> 
> ...


Exposed how? Again, I think people just ignore my posts. Is it just a coincidence that the one game we lost and one game we shoulda lost we turned the ball over 6 times in each. There is a reason, Lovie told Orton last year to go out there and not lose us the game. Miami had three TDs on drives starting inside our 20. If anything, the only thing that has concerned me is the fact Frank Gore and Ronnie Brown have made our run defense look bad the past two weeks. I think the Bears go 3-2 in the upcoming stretch, and probably finish 13-3 with homefield throughout the playoffs.


----------



## Wishbone (Jun 10, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> Exposed how? Again, I think people just ignore my posts. Is it just a coincidence that the one game we lost and one game we shoulda lost we turned the ball over 6 times in each. There is a reason, Lovie told Orton last year to go out there and not lose us the game. Miami had three TDs on drives starting inside our 20. If anything, the only thing that has concerned me is the fact Frank Gore and Ronnie Brown have made our run defense look bad the past two weeks. I think the Bears go 3-2 in the upcoming stretch, and probably finish 13-3 with homefield throughout the playoffs.



I think we have been exposed in three areas:

1) run defense
2) short/screen passing defense
3) handling the blitz

the Vikings, Arizona and now the Miami games demonstrated that if Rex is put under constant pressure, he will turn the ball over in every way imaginable. Now, I had really thought that the coaches would put this to use. start putting in Max-protect blocking schemes, and put someone out there for the outlet pass if protection breaks down. if other teams are going to blitz constantly, then someone is bound to be open out in the middle of the field or in the flats. 
if Lovie is going to practice one thing this week, it's going to have to be sending 8 or 9 rushers at Rex and force him to make plays under those situations.

the point I'm really trying to make is that this team seems to be a lot more 'mortal' now than they did after the first 5 games. most other coaches in the league are going to take something away from the last few games, and find ways to exploit our weaknesses - as any good coach should.

in the end, I really do think that this is just going to be a wakeup call for the team to get focused, and get their butts in gear for this upcoming stretch. the problem is, I said the same thing after the Cardinals game, and they only got their act together for one week.
It's going to be easy for the team to get fired up for the Giants, what with the national TV thing, vying for 1st place in the NFC, and of course wanting to prove to the world that this last game was a fluke. but it could just as easily lead to another let down against the less-imposing Jets the week after.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> We gotta remember that Rex is kinda still a second year player. When he's in pressure situations, whether it be the pass rush or the game situation, Rex makes bad reads or bad throws, like a 2nd year QB might do. I honestly don't see him growing totally past that this season.
> 
> And yeah, I'm talkin' about putting Griese in there. I'd never advocate putting Orton in there.
> 
> ...


I think you ask a difficult question for which I have no answer. The only thing worse than a quarterback cotroversy is giving away a contending season because you are tied to a gun-slinger I wouldn't mind seeing Griese getting reps, but I'd be curious what people with more football experience have to say.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Looks like Rex is still trying as hard as he can to win for the other team. If he doesn't look better this drive I hope Lovie isn't too hesitant to yank him. This is the type of game the Bears haven't been able to win the last few years.


----------



## Bulls rock your socks (Jun 29, 2006)

Rex Grossman Offically Sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow Thats Like A Minus 100 Rating


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Not lookin' good offensively. The O-line has to step up, cause if the opposition produces a pass rush, Rex folds.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Looks to me like Grossman is telegraphing all his passes. He just looks and looks and looks at the receiver he's going to throw to, and the defense plays accordingly.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Wow, Davis is bad.

And Gould is fantastic. 

7-3, G-Men. Their D looks better than ours, their O looks worlds better than ours. Let's hope things turn around soon.


----------



## Bulls rock your socks (Jun 29, 2006)

His throws arent on point them seem to float and not strike with velocity.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Looks to me like Grossman is telegraphing all his passes. He just looks and looks and looks at the receiver he's going to throw to, and the defense plays accordingly.


Ok so far we've learned a couple of things...

-Rex Grossman still has a way to go, but he had two dropped passes early on and the pick was as much the O-Line's fault as it was his.

-The Bears O-Line looks awful. I mean terrible. Because of this we can't run the ball to save our life.

-Robbie Gould is amazing. 

-The defense is as good as advertised. The G-Men would have 0 or 3 pts if it wasn't for...

-TURNOVERS. Look at what I said after the Miami game. When we turn the ball over, we lose or almost lose. When we don't turn the ball over, we win. A Grossman INT and Jones' awful fumble has lead to all 10 Giants points.

-We are not the best team in the NFC. The Giants are.

Right now I'd say...

1.Giants
2.Bears
3.Seahawks
4.Saints
5.Eagles
6.Falcons
7.Cowboys
8.Panthers

My hope is that we win at least one of these next three. End up 8-3 with games against GB, Det, Min, StL, and TB left. I think we can go 4-1 or 5-0 over the end of the season and end up as the #1 or #2 seed with a record of 12-4 or 13-3.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I think the replay pretty clearly showed Tillman still had the ball when his knee was down. That's a costly review to lose. That's three more points for the Giants.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Here's a question for you knowledgeable football fans: Why do teams usually have one guy who does punt returns and one guy who does kickoff returns. I realize the blocking schemes are different, but somehow I would expect that one guy one each team would be best at both jobs.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Here's a question for you knowledgeable football fans: Why do teams usually have one guy who does punt returns and one guy who does kickoff returns. I realize the blocking schemes are different, but somehow I would expect that one guy one each team would be best at both jobs.



The only thing I can think of is with a kickoff there's pretty much no pressure on the catch, so you might stick someone out there who's fast and/or shifty, whereas on a punt there's often very heavy pressure and you need a better decision maker, or someone that doesn't get spooked by the fact that he's going to get nailed. Maybe someone with better hands then necessarily fast.
There's probably a much better reason.


Bears score, finally.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Grossman can do nothing if he has any pressure at all. When he's got all day and guys are falling down he can make a play.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

JRose5 said:


> The only thing I can think of is with a kickoff there's pretty much no pressure on the catch, so you might stick someone out there who's fast and/or shifty, whereas on a punt there's often very heavy pressure and you need a better decision maker, or someone that doesn't get spooked by the fact that he's going to get nailed. Maybe someone with better hands then necessarily fast.
> There's probably a much better reason.
> 
> 
> Bears score, finally.


Well, Davis is shifty, and he's been a decent kickoff guy, but why wouldn't you send Hester back there? I would think he might be ever better at kickoffs because there's less pressure to catch the ball.

It's nice to see Bradley catch a touchdown. I really thought he was shaping up into a stud last year. We need another deep threat. Maybe he's ready again. I'm also happy for Rex throwing a TD to keep us in this game and swing the momentum, but really he didn't lead Bradley far enough on that pass.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Well, Davis is shifty, and he's been a decent kickoff guy, but why wouldn't you send Hester back there? I would think he might be ever better at kickoffs because there's less pressure to catch the ball.


Definitely agree about Hester there, I'm not sure what the rationale behind that is.


----------



## Bulls rock your socks (Jun 29, 2006)

bears get the ball and they should score or else.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Whew. Jones picking up that first down was huuuge. Glad to see Bradley get a TD. Hopefully the Bears calm down in the second half.

And Tillman needs to stick with Plaxico. Good God.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Oh does that hurt. Moose fumbles on the one yard line?!? We don't deserve to win if we can't hold on to the ball.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Haha! Hester just fielded a missed (short) FG attempt and ran it the other way for a TD! 

31-20. Perfect timing too, the defense seemed to be taking a couple possessions off there.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Bears may be a team of destiny after all. How else can you explain Tom Coughlin's mind-numbing stupidity in going for the 52 yard field goal?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> Bears may be a team of destiny after all. How else can you explain Tom Coughlin's mind-numbing stupidity in going for the 52 yard field goal?



...or the fact that they haven't just given it to Barber about 35 times today since he's running for 7 yards a carry?

Anyway...Jones just dove in for another TD. What a great 2nd half. 38-20.


----------



## pac4eva5 (Dec 29, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Here's a question for you knowledgeable football fans: Why do teams usually have one guy who does punt returns and one guy who does kickoff returns. I realize the blocking schemes are different, but somehow I would expect that one guy one each team would be best at both jobs.


more chance of injury on kickoffs. however i would say most teams have the same guy do both...


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

T.Shock said:


> -We are not the best team in the NFC. The Giants are.
> 
> Right now I'd say...
> 
> ...


come again?


