stethant Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 So I'm reading this article about Gayle Sayers eating crow, http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/news/story?id=6042045, and it occurs to me that I agreed with him at the beginning of the season and I still agree with him now. The Bears just aren't that good. Yes, they are better than about 90% of the NFL teams, but what in 2010-11 is that really saying? Now, this is not to single out the Bears - I grew up with the '85 Bears Championship as a defining memory. It just strikes me that none of the teams in the playoffs this year were/are that great in a historical context. All the teams in Super Bowl contention seem quite evenly matched at some above average level. There are isolated examples of stand-out performances - Aaron Rodgers for example, but overall it's tough to think of any of these teams in the annals of the Greats. Jets fans have to be out-of-their mind excited (Rovers' smugness well deserved) but that's a separate issue from the quality of their team. Anyone else feeling the perpetual putridity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I agree that the Bears aren't very good. They've won 3 games against teams with winning records. Ironically, 2 of those teams are still left in the playoffs - Jets and Pack. And now they get a home game so who knows. A bit of a joke if they make the super bowl IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Agree w/OP. I'm still shaking my head about NE losing to NY, in NE no less. Not trying to rip on any of these teams and more power to whoever wins it, but none should get even the briefest considerations when discussing the truly great teams through the years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I just can't agree with this as a general statement. Overall, I still believe teams are getting better and better. Before last week, I had thought the Bears were overrated. They looked like a darn good football team last week. Their offense was an absolute machine of efficiency. Part of this was because they finally used Olsen how he should have been used all along. Their line gave Cutler time all day long. Their defense was even better. Their secondary was far better than I thought. Those guys were physical and absolutely blanketed the receivers all day long. If Cutler is going to play with that kind of command of the offense and select the perfect times to use his legs, this team is legitimate. Are they the 49ers of the 80's or Cowboys of the 90's? Probably not, but you're talking about some of the elite teams in NFL history. I don't know what part of today's NFL I could call subpar relative to seasons past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hankk Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I've watched a lot of bad football games this year, some of them involving some "good" teams (e.g. Ravens, Jets, Chefs). I'm not sure that I can call it a recent phenomenon, but is sure seems that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonsoxandy Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I think the atheletes are so amazing these days that the quality of play is incredibly better than '70s, '80s. In the 70s and 80s black players were minorities practically on teams, and slow white Brian Scailabraine=esque players dominated the league-so when a dude like Primetime comes by, he can own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonsoxandy Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Agree w/OP. I'm still shaking my head about NE losing to NY, in NE no less. Not trying to rip on any of these teams and more power to whoever wins it, but none should get even the briefest considerations when discussing the truly great teams through the years. But are those teams truly great if they played in today's NFL? I mean, name a team you think is better than the 2007 Patriots... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 For the past 5-10 years, the offenses really opened the game up. I think defenses are catching up now. Don't confuse good defense with poor play. I haven't looked at anything, but off the top of my head, it seems like scoring is down a bit this year. There will be another trend soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 But are those teams truly great if they played in today's NFL? I mean, name a team you think is better than the 2007 Patriots... The '85 Bears would have knocked Brady on his ass all game. Easy one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I mean, name a team you think is better than the 2007 Patriots... 2007 Giants Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
historymike Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I think that this season reflects the fact that there are quite a few good and very good teams, but there is no single team that stands out as a dominant, wire-to-wire leader. Personally I do not spend much time comparing all-time great teams, since they played in different eras with different rules, trends, and even different types of players (speed valued by some teams, size by others, while many positions have changed in their relative importance over time, like the way Troy Polamalu has almost reinvented the strong safety position). I found this to be one of the most wide-open and exciting NFL seasons in recent memory, and while I am a bit surprised that the Pats whiffed (along with other high seeds like Atlanta, Philadelphia, Indy, and Baltimore) this has certainly been an extremely competitive season, and as a fan I am very much enjoying NFL Mach 2010-11. Now, let's hope the NFL, the owners, and the players realize that they have an excellent situation at the present, and that they do not alienate the fan base with a lockout/strike that kills the 2011-12 season. When baseball struck in 1994, I lost interest in the game, and my waning interest and irritation carried over for several more years. Heck, I might even make the argument that my interest never returned to its former levels as a result of MLB taking the extended vacation (add to this some of the other nonsense, like steroid scandals, blackout policies, and so on). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 When baseball struck in 1994, I lost interest in the game, and my waning interest and irritation carried over for several more years. Heck, I might even make the argument that my interest never returned to its former levels as a result of MLB taking the extended vacation (add to this some of the other nonsense, like steroid scandals, blackout policies, and so on). I havn't been back as a fan since. I got alittle excited last season when the Padres made that great run, but that's the first time in forever that I've actually paid attention to baseball. And I used to be a HUGH fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
