Week 3: Bears @ Minnesota - Sunday, Sept. 24th, 12 pm CST

[Southpaw191679666239]

I think this is a winnable game for the Bears, but I'm inclined to agree that it won't be a blowout, and I'd be surprised if it was. I'm not impressed with the Vikings RBs, and they lost my fave DB of theirs (Chavous). Should be interesting to see if the Bears RBs can get their legs going on the plastic.

 

Bears 23

Vikings 19

[David]

Vote Rex for FedEx Air Player of the Week

 

http://www.nfl.com/partners/fedex

[da bears]

Vote Rex for FedEx Air Player of the Week

 

http://www.nfl.com/partners/fedex

 

So far he has an early lead. Hopefully this time it sticks.

[Jehrico]

I'll guess Bears 24, Vikings 9, we keep them out of the end zone.

[hawkeyecub]

I think this is a winnable game for the Bears, but I'm inclined to agree that it won't be a blowout, and I'd be surprised if it was. I'm not impressed with the Vikings RBs, and they lost my fave DB of theirs (Chavous). Should be interesting to see if the Bears RBs can get their legs going on the plastic.

 

Bears 23

Vikings 19

 

Chavous is a likeable guy, but he was no loss. He's lost more than just a step and for someone who studies film as much as he did and is as smart as he supposedly is, he would get caught out of position way too much. Slow and out of position isn't a good combination in the NFL.

 

There are only a couple secondaries in the league that are better as a whole than Winfield, Smoot, Sharper and Smith.

[CubmanPi]

I don't think it's going to be a blowout either, but I also don't think the Bears' defense is going to give much to anyone. Ever.

 

BEARS 13

VIKINGS 3

[David]

When was the last time the Bears scored under 17 pts with Rex starting?

 

If you don't count that game where he was injured at the half at the end of 2003, has he ever led the team to less than 16 or 17?

[Butterscup1679666578]

When was the last time the Bears scored under 17 pts with Rex starting?

 

If you don't count that game where he was injured at the half at the end of 2003, has he ever led the team to less than 16 or 17?

 

Here's Rex's career game log and scores, career starts only.

 

2003 - vs. Minnesota (W 13-10)

2003 - vs. Washington (W 27-24)

2003 - @ Kansas City (L 3-31)

2004 - vs. Detroit (L 16-20)

2004 - @ Green Bay (W 21-10)

2004 - @ Minnesota (L 22-27)

2005 - @ Green Bay (W 24-17)

2005 - vs. Carolina (L 21-29)

2006 - @ Green Bay (W 26-0)

2006 - vs. Detroit (W 34-7)

[UMFan83]

^^ Simply put, the team scores when Rex is leading the offense.

Using points allowed (easiest to sort on the page im using, passing YPG would certainly be better), here is the ranking among the 32 teams of the defenses he has started against:

 

2003 - vs. Minnesota (W 13-10) - 23rd

2003 - vs. Washington (W 27-24) - 24th

2003 - @ Kansas City (L 3-31) - 19th

2004 - vs. Detroit (L 16-20) - 18th

2004 - @ Green Bay (W 21-10) - 23rd

2004 - @ Minnesota (L 22-27) - 26th

2005 - @ Green Bay (W 24-17) - 20th

2005 - vs. Carolina (L 21-29) - 5th

2006 - @ Green Bay (W 26-0) - 30th

2006 - vs. Detroit (W 34-7) - 21st

 

Currently, the Vikings are 11th.

 

So in terms of points allowed, Grossman has only faced one defense ranked in the top half of football for that year.

[Balsa]

*still worried about the running game*

[TB_11]

In week 1 Minnesota struggled to beat a Washington team that was pretty weak during preseason and against Dallas in week 2. In week 2 they eked out a win against a Carolina team that hasn't shown much of anything without Steve Smith.

 

The Bears have faced two mediocre to bad teams, and crushed them both.

[hawkeyecub]

In week 1 Minnesota struggled to beat a Washington team that was pretty weak during preseason and against Dallas in week 2. In week 2 they eked out a win against a Carolina team that hasn't shown much of anything without Steve Smith.

 

The Bears have faced two mediocre to bad teams, and crushed them both.

 

Come on man, that's some flawed analysis.

 

Washington and Carolina are a big step up from Detroit and Green Bay.

