Seattle Seahawks.
Dallas Cowboys.
New York Giants.
I don't care. I don't care today. I won't care Saturday. I won't care Sunday. And I certainly won't care next weekend when the Bears have to lineup and play ball. What's the difference? If this Bears team is the best team in the conference - they'll beat whoever walks into our building.
To paraphrase the great Steve Fuller, "Bring on Seattle. Bring on Dallas. This is for Lovie and Papa Bear Halas."
#2 The Man said . . .Or they can be beaten by any of them and thats why you don't care who.
January 4, 2007
#3 jdawg said . . .I think you'd realize if you read this site that Jeff clearly doen't believe anyone can beat the Bears. And that's why we love him. He also won't shoot back at you because WE KNOW HE LIKES YOU GUYS and he leaves the battles to us.
January 4, 2007
#4 jeff said . . .This is what I'm curious about at this moment in time: what flavor of defense have we been playing the last three games? In Sunday's game the pass rush, on top of being not very effective, seemed pretty vanilla, whereas we were stunting and blitzing like crazy the two previous games. I'd like to think Lovie and Rivera are playing rope-a-dope, but I'm not so sure that the guys either didn't care or were physically worn down.
January 4, 2007
#5 scott said . . .they have alternated between an over-agressive blitz and a flat four man rush. the problem has been the third corner (the reason why mike williams and ruvel martin have been open). when peanut comes back and joins vasher, ricky manning will be able to go back to nickel. todd johnson, the backup nickel, also hasn't played. so we've seen a lot of devin hester
January 4, 2007
#6 jdawg said . . .It really doesn't matter who we play. The pundits can debate that. What matters is Rex and the D recapturing their mojo from early in the year. Getting some regulars back on the field will help the D. No doubt about it. As for Rex, crap shoot. He clearly has the ability to play really, really well (7 games with passer rtg. over 100). He can obviously go the other way. There doesn't seem to be a rhyme or reason. He played great against the Seahawks, crappy against the Vikings. Who can figure that out? As long as it's not a six-turnover-type outing I still feel as though the defense and running game can keep us in it. That's going to be my mantra, anyway.
January 4, 2007
#7 Fred said . . .I'm hoping Johnson can give some serious on-field coaching to Manning(s) and Harris. He's supposed to be Mike Brown lite (no pun intended) in that he's a student of the game and knows what the proper assignments are in the backfield. He also brings that ring-a-ding-ding that can create alligator arms on receivers. I'm hoping that Johnson and Peanut drastically change what's been going on in the secondary.
January 4, 2007
#8 The Duke said . . .Defense........
We can't seem to blitz worth a shit lately.
Having everyone back in the secondary will help but the whole thing starts with our two starting defensive ends. Where have they been?
It would sure as shit help out the secondary if we could get some pressure from the line. Get pressure from the line and you don't have to blitz. Is Ogunleye still getting a paycheck?January 4, 2007
#9 jeff said . . .It's the playoffs guys. Everyone is 0 - 0. And the Bears have two weeks to lick their wounds and come out flying against whatever NFC team dares to show their face at soldier. I for one am fuckin' pumped at the thought of the rest of the NFC rolling through Chicago to recieve a royal ass-kicking. C'mon! Enough with the negative analysis. Let's fuckin' go!!!!
January 4, 2007
#10 Heywood Jublomey said . . .negativity is pointless. believe you can win it all and winning it all will become the greatest feeling in the world.
January 4, 2007
#11 jeff said . . .i have to agree with "the pack is back". We have seen the Bears play poorly enough to lose or nearly lose to teams inferior to those they will see in the playoffs.
however, we have also seen the bears play well enough to bury any of the teams they may see in the playoffs.
it would be naive not to believe that the bears CAN win, but it would also be naive to believe that they actually will.
Finally, the comments to and from "the pack is back" on this board serve as a reminder of the strength of the rivalry between the packers and the bears, for which I am thankful. Only a thriving rivalry has the power for a single game to make the entire season for an 8-8 non-playoff team. It's nice to be a part of one of the greatest rivalry in sports.
January 4, 2007
#12 The Pack is Back said . . .by the way, anybody else breathing a sigh of relief on the whole nick saban turning us down thing?
January 4, 2007
#13 Coxy said . . .Look. Everyone here has rationalized that the Packers thrashing of the bears was due to the fact that the game was meaningless. So the rationalization goes that a team without motivation probably won't win. If thats the case the bears are in trouble. They can't get motivated.
Also, if we can make up excuses like lack of motivation, then certainly lack of preparation is a good reason for not winning. So the only reason the bears beat the Packers, vikings, and lions early is that those teams were young with new coaches and not prepared. Seattle was without there star. Who cares about buffalo and arizona had it in the bag. It had nothing to do with the bears being good. So there isn't anything for the team to "get back to" because there never was anything there. Looks like it could be rationalized that the bears really were equivalent to a 1-5 start.