historymike Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I havn't been back as a fan since. I got alittle excited last season when the Padres made that great run, but that's the first time in forever that I've actually paid attention to baseball. And I used to be a HUGH fan. Agreed - like many people at the time I was highly pissed, and the fact that my Detroit Tigers did not post a winning record from 1994 to 2005 also affected my interest. Yet even when the Tigers sucked in the mid-to-late 1970s I still went to games as a loyal fan, but the 1994 strike really dampened my MLB enthusiasm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I havn't been back as a fan since. I got alittle excited last season when the Padres made that great run, but that's the first time in forever that I've actually paid attention to baseball. And I used to be a HUGH fan. Yep, similar boat here. I remember actually looking forward to baseball games being on tv every evening. The work stoppage didn't bother me all that much, but the steroids issue got to me. All the records I had dreamed of breaking my whole life were turned into shams, and became essentially meaningless. Now that Griffey Jr. is gone, other than every 5th day when Felix pitches, baseball is completely dead to me. I'm really not sure why I don't have similar feelings about football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I agree that the Bears aren't very good. They've won 3 games against teams with winning records. Ironically, 2 of those teams are still left in the playoffs - Jets and Pack. And now they get a home game so who knows. A bit of a joke if they make the super bowl IMO. A joke? Seriously? Isn't that why they play the games? Maybe a better system would be for you to send your selections in to Goodell in August, then we could all get our Sundays back and not bother with the games at all, just have the Jackass selections play each other in February. Much cheaper and easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 If the Bears play the way they played last week, I'm not sure if any team in the NFL is good enough to beat them. They were THAT good. I don't watch enough Bears games to know whether or not it was a fluke, but that is a physical, physical football team that executes at a very high level on both sides of the ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 The NFL playoffs are all about "who is playing the best at the end of the season." And isn't that really what we all want? Two teams playing at their best in the Superbowl? I think people confuse the quality of the product with the fact that there are no "great" teams. People don't see great teams so they assume it is not a great product. I disagree. It is faster. It is bigger. It is more entertaining to watch than in the past. Players don't have a clue how to tackle any more, that is a lost art. Kind of sucks. But overall I don't think you can even compare the athletes of yester-year with the specimen's produced by today's NFL. And parity has leveled the field. It is hard, almost impossible to build and hold together a "great" team, and I guess that is kind of sad that we may never see another, but then again how fun is a Superbowl that ends up 45-10? Superbowls in the 80's sucked. I prefer the product we have now, and the process we have for declaring champions. And according to the ratings, the country agrees with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Players don't have a clue how to tackle any more, that is a lost art. Kind of sucks. But overall I don't think you can even compare the athletes of yester-year with the specimen's produced by today's NFL. While I mostly agree with this statement, I think it also has a lot to do with all the god damned rules being imposed today. I just wonder how many of the old timers would have a very hard time being aggressive tacklers with the crap they have to deal with today. But yes, the "art" of tackling is fading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Parity is good. Unless you are a 49ers fan, it was kind of boring watching them roll all over the NFL in the 80s. How does a lack of a standout awesome team or 2 translate to the NFL having a problem? I don't see a problem at all. in fact, it makes it all the more exciting when you have rivals that actually compete with one another each year. Who will emerge as the team to beat from the AFC East? NE or the Jets? The AFC north has the Ravens and Steelers. The AFC South had the Colts and Titans for a while. The AFC West had the Chargers and Broncos until Shanahan left Denver. The NFC West, though mediocre at best, looks like it'll be a complete toss-up next year, especially if Arizona lands a competent QB like Orton or McNabb. The NFC South is perhaps the most exciting with Atlanta and New Orleans both playing at a high level the last couple years, and Tampa looks like they want to join the party. The NFC North has Chicago and Green Bay duking it out now. And the NFC East has always been a toss-up, with the Giants, Eagles and Cowboys (prior to this season) all being legit contenders (sorry Redskin fans). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 If the Bears play the way they played last week, I'm not sure if any team in the NFL is good enough to beat them. They were THAT good. I don't watch enough Bears games to know whether or not it was a fluke, but that is a physical, physical football team that executes at a very high level on both sides of the ball. They aren't getting any respect at all. Everyone thinks they're a fluke team. And in some respects, when NE waxed them a few weeks back in Chicago, you could see why. But nobody thought New England was a fluke team when Cleveland waxed them this past season. And Chicago has some impressive wins this year, notably the Philly and Jets games. I think they're going to beat Green Bay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osu1322 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 They aren't getting any respect at all. Everyone thinks they're a fluke team. And in some respects, when NE waxed them a few weeks back in Chicago, you could see why. But nobody thought New England was a fluke team when Cleveland waxed them this past season. And Chicago has some impressive wins this year, notably the Philly and Jets games. I think they're going to beat Green Bay. This goes back to what everyone is taught in Pee Wee football. Any team can win any given Sunday. I rather see several above average teams playing then 1 or 2 dominant teams. Also this year some of the teams that made the playoffs were riddled with injuries. The Colts had a ton of personal on the IR and magically made the playoffs... I know this is also true for some of the other team but I followed the Colts more than them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 (edited) Also this year some of the teams that made the playoffs were riddled with injuries. The Colts had a ton of personal on the IR and magically made the playoffs... I know this is also true for some of the other team but I followed the Colts more than them. The Packers "magically" made the playoffs with the most injured personel in the NFL this year. Just throwing that out there. Edited January 22, 2011 by tazinib1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 two things ... injuries .... reality vs. the pre-season predictions. Noone knows how say McNabb is gonna do or Peppers will do with new teams. Some effects you see right away and others it takes a few weeks to dismantle a season ala Wade Phillips and Brett Favre LoL. 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.