NFL Playoffs Outlook Discussion

[Soul]

A 2 TD lead is not much with another half to go. IIRC the Bears had just scored on the way to the locker room too. Also the TD in the 3rd qtr is when i indicated that the seahawks gave up

 

Nope, it was the Seahawks who kicked their final FG (and score) of the game at the end of the 1st half. Bears were up 20-3 before then.

 

a 2 TD lead with the way our defense was in the early season is insurmountable, IMHO.

[soccer10k]

I know that the Seahawks are stinking up the joint, but they put up a pretty good showing vs the best team in the NFL. stupid 30 seconds.

 

Anywho, I think that they are just on fumes and coasting. I would doubt that they lose at home in the playoffs and are guranteed a home game now. So likely they beat Dallas (VERY Plausible) and move on to face the Bears in all liklihood assuming that Philly beats NY or GB.

 

I would imagine that a different team shows up against the Bears. We would likely have a better line assembled and have Alexander back. The defense would not give up in the 2nd half. If you remember, the Seahawks were actually in the game in the 3rd quarter but seemed to give up in the middle.

 

That would leave a Seattle/Saints NFC Championship matchup. In the dome, the Seahawks will be able to match the team speed of the Saints but they will be hard pressed to stop the run.

 

Ok. What about a 20-6 halftime score and an opening drive TD by the Bears to start the 3rd quarter says that the Seahawks were in that game?

 

I'm not disputing that the Bears aren't likely to beat Seattle as bad as 37-6 if they played again, but Seattle was never in that game, and has to be a longshot, at best at this point, to beat the Bears.

 

Agreed. Hubes, are you sure you are remembering the same game? Seriously---that one was a blowout pretty early. Seattle was never in it. Rex seemed to just keep slashing them with long passes-----all day long. I know they had a couple drives, but the only one that was meaningful was the first drive of the game. I do remember a long pass opportunity that was just badly overthrown by Hasselbeck. But that would have only brought Seattle to within a couple scores----and it was desperation under heavy pressure anyhow (Bears were putting great pressure on back then).

 

There's just no way in hell Seattle comes to Chicago in the blistering cold and actually *beats* the Bears. Alexander or not. It's not their MO. They play great at home. But get them out of their element and that team often begins to resemble a top 10 draft team, not the NFC champs.

 

This is the same team that got embarrassed by Arizona and SF and are on a 3 game bender at the end of the year. I'd have a tough time feeling comfortable with them beating their wild card opponent in the first round @ home, much less coming all the way to Chicago and beating the Bears.

 

You have to at least consider the possibility that the Bears (re: Grossman) will beat themselves. Now, before you jump on me, I'm not saying Grossman will play horrible in the playoffs and he has played well the last couple weeks but the possibility still exists. Don't get me wrong, if the Bears played Seattle 10 times in Chicago in the cold, the Bears would probably win 7 or 8 times. But to say Seattle has no chance to beat the Bears is flat out wrong.

[Derwood]

A couple of years ago, Boers and Bernstein (mostly Bernstein) completely debunked the "Bears have an advantage in the cold" nonsense. Statistically speaking, their record has been no better in the cold than other times over the past 10 years or so

[CaliforniaRaisin]

A couple of years ago, Boers and Bernstein (mostly Bernstein) completely debunked the "Bears have an advantage in the cold" nonsense. Statistically speaking, their record has been no better in the cold than other times over the past 10 years or so

 

Of course, over the past 10 years, the Bears have had an equally good team from year to year.

 

Of course a bad team is going to be bad whatever the weather is - and the Bears have been bad for a majority of the past 10 years.

[UMFan83]

A couple of years ago, Boers and Bernstein (mostly Bernstein) completely debunked the "Bears have an advantage in the cold" nonsense. Statistically speaking, their record has been no better in the cold than other times over the past 10 years or so

 

Of course, over the past 10 years, the Bears have had an equally good team from year to year.

 

Of course a bad team is going to be bad whatever the weather is - and the Bears have been bad for a majority of the past 10 years.

 

No I think that they proved that the Bears were not proportionally better in the cold vs. warm. Meaning if they were 3-10 in the warm, they werent like 5-8 in the cold or something.