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

funny we don't see that trash talking poster Cima around here.
i thought he said his (4-5) bengals were better than the (8-1) bears.

oh well, i must be the easy schedule. 
looking forward to playing the easy patriots and jets.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

I could've sworn from reading this last pages of the thread that we were about to be 7-2. Wow, 8-1. At least pro football is going well for me. What the hell happened to Rex "BG" Grossman in the 2nd half ? Sounds like there was quite a change.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Schedule smedule, NFC bragging right are now officially owned and copyrighted by the Chicago Bears.

I called the Vasher like td before it happened, not that I really thought it would happen. Man was that sweet.

Burgess called out the Bears corners before the game saying they were by far not the best he's faced this season, 2 turnovers in yo face.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

paxman said:


> funny we don't see that trash talking poster Cima around here.
> i thought he said his (4-5) bengals were better than the (8-1) bears.
> 
> oh well, i must be the easy schedule.
> looking forward to playing the easy patriots and jets.


Biggest choke job since we beat the Cardinals, it really should be longer.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

The Bears were playing a Giant team missing 5 defense starters and two offensive starters for the majority of the game. I wouldn't annoint them yet. They've shown some serious vulnerability against good running backs.

Grossman made some plays when he had a lot of time and was able to find open recievers who were abusing Corey Webster or taking advantage of Madison's hamstring. Again, when the pressure was on and the defense was tight, as it was for most of the first half, he looked horrible.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> The Bears were playing a Giant team missing 5 defense starters and two offensive starters for the majority of the game. I wouldn't annoint them yet.


Go ahead. Crown 'em if you want to. They are who we thought they were.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I'm happy with the win and all, and it sure was a relief to see them wake up for the 2nd half, but I'm still a little bit nervous about the Bears. Tiki basically went anywhere he wanted, and the front four didn't get consistent pressure on Eli until later in the game. And if Hester hadn't run that kick back, it was still a 4-point game. Not to mention that a Giants defense missing a bunch of starters were giving the Bears fits for the first half.

I like where we are at 8-1, naturally, but this game didn't put me completely at ease.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

The Bears have been taken down the field 5 times for td's (9 games), the rest have come off turnovers well into Bears territory. I don't see much vunerability.

If Hester nothing, if NY scored the same way it would be considered part of the justicfication why the Bears are overrated.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

paxman said:


> come again?


I still say the same thing. Eli Manning is less mistake prone than Rex. Tiki is loads better than Thomas Jones. With Strahan, Short, Usi, etc. the Giants are almost as talented as we are on defense. The only big advantages the Bears have is Gould and Lovie Smith. Also, if they meet again in the playoffs, it will be at Soldier Field.


----------



## Simpleton (Feb 18, 2005)

That was a really solid win.

I mean ya, the Giants were without a bunch of defensive players and Manning didn't play well but you were on the road and without your only deep threat on offense. It was obvious the Giants D was sitting on the underneath routes early on when your running game was stalled because they had no respect for your WR's going over the top.

I thought it was going to be a long night after Grossman's first pass, but thank God for me (my fantasy team) and you that he got it together.

But I still say come playoff time, the Giants, even in Chicago will be a tough team to beat. They have a physical defense that won't back down and elite offensive players, better offensive players than the Bears have. The only other two teams that could beat you are probably Dallas and maybe Carolina, although I don't know if their RB's and WR's aside from Smith are good enough.

Homefield advantage is yours though, you have a 2 game lead on the rest of the NFC and tiebreakers over the Giants and Seahawks since you beat them head to head, and a significantly easier schedule the rest of the way.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Great win regardless if the Giants were missing starters. Showed that our D can handle the big boys (Eli and Plexi-Glass) and our offense can come alive against the better defensive teams to win a game. I'm very concerned over our inability to protect the ball, but at least Rex was able to limit his mistakes. Moose and TJ fumbling was just odd...

Can we finish 15-1? NE looks vulnerable, MN looks bad...


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

A few minutes left in the game, Bears up 10-0. It's nice that we don't need to rely on Rex having a good game in order to win, but this is getting scary. He has no TOs but he just looks off. Mind you, the Jets have one of the worst defenses in the league.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

The Bears are now tied for best record in the NFL. Peyton and friends just fell to Dallas.


----------



## Orange Julius Irving (Jun 28, 2004)

Bears also now have toughest scoring defense in the league since Chargers put 35 up on the Broncos.

I am not too worried at this point with Da Bears. 

Every team has weaknesses, there are no perfect teams in the NFL.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

paxman said:


> funny we don't see that trash talking poster Cima around here.
> i thought he said his (4-5) bengals were better than the (8-1) bears.
> 
> oh well, i must be the easy schedule.
> looking forward to playing the easy patriots and jets.


after the bears lost to the dolphins, i don't need to say anything anymore. to quote denny green, the bears are who i thought they were.

good luck against the pats, you're gonna need it.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

CiMa said:


> after the bears lost to the dolphins, i don't need to say anything anymore. to quote denny green, the bears are who i thought they were.


Tied for the best record in the NFL and 2-0 vs. NY teams? Is that who you thought they were? :biggrin:


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

CiMa said:


> after the bears lost to the dolphins, i don't need to say anything anymore. to quote denny green, the bears are who i thought they were.
> 
> good luck against the pats, you're gonna need it.


Do you mean the 5-6 Dolphins, aren't you guys 5-5.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Bears have been taken down the field for 5 td's off of returns. The rest were off of turnovers well into Bears territory. Turnovers are the only thing that can hurt this team. Our defense is god like. Haven't allowed 300 total yards once this year.

So far the Pats offense is statistically identical to the Bears. 

This might be the best special teams matchup in history.

Great matchup. GO BEARS!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

:whatever:


----------



## Bulls rock your socks (Jun 29, 2006)

OMMMMMMMMMMMMMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG. Grossman suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuccccccccccckkkkkkkkkksssssssssss.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Rex is the thing holding the team back.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

9-2 cima 9-2. Not the worst loss at all. Don't shake your head at a team that clinched a playoff spot in week 11 it's just foolish.

But Grossman really worries me. I don't care that NE has one of the best defenses, this is one 4 turnover game too many. It's highly unlikely he can go 3 straight games against the NFL's best teams w/o one of these gross preformances. Bench Rex. All the Bears had to do to win was not turn the ball over.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

Hustle said:


> 9-2 cima 9-2. Not the worst loss at all. Don't shake your head at a team that clinched a playoff spot in week 11 it's just foolish.
> 
> But Grossman really worries me. I don't care that NE has one of the best defenses, this is one 4 turnover game too many. It's highly unlikely he can go 3 straight games against the NFL's best defenses w/o one of these gross preformances. Bench Rex. All the Bears had to do to win was not turn the ball over.


do you even know what i'm shaking my head at? no. i'm shaking my head at grossman. guy is a moron.

you may be 9-2 but i sure as hell wouldn't want grossman as my QB in the playoffs.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

We have some terrible pass protection, but that last pass was horrid --- kinda the symbol of the entire game. 

My impression of this offense is that we can really run up the score on horrible teams at home, but struggle to put points on the road no matter who are playing. If it's a playoff team, good luck. We are still overly reliant on defense to create good field position, pass interferences, and the running game. Perhaps we were really good those first few games because teams didn't know what to expect.


----------



## Bulls rock your socks (Jun 29, 2006)

i think its the play calling. 3 step slant routes??! that play hasnt been working for them since last year in the playoffs w the pathers. make a new play up for god sakes. even simple plays. ie hitch, in and outs, throwing to the rbs.


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

did u catch the pats dethroning the bears as contendors?


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Pain5155 said:


> did u catch the pats dethroning the bears as contendors?


Lol, I wasn't aware that teams losing their 2nd game of the year in week 12 can be "dethroned" as contenders.

The only thing that can beat the Bears are turnovers. Unfortunately, Rex has proven to be incredibly incompetent when it comes to protecting the ball. If Lovie's going to make a change it has to be this week. We can't decide to make a change in week 15.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Is it time for Griese, folks? I don't care if we win our next five. I don't think I'm going to trust Rex in the playoffs. I'm thinking back on a lot of Rex's long completions throughout the year. Many of them weren't really in the right place, and only a good adjustment by Berrian resulted in a big play. Does Rex ever catch Bernard in stride? Aside from Rex's ambition to go deep, I'm really not happy with what he's bringing the team, and I would have felt the same way if we would have squeaked out a win this week.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

^Rex has been awful lucky that a lot more of his passes haven't been intercepted as well. Every game 4-5 balls bounce off the open arms of a defender. 3 of the last 6 he has been beyond horrible, and another 1 he was just bad(the 2 good games, SF and a severly weakened Giants d). It seems every since the Cardinals game planned him, he's not very effective anymore.

