Say what you will about the so-called football gods but sometimes they know what they’re doing. The reigning champions of the National Football Conference are 1-3, hanging from the cliff of the 2007 season by a thread thinner than their depth at corner back. If they can pull themselves up, a playoff spot in a weak conference is there for the taking. If they fall, wake me up on draft day. When the clock strikes midnight and Sunday turns to Monday, the punctuation shifts. The question mark becomes a period. We’ll know what the 2007 is.
That’s because it’s Packer Week so I hope the Bears don’t need the added incentive of a season-on-the-line to get motivated. If the Bears lose Sunday night, they’ll be 1-4 – an almost unfathomable four games back of a division lead they’ll never see. Put 1-4 in perspective: the Bears would need to go 9-2 down the stretch to win 10 games. If the Bears win Sunday night, they’ll be 2-3 with a bad Minnesota team coming to Chicago next weekend as they’ll play at home to get to .500. 3-3. New season.
Bears. Packers. Primetime. When it comes to the first quarter of the season, it’s easy to be down, pessimistic, negative…other words that mean the same thing. I’m going to spend the next five days believing the Bears are going to win in Lambeau Field and turn this thing around. The football gods have decided that if the Bears are to matter this season, they must start in the home of their greatest rival. They must do so in front of the entire country, while Madden and Michaels wax poetic about how much fun a certain #4 has on the field. They must win a game no one will expect them to win.
It’s Packer Week. Win or lose I'll find a new way to believe Monday morning. But oh wouldn't it be sweet to hand the Packers their first loss in their building and announce the Bears aren't dead yet on national television.
Bear down. It's Packer Week.
#2 Jakub said . . .Bear down!
First :)
October 2, 2007
#3 Pissed Off said . . .We will win this game if we don't turn the ball over; I think it is as simple is that.
Don't turn it over, you keep your offense on the field longer, your D gets rest and you don't give up stupid points.
Oh, and please, for the love of everything that is football, CATCH THE DAMN BALL!
October 2, 2007
#4 Da Coach said . . .Pack havent been very good the past couple of years at home so I like our chances in that regard.
I thought the season was on the line going into last Sunday, or is it this week now, oh who knows anymore, I cant keep track.....it'll probably be when we are 1-6 and we need to get to 8-8 to get into the playoffs. Yeah maybe then it'll be on the line?!?
October 2, 2007
#5 Bear Fan In Minnesota said . . .With the season on the line I expect a crisp strong game from the offense, defense & special teams.
Lets not crown these packers just yet, if the eagles knew how to play special teams & norv turner knew how to get the ball to one of the biggest playmakers in the game today we might only be 1 game back right now.
Count the bears out back to the underdog role that they seem to thrive so well in for so many season.
BEAR DOWN!
October 2, 2007
#6 Bear Fan In Minnesota said . . .I can't believe all the people who are predicting the Packers to win! Look at who the've beat! The total combined record of the teams is 5-11. Not to mention they couldn't run the ball in a pee-wee league. If we can get to Favre like we did to Kitna and keep the ball off the ground we should rebound with a statement on National TV.
The season is still early. The Conference is still wide open (Dallas will collapse) and we will still make the playoffs!
October 2, 2007
#7 The Frozen Tundra said . . .ps...
Look at who the Cowboys have beat...
Rams
Giants
Us (That Sucks I know) and
MIAMIHaven't proved anything yet...
October 2, 2007
#8 BRIANsong said . . .Brett Favre has repeatedly bitch slapped the Bears since 1993, with narrow exception the last year or two. The Packers have a defense on par with the vastly overrated Bears' defense. We won't engage in discussion of your lowly quarterback situation. Or your horrific running back, wide receivers and offensive line mates.
Da Pack beat the Bears on Sunday 23 -14.
October 2, 2007
#9 The Frozen Tundra said . . .Wait a minute. We're that horrible and you're winning by 9?
October 2, 2007
#10 Bill said . . .Brett Favre will be 22 and 8 against the Bears after Sunday. Meanwhile Brian Grossman or Rex Griese will be fumbling with their nuts once again while Cedric Benson fumbles and runs out of bounds like a little girl.
You guys have had one really good season in the last 15 and talk as though you are the New England Patriots or something. The Bears remain a big fat joke. What's embarassing is that you are always on national TV these days so we get to hear guys like John Madden, Joe Buck, etc. feeling sorry for you and apologizing for you awful QB situation that never gets solved. Lovie sucks just like Whiny Wanny and Dick in a Jar too.
October 2, 2007
#11 Max said . . .It will be interesting to see how the young Packers deal with the fame they unexpectedly have. Could be a trap game for them. Favre himself may be feeling a bit constrined by the dink and dunk style he's adapted to and might let loose with an INT or three like in the old days.
My brother in law used to excuse Favre for all those INTs becuae "he was just trying to make things happen" It's a lot better than the dink/dunk game the Bears play with Miller (or whoever.". I said if he'd rather lose than dink/dunk, at least he'll get his wish.
Now he's learned and they are 4-0. Can he keep it up, or will the injuries to the Bears and the disrespect for the offense and the home crowd be too much to control his urge to go deep?
If Favre plays under control, we don't have much of a chance. Our offense as executed lately will struggle again vs the Packer defense. But if Favre helps us out - we have a chance.
October 2, 2007
#12 Jakub said . . .The only good point you make in that rambling Tundra is the fact we have to listen to Madden and Buck. Not gonna lie, I really dislike that tandem.
"intents and purposes" wow im an idiot.
October 2, 2007
#13 mikebdot said . . ."If Favre plays under control, we don't have much of a chance."
If we can't beat the Packers on their best day, we might as well phone it in, dismantle the team and play some golf.
I refuse to believe that if both teams play to their full potential, the Bears lose this game.
October 2, 2007
#14 jdawg said . . .PO'd: The season is always on the line until we are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. Remember those good old days? With our defensive injuries and terrible O-line it looks like they're back...our O-line SUCKS.
We had 14 penalties against Detroit. That's pretty sad. Was our defense really that undisciplined? I am not at all surprised. We were one of the most penalized teams last season. We did alright the first few games, but 14 penalties in one game is fucking ridiculous. False starts, encroachment on Brown a few times and Hunter another time? What the hell. Illegal contact. Roughing the passer. Delay of game (for spiking the ball I would assume?) Laundry list. It needs to be fixed. It's Lovie's job to make it happen.
October 2, 2007
#15 Phil from SATX said . . .If I remember correctlly this time last year we'd beaten some pretty lousy teams until we clobbered the Seahawks.
Anyway, the only way we win up thar is if the O-line and the wr's decide they like to play football. If not its going to be dancing with the stars for: 1. Griese, then; 2. Grossman, then; 3. Orton and then, what we've all been waiting for; 4. Lovie inserts Hester into the one back formation (a la Ditka with Payton) as Grace Jones sings from the stands, "Pull Up to the Bumper Baby, Park it In Between!"
October 2, 2007
#16 Bear Fan In Minnesota said . . .That's a great point, MikeD, and you're the first one to bring that up. I just reread Rahula Strohl's play-by-play of that game and we were not only penalized, but we gave up huge chunks of yards and really helped them on their drives with those penalties. I didn't go back to check, but nearly all those penalties were on the defense. And for the most part, involving veterans.
That is solely on Lovie, after all, it's his defense, right? For the life of me I don't get lining up in the neutral zone 3 times - that's just sloppy. And every football player knows he can't take off his helmet no matter how pissed he is about a call. Launching yourself at a QB, horse collar tackle, stupid stupid stuff.
Those penalties had a HUGE impact on that game, and they better fix that PDQ.
October 2, 2007
#17 Mike said . . .Brett Favre is 1-4 in the last four meetings with Chicago including Favres only loss with a shutout.
We may have been bitched slapped a few years ago...but Favre has been Bear meat for the last couple of years. Do different this week!Bears 24 Packers 10
BEAR DOWN!
October 2, 2007
#18 The Pack is Back said . . .Crikey. Why on earth do Bear fans want to dump on Brett Favre. The guy has played in 2 Super Bowls, won 3 MVP awards, holds a shitload of NFL records, is one of the greatest quarterbacks I've all time (and that I've ever had the privilege to see play) and has a 21-8 record against the Bears.