You're comparing teams who went 10-6 and 11-5 last year to teams who went 5-11 and 4-12. Most analysts felt that both Washington and Carolina improved themselves in the offseason. Detroit may have improved themselves slightly but are at best a 7-9 team while Green Bay is one of the worst few teams in the league.

 

We also played Washington in a tough Monday Night road game where Portis made an impact. Carolina didn't have Smith, but that defense is still nasty and it's not like Delhomme, Keyshawn, Foster and DeAngelo Williams aren't chopped liver.

[UMFan83]

In week 1 Minnesota struggled to beat a Washington team that was pretty weak during preseason and against Dallas in week 2. In week 2 they eked out a win against a Carolina team that hasn't shown much of anything without Steve Smith.

 

The Bears have faced two mediocre to bad teams, and crushed them both.

 

Come on man, that's some flawed analysis.

 

Washington and Carolina are a big step up from Detroit and Green Bay.

You're comparing teams who went 10-6 and 11-5 last year to teams who went 5-11 and 4-12. Most analysts felt that both Washington and Carolina improved themselves in the offseason. Detroit may have improved themselves slightly but are at best a 7-9 team while Green Bay is one of the worst few teams in the league.

 

We also played Washington in a tough Monday Night road game where Portis made an impact. Carolina didn't have Smith, but that defense is still nasty and it's not like Delhomme, Keyshawn, Foster and DeAngelo Williams aren't chopped liver.

 

And yet, all 4 of the teams in question are 0-2 in a typically topsy turvy league. I'm not agreeing with the original point, just simply pointing that out.

[Banedon]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5982166

 

Foxsports.com has a group called the Football Outsiders that does a "Defense-adjusted Value Over Average" formula to rank the teams each week. The Bears are 5th. But the Vikings are ranked below the Lions at #23!

 

OK, bubble-bursting time here, kids. Based on 2006 performance alone, the Vikings are actually a below-average team. Each of their games has essentially been a tie, decided by just two or three plays that happened to go Minnesota's way: a missed field goal by the Redskins, an absurd lateral play by the Panthers. In the final quarter against Washington, they benefited from two face mask penalties and an unnecessary roughness, and it isn't like the Vikings have a special skill to make Sean Taylor lose his mind. He does that naturally. Home-field advantage might help them upset the Bears, but in the long run, the Vikings still look like an 8-8 team.

 

Also the Saints are 31st!

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5982166

 

Foxsports.com has a group called the Football Outsiders that does a "Defense-adjusted Value Over Average" formula to rank the teams each week. The Bears are 5th. But the Vikings are ranked below the Lions at #23!

 

OK, bubble-bursting time here, kids. Based on 2006 performance alone, the Vikings are actually a below-average team. Each of their games has essentially been a tie, decided by just two or three plays that happened to go Minnesota's way: a missed field goal by the Redskins, an absurd lateral play by the Panthers. In the final quarter against Washington, they benefited from two face mask penalties and an unnecessary roughness, and it isn't like the Vikings have a special skill to make Sean Taylor lose his mind. He does that naturally. Home-field advantage might help them upset the Bears, but in the long run, the Vikings still look like an 8-8 team.

 

Also the Saints are 31st!

 

I'd have to question a ranking system that puts a 2-0 team dead last. Now, the Saints are likely among the worst teams in the despite starting 2-0 and yes, they beat two of the worst teams in the NFL, but to put them last when several teams are 0-2 makes me skeptical that there is any value in that system.

[Banedon]

I'd have to question a ranking system that puts a 2-0 team dead last. Now, the Saints are likely among the worst teams in the despite starting 2-0 and yes, they beat two of the worst teams in the NFL, but to put them last when several teams are 0-2 makes me skeptical that there is any value in that system.

 

Actually they're 2nd to last...the Texans are last. But your point stands.

[TB_11]

In week 1 Minnesota struggled to beat a Washington team that was pretty weak during preseason and against Dallas in week 2. In week 2 they eked out a win against a Carolina team that hasn't shown much of anything without Steve Smith.

 

The Bears have faced two mediocre to bad teams, and crushed them both.

 

Come on man, that's some flawed analysis.

 

Washington and Carolina are a big step up from Detroit and Green Bay.

You're comparing teams who went 10-6 and 11-5 last year to teams who went 5-11 and 4-12. Most analysts felt that both Washington and Carolina improved themselves in the offseason. Detroit may have improved themselves slightly but are at best a 7-9 team while Green Bay is one of the worst few teams in the league.