Bring on Griese.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Pain5155 said:


> did u catch the pats dethroning the bears as contendors?


Falling to 9-2 isn't exactly getting "dethroned as contenders"


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Still, this was something of a Super Bowl preview. If the Bears can knock off the NFC teams on its way to the Big Game, yesterday's funfest is what awaits them. Great defense and smart pass coverage that will pick Rex Grossman's tiniest inaccuracy apart. And we know how streaky Rex can be.

I don't know about "bring on Griese"; it's a bit late to have a QB controversy. But I'd continue what Lovie's been doing in running the ball with Benson more as the season progresses, because we are going to need to commit to the run with Benson and Jones much more in games when Rex isn't getting it done. I'd also start bringing back the dreaded Shoop-like screen passes to see if Berrian, Bradley, or Davis can start making things happen with their legs (I don't think Muhsin really has those kinds of moves). 

I'd also start seeing if Benson or Jones can become more important pass-catchers in short yardage. And Desmond Clark hasn't been involved as much lately as he was earlier, when the Bears were dominating in early-season play.

These are things that Lovie can do to help Rex, not to restrain him, but to give him ways to be effective when his touch is a little off. Seeing him come in off of the hard-fought Bears turnover to step into the two-minute drill, only to fire off an ill-advised pass directly to Asante Samuel... it really hurt. It really did. And Rex needs to be able to gauge himself, to know when he's not completely fired up yet, and to be conservative with his deep game. That's really a rookie-style mistake, but the offense needs to give him more options.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Showtyme said:


> Still, this was something of a Super Bowl preview. If the Bears can knock off the NFC teams on its way to the Big Game, yesterday's funfest is what awaits them. Great defense and smart pass coverage that will pick Rex Grossman's tiniest inaccuracy apart. And we know how streaky Rex can be.
> 
> I don't know about "bring on Griese"; it's a bit late to have a QB controversy. But I'd continue what Lovie's been doing in running the ball with Benson more as the season progresses, because we are going to need to commit to the run with Benson and Jones much more in games when Rex isn't getting it done. I'd also start bringing back the dreaded Shoop-like screen passes to see if Berrian, Bradley, or Davis can start making things happen with their legs (I don't think Muhsin really has those kinds of moves).
> 
> ...


Good post. Not I would never, ever advocate anything resembling a John Shoop offense, but it seems like we can't find a good balance. I would sit down and tell Ron Turner that 7-yard out passes are okay. It seems like everything is down the field and Rex is just heaving it up there and hoping it gets caught. Give Jones 20 carries, Benson 10 carries, throw downfield 5-8 times a game, and throw a lot of stuff to Muhammad over the middle.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> Good post. Not I would never, ever advocate anything resembling a John Shoop offense, but it seems like we can't find a good balance. I would sit down and tell Ron Turner that 7-yard out passes are okay. It seems like everything is down the field and Rex is just heaving it up there and hoping it gets caught. Give Jones 20 carries, Benson 10 carries, throw downfield 5-8 times a game, and throw a lot of stuff to Muhammad over the middle.


Yeah. They just have to commit to the short game, somewhat. I mean, if Rex had the ability to really throw that deep route, and if we had a Marvin Harrison or a Chad Johnson or a Torry Holt on our team, then heck, it's a great plan. Run the ball with guys that can bust through the frontlines, and keep the secondary playing off because of the deep threat. It's how we won a lot of the early games.

But we cannot always count on that, and Rex can't always execute, and his receivers aren't sick enough to get it done. Bernard and Rex just aren't Peyton + Marvin. They're not even really Hasselback and D. Jackson. They're just Rex and Bernard.

The coaches have a responsibility to game plan for that. It's great to put confidence in your QB and be ready to rise and fall with him, but it's for HIS sake that you give him more options.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Very entertaining game to watch. Most encouraging signs were Benson running very solid and showing nice burst. Secondary held up well considering the front four didn't create much pressure and they were encountering 3-4 WR sets and the immortal Tom Brady. Once again, Rex gets knocked around and turns the ball over.

The Bears have enough offensive weapons to win it all this season. Moose, Berrian, and Bradley should be on the field together in passing situations. Recommit to the running game, Jones has regained his step and Benson looks hungrier each week. Rex just manage the f'n game and stop throwing 30 yarders off your back foot into the middle of two-deep coverage.

Rex, just manage the f'n game that is all I ask. 2 out of the last 3 (on the road no less) I can't complain at all. Just tear up those loud mouth Vikings this week and all peace will be restored.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

The way I see it, Bears are one injury away from Superbowl. That is one injury to Rex Grossman. I am sorry for wishing a bad thing on a player but that's just it. IF Rex get injured and replace by Griese in the next five games, we will win the Superbowl.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

I believe you need to bench Rex. His decisions have been questionable at best today.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

lgtwins said:


> The way I see it, Bears are one injury away from Superbowl. That is one injury to Rex Grossman. I am sorry for wishing a bad thing on a player but that's just it. IF Rex get injured and replace by Griese in the next five games, we will win the Superbowl.


If they had a decent QB, they'd go from pretenders to contenders without a doubt. Saying that "we WILL win the Superbowl" if Griese went in is ridiculous though. They'd have a shot at it then, but I'd still pick just about any AFC playoff team over them to win it. Now if Griese went in and played very well, I would say they'd be the favorites. Making the SB is very realistic, even now, with the NFC sucking so bad. The Vikings prior to this game were only 1 game out of the playoff hunt with a losing record, and should've beat the Bears the 1st game, and are playing better in the 2nd game. The Vikings are NOT a good team this year....if they're almost beating your SB favorite team and almost in the NFC playoffs with a losing record, that puts things into perspective.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Brad Johnson just threw it backwards and it was called an imcompletion, WTF? The refs really stink today, real bad. Urlacher getting roughing the passer when he already had his hands on the qb before he threw it, whatever. The NFL protection of the QB's is beyond ridiculuous.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Hustle said:


> Brad Johnson just threw it backwards and it was called an imcompletion, WTF? The refs really stink today, real bad. Urlacher getting roughing the passer when he already had his hands on the qb before he threw it, whatever. The NFL protection of the QB's is beyond ridiculuous.


The roughing call was a good call. The incomplete pass/fumble/backward pass/etc was a weird one though. I'd have to watch a replay of it a few times before I really made a decision on that one, but it turned out to be irrelevant anyway for the most part. The Vikes' whole offense (Chester) just went into the locker room though, so the game might as well be over now unless he comes back...he was questionable to play anyway.

GO SOUTH DAKOTA BOY!!! Gotta love Leber, and listen to those fans lol.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Rex with 3 picks. Well done, my friend. Well done indeed.

looks like sst was right all along.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

All the way to the bank...


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> The roughing call was a good call.


????????
Why?

The replay showed Urlacher was already in the process of pushing him down before he let the ball go. The announcers sure agree with me.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Hustle said:


> ????????
> Why?
> 
> The replay showed Urlacher was already in the process of pushing him down before he let the ball go. The announcers sure agree with me.


The ball was already gone before he gave him the shove IMO. I thought that when Mosley or Johnson or whoever tackled Grossy later on though that it should've been roughin as well. As the announcers said, if you call one gotta call both. I was surprised that one wasn't called. Not like it really matters, but that's just how I saw it.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

anyone catch sportscenter? they like all of the top AFC teams over the bears right now, including the bengals.

looks like i'm not so crazy and delusional afterall


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

c p 9 said:


> anyone catch sportscenter? they like all of the top AFC teams over the bears right now, including the bengals.
> 
> looks like i'm not so crazy and delusional afterall


I said the same thing earlier in this thread. Bears might be close to the cream of the crop in the NFC, but that's just like comparing the East vs West in basketball. The NFC sucks, plain and simple. I don't know if I'd put them behind the Bungles though. I'd say they're about even. One has a good team with no QB. The other has a good O, but no D. Would be an interesting game to watch between those 2. It would all hinge on Grossman's play, guarantee lol. (Look about 6 posts or so prior to this one and you'll see I said basically the same thing...just like last year when the #6 AFC beat the #1 NFC in the SB)


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I said the same thing earlier in this thread. Bears might be close to the cream of the crop in the NFC, but that's just like comparing the East vs West in basketball. The NFC sucks, plain and simple. I don't know if I'd put them behind the Bungles though. I'd say they're about even. One has a good team with no QB. The other has a good O, but no D. Would be an interesting game to watch between those 2. It would all hinge on Grossman's play, guarantee lol. (Look about 6 posts or so prior to this one and you'll see I said basically the same thing...just like last year when the #6 AFC beat the #1 NFC in the SB)


the team with no d that's held their last four opponents to 33 points combined and picked off drew brees in the endzone twice?