I just re-checked the NFL standings. The Bears are 1-3 while the Packers are 4-0. We need to shut the fuck up and respect a QB (and an organization) that owns us. I don't like the Packers either, but criminy I do respect them. We are the fucking laughingstock of the NFL right now.
October 2, 2007
#19 The Frozen Tundra said . . .http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl07.htm
October 2, 2007
#20 Midway Monster said . . .The world had to endure Bear fans talking out of their assholes and insisting that the Bears would repeat as NFC Champions. Well look at you ass clowns right now. Bear fans blather on about their doomsday defense, yet look at the 1-3 record which includes a lucky victory against Kansas City.
I don't hate the Bears. I hate 75% of Bear fans. They know jack scratch about football and make ridiculous assertations. "Rex Grossman is the next Brett Favre," "we have the best defense in the NFL," blah de fucking blah de dah. Shut the fuck up until maybe you piece together two decent seasons in a row.
October 2, 2007
#21 JL said . . .Frozen (Post #7): Or maybe... just maybe... Brian U busts through the line and burries #4 forever.
-- Midway --
October 2, 2007
#22 Phil from SATX said . . .Phil, 14 penalties is a lot but Alex Brown got 2 on consecutive series for lining up illegally in the neutral zone. It's a bullshit call by the ref, especially since Brown has been lining up the way he does ever since he joined this team. Encroachment or offsides is one thing - lining up in the neutral zone is petty and it took away a sack by Harris that would've given us a 3 and out early in the game and a chance to put the Lions away before the half.
1-4 is not impossible. The Jets were 1-4 in 2002, made the playoffs, won a game, and nearly beat the Chargers (I think) on a last minute FG in the conference semis. 5 teams in history have fallen to 1-4 and made the playoffs, and of those 5, 4 of them have actually won a game.
Momentous game, yes, but the season won't be completely lost. We just need some indication from this Offense that it's improving and able to get us to 9-7 or 10-6 by season's end.
October 2, 2007
#23 JL said . . .Is it me or is "ass clown" the most popular new word on the block?
Here's some more good news. The Vikings nearly beat the Packers (hang with me here) even though the Metrodome was apparently like a home field for the Packers (a complete embarrassment for the Vikings) and the Vikings have had as much difficulty scoring as the Bears. Kelly Holcomb is at QB and the Vikings have had only 4 touchdowns all season - lots of field goals make their scoring. Still, they were driving to tie the game at the end when KH threw an interception.
The Packers cannot run the ball, and took a further blow to their running game when another guy went down (I'm not looking it up to see who it was because I don't give a shit). They can only pass. Now that doesn't sound great, since pass happy QBs have beaten us twice this year, but we have consistently contained the pass-happies until the end of games. And GB is no Cowboys, Vikings held them to 23 points and I guarantee GB will be facing a tougher defense next week, even with injuries.
Offense cannot turn the ball over. If offense does not, and displays something better than complete ineptitude, we'll win. And begin our long, slow climb back up. Game by game.
October 2, 2007
#24 Bill said . . .Don't get me wrong...I want a monster W if only to shut up Ham Hands and Al Michaels' Favre praise.
October 2, 2007
#25 Pissed Off said . . .Mike - don't know if you were referring to my post, but I'm not dumping on Favre at all. I'm just saying when he throws carelessly he can be beat. For all his victories, he has a few defeats too. They usually come from too many careless throws into coverage.
Frozen Tundra - you typify the reason I stay away from comment sites. I'm basically too old to have any patience for your type of comments. Are Bear fans not supposed to be fans of their team when they are losing? Of course we thought they were going to repeat. Why wouldn't we think that? (We don't now, of course.)
Are we not supposed to talk about an excellent defense? And where did this Rex is the next Favre stuff come from? I recall many people saying he was similar in his gunslinging mentality, but I don't recall anyone exptrapolating it that far.
Let's see - what else. "Lucky" victory against KC. I don't get that one at all. I knoew we were in trouble when we only won by 10, but the points we scored and the defnesive stops we made were not based on luck.The only thing doomsday about our defense is the injury list. It's a fact - take 5-6 pro bowl players off the Packers and let's see how well you play. (By the way, ARE there 5-6 Pro Bowl players on the Packers?)
By the way, if you know anything about football, you'll know that you'll never beat a quality team in the playoffs without a running game. My brother in law freely admits this. He's enjoying what's happening, but he knows they won't go far in the playoffs. if they even win one game. He's been a Packer fan for well over 40 years. He knows a good solid team from one not as good as their record.
Anticipating your reply: beating the Bears to move to 5-0 doesn't make them any better, UNLESS you think the Bears are good. See, that's the problem with a rivalry - winning a particular game doesn't mean anything unless your opponent is good too.
October 2, 2007
#26 mikebdot said . . .Mike your post #17 sums you up. If you were a Bear fan, which I am convinced your not due to your lack of positivity and sheer idiocy, you'd know that any real Bear fan hates Favre and wishes him ill at all times. Your no longer an objective fan, your a disgruntled guy who watches the NFL, nothing more, certainly not a Bear fan. I seriously cant believe you even questioned when someone rips Favre.
Max glad to see you figured out the "intents and purposes" thing, it was more funny than anything.....also Madden calls the games with Al Michaels.....Buck calls the games with Aikman on Fox.
I thought we did piece two good seasons together, last year and the year before?Leave it to a drunk packer rube to try and conjure a rational thought and his head explodes.
October 2, 2007
#27 The Frozen Tundra said . . .Briggs, Archuleta, Brown, Dvoracek, Tillman, Vasher, Bazuin, Okwo, Payne.
9 out of 25(ish) defenders from our roster are currently injured. So, yes, our defense isn't as good as we thought it would be. It played great the first two games, then when everyone got hurt we gave up big plays to Dallas when rookies came in to fill gaps. Last game Manning moved from safety, then Payne got hurt, so we couldn't even play nickel. So, with all due respect, fuck you, you stupid packer fan.
I will be surprised if we win this weekend, but I wouldn't be surprised if we won some games when some of these players return (namely, Briggs, Tillman and Vasher).
October 2, 2007
#28 Phil from SATX said . . .Did I state the Packers were a perfect football team? No. It is true we have a lousy running game. This will surely come back to bite us. But our expectations weren't and aren't that great for this season. We are a young team in significant developmental phase. At the beginning of the season I thought we could be 9-7 this season. Now I think we will wind up doing better. How much better? I don't know. Good enough to beat Dallas for supremacy in the down and out NFC? I doubt it.
You see Bear fans, what I just stated is OBJECTIVE analysis of one's team. Not talk out of your ass hyperbole with no basis. Did any of you honestly think you were going to be at the top of the NFC with Rex Grossman as your quarterback and with those skill position players? If you did, then your bigger delusionists than I considered you to be.
October 2, 2007
#29 Max said . . .I thought we had just strung together two good seasons in a row: 2005 11-5 and playoff appearance 2006 13-3 and SB appearance
This compared to the Pack: 2005 4-12
2006 8-8Here's something else to chew on. The offense WILL be better next week. Was it just me that thought that the offense looked a lot more competent at moving the ball consistently? And that after all of 3 practices as the head guy for BG? The receiver drops are of course inexplicable, but each of those INTs can be at least in part attributed to rust and QB/receiver unfamiliarity. Two of those occurred as we were competently driving the ball, and while it was maddening to lose those points, at least the offense was driving for points.
I think the O will continue to improve, and as it does, wins will come. Hopefully starting Sunday. (GB all psyched up on themselves with wins over the Vikings, the "only had one good game in 'em" Chargers, the hapless Eagles and the mediocre Giants) (pshaw)
October 2, 2007
#30 Max said . . .Tundra, you want objective analysis all the time, go somewhere else. This is a BEARS blog. Where we can dream, believe and cheer on our team. . .
Our some of our comments far fetched and reaching? Yes. Do you have to sit on your computer and read them? No.
October 2, 2007
#31 Max said . . ."Are" some of our comments far fetched and reaching? Yes. Do you have to sit on your computer and read them? No.
