slickvick Posted October 10, 2006 Author Share Posted October 10, 2006 Theisman basically guaranteed the Bears would go undefeated on MNF last night.Now that he has said it I think it is a done deal!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junebugz Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Why do people feel the need to make patently absurd statements like this? A point can be made without delving into the ridiculous-beyond-imagination type pronouncements. And the Jets' fans who think their guys can upset CHI when they play - how much are you'all dropping on the moneyline in that game? I'll give you 5-1 odds, $100 minimum bet, barring significant injuries up to the game from right now. You mean kind of like ... "Mike Bell will be the starting RB for Denver" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwinTurbo Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 (edited) The 2006 Bears team reminds me of last year's Seahawks team. Seattle feasted on a weak NFC schedule last year and made it to the Superbowl. I think the Bears will make it to the Superbowl this year. They are clearly the best team in the NFC, but the NFC is filled with mediocre teams. I'm not ready to call the 2006 Bears an elite team yet. They have looked great, but the combined record of their opponents so far is 9-15. And they play a 1-4 Arizona team this week. Their schedule is more difficult than the Seattle schedule from last year, but it is still filled with soft NFC opponents. I do expect them to advance to the Superbowl if they get homefield advantage in the playoffs. Edited October 10, 2006 by TwinTurbo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 You mean kind of like ... "Mike Bell will be the starting RB for Denver" Touche'! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 (edited) The 2006 Bears team reminds me of last year's Seahawks team. Seattle feasted on a weak NFC schedule last year and made it to the Superbowl. I think the Bears will make it to the Superbowl this year. They are clearly the best team in the NFC, but the NFC is filled with mediocre teams. I'm not ready to call the 2006 Bears an elite team yet. They have looked great, but the combined record of their opponents so far is 9-15. And they play a 1-4 Arizona team this week. Their schedule is more difficult than the Seattle schedule from last year, but it is still filled with soft NFC opponents. They play a 3 game stretch at the end of the season against quality AFC teams (Denver, KC, and San Diego) and I think they will lose at least one of those games but still finish no worse than 13-3. I do expect them to advance to the Superbowl if they get homefield advantage in the playoffs. The Bears do not play against Denver, KC, or San Diego this year. They play against the AFC East which may be a weaker division than the NFC north. 1) I think the Bears shcedule is as easy or maybe even easier than the Hawks schedule last year. 2) I haven't done an in-depth analysis of the AFC vs. the NFC, but it seems like the power balance between the quality of teams has shifted considerably from last year. Edited October 10, 2006 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwinTurbo Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 The Bears do not play against Denver, KC, or San Diego this year. They play against the AFC East which may be a weaker division than the NFC north. 1) I think the Bears shcedule is as easy or maybe even easier than the Hawks schedule last year. 2) I haven't done an in-depth analysis of the AFC vs. the NFC, but it seems like the power balance between the quality of teams has shifted considerably from last year. Sorry I definitely posted the wrong AFC opponents. I was looking at too many team schedules at once there. But I still think Seattle had one of the easiest schedules of all time last year. In the first 15 weeks, they only played against 3 teams with a winning record and won those games by a combined 9 points. By contrast, Chicago will probably play 6+ games this year against opponents with a .500+ record. It is still an easy schedule but not nearly the cakewalk that Seattle rolled with last year. I still think Chicago finishes 13-3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Who's the Richard Dent of this year's team? The beauty of this year's team is the rotation they have. unlike 85 where the starters played most of the snaps, they can sub out Alex Brown and Ogunleye for people who come in and have their play elevated by those around them: Mario Williams Recent Career Tackles Year Team G Solo Ast Total Sack YdsL Int Yds IntTD DefTD FFum PD Sfty 2006 Houston 4 7 3 10 1.5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mark Anderson, 5th Round choice, not even a starter. Recent Career Tackles Year Team G Solo Ast Total Sack YdsL Int Yds IntTD DefTD FFum PD 2006 Chicago 5 7 2 9 5.5 48 0 0 0 0 1 1 Yes, that would be 5.5 sacks vs 1.5, that he got in Game #4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 (edited) It is still an easy schedule but not nearly the cakewalk that Seattle rolled with last year. I still think Chicago finishes 13-3. Well, bottom line is the 2005 Hawks had an easy schedule and used it to their advantage and Chicago has the same opportunity this year. However, yer facts aren't up to snuff nor do I see where you are getting some of yer speculation. In the first 15 weeks, they only played against 3 teams with a winning record and wothose games by a combined 9 points. They played 5 .500+ (4 winning teams) opponents Atl, @Jax, @ Wash, Dallas, and NY Giants (can't count Indy). And beating NFL teams by an average of 9 points seems rather impressive to me. By contrast, Chicago will probably play 6+ games this year against opponents with a .500+ record. It is still an easy schedule but not nearly the cakewalk that Seattle rolled with last year 6+ .500+ teams? I see Seattle, @Giants, @ Patriots, and @ St. Louis. If you count Minnesota X2 as 6 (and make a rather large assumption that they don't finish below .500)....how are you getting 6+? Jets,49ers?? I don't know....bout all that. If the Hawks 2005 schedule was a cakewalk of historical proportions, than the Bears 2006 schedule is right up there. Edited October 11, 2006 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk37 Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 okay the Hawks played the cowboys, Giants, jacksonville, redskins, colts, and Atlanta and Philadelphia which should have been tough games but Mcnabb got hurt cant blame that on the Hawks, and the falcons just stunk last year. Now I wouldnt say that schedule is one of the easiest all time but given their division they had an easy road to the playoff's. They also played some tough games, and You still gotta respect the Playoff wins because thats all that matters. Hopefully this year we can win the big one too I dont care how we get there even if we go 9-7 and win the division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Theisman basically guaranteed the Bears would go undefeated on MNF last night.Now that he has said it I think it is a done deal!!!!! Kornheiser was licking his chops on that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Kornheiser was licking his chops on that one. bump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LooGie Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 um...wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickvick Posted October 17, 2006 Author Share Posted October 17, 2006 OK after a game like the Bears had vs. the Cardinals I think this team is destined to go undefeated.6 turnovers by the QB and they still win.I think this is a turning point for this team early on and they will be more focused than ever and not take any opponents lightly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD6405 Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Yeah I know it is only week 5 but this team is so far the most dominant I can remember in recent history.The whole package is there this year,ferocious defense and an extremely balanced offense.So is anyone willing to say the Bears go 16-0? No. They play at Detroit 2nd to last game of the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefjay Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 I knew that either the Defense or Gould would somehow pull that game out for them last night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LooGie Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 On the subject of the thread, why did Grossman continue to go deep down the field? were they called that way, or was it just his reads? or was he trying to force it? it seemed a few times his guys had a step on the ARI D, bu the just over threw them. Anyone got a theory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD6405 Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 On the subject of the thread, why did Grossman continue to go deep down the field? were they called that way, or was it just his reads? or was he trying to force it? it seemed a few times his guys had a step on the ARI D, bu the just over threw them. Anyone got a theory? TIme to use the most annoying sentence ever with a new name! "That's just Rex being Rex!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefjay Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 On the subject of the thread, why did Grossman continue to go deep down the field? were they called that way, or was it just his reads? or was he trying to force it? it seemed a few times his guys had a step on the ARI D, bu the just over threw them. Anyone got a theory? Qb's like Manning, Palmer, Montana, Bradshaw, Elway, and Grossman have to keep taking their shots downfield. They can't let the defense dictate how they manage the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.