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Yeah, the NFC and the Eastern Conference and the National League are all inferior. The Yankees, Twins, Tigers, and A's all should have been able to destroy the Cards, who had the worst regular season record in the playoffs. Likewise, Dallas, San Antonio and Phoenix should have easily been able to handle the Heat.

Yet, the Heat and the Cards are world champions.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

c p 9 said:


> anyone catch sportscenter? they like all of the top AFC teams over the bears right now, including the bengals.
> 
> looks like i'm not so crazy and delusional afterall


Yeah I forget the name of the meathead who was saying that 'he liked to the top 6 teams in the AFC over anyone in the NFC'. But he was the same meathead that called Dallas the best team in the NFC last week while stating that they had a better defense than the Bears. :thumbdown: He was mosdef changing his tune this week.

Yeah I guess its a little analogous with MLB between the NL/AL. But at the same time, the playoff system affords for any team getting hot at the end winning it all. You don't win the ring in the regular season (just ask the Colts) and the team that is hitting their peak in December is the one to watch out for.

I think the Bears will coast into the Superbowl. Stick to the run and we should be fine.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I hate to play this card, but the Bears are getting no love. The Jaguars over the Bears. Puh-leeze. The Bengals over the Bears. Come on. I realize that the AFC is the better conference, but the Bears have been the 2nd best team in the NFL this year (I'd put San Diego ahead of them). ESPN loves jumping on bandwagons. The Dallas Cowboys before they got blown out by the Saints.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

yeah i think they had a little too much hate for the bears, can't blame them though .

if the superbowl was tomorrow i would take the bears over the jaguars, ravens, and colts. but i would take the chargers and bengals over the bears, and possibly the pats. who knows what will happen come february, but if it was tomorrow i'd be confident in my picks...


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Yeah, I hate how they unequivocally say, "The Cowboys might be the best team in the NFC" or "might the Saints or the Seahawks be the Super Bowl teams? sure looks like it right now" and then NO mention of the Bears.

It's not even hate, it's just total absence of mind.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Dallas has been playing some good football (with the exception of New Orleans)...

8-5. 5-2 since Romo took over as starting QB. New Orleans exposed the weakness that is Mike Zimmer.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

BUMP.

I don't know if this has been posted yet...but if anybody is wondering what our man Kyle Orton has been up to since his third string demotion from last year...here you are:























































And finally...a little friendly game of touch football.










Nice to see him keeping himself busy.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Pay Ton said:


> BUMP.
> 
> I don't know if this has been posted yet...but if anybody is wondering what our man Kyle Orton has been up to since his third string demotion from last year...here you are:
> 
> ...


Those are from last year, when he was the starting quarterback. Hmmm...........


----------



## kirkisgod (Jul 25, 2005)

The unbearded ones are last year...the bearded pictures might be from this year though.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

*Bears are screwed without Tommie Harris*, their D just won't be the same, already down Mike Brown. There are a couple ways though, they can survive without him:

A) Grossman has to play consistently, good, like he has in his 6 100+ rated games this season, or somewhere around that.

B) Use Mark Anderson more to make up for the lack of pass rush that fills Tommie's void. Use 5 man fronts if you have to, taking out Hillenmeyer for Anderson. He's is a tweener OLB/DE anyway.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Showtyme said:


> Yeah, the NFC and the Eastern Conference and the National League are all inferior. The Yankees, Twins, Tigers, and A's all should have been able to destroy the Cards, who had the worst regular season record in the playoffs. Likewise, Dallas, San Antonio and Phoenix should have easily been able to handle the Heat.
> 
> Yet, the Heat and the Cards are world champions.


I don't watch baseball at all, but point taken. The Heat shouldn't have won the NBA Finals last year..the Mavs were clearly the better team that got screwed over IMO. I was pretty much unbiased to start the series, and after the Mavs kept getting screwed, I kept pulling for them more and more. SO, IMO, the West was indeed the vastly superior conference last year, and still is. MLB, idk, and idc. Then in the NFL, the AFC proved it by the 6th seed beating up on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd seeds on the road, then beating the 1st NFC seed even with a poor performance by their QB. It's just the way it goes, one is always dominant, then every 10 years or so, it switches (NFL and NBA).


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

CiMA said:


> pac4eva5 said:
> 
> 
> > lol at the bengals homer! the bengals are not going anywhere this season. they wont make the playoffs. seriously, a crappy rushing attack and crappy defense is the worst combo in football. to say they are an odds on favorite to smoke the bears is simply rediculous and quite embarrassing...
> ...


bumpsies


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

hey there's still hope. but they don't deserve to go now, with the choke show they put on against denver. i'm man enough to admit i was wrong. when you botch an extra point to tie the game with less than a minute left, you pretty much know you don't deserve to be in the playoffs.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Grossman sucks.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Grossman sucks.


 No none should ever again mentions Grossman as another "Brett Favre". 

Even at his worst, Favre is a better quarterback.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Why do all the teams I have supported this year have such terrible offenses? Jeez.

Rex has his shortcomings, but Griese came in and threw 2 key interceptions of his own. Were either running the ball or throwing the ball 10 yards or more. It's an all-or-nothing offense and it really sucks when other teams have about the matching talent. Perhaps these calls are a part of Rex's inconsistency.

If you watch a real offense like that of the Patriots, they don't throw the ball 10 yards. They gain a lot of yardage on first down, enough to reasonably convert 2nd and 3rd downs.

BTW, Benson does need to run more. I didn't really think so before but that Chris Duhon comparison to Thomas Jones suddenly seems very apt.


----------



## harley (May 24, 2006)

Lovie says that he want the bears to be a running football team but why are they always passing on 3rd and short.Last night the bears passed 3rd and 2 twice and as soon as Griese came in the game he threw a interception on 3rd and one. I feel that we would never had gone in to overtime against the Lions had the bears just handed the ball to their RB instead of throwing a bad pass when they were on their own 37yardline when it was 3rd and 2.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

harley said:


> Lovie says that he want the bears to be a running football team but why are they always passing on 3rd and short.Last night the bears passed 3rd and 2 twice and as soon as Griese came in the game he threw a interception on 3rd and one. I feel that we would never had gone in to overtime against the Lions had the bears just handed the ball to their RB instead of throwing a bad pass when they were on their own 37yardline when it was 3rd and 2.




Because they were down like 3 touchdowns?

I'm not a big football fan, because while I do like watching an offense mix up the plays (run/pass/razzledazzle) to confuse the defense (and vice versa), when a team gets behind by a couple of touchdowns, it becomes one team forced to pass against 6 defensive backs.

But I do think Lovie missed an opportunity to blow off the meaningless game and get Griese some snaps as-if it was a tie game. That'd be run, run, run, and controlled passing game.


----------



## bullsfan78 (Nov 28, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> Grossman sucks.



the guy is still learning.let's have some patience here..


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsfan78 said:


> the guy is still learning.let's have some patience here..


He looks broken. He looked terrific at the start of the season, and now he's got some kind of mental block that causes him to telegraph his passes, throw interceptions, and generally fumble or turnover the ball at a ridiculous rate. 

If it were just one game, or maybe two, you could chalk it up to a bad hair day or something.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> He looks broken. He looked terrific at the start of the season, and now he's got some kind of mental block that causes him to telegraph his passes, throw interceptions, and generally fumble or turnover the ball at a ridiculous rate.
> 
> If it were just one game, or maybe two, you could chalk it up to a bad hair day or something.


But he's had some really fantastic games as well. He has been the definition of an up-and-down QB. Problem is, if he has one of the down games in the playoffs, we're done.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Bears start the season as "being freaking ridiculous" and NOW they are "just ridiculous."

I have no faith in "good Grossman showing" at all. We are done.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

whos watching the game?
bears on a nice start.
i'm having the feeling, grossmann has on on game today.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

BenDengGo said:


> whos watching the game?
> bears on a nice start.
> i'm having the feeling, grossmann has on on game today.


Big play so far was a near interception that ended up being caught for a big gain.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Big play so far was a near interception that ended up being caught for a big gain.


Seattle answers. 7-7. They were mainly successful passing on us that drive. 

We've got a battle on our hands today.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Grossman just threw a 70 yard touchdown pass on the first play after the kick off.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

insane pass


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

That pass was beautiful.