(I am trying to improve on my English. First step is to correct mistakes)
October 2, 2007
#32 The Frozen Tundra said . . .Not sure what the second step is, but for me, I'm pretty sure it includes Natty
October 2, 2007
#33 The Frozen Tundra said . . .Ah Phil, just as so to clarify the Super Bowl bound Chicago Bears are 1 and 3. San Diego is in the toilet as much as you guys are, yet you lost to them. Tony Romo bitch slapped your vaunted defense (BEFORE a lot of the excuse making injuries). You escaped with victory against Kansas City at Soldier Field. And you got trounced by the "juggernaut" Detroit Lions constructed by world renowned GM Matt Millen!! So don't sit here and be dismissive of Green Bay's oppponents to date. I wouldn't pick you ass clowns to beat Minnesota at Soldier Field right now.
October 2, 2007
#34 Phil from SATX said . . .Don't look now but I think Cedric Bust-on (a top 10 draft pick if I recall) just crumbled to the ground before the hit, ran out of bounds and fumbled on three successive plays. And you talk about our running game.
Hey maybe you guys can draft another bust quarterback or running back with your top 10 pick next April. You need to keep up the illustrous tradition of Cade McClown, Rex Grossman, Rashaun Salame, Curtis Enis, Cedric Bust-on. Hah-hah.
October 2, 2007
#35 BRIANsong said . . .Tundra, what an A hole! Go away, ye who loves to say "ass clown!" If you read this blog at all (and a bigger waste of time for a non-Bears fan, I can't think of) you know we are extremely hard on our club here! And you're the one who said "string together more than one good season in a row" - are you stupid?
My point about the list of teams you beat is that you may not be as good as you think you are, or as good as your record. Are we as bad as our record? No. We have a dysfunctional offense and a beat up defense. Our dysfunctional offense is getting more functional by the day, and our defense will get guys back.
You'll get your comeuppance, ya silly young whippersnapper. Just you wait.
October 2, 2007
#36 The Frozen Tundra said . . .Anybody else wonder why Packers fans act like they won ten straight titles? The won one with Favre. And he threw away three playoff games himself. There's no player in the history of sports held less accountable for his big time failures than Favre, who is given a pass because people close to him keep dying and he smiles on the field.
October 2, 2007
#37 Pissed Off said . . .Lets be clear on one thing Phil. The Bears are as bad as their record. They earned that record fair and square. There haven't been any botched calls or meteorites crashing down that by itself determined the outcome of those four games. The Bears fucking suck whether I am a Packer fan or not. But I wouldn't expect you to have grip on reality. I've gone back to read this blog and half of you morons still insist Rex Grossman can be the answer!!!! How fucked up is that?
You've been owned.
October 2, 2007
#38 Mike said . . .Frozen Im pretty sure we went to the SB with Rex last year...so yeah we thought we could do it again this year with the same group (except minus Thomas Jones). Why wouldnt we have thought we could get there? And BTW the Pack has been owned by us, ass clown! (how do you like that). With the exception of the last game last year (when we didnt give two shits) we have bitch slapped (zing, another one) your ass the past few years. So your team is the one who needs to prove it can beat the Bears.
October 2, 2007
#39 The Frozen Tundra said . . .Oh good Lord. A couple things.
1. Don't feed the trolls (I'm not sure what that really means, but I notice from ocassional blog viewing that it is hip thing to say when a contrarian or opponent's fan has entered the mix).
2. Brett Favre is a 24 carat diamond in every dimension. He's Joe Montana/Johnny Unitas/John Elway/Dan Marino in bleepin gold and green. The Packers have him, we don't. And there isn't a bloody damned thing to do about it except take it up the ass for us Bear fans.
3. The Packers are 4-0 and should feel good about themselves.
4. I'm less mad at a Packer troll than I am about the reality of the situation with the Bears.
5. Truth be told, this back and forth is funnier than shit. It's making a comedy out of our horror flick of a season.
October 2, 2007
#40 Bill said . . .The Bears got the best three years out of Thomas Jones. He isn't doing shit in New York. So don't you chronic excuse makers go using Thomas Jones as another excuse to your mountain of excuses for being the laughingstock of the National Football League.
October 2, 2007
#41 Scuba Man said . . .I hope Tundra is actually from Green Bay. Becuase I can't truly imagine anyone with a life speding (wasting) time reading hundreds of posts by fans of another team.
Seriously - I'm not saying "get a life" like someone born in the 70s or 80s. I was born in he 50s. I'm saying it amazes me (and maybe even worries me for my kids future) that someone woudl spend THAT much time on this site reading comments who isn't a Bear fan.
UNLESS you're from GB. Then I understand. There's not much to do up there.
My oldest son is going to the game with a bunch of his friends. Paid a lot for the tickets on StubHub. He was really looking forward to it until recently. He knows he'll get a lot of crap from the fans up there.
I told him no matter how bad it gets, you get to come home to Chicago. They still have to live in Green Bay.
OK - so that may soubd immature after calling out Tundra for being immature. The fact is, I've been to Manitowoc and Rhinelander but never GB (though I know someone who lived in Sturgeon Bay for a while.) Based on those impressions, it is worlds away from Chicago. Maybe the people like it that way. I have to think if they do, their standards for enjoyment must be awfully low.
October 2, 2007
#42 Bill said . . .Yeah, yeah... check it:
Here I am/Scuba to the man/I'm a bear's fan/wham!/they can run the plays and make the other teams scram/damn, Scuba Man/what's that noise?/It's my gear/it puts you all in fear/bubbly bubbly/I come at you like no fuddy duddy/I said bubbly bubbly/no, it ain't from my ass/that's crass/I don't fart/nor do I shit/I got wits/bigger than yer momma's - bleep.
How you like me now? Scuba Man - the number one Bear's fan.
Word.
October 2, 2007
#43 Pissed Off said . . .And I absolutely LOVE this rivalry!!
October 2, 2007
#44 Mike said . . .Who said we were blaming all our problems on Thomas Jones not being here? Oh thats right Tundra cant read, or are you just dislexic? No comeback for my prior post, looks like you've been owned.
October 2, 2007
#45 Mike said . . .The population of Green Bay is only around 200 thousand. I have an aunt and uncle who have lived there for 45 years. It's a working class community. Nothing fancy or distinguishable, but a nice place to raise a family and earn a living (I guess). Packer fans live all over the place. Hell, I walk down the street in downtown Chicago and I still see more Packer clothing than I do for the Bears. For the life of me don't get that. I live in the northern suburbs of Chicago, only 4-5 miles distance from Halas Hall in Lake Forest. Yet in my town I'd have to say that at least 1/3 the residents are Packer fans.
Anyway, comparing the city of Green Bay to Chicago is like comparing a row boat to a cruise ship.
October 2, 2007
#46 Bears Fan In Minnesota said . . .Pissed Off, you are goofier than batshit.
October 2, 2007
#47 The Frozen Tundra said . . .This is awesome...This is how Packer week should be!
By Sunday night at 7:00 pm no one is Lambeau field is going to give a crap about records, quarterbacks, running backs or coaches.
It will simply be...GAME ON!
May the best team win!
October 2, 2007
#48 Mike said . . .I live in Janesville. Been a Packer fan since I oozed out the birth canal. Oh, and I happen to be diehard Cubs fan.
This argument is frack. I feel like Claudia Shiff arguing with bull dike Rosie O'Donnell on who is prettier.
October 2, 2007
#49 JB said . . .lol ! Coffee I am drinking just came out my nose !
October 2, 2007
#50 Bill said . . .To the packer fans on here, you're acting like Vikings fans. There, I said it...that's about the worst thing I can say to you. A vikings fan is irrational and childish. a true packers fan respects the greatest rivalry in the history of football and doesn't waste time name calling bears fans.
If you would like to check back blogs, I mentioned the packers defense would be good this year, but I didn't like their running game. I still stick with my original thought. I think Brett can be pressured by our front 4 and forced into making bad decisions that whomever we have in the secondary can take advantage of. The real key is can our offense do anything against your defense. Right now, I have absolutely no ammunition to believe we can.
An aside to some of the blame being heaped on Berrian...i agree he needs to catch the catchable balls, but that one for a pick that was thrown well behind him he could do nothing about. Don't give me the "he got a hand on it" argument either...it was an awful throw (well, late throw) by BG...even Jaws broke it down for you.
October 2, 2007
#51 Bill said . . .There are a lot of Packer fans in Chicago that can trace the roots of that alligience to the Chicago Cardinals. Many Chicago Cardinal fans (like my father in law) switched their alligience to the Packers when the Cards left town.