If you must make excuses, then be consistent. Don't be delusional. Stop rationalizing.
January 4, 2007
#14 jdawg said . . .I will admit that the Bears D has regressed throughout the season. Losing two pro bowlers will do that. I will also admit that the Bears were trying to win the game the other night. Of course they were trying to win, they are not Nialists. I just dont think it was too upsetting for them when they lost as it was an exhibition.
Your argument about the Vikings and Lions games in the early season is moot because we beat them at the end of the season. Wasn't pretty against the Lions, but it was a W.
Also, when you pick on people's grammar, don't make the same mistake that you pointed out. Just makes you look unintelligent. "Seattle was without there star."
January 4, 2007
#15 The Pack is Back said . . .Man, I guess Lovie and Rex don't have the same speech coach. For Rex to admit his head wasn't in the game and that he didn't prepare the prior week properly is a pretty wild admission. I suspect he's not the only one, obviously, but doesn't he know he's not supposed to admit it? Say what you will but at least he shoots straight from his mouth, if not always his arm.
Anyway, the scrimmage loss against the Packers should get them refocused. Better now than in the first half of a playoff game, like last year.
January 4, 2007
#16 The Pack is Back said . . .I picked on the grammar for 2 reasons. First, it was a personal attack. Second, the statement itself was ironic because of the bad grammar: "I know your not sharp enough."
January 4, 2007
#17 Pissed off said . . .For Rex to admit his head wasn't in the game and that he didn't prepare the prior week properly is a pretty wild EXCUSE.
January 4, 2007
#18 Phil from SATX said . . .To start, Fudgepacker has used the word delusional twice again since I made fun of his use of the word of the week in wisconsin. PLEASE FIND A DIFFERENT WORD to describe your state of mind. Also, whats wrong with "your not sharp enough"? Is something misspelled, not that you'd know being from wisconsin.
Also to Dave...I fucked your wife, thought you might like that.
January 4, 2007
#19 Phil from SATX said . . .P is B, your first paragraph was astonishingly sober and on the mark. Glad to see you have it in you - I had actually started to believe that you were single-handedly dragging this blog down and wondering how I could get Jeff to block you. Good for you. However, after that first paragraph, you lose everyone. It is clear that the Bears today are not as good as the Bears earlier in the season. However, they continued to win, with a few losses salted in here and there. After rewatching the first half of the Packers game, I was struck by the intensity of Favre's play. He was absolutely awesome in the first half (aside from the Vasher pick), and I have no doubt he had extreme amounts of extra motivation given that it may have been his last game. He obviously requires a little something extra to play that well, otherwise why didn't he do that all year (18 td to 18 picks, qb season rating of 72.7, not that great). The lack of defensive starters notwithstanding, I think the Bears are the same way - they play better when they have something extra to play for. I will comment that it was pretty hilarious to see that once again, C. Benson was suffering disconnect with the rest of the team - he alone was having a great time out there with his best effort of his underused season. Maybe it's denial, but I have decided not to worry about this first playoff game. There were enough glimpses of the real Bears in that last meaningless game (meaningless maybe to everyone but Brett) to make me remember that these guys have way more talent, even with injuries, than anyone they will face. They will have focus, Rex will play well, restored defensive players will make all the difference, and we will crush the Seahawks at Soldier Field. Again.
January 4, 2007
#20 Pissed off said . . .P is B, I meant your earlier post - #12.
January 4, 2007
#21 The Pack is Back said . . .Now as far as the upcoming game goes, that the Bears will be playing in, not the Pack cuz they suck and only had a .500 record, I agree that dont care who we play. We have the potential to beat all of them and we have the potential to lose to all of them. If Rex doesnt give them the ball several times and strings together a good game.....or three, we can win the whole damn thing, I'm just scared of seeing Rex like he was last game and giving away the ball to a far inferior team such as the pack. We saw how inept the pack was all year and it just broke my heart to see Rex lose his cool to a horrible team.
January 4, 2007
#22 Pissed Off said . . .I've just been kidding with you guys, I really think the Bears should have won last game, the Pack is far worse of a team then the Bears. In fact I think I will become a Bears fan now since my team couldnt make the playoffs...AGAIN.
And by the way, I admit I do only have two teeth, I married my first cousin, and I live with my grandparents on a pig farm.
January 4, 2007
#23 jdawg said . . .We've been fooling ourselves. The Bears are not very good and have gotten worse. Rex is the worst QB the league has ever seen. We're in BIG trouble.
January 4, 2007
#24 Coxy said . . .I agree. We're in BIG trouble. Rex sucks and the Packers should be in the playoffs.
January 4, 2007
#25 jeff said . . .You guys are right. The Bears should just forfeit instead of being humiliated.