High risk, high reward.

Rex swung for the fences on that one.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Lord, Rex is slow.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Over/Under

Grossman 4 turnovers today


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I hope the comparisons with the 85 Bears defense or 2001 Ravens defense can be put to rest already.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

The Bears have been over-rated all year. Their run D isn't very good, and Grossman is a ticking time-bomb. Grossman should've had one INT on their first TD drive already, if not for the Seahawk letting it go right through his hands...actually bending them backwards, not just going between them. This game does look like it should be a good one though.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The D sucks today. Running all over us.

Thank goodness the offense is putting up 7s on the boards and not 3s (thanks rex).

If the Bears hold onto this one, the Saints are certainly beatable. 

Super Bowl baby. Come on Bears.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Damn internet, double post on accident.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Bears run defense has looked bad ever since Harris went down. If we can get some pressure on Hasselbeck and limit our TOs then this game is ours.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> The D sucks today. Running all over us.
> 
> Thank goodness the offense is putting up 7s on the boards and not 3s (thanks rex).
> 
> ...


Doesn't matter, the AFC is winning the SB anyway if the Bears are representing the NFC. 

My SB wish-list right now: Chargers and Saints, Saints winning.

I don't care for any of the other teams remaining, and still pissed about the Chargers getting lucky in the AFCC back in the 90s against the Steelers when they went to the SB and got spanked by the 49ers.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Well, now we need to play from behind. Hawks up 3.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Doesn't matter, the AFC is winning the SB anyway if the Bears are representing the NFC.
> 
> My SB wish-list right now: Chargers and Saints, Saints winning.
> 
> I don't care for any of the other teams remaining, and still pissed about the Chargers getting lucky in the AFCC back in the 90s against the Steelers when they went to the SB and got spanked by the 49ers.


I hope the Chargers lose. I can't stand their defense, especially the dopper Merriman.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Our running game is awful. TJ goes down way too easily.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

And a perfect opportunity wasted. Seahawks with the ball.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Defense saves us though. Nice INT by Manning.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

TripleDouble said:


> I hope the Chargers lose. I can't stand their defense, especially the dopper Merriman.


I hope they lose the SB too. I used to be a fan of Merriman, but I don't care for druggies, be it steroids or pot or w/e, so he's hard to root for now. It IS possible that it was unintentional, but doubtful. I just really hate the Patriots and Colts...as you can see, I'm a Steeler fan, and those 2 are rivals, especially the Patsies....that's why I'm pulling for the Chargers till the SB. The lesser of the evils lol.

The Saints are sure easy to cheer for, as I've been a fan of some of their players for years anyway.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Tied game, 4:24 left in the game. Seahawks ball. This is tense.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

4th and 1, 2 minutes left, Seahawks thinking about going for it. This can make or break the season.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

We stuffed Alexander 1 yd behind the line. Incredible stand. We need some yards for a FG.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

And we go 3 and out. 1:48 left, Seahawks with the ball on their 20.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

please dont mess this up, get into field goal range.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

I wouldn't be sad at all to see Ron Turner go. Seriously, that was sad.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Alexander must have over 20 yards on this series. 54 seconds, Seattle has one TO left, ball around midfield. I'm guessing they need close to 20 yards for Josh Brown.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Bears D is no longer anything other than average.

TANK JOHNSON BABY!!!!!

Thank goodness the Bears are not jib zealots.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

TANK JOHNSON! Sacked on 3rd down, well out of FG range. It's OT.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

i'm still furious about the last possesion they had.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

Clutch Sack By Tank Johnson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Awesome!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

lol @ the hasselback flashback


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

seahawks will start the OT with the possession.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

BenDengGo said:


> lol @ the hasselback flashback


LOL, they didn't even let him on the field this time.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

4th and 2, Seahawks need to punt. Please don't fumble Devin.

Almost blocked, we got decent field position.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Big play by Davis! We should be in FG range now!


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Clutch pass and catch.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

clutch pass!!


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Gould with the win!


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

When Mike Holmgren retires, he would make a great mall Santa Claus.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Yeah!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

Clutch. He had distance to spare on that one.

LOL @ Hurdle


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

WIN:yay: :yay: :yay:


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

It really shouldn't have been that much of a struggle. Should've just ran it all game with Benson. Oh well, one game at a time. On to the Saints.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Bears are a long way from the "freaking ridiculous" team they were during the first part of the season. 

The defense is nowhere near what it once was.

But one home game against the Saints away from the Super Bowl?!!??!?

HELL YAH!!!!!!!!


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

If we had trouble with Alexander I think the Saints will try to exploit that the same way.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Is it tough to pull for a team whose defensive heros include an illegal firearms fiend and a bigot?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Woooooo!!! Thank you, Robbie.

Grossman looked good today, too. Nice to see.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> Is it tough to pull for a team whose defensive hero's include an illegal firearms fiend and a bigot?



Which one is the bigot?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Which one is the bigot?


Manning Jr.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Not being a Bears fan, I was sort of hoping that they'd lose, so then sports radio might be listenable again in a few weeks when the Bears talk finally slows down. 

Nothing is worse than Chicago sports radio during Bears season; one game a week and endless, repetitive, and mostly mindless talk about that one game. I'd just like to hear some Bulls talk every now and then. :biggrin:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Is it tough to pull for a team whose defensive heros include an illegal firearms fiend and a bigot?



Paxson should call Angelo and give him a stern lecture about jib.



-----


This is a great feeling. A real shot at the Super Bowl.

Too bad I'm a bigger Bulls fan than a Bears fan.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> Manning Jr.



Ah, I getcha.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> Manning Jr.


What did Ricky do? All I know is that he got involved in a fight in some bar. He's got a bit of a short-man complex but somehow he's always gotten the job done.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Funny, for all the talk that the Bears were overrated, why isn't NO considered overrated? 

Memories of Joe Montana coming into the Chicago cold and spanking us in the NFC Championship are still a little fresh for me. I don't want to jinx this, but NO is definitely beatable. We need to run it down their throats and stay away from turning it into shoot out.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Paxson should call Angelo and give him a stern lecture about jib.


:lol: 

Good game for Rex. No "real" interception, only one big mistake (the fumble on the sack), a beautifully thrown deep ball for a touchdown, and a huge third down pass in OT that set us up for the FG. I give the guy credit. He's been much maligned. He's a big reason that we won our first playoff game in years.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> Is it tough to pull for a team whose defensive heros include an illegal firearms fiend and a bigot?



Those firearms were registered and legal in the state he purchased them in I think.

Who is the bigot?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Good game for Rex. No "real" interception, only one big mistake (the fumble on the sack), a beautifully thrown deep ball for a touchdown, and a huge third down pass in OT that set us up for the FG. I give the guy credit. He's been much maligned. He's a big reason that we won our first playoff game in years.


No doubt about it.

Rex, Davis and Berrian really stepped up their games today from what we've seen of late.

Great game by Grossman.

The strategy of play conservative on O, hand the ball off and let the defense win the game would not have worked today. The defense was not good enough. Alexander pounded us at times. 

Without Rex Grossman, the Bears are out of the playoffs right now, IMO.

Let's hope he can have two more good games.... and the freaking defense can stop the run next week against Deuce and Bush.

Benson looked pretty solid today as well.


----------



## eymang (Dec 15, 2006)

they are done next week, it should never be this close against seattle, and the saints will tear the defense apart


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> No doubt about it.
> 
> Rex, Davis and Berrian really stepped up their games today from what we've seen of late.
> 
> ...


I'm hoping for some bad weather. New Orleans is a dome team, and I'd love to slow them down with some snow.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

The way they won this game was encouraging. It was close, and one breakdown could have ended our season, but the defense came up with big stops to keep the Seahawks out of FG range, and the offense avoided turnovers when things weren't working and eventually came up with enough plays to win. 

It's a relief to know that the Bears can respond to pressure situations like that and get it done.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

eymang said:


> they are done next week, it should never be this close against seattle, and the saints will tear the defense apart


on the other hand, the Saints D is nothing special. If we can run the ball effectively and keep Brees and co off the field, we'll have a fine chance.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

ViciousFlogging said:


> The way they won this game was encouraging. It was close, and one breakdown could have ended our season, but the defense came up with big stops to keep the Seahawks out of FG range, and the offense avoided turnovers when things weren't working and eventually came up with enough plays to win.
> 
> It's a relief to know that the Bears can respond to pressure situations like that and get it done.


I think that this is a good point.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> on the other hand, the Saints D is nothing special. If we can run the ball effectively and keep Brees and co off the field, we'll have a fine chance.