October 2, 2007
#52 Mike said . . .Oh, and Mike - which one is the row boat?
I don't really mean to put down a Mayberry or Green Acres lifestyle. I can see people wanting to settle into that and away from the social ills of a big city.
I do however mean to put down a person who spends the time it takes to read all these posts and he (I assume Tundra is a he) DOESNT'T EVEN LIKE the team he's reading about???
OK - if I even HAD that kind of time I'd find a better use for it. Really. I do this as a diversion from my two jobs.
And it HAS gotten entertaining suddenly; like how you can put down a family member all you want, but when an outsider does it - every bands together.
Thanks, Tundra. You've gotten us into Bears/Packers week mood.
October 2, 2007
#53 StartOlsen said . . .I'm actually a Packer fan, I hate Chicago, I hate the Bears, thats obvious by my posts. I love Brett Favre more than Madden.
October 2, 2007
#54 StartOlsen said . . .The frozen tundra suck ass. Four games- FOUR GAMES! and you are talking shit? After we owned your ass recently? The fudgepack is overblown and overrated, full of castoffs, rookies, and led by old man winter himself, throwing caution to the wind for one last hurrah before fading away.
Did you see how GRAY his hair is at the press conference? Fucking loser. So what, he has 4 good games, we have 4 bad games. Its a long season shit talker.
Not to mention, IT IS YOUR LAST SEASON!!
Chicago is full of youthful talent, loaded on defense and building talent on the O, and we have the most exciting player in football. The fuckassPack has one thing- a momentarily resurgent Favre, sure to break down or resort to tossing INTs this year, not to mention RETIRING leaving your miserable, ugly ass colors, sorry ass city team to flail looking up at us for years to come.
Enjoy the moment, like you enjoyed it when your uncle molested you and came on your face you assfucking gay whore.October 2, 2007
#55 The Pack is Back said . . .after post #38 Mike should be banned from this blog.
October 2, 2007
#56 Midway Monster said . . .I'm a fan of the game but started posting here as soon as I knew the Pack was better than the bears. Middle of last year for those of you DELUSIONAL gross-man fans. Yes, the bears wanted to beat the Pack on that last game but they got the snot beat otta them. Remeber the quote from last year, "The playoffs start next week against the Packers!" So don't givee me any shit about how that game was meaningless.
October 2, 2007
#57 BRIANsong said . . .Ahhhh Packer week. I love the smell of bull$hit in the morning :)
-- Midway --
October 2, 2007
#58 jeff said . . .I love Pack is back but he still doesn't acknowledge a Super Bowl losing team had a better season than a 8-8 team.
October 2, 2007
#59 Viva said . . .guys, you never cease to surprise. i put this thing up this afternoon and you're rolling. welcome to all the packers fans...one defense against you, though, pack is back. just because i write that i want to beat the packers in week 17 last year, doesn't mean the team gives a shit. you have to put a little separation there. as for sunday night, you'll get no argument here. you're playing better football. but you haven't been favorites in this matchup in awhile, have you? the pressure is back on your side to win.
October 3, 2007
#60 Windy City Packer Fan said . . .Dear Pack and Tundra -
I am a Bears fan in Vegas. I took the Lions on the moneyline last week and was handsomely rewarded. I won some good dough on the Pack the last two weeks as well (Thanks, Brett).
I am very excited that the Pack are going off as 3.5 pt favorites this week (I believe they can cover and make me some money), but you two have me worried. Is there something in the water up there that makes one retarded? Please advise.
October 3, 2007
#61 AfroCelt said . . .Ah yes, Packer-Bear week. The week that we throw the records out the window. Doesn't matter who is 4-0 or 1-3. We will be treated to an entertaining game whatever the records.
I like to refrain from any mindless name-calling and trash-talking...because when you poke the eyes of the football gods with a stick, it comes back to haunt you. I go back to 8/21/07, when Mike North stated (at 6:50 AM) 'the Bears will have a cake walk through the NFC.'
The true difference in talent from team to team in the NFL is not that much. There are not many teams with 53 studs from top to bottom on the roster. Any team that loses a few players is potentially out of it. With the current NFL landscape, coaching plays a more important role. How is young talent developed, and how are weaknesses minmized.
Right now, I would give the edge on the development of talent to the Pack, just as the Bears had that edge in the last 2 seasons. Another local sports guy looks at the head coach/QB match-up each week. Brett Favre/Mike McCarthy vs. Lovie Smith and Brian Griese. You be the judge.
One of my favorite sports memorabelia photographs is one of Favre and Urlacher giving each other a high five at the end of a play...just tells you what great competitors they are of one another, and the level of respect they have for one another.
My only rant is the difference between attending a Packer/Bear game in Green Bay vs. Chicago. I GUARANTEE that any Bear fan dressed to the hilt (even the dude in Zubaz and the Bear head) would not have to fear life and limb in Green Bay. I've had friends tell me to not bother wearing GB stuff at Soldier Field. Thoughts?
Have a great week...I'll put my PBR on ice. You do the same with the Old Style (formerly brewed in LaCrosse).
October 3, 2007
#62 Midway Monster said . . .I'm currently licing in Green Bay and getting less trash talk? All respect to Pack is Back, but where were all the Packer fans week one last season? they certainly weren't on here :)
Man that was a good day...wore my bears jersey both Sunday and Monday around town...and you know what? I got laughs and good natured ribbing! a pure simple conversation starter, especially when less than a mile from the field.....many Packer fans are alright...just not most of em here.
October 3, 2007
#63 Midway Monster said . . .I miss the days when we all hated each others ever-livin guts and didn't all form a prayer circle at the end of the game. Screw vagas odd and to hell with Brett. I'm cheering at the sound of helmet-to-helments clashing.
I don't know how Lovoe is goona build this one but "Game on" Sunday so bring it!
-- Midway --
October 3, 2007
#64 Scuba Man said . . .PS - two reasons to beat the Packers 1) a Packer fan pushed Megan down last year and broke her leg, and 2) Brett Farve is the cause of global warming (its a fact and you can look it up).
-- Midway --
October 3, 2007
#65 Caleb Kolstad said . . .Yeah, yeah... check it:
Here I am/Scuba to the man/I'm a bears fan/wham!/they can run the plays and make the other teams scram/damn, Scuba Man/what's that noise?/It's my gear/it puts you all in fear/bubbly bubbly/I come at you like no fuddy duddy/I said bubbly bubbly/no, it ain't from my ass/that's crass/I don't fart/nor do I shit/I got wits/bigger than yer momma's tits.
October 3, 2007
#66 DTB said . . .My dad and brother are life long Packers fans. This Favre thing is getting old. Now that he has the record its time to pay the Pack back for what they did to Jim McMahon.
October 3, 2007
#67 Brian in Sec 430 Row 30 said . . .How dissapointing was it to see Jimmy Mac in the Green and Piss Yellow? I nearly shit myself when he signed with the Fudge.
October 3, 2007
#68 GP said . . .Regardless of record it is PACKER WEEK. As a young man I was at the game Charles Martin dumped McMahon on his shoulder....I had a Halloween/Bears party in college when we got the beat down on a rainy monday night....I was at the first game in the New Soldier Field when we were embarrassed on Monday Night. I don't hate Favre but I do Hate the packers....enough is enough. This game is our entire season period. Normally I go to great lengths to prepare a Bears Game fiesta...plenty of friends, plenty of booze and plenty of BEARING DOWN. Not this Sunday night....I will be alone with a bottled water (ok...I will actually be getting shitcanned) with nothing but my hope that we can some how, some way pull this game out. This game means everything...there is no reason we should win.....but there was no reason Bryan Robinson should have blocked a game winning Field Goal to secure a Bears victory in Lambeau the week of Walter Payton's death either. What I am saying is that if it was meant to be then the Bears will win....if not then the season is over. Bear Down Guys......this is our last chance.
October 3, 2007
#69 Viva said . . .That's a good point. If the Bears were classless like the Packers, though, they would have taken out Favre in the prime of his career, which is what happened to McMahon. Still stands out as the dirtiest play I've seen in 20+ years of watching football.