January 4, 2007
#26 Phil from SATX said . . .P is B - as long as you keep it on football - you are always welcome here. I hate the Packers. I love Packers fans.
January 4, 2007
#27 The Real Phil from SATX said . . .I'm afraid that Rex will show up in the playoffs. God help us if he does. Our defense being so crappy will make it bad enough without Rex stinking up the place!
January 4, 2007
#28 The Pack is Back said . . .Okay that was a low blow, masquerading as Phil from SATX. It's now official - blog has been highjacked. I did not send last post. Jeff???
January 4, 2007
#29 The real Pissed off said . . .Durr I officially announce my resignation as a packer fan. I love cheese almost as much as I love humping sheep. My tooth hurts maybe I should go get i pulled, I dont need it, I still suck my mommies titty for nourishment anyway. Durrrr I hope Rex looks like a Pro Bowl quarterback in the playoffs and I hope he leads the Bears to a Super Bowl victory. We all know he's capable of it. We need the Lombardi trophy back in the NFC north.
January 4, 2007
#30 Gastn Gruvn said . . .I didnt write my last post either, P is B is hijacking the site, whatever will we do?? I think the intelligent people can tell who's posts are really theirs.
January 4, 2007
#31 jeff said . . .Boy, this reeks of pubescent sexual frustration. Hope your little balls drop soon, pib.
January 4, 2007
#32 jdawg said . . .i think P is B spends more time working on this site than i do. not a very good impersonation job there, though, is it?
January 4, 2007
#33 jeff said . . .I didn't write the last post under my name either.
This is getting very jr. high.
January 4, 2007
#34 The Pack is Back said . . .well all those posts came from the same place and it wouldn't be hard to block that person from posting. it's just not my thing so i'd rather not. i'd prefer the person just be less of an asshole.
January 4, 2007
#35 Coxy said . . .If you would read all the posts with my name on them you would be able to tell that it wasn't me. That would require reasoning though, so I doubt anyone here would recognize that.
January 4, 2007
#36 The Pack is Back said . . .Reasoning like how a 6-0 domination of our first 6 games should have been 1-5 bc there were some inexperienced coaches on the other sideline. You're right, we're being ridiculous.
January 4, 2007
#37 Coxy said . . .Yes, calling aregular season game between the Packers and bears a "meaningless" game, especially after the HC says its the primary objective is rationalizing.
If anything, it was meaningless to the Packers. A loss would have been more valuable to the Packers than a win. They just couldn't overcome the Perpetual Ineptness of Rex to put out the loss. They were forced to take the win by the total inability to put together any kind of a play by the bears on offense or defense. That was after the HC announced to the world that it was their primary objective.
January 4, 2007
#38 The Pack is Back said . . .Ok, lets weigh those arguments on who is being more asinine.
1. Turning a dominant 6-0 team to 1-5 bc of inexperienced coaches on the other team.
2. Calling a game that had no influence on anything (other than getting on a nice roll before games that matter and beating a rival) meaningless.I think even you would have to say that #1 is obviously more "delusional".
And Captain Obvious, your other points are useless. I did watch the game. I do not think Grossman played anything close to well. He looked like Favre last year. The Bears did struggle to put together a play on both sides of the ball. But thanks for the insight. I must have forgotten that everyone on this blog thought the Bears tore it up on Sunday.
January 4, 2007
#39 Coxy said . . .No... You're just wrong on the meaningless part. As you admit, you didn't watch the desperation that was terribly apparent on the bears' side of the ball. My point is that if you want me to accept your "meaningless" theory, then you should be just as willing to accept my "unprepared" theory. Certainly you don't think the packers were prepared in week #1 do you? If you can't accept that fact then you are delusional. The Packers had the most inexperienced and youngest team to take the field in the modern era of pro football.
January 4, 2007
#40 The Pack is Back said . . .I'll give you one thing. You have the resiliency of your starting QB. Despite the verbal domination you have received over the past couple days, you keep coming back. Quite Favruh like. Do you have a bowl of Vicodin for breakfast just like your qb?
January 4, 2007
#41 The Pack is Back said . . .No... Just an easy opponent.
January 4, 2007
#42 Hawks 12th man said . . .Like Favre that is.
January 4, 2007
After sunday you will care when the Seahawks beat Dabears and advance to the nfc finals again. Shaun Alexander will be running like last years mvp and you all will be trying so hard to shut him down then "BAM" there goes one of four top recievers we have for another Seahawk TD. Dont worry we are sending alot of tissues.
January 11, 2007
Here at DaBearsBlog, you are free to kill us or the Bears as you so wish. You are not free, however, to be an asshole. So if you spew racism or ill-meaning foul language (cursing about football is just fine) or anything of that ilk, your comments ain't gonna last long, jerk.