Bingo.

Its far from a lock, but the Bears certainly can win a home game against the Saints. 

Rex will need to have another strong game though, if the D is soft again.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

The D definitely needs to step up, even though they did make the plays they had to. You can also give some credit to Seattle for what they managed to do. They were NFC champs last year, and Hasselbeck, Alexander, and Branch are all big time players.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> The D definitely needs to step up, even though they did make the plays they had to. You can also give some credit to Seattle for what they managed to do. They were NFC champs last year, and Hasselbeck, Alexander, and Branch are all big time players.


Yeah, but Alexander kept running up the middle on us with too much success. Our run defense is just not the same without Harris, and our pass defense has lost some toughness without Brown.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Yeah, but Alexander kept running up the middle on us with too much success. Our run defense is just not the same without Harris, and our pass defense has lost some toughness without Brown.


I agree. They need to do better.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I don't understand the hate for the Bears. Gene Wojo has a rather scathing article saying the Bears are the weakest of the four teams left. I don't understand how a 13-3 record including one game that didn't matter makes us weak. ESPN especially has an affliction to predicting a Bears victory. First everyone loved the Giants, then Dallas, then Phily, then New Orleans. 13-3 isn't a joke. A lot depends on the weather. 30 degrees and snow is good. 50 degrees and sunny is bad. Has Reggie ever played a game in under 50 degrees? 

I can't wait for the inconsistent (crappy) Bears versus the sweetheart (awesome) Saints stories this week. Ugh.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> I don't understand the hate for the Bears. Gene Wojo has a rather scathing article saying the Bears are the weakest of the four teams left. I don't understand how a 13-3 record including one game that didn't matter makes us weak. ESPN especially has an affliction to predicting a Bears victory. First everyone loved the Giants, then Dallas, then Phily, then New Orleans. 13-3 isn't a joke. A lot depends on the weather. 30 degrees and snow is good. 50 degrees and sunny is bad. Has Reggie ever played a game in under 50 degrees?
> 
> I can't wait for the inconsistent (crappy) Bears versus the sweetheart (awesome) Saints stories this week. Ugh.


If it weren't for the defensive injuries, I would say we were a clearly better team than the Saints. I forgot how bad Chris Harris really is, and despite Tommie Harris disappearing in the midseason, he at least got good push on a regular basis.

On a neutral field, I'd say this game is a toss up. Good thing we have home field advantage.

I think most of the hate has to do with Grossman being so inconsistent this season. It's easy to favor Brees over "early season MVP candidate" to "should he be benched" guy... in the media that is.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I'm hoping for some bad weather. New Orleans is a dome team, and I'd love to slow them down with some snow.


I would have agreed with this for past Bears teams, but not so sure about this one. Grossman was a warm weather guy in college. He is prone to game breaking blunders like no QB I have ever seen. A few poorer weather games (GB & Minnesota)he had the worst games I have ever seen from a QB. Put it this way, would you trust Brees or Grossman in poor conditions? I know, you would trust Brees in any conditions. But, Rex is prone to blunders times 10 in adverse conditions, be it a pass rush, weather, both, etc. 

If he has great protection he is fine. If you pressure him he likes to throw those floating against the body sideways passes that make you ill thinking they may be picked and run back. He is AWFUL when pressured. Lead feet and lead brain. To me, bad weather hurts us more because Grossman is much more prone to lose the game for us. The defense is not very good right now, so we need to score points. We will not score many points with Grossman if the weather is bad. I will take my chance with decent weather. I would much rather have Griese in if the weather is bad.

The offensive line needs a monster game for us to win. We will see.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

You make some good points, Salvaged, but I'm hoping you're wrong.

The Saints are a three trick team: two of which look to me to fair pretty well in the cold weather. I can't see Deuce's game suffering much on the frozen tundra, and Brees went to Purdue afterall. But if Urlaker etc. get one good pop on Reggie Bush in approaching-zero weather, I could see him curling up into the fetal position Michael Vic style.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Salvaged Ship said:


> I would have agreed with this for past Bears teams, but not so sure about this one. Grossman was a warm weather guy in college. He is prone to game breaking blunders like no QB I have ever seen. A few poorer weather games (GB & Minnesota)he had the worst games I have ever seen from a QB. Put it this way, would you trust Brees or Grossman in poor conditions? I know, you would trust Brees in any conditions. But, Rex is prone to blunders times 10 in adverse conditions, be it a pass rush, weather, both, etc.
> 
> If he has great protection he is fine. If you pressure him he likes to throw those floating against the body sideways passes that make you ill thinking they may be picked and run back. He is AWFUL when pressured. Lead feet and lead brain. To me, bad weather hurts us more because Grossman is much more prone to lose the game for us. The defense is not very good right now, so we need to score points. We will not score many points with Grossman if the weather is bad. I will take my chance with decent weather. I would much rather have Griese in if the weather is bad.
> 
> The offensive line needs a monster game for us to win. We will see.


Griese looked superb in the second half of the cold weather game vs. Green Bay.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

That was way too close. I was drained at the end.

Unlike the '85 squad, this is not a great team. They may be able to beat anybody, but they can also lose to anybody.

Say what you will, but Rex bailed the Bears tails out of that game. He certainly wasn't perfect, but he made big plays at big times.

...and God Bless Robbie Gould.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Griese looked superb in the second half of the cold weather game vs. Green Bay.


Yeah, Griese did look lousy in that game. But compared to Grossman's first half he looked like Joe Montana.

Griese has quite a bit of career experience in cold weather and has performed well in those conditions at times in his career. How many cold weather games has Rex actually played in? The few I have seen have been awful. I trust Griese would make less mistakes in bad weahter and under a heavy pass rush.

Am I saying bench Grossman for this game because the weather is bad? No. What I am saying is get the hook ready. This may be our last chance at a super bowl for a while, and you do whatever is necessary to give yourself the best chance. If that means a change at QB early, swallow the pride and be prepared. I hope Grossman does well and we win. If the kid performs the debate is over.

Biggest game of Grossman's career next week, as well as many other players. If the bad Grossman shows up, it could be the beginning of the end to his starting QB career.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Salvaged Ship said:


> Yeah, Griese did look lousy in that game. But compared to Grossman's first half he looked like Joe Montana.
> 
> Griese has quite a bit of career experience in cold weather and has performed well in those conditions at times in his career. How many cold weather games has Rex actually played in? The few I have seen have been awful. I trust Griese would make less mistakes in bad weahter and under a heavy pass rush.
> 
> ...


Maybe. But the Bears defense hasn't played much better than average over the second half of the season. I think for us to beat New Orleans the quarterback is going to have to make some plays (Grossman certainly had to make some for us to beat the Seahawks), I don't think Griese can do that. I'm not sure if Rex will, but I know that he can. I don't buy the "get a quarterback who doesn't screw up and we'll be fine" argument anymore given the defense's recent performances.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I think there are three keys to the game...

1.Deuce McAlister and Reggie Bush vs Cedric Benson and Thomas Jones

- whichever duo has the most total yards probably gets their team the win. If the Bears defense can slow down McAlister especially running the ball and just not let Bush scoot free on those little swing passes, they can generate a pass rush against a suspect Saints line (b/c the Saints will be in full pass mode) and hopefully force Brees into some turnovers

2.Rex Grossman: Good or Evil?

- if Evil Rex shows up we're screwed. We got lucky in the Seattle game. I really thought if he turned the ball over more than once, we would lose. He threw a pick in the red zone (not his fault) and a fumble (a bad, bad play). I'm going to make the same prediction. If Rex turns the ball over more than once, the Bears lose.

3.Charles Tillman and Chris Harris must be destroyed

- Tillman has just been violated in his first two playoff games. Steve Smith and the entire Seahawks receiving core just ran all over Tillman. I'd love to get him off the field or at least put Ricky Manning Jr. on Joe Horn and shift Tillman to the nickel spot. Vasher will shut down Colston IMO (I went to Hofstra haha). Chris Harris is just a bad player right now. He makes some nice hits, but he always goes for the Jacked Up highlight and misses a lot of tackles. If Harris wasn't so suspect, Daniel Manning would be the one needing to be destroyed for being so bad in coverage. Todd Johnson needs to start on Sunday. 

I'll be hoping the Bears take this, which means going against everybody at ESPN and every other American citizen outside the Chicagoland area. The amount of Saints/Hurricane Katrina/America's Team stories this week will make me sick. If the 'Aints make it to the Super Bowl, that total may double. UGH


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

whoa

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VmEI5f0qAbI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VmEI5f0qAbI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

I forget the exact record but NFC home teams are 24-12 in conference championship games or something close to that.