October 3, 2007
#70 Bill said . . .I just learned the dude with the moniker The Frozen Tundra is the equipment manager of the Packers...so basically he sniffs a lot of jock straps, which would explain his incoherence.
Let me say this nice and slow for you Tundra...
you
are
not
a
smart
man.October 3, 2007
#71 StartOlsen said . . .Forrest Gregg was a disgrace to football the way he encouraged the Packers to take so many cheap shots against the Bears. The Charles Martin one was by far the worst. In today's NFL, he'd be suspended for at least 8 games and maybe even the coach woudl be suspended too.
I really do hope the Bears get several very solid hits against Favre, but nothing low or late.
I hate being in this position, but this coudl salvage our season; after all, the Bears have nothing to lose anymore. If they win, it will be very sweet indeed.
October 3, 2007
#72 mikebdot said . . .wait a sec.
Im watching NFL replay, bears v. lions.
I see good quarterback play.
Griese's two red zone picks were both the fault of wide receivers, and maybe a little rust. not terrible QB play. He had one terrible play- the pick 6- and otherwise looked really good.October 3, 2007
#73 Scuba to the Man said . . .http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
October 3, 2007
#74 Phil from SATX said . . .http://adanufgail.deviantart.com/art/Scuba-Bear-63878600
October 3, 2007
#75 Phil from SATX said . . .StartO, that's what I've been trying to say - and I haven't watched it over yet (may never do so). I thought I saw competence and rust, mixed together. I don't remember the particulars of the first red zone pick, but the second was a case of being right at Moose when he should have led by a little and Moose and the DB caught it at the same time. Once again, Moose loses. Moose from two years ago didn't seem to lose those. And he didn't even seem to fight that hard for it. Inexcusable. (Kind of like not tackling the Colt in the SB after he lost that battle).
And despite what some say, you can't really tell me, with this defense, that a red zone pick is somehow worse than all the other picks - I much rather have a pick that takes off our points and leaves them deep in their zone than one that gives them points.
Bottom line was the end result wasn't better than before but there were lots of indications that the offense was much more functional than before. And although I've said it repeatedly, AFTER ONLY 3 DAYS of practice. I'm surprised there's not more consensus out there about this.
Offense will be even better against Green Bay, despite a stronger defense than the Lions. I doubt Green Bay has a better rush than the Lions, anyway.
October 3, 2007
#76 Pissed Off said . . .Great, great article by David Haugh about how to fix the offense, much of which has already been shared here but in greater detail. I like every single one of his 10 points.
Also a short piece about Moose supporting Griese - who the fuck cares? WE DON'T SUPPORT YOU unless you are willing to try a little harder (a lot harder) and make the catches that you are paid to make, even if they're not perfect. SHUT UP Moose!
October 3, 2007
#77 Pissed Off said . . .#71, StartO are you serious or just delusional. I guess if you say something enough you start to believe it. Yeah BG being responsible for a minimum of giving up 13 points himself is good play. What you've just said.....
October 3, 2007
#78 Phil from SATX said . . .I guess Rex looked like a rockstar then in all the games he's played so so far if you consider Griese's horrible outing anything less than a disaster and the worst performance by a QB in the NFL yet this year.
October 3, 2007
#79 mikebdot said . . .PO'd, it's you who are delusional. You may not believe in QB ratings, but everyone else in the world does. Check out the ratings. Then take off the Rex goggles. Are you still going to be talking about Rex next year when he's off the team?
I can count at least 3 games by an NFL QB that were worse, and you know which games I'm talking about.
To quote someone we all know, "you're rapidly becoming unreadable."
October 3, 2007
#80 Phil from SATX said . . .Phil: Detroit had 8 sacks in their first three games, then we gave up 6 to them. GB had 9 sacks in four games thus far. Can't really draw too many conclusions, but I would guess they will provide our crappy O-line with pressure all day. Hopefully we actually run the ball occasionally to keep them off balance...
October 3, 2007
#81 Rancid said . . .Mike, did you read the Haugh article and what do you think about the shotgun potentially leading to sacks?
Agreed about running the ball.
October 3, 2007
#82 Rancid said . . .1. In all my time on this blog I have heard Mike speak highly of one and only one professional football player: Favre. Some Bears fan.
2. PO'd and Phil. Watch the "delusional" talk. I know what you're saying but PIB has used that word so much that I get a stinging pain in my brain anytime I read it and forget what the post is about
3. I agree with those who have noted that records are not the most important thing when these two teams meet. To look at it on paper, yeah, GB should probably win. But you don't win games on paper. These Bears have been a poor shadow of what we know they should have been, but I believe and will be counting on them to step up this week and stick it to the Pack. Just shut up and win.
October 3, 2007
#83 Phil from SATX said . . .Phil - I hate to disagree with you as we are usually of the same mind but I would like to remove myself from your comment that the rest of the world believes in QB ratings. I have a strong dislike for them and firmly believe that they exist so that talking head commentators can throw bullshit comments around about how QBs have played in games they never watched. Just watch the damn game. So far this season every quarterback who has put on a Bears jersey has sucked. I know, I watched the games. I don't need a stupid rating to tell me that and I sure as hell won't change my mind about based on a made up number.
October 3, 2007
#84 Pissed Off said . . .Rancid, I never thought much about QB ratings until our Rexperiment. I have heard both sides, and MikeD argues persuasively about the statistical problems with the formula. However, I have noticed that the numbers seem to correlate very well with our anecdotal, non-statistical, family-room view of quarterbacks - the best ratings happen to nicely line up with those we know are the best - the Bradys, Mannings, and now Romos. Similarly, those awful low numbers seemed like very accurate representations for the Rex games. And while Griese's number for his game was below an acceptable number, it is substantially higher than Rex's first 3 games, which makes intuitive sense to me because it looked like Griese pretty much knew what he was doing, and Rex never did this year, save one half in the KC game.
I wouldn't discuss them at all except in an attempt to refute the lack of common sense in those who still find Rex's play defensible, and prove their Rex-bias by finding Griese's first starting game as way worse than anything by Rex. But having said that, I realize the futility of arguing against the hopelessly biased. So I'll stop now.
October 3, 2007
#85 mikebdot said . . .Mikeb #79 I hope thats true, I think a strong running game is the only thing that can help offset this porous o-line.
Rancid, I think we've had this conversation before and I thought most of us agreed that the QB rating is complete B.S. You were very convincing when exlpaining it last time. The telling stat was your example of someone who throws a couple picks and no TD, but otherwise played good, pretty accurate and the INTs come at times where it doesnt really hurt the team (unlike all 3 of BGs INTs). It doesnt factor that in. So I'll be #2 on your list who think the QB rating is BS.
October 3, 2007
#86 Pissed Off said . . .Phil: I never learned to read...
Actually, I don't buy any argument that says the shotgun formation LEADS to sacks. I would think it would avoid them. I think the thing that leads to sacks is that Griese actually completes over 60% of his passes. That's because he doesn't throw the ball away at the slightest sign of pressure. That is almost half of the difference between Grossman's and Griese's QB rating. 52.8% vs. 65.4% is a 10 point difference in QB rating. I hate single game QB rating though. I'll wait a few weeks to judge...I agree with your notion that we drove the ball much better, getting more than a few first downs on many drives, which is good, the bad is the INTs. But Grossman hasn't even given the good on more than 2 drives each game...since I didn't see the game I can't say how good he looked, but looking at the play by play I'm mildly optimistic.
Haugh's article:
1. Agree
2. Don't care...drama
3. Agree. He says he might not be able to get off the line against CBs, but if they put him in the slot that won't matter, unless they're in nickel. If they put him in on 3rd and 4 maybe they'll be in base.
4. Agree, our O-line sucks, Metcalf is decent(ish), try him out
5. They've done this occasionally. Griese moved a bit right on his first INT to Berrian. That's pretty much all I saw of that game. I also saw the drive Benson fumbled on while eating lunch at the Ruby Tuesday's. It caused a crick in my neck because I was watching the TV above me, as opposed to women's bowling on the TV in front of me...
6. Agree
7. Agree - duh
8. Agree - duh
9. Running on first down is a good idea when your QB completes 52% of his passes, but with Griese a dump down to Benson is the same as a run.