 

We also played Washington in a tough Monday Night road game where Portis made an impact. Carolina didn't have Smith, but that defense is still nasty and it's not like Delhomme, Keyshawn, Foster and DeAngelo Williams aren't chopped liver.

 

We're on the same page regarding Detroit (the mediocre) and Green Bay (the bad) teams the Bears have faced.

 

Regardless of its offseason acquisitions and its coaching changes on offense, the team is actually worse than last year due mainly to an aging Brunell, an injured Portis, and an offensive coordinator who isn't using his remaining talent well enough. They had a terrible pre-season and have been pretty weak in their first two games.

 

As good as its defense is, Carolina's passing game suffers immensely without Smith. They're right now not the team that everybody picked to go to the Super Bowl.

 

I'd agree that Carolina and Washington are better than Detroit or Green Bay, but in the first two weeks they haven't been division contenders. Minnesota struggled against both of them and now faces an even tougher Bears team.

[bukie]

I'd have to question a ranking system that puts a 2-0 team dead last. Now, the Saints are likely among the worst teams in the despite starting 2-0 and yes, they beat two of the worst teams in the NFL, but to put them last when several teams are 0-2 makes me skeptical that there is any value in that system.

 

Actually they're 2nd to last...the Texans are last. But your point stands.

 

Note, based on 2006 data alone, the Saints rank 11th. Overall score includes projection data based on last year, which is why the Saints are so low, and Tampa is so high.

 

Their rankings according to just data from this year:

 

1. Ravens

2. Chargers

3. Bears

4. Bengals

5. Jaguars

6. Eagles

7. Falcons

8. Seahawks

9. Bills

10. 49ers

11. Saints

12. Rams

13. Colts

14. Patriots

15. Jets

16. Cowboys

17. Vikings

18. Giants

19. Chiefs

20. Steelers

21. Redskins

22. Packers

23. Panthers

24. Broncos

25. Cardinals

26. Dolphins

27. Browns

28. Lions

29. Texans

30. Bucs

31. Titans

32. Raiders

 

Of course, like any computer rankings system, the 2006 list will improve with more data, but this is a fairly accurate portrayal simply of how well these teams have played so far this year.

[bukie]

Also, if you wonder where the VOA numbers come from, there's a nice site called Football Outsiders that takes an in depth statistical look at offense, defense, and special teams, similar to Baseball Prospectus. Their rankings are pretty interesting for offense, defense, and special teams. Currently, the Bears and Chargers are the only two teams in the top 10 in all categories.

 

I also think their offensive rankings top 5 is hilarious this week with the asterisks.

[goonys evil twin]

Is it Sunday yet?

[Banedon]

Is it Sunday yet?

 

I'm experiencing withdrawal symptoms.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'd have to question a ranking system that puts a 2-0 team dead last. Now, the Saints are likely among the worst teams in the despite starting 2-0 and yes, they beat two of the worst teams in the NFL, but to put them last when several teams are 0-2 makes me skeptical that there is any value in that system.

 

Actually they're 2nd to last...the Texans are last. But your point stands.

 

So a 2-0 team is ranked below the two teams they beat who have beaten no one. Yeah, that ranking system isn't flawed.

[Banedon]

I'd have to question a ranking system that puts a 2-0 team dead last. Now, the Saints are likely among the worst teams in the despite starting 2-0 and yes, they beat two of the worst teams in the NFL, but to put them last when several teams are 0-2 makes me skeptical that there is any value in that system.

 

Actually they're 2nd to last...the Texans are last. But your point stands.

 

So a 2-0 team is ranked below the two teams they beat who have beaten no one. Yeah, that ranking system isn't flawed.

 

Like Bukie pointed out, it figures in last season for early rankings.

[Banedon]

I also think their offensive rankings top 5 is hilarious this week with the asterisks.

 

Heh...."Not Misprints"

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'd have to question a ranking system that puts a 2-0 team dead last. Now, the Saints are likely among the worst teams in the despite starting 2-0 and yes, they beat two of the worst teams in the NFL, but to put them last when several teams are 0-2 makes me skeptical that there is any value in that system.

 

Actually they're 2nd to last...the Texans are last. But your point stands.

 

So a 2-0 team is ranked below the two teams they beat who have beaten no one. Yeah, that ranking system isn't flawed.

 

Like Bukie pointed out, it figures in last season for early rankings.

 

Either way, I don't lend much credibility to them. I'll follow them through the season to see where thye lead, but right now I don't think there's much validity to them.