Key to this game is get our running game going. I think the Bears win and I think by DD too.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I'm pulling for the Saints big time, for several reasons. The first, they have more players I like....the Bears have one, Urlacher. The second, I want them out of the playoffs so the Steelers can interview Rivera again and get this annoying as hell HC search over with. That pretty much sums it up. Who do I think will win...honestly I have no idea. The Saints are probably a better team overall (more balanced, no huge weaknesses), but the Bears are more dominant in certain areas.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

superdave said:


> I forget the exact record but NFC home teams are 24-12 in conference championship games or something close to that.
> 
> Key to this game is get our running game going. I think the Bears win and I think by DD too.


The fact that the game is played in Chicago will most likely be the determining factor here. If it was played in New Orleands I don't think that home field would be nearly as big of a factor, but NO would've had the advantage of course. Playing outdoors in the north vs a dome in the south makes for a big disadvantage for the Saints. The most important thing though, is that Brees USED to play in that area in college, so maybe it won't affect him as much as expected.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*bump*


OK, so good luck to DA BEARS today...this from a "JINTS" fan! (yeah, what can i say...)




:bananallama:


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Bears recovered nicely after giving up a 40 yard pass.

They only went to Deuce once that series.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Arghh!!!!! Bears with the monster hit, fail to pick up the fumble. 4th down, Saints are punting now. Hester with a decent return. Take 2 for Rex and the offense.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> whoa
> 
> <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VmEI5f0qAbI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VmEI5f0qAbI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


Got a ways to go before they reach the legendary status of Bullsville's "I Hate Eddy Curry." A ways.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Well, 3 and out for us, Moose with the drop. Rex hasn't completed a pass yet and our running game isn't there. On the bright side, we gotten to Brees twice already.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Bears strip Colston and recover! Defense is doing their part so far.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Nice. 2 forced fumbles already.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Bears the in red zone. Davis with the end around that must have gone about 15 yards. Cedric is a beast.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

4th and 1, Bears going for it on the 3 yard line. And Cedric gets us the first!


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

3rd and goal, ball on the 1 yard line. Incomplete pass, Rex has not looked good.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

OMFG, fumble on the kick off, Bears recover. This one might get called back.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Nawlins can't hold on to the ball.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Bears defense doing their part. NO punting after getting nothing. Come on Rex!


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Rex completes a pass! Des Clark gets us into the red zone again!


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Benson and Grossman on a roll.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Well, more like Benson on a roll. Rex just had that one pass.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

And Gould kicks his 3rd FG. Our offense really needs to get their butts in gear. We should have at least 17 points, instead we're at 9.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

And we're threatening again! TJ with a 30 yard run.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Bears are looking strong.

Running the ball. Killing them on D.

Breaking them.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

1st and goal at the 9. We need to punch it in. TJ has been unstoppable on this series.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

LOL Thomas Jones actually looking good and somewhat fast. I think Benson did a good job of pulverizing them earlier.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> LOL Thomas Jones actually looking good and somewhat fast. I think Benson did a good job of pulverizing them earlier.


Hope you're right. The Saints defense is weak and if we can wear them down we'll run for 200 yards.

TJ punches it in!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Benson sucks ***. I'm sogladthey switched.

The 3rd and 1 he didn't convert (Benson) was a purely bad run. Brown paved a freakin highway for him and he just didnt follow his blocker.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Damn it. Saints get into FG range. If we're not careful we could be giving up a TD. A little over a minute left in the half.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

And we gave up the TD. Saints should go for 2.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Bush just brought them within 2. Defense fell asleep on that.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

reggie got speed


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

bears offense is pathetic
grossman wont pull it today


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

even under pressure, brees manages to find the open receiver.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Bears manage to dodge a bullet. NO misses a 47 yarder, ball at midfield. Come on offense, please manage to do something.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

key to win is, get into field goal range and let robbie gould do his magic, then let defense manage the lead.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

3rd and 13 now. What's Turner doing?


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Bears with the safety! Defense is carrying us.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

SecretAgentGuy said:


> 3rd and 13 now. What's Turner doing?


That same 8 yard slant that is completed about 1/4th the time and goes for 10+ yards about 1/10th.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

this defense is the bears only pride


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

And of course, the Bears go 3 and out. It feels like we're back in the Dick Jauron era.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

See, Rex can make a throw.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Omg Grossman And Berrian!!!!!


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> See, Rex can make a throw.


A throw...or 5. :yay: Unbelievable drive.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

of course that drive had to happen when i went to the bathroom to brush my teeth.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Ogunleye trying to show his ballhandling skills. Not quite there.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Our defense has come up big today.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

SecretAgentGuy said:


> Our defense has come up big today.


Huge. Even missing Tommie Harris, the blitz packages have worked well. Good pressure all game long.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Well, MikeDC, that ***-sucking RB just put us up 32-14.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Benson brings it home! We're up by 3 scores now.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Bears are almost there.

Man, what a turnaround of momentum in the 2nd half.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

And Vasher with the INT! 4 TOs for our defense today. Let's put this away!


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

TOUCHDOWN BENSON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bears in the superbowl!!!!!!!!


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

holly roooar bears with another takeaway!!!


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

I don't think Colston will forget Urlacher after that hit. That was beautiful.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

And another intentional grounding on Brees. This defense looks like the one we saw earlier in the season.


----------



## Omega (Apr 11, 2005)

where was this defense all this time?!?! where the hell was it hiding??


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

TJ goes for 10+ and gets us the first down! We're Miami bound!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*The Bears are FREAKING RIDICULOUS!!!!


GO BEARS!!!!!!!


SUPER BOWL BABY!!!!!!!*


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

TJ with the TD!


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Incredibly, all the talking heads picked us to lose. A 39-14 win would constitute a spanking, would it not?


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

awesome td by jones


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

This moment reminds me of those 1986 Bears NFL Films clips where we clinched the NFC, it's snowing, and this little kid with down syndrome and one of those fleece headbands was alternating fist pumps in the air. Beautiful.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Rex = 0 TOs

I'm just saying.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

There are few feelings in the world greater than this. I wish this would go one for another 2 hours.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

We have close to 200 yards on the ground in comparison to their 56. Not too shabby.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/features/talent

I'm sure this page will not exist forever, so look at it now, and gloat.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

I'm crying right now. This is beautiful.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Super Bowl Beeyotch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)




----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I'm sure this page will not exist forever, so look at it now, and gloat.



classic.












:bananallama:


congrats to _*DA BEARS!!*_


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

I'm very happy the Bears won. I expected disaster and was surprised with a blowout victory. They have a knack for always letting me down on my expectations... :biggrin:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Bears are 1-1 when I wear my Urlacher jersey.

A convincing win.

It wasn't the good Grossman or the evil one that showed up. This is the one we need to win the superbowl.

Urlacher is going to Disneyland. Though Disneyworld would be a shorter flight.
:yay:


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> *Bears are 1-1 when I wear my Urlacher jersey.*
> 
> A convincing win.
> 
> ...


2-0 for me (though neither was today)...


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)




----------



## IbizaXL (Sep 21, 2005)

congrats to the city of Chicago and its fans. it took 21 years to go back to the Super Bowl? wow

watching the game, the weather up there was crazy! 15 degrees? ouch. im sure the Bears and its fans attending the superbowl down here in S. Florida will have fun in the sun. its been scorching down here all winter. uggh


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Colts and Bears Super Bowl matchup. woweee!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

spongyfungy said:


> Colts and Bears Super Bowl matchup. woweee!


Two midwest teams.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

Can't wait for the Superbowl. Hopefully the Bears can pull it off!


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Congratulations Bears fans!


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Three huge plays:

-the Cundiff miss from 47 that kept the Bears lead in tact. The Bears are a team that need the lead, allow TJ and Ced to run the ball and let the defense win the game

-the safety on Brees. He didn't really have a choice. He was gonna get sacked, anyways.

-one of the best catches I've seen in a while by Berrian who seems like he's destined for stardom

Also, Urlacher had a fantastic game. Just all over the place. Mark Anderson is a stud too. I'm so excited.

SUPER BOWLLLLL!!!


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> Three huge plays:
> -the safety on Brees. He didn't really have a choice. He was gonna get sacked, anyways.


Don't forget the incredible punt that set that up.