10. I completely disagree with that. The shotgun provides vision. Especially when you actually run a deep pattern, you can see pretty easily right away whether or not Hester/Berrian have beat the press.October 3, 2007
#87 Phil from SATX said . . .Phil, I'm going to go ahead and say it. I havent read any of your posts except #78 cuz it started by addressing me so I couldnt resist. What you've been saying lately is B.S. and I thought we agreed a while back to just leave each other alone.
You are the main guy on here who pisses me off, congratulations. You are the least credible person on here. You jump from side to side on nearly every issue, first you like and support Rex then when he's pulled you decide you never liked him. You were Bensons best friend and defender and now your calling him a bust, now the QB rating issue. You are the most wishy washy person ever, its so pathetic. Everyone, or at least I can see right thru you and your side switching opinions every day. Whats really pathetic is that you continually switch these arguments to try and make friends. Make a stand for God's sake and stand up for something. You can be swayed easier than a two dollar whore. Its just sad. I tried before to just leave this all alone but if you keep reading my posts and calling me out I'm gonna keep swinging. The choice is yours.
October 3, 2007
#88 Rancid said . . .PO'd, you made my day. Thank you.
October 3, 2007
#89 Bill said . . .I will have reached my life dream as a Bears fan if the day comes when I am not asking myself this question:
"Which one of our QB's sucks the least?"
If the QB rating helps answer that question for you, fine. For me right now, they both just suck. I still like BG in the GB game, and hope that a game and a full week of practice is what he needed to get this thing going. I want a Chicago Bear on the "horse trailer" this week.
October 3, 2007
#90 Mike said . . .I'm emailing Hough today to ask the obvious question: doesn't this mean that Turner is failing at his job? It's only 4 games and we'll see what adjustments he makes, but the problems are too big and too many to concentrate on individual players. These are the guys we have and it's up to the coaches to figure out how to improve.
Getting Olsen involved is so obvious I gave them the benefit of the doubt that he was still not 100%. If he is, it's as perplexing as Bradley being the 5th receiver.
The team needs a shakeup but it's clear Lovie and Ron can't pull the trigger on it. Starting Griese was radical enough for them I guess.
I woudl give Berrian the Benson treatment at his next dropped pass. I'd do the same for Moose at some point. Dressing Haas is a great idea, but actually USING Hester is better.
I seriously think there is a mental problem with Benson (depression?). He had little drive or fight in him the last game. Haugh describes his attitude as "shoulder shrugging" and it fits well.
Turner was an upgrade from Shea, who was an immense upgrade from Shoop. Just as Rex was an upgrade from Quinn and others. It seems like offensively, our sights are set way too low.
October 3, 2007
#91 Pissed Off said . . .David Haugh repackaged statements of the brilliantly obvious. Whoopie. There are two good football writers in this town, Don Pierson and John Mullin. The rest are clueless wonders with notepad, tape recorder and a deadline to meet.
Quarterback ratings are an excellent evaluation statistic. It is a complicated formula not easily understood. Especially by someone like Pissed Off who is dumber than a hockey puck to go along with being goofier than bat shit.
October 3, 2007
#92 Phil from SATX said . . .Yeah Mike, I'm the dumb one. You have brought basically nothing of relevance to this blog since you've been here. Ok Mike.
October 3, 2007
#93 Rancid said . . .[Note to readers - this is not necessarily about the Bears - this is between PO'd and me - reading is voluntary]
PO'd, now that we're speaking plainly, and you've stated what you don't like about me, I'll tell you what I don't like about you.
You are a supreme example of a guy who "loves to dish it out but can't take it." If anyone disagrees with you you slam them personally, in ways just as ugly as Mike can be and even the Packer fans who come here to kibbitz. Then later you try to pretend you weren't slamming them. Case in point was your recent slam of Max - you disagreed with him then made fun of his misuse of a phrase. That was just ugly, and in your case could be considered pot calling the kettle black.
You have an insane obsession with Rex - otherwise I think you see the team pretty clearly. You obviously were hoping to see BG fail, which is wrong (and which you always accused others about with Rex). Ask anyone here if they agree with your warped world view that says the Griese QB effort was worse than what transpired earlier with Rex. Ask anyone, really.
I do change my mind about players - you can call it wishy washy, I call it responding to ever-changing inputs from what I see. I supported Rex last year until the SB, then I remember referring it to the "scales falling off my eyes" after the Bowl. I wasn't the only one. Then I proceeded to attempt to put the scales back in the offseason - that's what I do as an always-optimistic Bear fan, because that's what I am. Hope caused me to believe that something good would happen to Rex. Guess what - it didn't. And after the Cowboys effort, I wanted a change, and so did the coaches, and so did most everyone else in the world, but you. Now you can call that loyalty, and a commitment to a course of action, I call it stupidity and blindness, even ego maybe, because you can't seem to come to grips with the fact that your support may have been misplaced.
Re: Benson, everyone here knows I was a big supporter. I don't believe he's reached Curtis Enis proportions, I still think he can be a good back for the Bears, but obviously his fumbling is troubling me. And since I am a BEARS fan first, not a BENSON fan first, if I think Benson's hurting the team I will stop being a Benson supporter and call for his head. I'll probably be a little bit slower about it then others, that's just the way humans work, but I guarantee I'll be off his bandwagon in a second if he fumbles several more times.
But off the Bears bandwagon? NEVER. And MikeD talked about having other things to do than watch Bear games, sorry Mike but I always watch every Bear game no matter how bad they suck. That's part of being a diehard fan. NO MATTER WHAT.
That's all I have to say about that (quite enough probably).
October 3, 2007
#94 Mike said . . .I thought for sure that Mike would be a Mariotti fan.
Bad news for those who like the QB rating: Mike agrees with you. That can't be good.
October 3, 2007
#95 Pissed Off said . . .Pissed Off views himself as Supreme Bear Fan Commander in charge of admissions into Bear fandom. He's nothing more than a whack job walking around the basement of his mother's home wearing a tin foil beanie. The kind of person the neighbors warn their children to stay a hundred yards away from.
I don't meet Pissed Off's lofty standards for being a Bears fan. A whack job wearing the alumimum hat won't let me into the secret society. Boo hoo hoo.
October 3, 2007
#96 GP said . . .Again Mike, Bravo for your use of the same phrases multiple times in your post. Your an idiot and still have yet to bring anything to the table. I own my own home, married with one child, and I dont know what an aluminum hat is...but apparently you do. Im sorry Im not a pathetic individual who was raised by meth heads and dropped several times like yourself. Please seek counseling, good luck with your online dating service as well. No hits in 4 years is understandable.
Phil I didnt read your post even though it started with my name but your welcome from your post where you said thank you. Its a real shame I'll never know what you have to say about me. I dont care what you have to say anymore, most of its irrelevant anyway.
Now to football. Is there any other scheme that we could use effectively on defense given our secondary injuries. I was actually quite impressed thru 3 quarters how well we held Kitna and the Lions pass attack down due to the circumstances. But with MB out and if AA, Vash or Tillman miss anymore time is there a scheme that would be more effective. I was surprised how little the Lions attacked thru the air until the 4th quarter.
October 3, 2007
#97 Phil from SATX said . . .It's such bullshit to say that Griese had the worst game by a QB this year. 2 TDs& 3 picks. Yeah, it was bad, but Rex has thrown 3 picks in a game 5 times now - over a 19 game span! If you look at the Dallas game this year, how the hell is Rex's 0 TDs/3 picks not worse??? It's like this Pissed Off guy is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome or something.
October 3, 2007
#98 Pissed Off said . . .I don't think it's Stockholm, unless PO'd is actually tied up in Rex's crawlspace. I think it's more like this:
Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.
Sound familiar? The Grossmanian Candidate, perhaps?
October 3, 2007
#99 jdawg said . . .Wow great cover up GP, I dont know who you really are. Its pathetic of you to keep on with this. Just talk football you degenerate.
October 3, 2007
#100 mikebdot said . . .Man, pretty soon we're going to be ragging on what each other wore to high school yesterday.
Anyway, I do think Griese will improve. His first start in 2 years and he's been working with the second team since he got here. I wanted Grossman to do well for a lot of reasons: he seems like he tries hard; he never called any teammates out; he put in the time; he's had shitty luck and he's got a hell of an arm. That being said, it still didn't work out and the only way it can for him with the Bears is if Griese goes down and Rex comes in and looks like Joe Montana.