> -one of the best catches I've seen in a while by Berrian who seems like he's destined for stardom


That catch was just ridiculous, and I felt that it was underappreciated on the broadcast. I kept going back and watching it again and again, and Berrian sort of stood up straight to fake the defender, the defender jumps straight up in the air to try to block it, and then Berrian dives beneath him to snag it. Incredible.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

superdave said:


> I forget the exact record but NFC home teams are 24-12 in conference championship games or something close to that.
> 
> Key to this game is get our running game going. I think the Bears win and I think by DD too.


Yaaah baby, never bet against superdave's NFL picks?!! :yay: The defense really showed up today, just simply made more plays. What a satisfying victory after hearing the ESPN talking heads (idiots) pick the Saints all week... and the local Bush/Brees love here in SoCal.

I love the Bears against the Colts too. But I'm getting too far ahead of myself. This victory was swwweeeetttt!!!:cheers:


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

The Truth said:


> Don't forget the incredible punt that set that up.
> 
> 
> 
> That catch was just ridiculous, and I felt that it was underappreciated on the broadcast. I kept going back and watching it again and again, and Berrian sort of stood up straight to fake the defender, the defender jumps straight up in the air to try to block it, and then Berrian dives beneath him to snag it. Incredible.


Maynard is a beast. During that awful season three years ago (the 4-12 year) me and my friend joked that Brad Maynard was our Offensive MVP. If you remember our starting QBs that year were Craig Krenzel, Shane Matthews, Dr. Jonathan Quinn, and Jim Miller to start the year. What a turnaround. Best part of this, is that the Bears seem built for the long haul. Got to keep Briggsy though.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

T.Shock said:


> Got to keep Briggsy though.


Can the Bears slap the Franchise tag on him? I'll be very sad if he goes - the guy is a maniac. Do the Bears have 2 of the best 5 LBs in the league? 

What an awesome game. I was at a sports bar in SF that usually has a large, vocal contingent of Bears fans, but for some reason the Saints fans had us outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1...probably bandwagoners - but it sure was nice to watch the Bears pound them into the turf after that Bush TD. My ears are still ringing from all the screaming when he busted that off, but I laughed last and best today! GO BEARS.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OJ1ryCgzDn8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OJ1ryCgzDn8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

They call me sweetness, and I like to dance,
Running the ball is like making romance,
We've had to work since training camp,
To give Chicago a Super Bowl chance.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

<tt>*









FLASH: CBS HITS 40 SHARE FOR AFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME... NEW ENGLAND VS INDIANAPOLIS SCORES MONSTER 32.2 RATING/42 SHARE PEAK AT 9:30 PM ET... 69 SHARE MAX IN BOSTON... EARLIER IN DAY, NFC CHPSHP GAME HIT 75 SHARE BLOWOUT IN CHICAGO... DEVELOPING...*</tt>


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> classic.


Am I the only one who keeps looking at that pic and grinning ear to ear? Just so funny and satisfying at the same time.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Am I the only one who keeps looking at that pic and grinning ear to ear? Just so funny and satisfying at the same time.


They should all be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> classic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The picture isn't complete either; they must have changed it.

ESPN's computer system actually picked the Bears to win.

That was the part that I loved; the ****ing computer system is better at picking than the 'experts.'


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

You really can't blame those guys for picking the Saints. If not for those fumbles, which really can't be predicted, as well as Brees's subpar performance which was NOT expected at all, the outcome would've been a lot different. Not saying the Saints would've won, but it would've been close at least. 

I think the Bears have a real legit shot at winning the SB, especially with Manning getting x-rays on his thumb (I believe on his throwing hand). The only team I cared for in the playoffs is out now, so I guess it's up to cheering for the SD boy Vinatieri.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> You really can't blame those guys for picking the Saints. If not for those fumbles, which really can't be predicted, as well as Brees's subpar performance which was NOT expected at all, the outcome would've been a lot different. Not saying the Saints would've won, but it would've been close at least.
> 
> I think the Bears have a real legit shot at winning the SB, especially with Manning getting x-rays on his thumb (I believe on his throwing hand). The only team I cared for in the playoffs is out now, so I guess it's up to cheering for the SD boy Vinatieri.


Seriously, we're gonna have to banish you from these boards.  Coulda, woulda, shoulda - the Bears defense came out and dished out a butt whipping and it felt great. The Bears proved a few times this year that they can handle the upper tier QB and Brees was the best one going into last week. If we can take a similar gameplan into Miami I don't see why we don't get crowned. Keys will be to rack up 150 on the ground, stuff their running game, and by all means, do not give up the big play. 

This Super Bowl has the same feel of the Rams-Patriots and Oakland-Tampa games.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

SecretAgentGuy said:


> If we can take a similar gameplan into Miami I don't see why we don't get *crowned.*












:biggrin:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

One thing's for certain.

The bears took the aints to the woodshed and gave them a vicious flogging.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

My 3 kids all called me after the game yesterday. Two are at college and one's already graduated and has her own place. They know I'm kind of a manic Bears' fan.

It struck me that this is THEIR Super Bowl. My oldest was 2 in 1985. As thrilled as I am, being a Chicago sports fan, I never figured I'd get more than one per team (the Bulls dynasty was pure silly...and I loved every minute of it).

I'm completely looking forward to playing the Colts. For those of you under 32 or so, savor every minute. These times don't come around nearly as often as they should.

GO BEARS!


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

:bananallama: :bbanana: :bananallama: :bbanana: :bananallama: :bbanana: :bananallama: :bbanana: 


Da Bears turdy-nine. Saints furteen.

DAAAAAAAAA BearsDaBearsDaBearsDaBearsDaBearsDaBears.
DAAAAAAAAAAAAA BearsDaBearsDaBearsDaBearsDaBearsDaBears.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

SecretAgentGuy said:


> Seriously, we're gonna have to banish you from these boards.  Coulda, woulda, shoulda - the Bears defense came out and dished out a butt whipping and it felt great. The Bears proved a few times this year that they can handle the upper tier QB and Brees was the best one going into last week. If we can take a similar gameplan into Miami I don't see why we don't get crowned. Keys will be to rack up 150 on the ground, stuff their running game, and by all means, do not give up the big play.
> 
> This Super Bowl has the same feel of the Rams-Patriots and Oakland-Tampa games.


Now why would you wanna banish me? What I said was the truth. No one could've predicted that amount of turnovers, or for Brees to look like a Manning in the playoffs, so I can see why they were favored by some. With Grossman playing QB for the Bears, I expected the Saints to win as well.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> You really can't blame those guys for picking the Saints. If not for those fumbles, which really can't be predicted, as well as Brees's subpar performance which was NOT expected at all, the outcome would've been a lot different. Not saying the Saints would've won, but it would've been close at least.
> 
> I think the Bears have a real legit shot at winning the SB, especially with Manning getting x-rays on his thumb (I believe on his throwing hand). The only team I cared for in the playoffs is out now, so I guess it's up to cheering for the SD boy Vinatieri.


You act as though those fumbles just happened to the Saints. The Bears MADE them happened. Everyone of them. That has been the Bears MO all year. The better team won period.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

lorgg said:


> You act as though those fumbles just happened to the Saints. The Bears MADE them happened. Everyone of them. That has been the Bears MO all year. The better team won period.


No, I know fully well that the Bears always stand the guy up and try to strip the ball. That is part of the reason why I was hoping the Steelers would grab Rivera as their next HC instead of Tomlin. Several of those fumbles weren't like that though, they were just good hits. You still don't expect that many fumbles or at least not that type of play out of Brees. Some of that was due to the Bears' D, but nowhere near all of it. Brees's accuracy wasn't affected by the D on most of those throws, he just didn't play well. The team that played better won, but my point was that I can see why people would've picked the Saints.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

A friend sent this picture to me.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> A friend sent this picture to me.


At least he had the goddam common courtesy to give him a reach-around.










http://www.moviewavs.com/php/sounds...Metal_Jacket&quote=cowboy.txt&file=cowboy.wav


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> At least he has the goddam common courtesy to give him a reach-around.


I think it's the photoshop artist's way of saying the bears had their way with the saints.

:biggrin:


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Got the new SI today in the mail.

Peyton Manning is on the cover.

Hope the SI jinx still works.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Hey, here's some trivia...

Does anyone else realize that Lovie and Tony are the first two African American coaches to take their teams to the Super Bowl?


I wonder why nobody is covering that story angle...


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Hey, here's some trivia...
> 
> Does anyone else realize that Lovie and Tony are the first two African American coaches to take their teams to the Super Bowl?
> 
> ...


I just did some extensive digging and found out that they are the best of friends too. Imagine the coincidence?


----------