The chances are slim.
My hope is Griese improves along with the o-line, the running game and our wideouts; our D gets healthy and we have a decent season. Not the one we were counting on but one that doesn't suck.
For the future I hope BG has a least one more season in him and we can either sign or draft his replacement. The thought of Culpepper in the blue and orange is wierd as shit, but if his legs are OK I'm all for it. He and 54 used to have a hell of a rivalry.
Anyway, let's leave the finger-pointing at home from now on.
October 3, 2007
#101 Pissed Off said . . .Phil: I didn't have "better" things to do, I had more "pressing" things to do. My bday was Thursday, so I went to visit my folks. I had to get my sister back to E-ville (3 1/2 hour drive) by 6:00 pm. This left me leaving my folks house at the half. The other stuff I was doing during the first half was spending time with my parents and my wife which doesn't happen very often since they are 3 1/2 hours away. But if you think you're a "better" bears fan because of this, then great, congratulations. You win. I'll have you know though, that I searched the am stations for a way to hear the game, and I the only thing I could find was the packers/vikings game. I had to settle for hearing the score every few minutes. I listened to Dan Reeves call that Packers game just so I could hear the score. Surely that buys me some points as a Bears fan...
October 3, 2007
#102 Pissed Off said . . .Please stop guys.....your hurting my feelings.....I'm crying inside. Oh wait its just Ace and Gary...I mean Mike and Phil. Anyone else want to take a shot? I'd rather talk about football and mainly how Lovie is going to fix this offense. I sure hope Griese isnt rusty this week. I dont think he was rusty I think that what happened last week is what Griese is at this stage in his career, no upside. Not to mention he goes against one of the best defenses every day in practice.....how can he be rusty?
October 3, 2007
#103 Phil from SATX said . . .No worry mikeb, Phil will be on here in no time apologizing to you and asking for forgiveness to gain another freind. Wishy Washy.
October 3, 2007
#104 Pissed Off said . . .No Mike, you missed my reference, I was referring to the fact that you said if things didn't get better you'd have a lot more time on Sunday. (at least I think you said that) I just commented on the fact that there have been many seasons when the Bears do suck, (this may unfortunately turn out to be one of them) and I do think that being a diehard fan means you tune in even when they're bad. You expect a win, hope for a win, and when they lose, you come back next week for more of the same. Do have to say it's probably easier for me because I've bought the NFL Ticket for 12 years in a row and so the games are bought and paid for, but I still think the mark of a diehard fan is sticking with the team even when they're down.
Didn't mean to indicate you're less than a great fan, I don't think there's any shortage of those on this site (obviously including PO'd).
October 3, 2007
#105 Phil from SATX said . . .Oh I almost forgot, If we play the "rust" card for Griese, cant we say Rex's first game VS SD (was just OK anyway) was due to rust? I mean he hadnt started a game since February! And then we won VS KC on a less than average day for him, but we won. So by these accounts he really only had one poor performace (Dal) where he was benched. So shouldn't BG be benched then now after what 2 games?
October 3, 2007
#106 StartOlsen said . . .Good call PO'd.
October 3, 2007
#107 StartOlsen said . . .Just got back on to see some of the Griese debate. Phil is right of course, since he backs my opinion. PO'd is wrong of course...
really, who knows? We've all watched this game a long time. I just watched the NFL replay and focused on Griese the whole time.
-the vast majority of his throws were good. One pick Moose was out-played on, one was a fucking inexcusable Berrian drop.
-why didn't Grossman ever throw over 50+? Simple- Griese has the smarts, calm and confidence, and ability to keep taking what the defense gives and hitting the open man..... bringing me to
-point #3 as has been discussed ad nauseum, the WRs had way too many drops. If just 4 drops had been catches for the average, Griese would have been 38/52, about 320 yards, and at least one less pick.Maybe he wasn't Romo, but he was better than we've seen in a long time in the blue and orange.
October 3, 2007
#108 Bill said . . .AND this is what we feared all along, as Fans. Most of last year. Especially in the SB. We feared Lovie was wrong, and Griese could game manage, dink and dunk, and basically be more consistant and effective, if not as exciting as Grossman.
Well, from what I saw its true. He may not go deep, but we don't need 60 yard bombs to win games.October 3, 2007
#109 The Pack is Back said . . ."Maybe he wasn't Romo, but he was better than we've seen in a long time in the blue and orange. "
I agreem, and yet feel frustrated that we're constantly asked to settle for "better than we've seen" instead of "good, period."
October 3, 2007
#110 Phil from SATX said . . .The quote from last year about the playoff's starting with the last game of the season came from the bears team, not the fans (although the fans may have also stated that.) There were at least three players making comments about the last game of the season against the Pack being one of the big games. That included gross-man and I think Vasher and urlacher. So again, don't give me any shit about how that game was meaningless. Yes, the bears had a better year, but since I've showed up, in the middle of the last year, the bears have been falling while the Pack has risen.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl07.htm?loc=interstitialskip
October 3, 2007
#111 beardown1982 said . . .No doubt we've got to get us a great quarterback. Here's the laundry list of requirements for the next one:
1) Tall - at least 6' 3", hopefully taller.
2) Big hands (should go along with height)
3) Mobile - not strictly a pocket passer - can and will run for yards, shifty in pocket
4) Personality - Loves the game, leadership qualities, can motivate his teammates and inspire confidence in the huddle
5) Brain power - even if he doesn't come from big school, gives indications that he will be able to decipher NFL defensesAm I missing anything?
October 3, 2007
#112 Scuba Man said . . .Regardless of whether or not Griese is the better fit, we are not going to win many games if he is asked to throw the football over 50 times. That is terrible in my mind. We have to find a way to run the football before it's too late. I want a heavy dose of Ced, AP, even Wolfe at times, put them in there and try to run this ball and establish an identity. Our backs have looked terrible right now, but why not try and right the ship before it is too late? We won't do anything this season if we are a pass happy offense.
Although Griese isn't great at throwing downfield, we need to try and stretch it once and a while with Bernard, to at least loosen up the secondary a little bit. Not to mention, why even have Berrian on your team if you won't use his one great strength from time to time (catching deep balls), especially if he is dropping everything else.
October 3, 2007
#113 Midway Monster said . . .The bubbly bubbly comin' at ya/I'll catch ya and pummel ya/beat ya down/on the ground/no gettin' up from the blows of the scuba gear/you'll be in fear/like a queer/dear god don't get up/the vomit's comin' up/out your throat/jump into the moat/and swim away from the fray/it ain't gonna be okay/not for you/what you gonna do?/Nothin', cause you can't/don't try and make a slant/ on what I'm saying cause you'll just be betrayin' the word of the scuba okayin?
October 3, 2007
#114 Scuba Man said . . .Scuba Man: A little too much vodka in your gadoraid these days hey?
-- Midway --
October 3, 2007
#115 Max said . . .Midway to the Monster/I hate my job/sucks balls/got no phone calls/quittin' soon/but not soon enough/it's rough/all my co-workers ain't up to snuff/in the Scuba land, I like intelligence/but nothin' to go on here/they all a bunch of queers/scuba came and helped me through the day/make myself laugh/that's all I can ask/gatorade and some vodka/good idea/I thank ya.
October 3, 2007
#116 Pissed Off said . . .I am not gonna lie guys, this is the first time in a long while where i received almost no joy in reading any comments posted since last night. Phil. . . PO'ed, i like both you guys, i agree with yall sometimes, other times i dont and i appreciate the English lessons, but at this rate I am just going to have to stop readin both your comments regardless how they start out cause it just makes me even more depressed and it takes 9 hours to read.
(The only humor i took out of any post past 71 was PIB's retort to last years packers vs. bears game . . . about 90 comments later. I hadnt even remembered there was an argument there.)
For Griese to remain starter in my eyes:
1) DONT TURN THE BALL OVER
2) win (i guess if we lose to GB but he doesnt turn the ball over, ill give him another game)
3) DONT TURN THE BALL OVER
4) there is no four. . . but it just seemed dumb to have only a list of three where two of them are the same.If we lose the next 2, then I say put in Orton. thats just me.
October 3, 2007
#117 Max said . . .Is Griese going to help this team more than Rex would have over the course? I dont think so but the only way to know is to let this play out. Somehow a lot of you are finding ways to praise Griese's performace, I dont see how becuace the only think he did right was put on his jersey. Maybe Griese will improve, mabye not. Bottom line....if he plays how he did Sunday he will not win 1 game. Especially given the bad O-line play, WR drops, Benson suckitis and a depleted defense. There cannot be an argument there.....though I've been amazed before.
October 3, 2007
#118 mikebdot said . . .ok, and scuba mans last rap. that made me laugh
October 3, 2007
#119 mikebdot said . . .Phil: I did say I would spend more time outdoors on Sundays if things don't shape up. Which I intended to mean if we're out of the playoff hunt, I might watch the game, and I might not. Didn't make that clear. I think I'd rather rake leaves or play frisbee golf in the cold than have repeats of 1990-2004 (with only a few exceptions where we lucked into playoffs, like '01). Being glued to the TV to watch a mathematically eliminated playoff team take the field is sort of stupid. But, the NFL does a great job marketing games, embracing fantasy football so we all decide to watch OTHER games too. I feel like I've become a slave to the TV on Sundays. I even like watching college football now. Yuck.
Sort of an existential football dilemma...kind of sad to be thinking about this in '07...such high hopes...could be dashed if Griese/Benson/the O-line don't step it up. And Ron Turner too.
October 3, 2007
#120 jdawg said . . .PO'd: He obviously did at least 2 things right as he threw 2 TD passes. I think everyone here hopes he does better next game and doesn't throw those three INTs.
Since you're so fond of using a single game QB rating of 100 to determine one's ability to lead a football team, if he has a QB rating of 100 against the pack, will you give him praise since he's 1 out 2 and, shit, Grossman was only 7 for 19 last season...
Or will you say "Grossman could have done that because last year he did that"? You have to remember, this isn't last year and Grossman have 5 of those 100 rating performances by the 9th game, then 2 of 10 to finish the season...and 0 for 3 to start the season.
And, not playing in a professional football game for a whole season probably develops a bit more rust than starting in the previous year's super bowl...
All we're saying is give the guy a sporting chance. If after two more games he still throws picks, what do you suggest? Back to Grossman? Or do you want to see Orton get a shot?
October 3, 2007
#121 Pissed off said . . .Greise is a better fit for a team with a strong D and a good running game. Unfortunately we've only got one of those. Fortunately getting Benson to run better isn't like getting Grossman to play better.
Anyway, if Griese improves this week, Benson understands that people are starting to think the Chargers D players were right, we could see a different team emerging; one that moves the ball down the field in 6-8 minute drives while keeping the D fresh; the 4th quarter will starting looking different.
I've heard that Peanut may play this Sunday, which bodes well. Briggs may start to see that $7.4 Million salary decrease if he misses more than another game or two (although I don't doubt his desire to get back on the field).
Anyway, we may see a new team in the next two weeks, hopefully one that's 2-3, not 1-4.
October 3, 2007
#122 mikebdot said . . .Mikeb if you read my prior posts on this thread, sheesh do I have to hold your hand, I said I dont like QB rating but yeah if he has a rating over 100 I'll praise him. I dont know what your deal is but those 7 QB rating games over 100 Rex had, only Bulger had more, yeah, not Manning, Palmer or Brady, Just Rex and Bulger, those stats alone ensure BG is not as good as Rex can be. Has BG ever had a season with 7 games of rating over 100? 5 games even? I dont know and Im not going back to look it up. I know what BG is and that is a journeyman QB who is old, and a former, very distant shell of his 2000 pro-bowl self.
But again I need to stress i dont like the QB rating anyway, just thought I'd use it there against you since you think its such a telling stat. I still think the rust issue is stupid, he a pro QB for God's sake and he practices, rust issue is a lame excuse. If he has 2 more sucky games, yeah I want Rex back, not Orton either, I dont care if he's continually deactivated for the rest of his career.
All I'm saying is that if BG sucks it up some more, a couple more games, I want Rex to have one more shot before we are completely eliminated from the playoff picture. Thats all.
October 3, 2007
#123 mikebdot said . . .PO'd: I know you've quoted the 100 QB rating 7 games quite a bit, so I figured I'd mention it as a measuring stick for Griese.
The thing about a 100 QB rating is that the number "100" for a QB rating has no bearing on anything. You could just as easily say "115" (Grossman had 2, Manning had 5, Brady had 2) or "82.3" (Grossman had 8, Manning had 12, Brady had 12). The 100 number is arbitrary and fairly useless. And yet you keep saying "oh, Manning and Brady had less, na nana nana na". In any event, I think we're on the same page. If Griese sucks it up, I would like to see Grossman get another chance, but I think the reason both QBs suck it up is very terrible O-line play. So, if Griese doesn't right the ship, and continues to get sacked like crazy (apparently 3 times late in the game though, so perhaps that is understandable a little bit...the D KNOWS you're going to throw, which is a nice time for a draw play...or a reverse to Hester), I don't think Grossman is going to save the day. But if they decided to go that route, I'd cheer him on, just as much as I'm cheering on Griese.
To say Griese's game was piss poor says very little about Grossman. Receivers dropped passes by both guys or didn't fight enough to break up picks. You could make all sorts of excuses, it all depends on what decision you have already made about each player. In my eyes, both QBs thus far have been wasted talent sitting behind crap blockers. I was just hoping coming into the season that Grossman would turn into a QB that could complete over 60% of his passes, but that didn't happen. I would have continued to hope for it if they left him in for another game or two. As for Griese, I'm now hoping he doesn't throw the three passes he threw last week, especially in the red zone when an incomplete pass doesn't really matter...
October 3, 2007
#124 Pissed Off said . . .As for Griese, during 2000 he played in 10 games, 6 of which were over 100 QB rating. Does anyone know why he didn't play in the playoffs? He appeared in the SF game at the end of the year...why did he not start against Baltimore the following week? Did he get hurt against SF?
http://www.nfl.com/players/briangriese/gamelogs?id=GRI028314&season=2000
In 2001, Griese had a very Grossman-esqe season (as a whole, only 3 100+ games), but his INTs appeared in pretty much every game, just one with 3 and one with 4 though. A lot with 2. He did throw a TD in every game he played though...
In 2002, he played fairly well, appearing in 13 games, with 5 100+ rating games.
In 2003, he played in four games, didn't do very good.
In 2004, he played fairly well again, appearing in 11 games with a QB rating of over 100 in 5 games.
In 2005, he played well enough to be 5-1 as a starter (7 TDs vs. 7 INTs though), then he was either benched or got hurt. Chris Simms started the rest of the games. I have no recollection of any of that.
You know what happened in '06.
So, yes, PO'd, in 3 seasons he had 5+ 100 QB rating games.
But none of that really means anything. All that means something is how he does against the pack. If he sucks, I'll be glad to call for open competition in practice and see if Rex can win the job back. It might be healthy for the both of them. We should open up the O-line and RB positions too, just because. Heck, we could open up Ron Turner's job to competition too...
October 3, 2007
#125 packer fan 1 said . . .A lot to read but I think I'm with you on pretty much everything except that I use that 100+ rating instead of a 85+ rating or any other number because 1) I think it means reaching a great game as opposed to an above average game and 2) that was the stat I heard somewhere and it sound pretty damn good. But I get your point and again I dont like the QB rating, I'd rather watch the games and determine for myslef wether someone played a good enough game to deserve whatever rating he got. I think the stat was made so the media wouldnt have to watch a game and could say "well this guy sucked, look at his rating"
October 3, 2007
#126 packer fan 1 said . . .This si my first post on this sight, I'd like to start off by saying it is a generally pussy move to go on a sight of your rival and talk trash knowing you never have to go back if you lose. So i hope I come across as respectful and I hope othe packer backers will do the same. That being said I can't wait for the game tonight. Happy Packer/Bear day to one and all.
October 7, 2007
I just want to say I'm sorry to all the bears fans for tundra's comments. Tundra if you want to talk trash go to a packer sight. To talk trash here just makes youa big Pussy. You know damn well that if the bears beat us you'll quit going to this blog and you won't have to hear from anybody, but if the packers win (God willing) you'll be talking trash all week. I nkow your excited about a 4-0 start, but don't let that keep you from being a classy GUEST to this blog
October 7, 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.