[mhuber92211]

A couple of years ago, Boers and Bernstein (mostly Bernstein) completely debunked the "Bears have an advantage in the cold" nonsense. Statistically speaking, their record has been no better in the cold than other times over the past 10 years or so

 

Of course, over the past 10 years, the Bears have had an equally good team from year to year.

 

Of course a bad team is going to be bad whatever the weather is - and the Bears have been bad for a majority of the past 10 years.

 

Remember the NW is getting hit with huge weather issues since November and Seattle has played the last half of the season in pretty poor weather.

 

I am trying for anything here guys! Give me some glimmer of hope!

[rawaction]

This Bears group, and pretty much every Bear team since Urlacher has become the MLB, is not a cold weather team. They have drafted a lot of players from warm weather teams and for as much props as the D gets, they are pretty much a finesse defense. Meaning, they rely a lot more on speed than they do getting up in people's faces and physically beating them. The Ravens are the same way. Urlacher, Ogunleye, and Harris are completely different players than Singletary, Dent, and Hampton.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

This Bears group, and pretty much every Bear team since Urlacher has become the MLB, is not a cold weather team. They have drafted a lot of players from warm weather teams and for as much props as the D gets, they are pretty much a finesse defense. Meaning, they rely a lot more on speed than they do getting up in people's faces and physically beating them. The Ravens are the same way. Urlacher, Ogunleye, and Harris are completely different players than Singletary, Dent, and Hampton.

 

I agree. Just need to look at the Steelers game from last season when their speed was limited in the snow.

 

But the B & B debunking needs to be looked at carefully all the same, to make sure their observations indeed hold true.

[Soul]

I know that the Seahawks are stinking up the joint, but they put up a pretty good showing vs the best team in the NFL. stupid 30 seconds.

 

Anywho, I think that they are just on fumes and coasting. I would doubt that they lose at home in the playoffs and are guranteed a home game now. So likely they beat Dallas (VERY Plausible) and move on to face the Bears in all liklihood assuming that Philly beats NY or GB.

 

I would imagine that a different team shows up against the Bears. We would likely have a better line assembled and have Alexander back. The defense would not give up in the 2nd half. If you remember, the Seahawks were actually in the game in the 3rd quarter but seemed to give up in the middle.

 

That would leave a Seattle/Saints NFC Championship matchup. In the dome, the Seahawks will be able to match the team speed of the Saints but they will be hard pressed to stop the run.

 

Ok. What about a 20-6 halftime score and an opening drive TD by the Bears to start the 3rd quarter says that the Seahawks were in that game?

 

I'm not disputing that the Bears aren't likely to beat Seattle as bad as 37-6 if they played again, but Seattle was never in that game, and has to be a longshot, at best at this point, to beat the Bears.

 

Agreed. Hubes, are you sure you are remembering the same game? Seriously---that one was a blowout pretty early. Seattle was never in it. Rex seemed to just keep slashing them with long passes-----all day long. I know they had a couple drives, but the only one that was meaningful was the first drive of the game. I do remember a long pass opportunity that was just badly overthrown by Hasselbeck. But that would have only brought Seattle to within a couple scores----and it was desperation under heavy pressure anyhow (Bears were putting great pressure on back then).

 

There's just no way in hell Seattle comes to Chicago in the blistering cold and actually *beats* the Bears. Alexander or not. It's not their MO. They play great at home. But get them out of their element and that team often begins to resemble a top 10 draft team, not the NFC champs.

 

This is the same team that got embarrassed by Arizona and SF and are on a 3 game bender at the end of the year. I'd have a tough time feeling comfortable with them beating their wild card opponent in the first round @ home, much less coming all the way to Chicago and beating the Bears.

 

You have to at least consider the possibility that the Bears (re: Grossman) will beat themselves. Now, before you jump on me, I'm not saying Grossman will play horrible in the playoffs and he has played well the last couple weeks but the possibility still exists. Don't get me wrong, if the Bears played Seattle 10 times in Chicago in the cold, the Bears would probably win 7 or 8 times. But to say Seattle has no chance to beat the Bears is flat out wrong.

 

So let me get this straight. Seattle has a chance to "beat" the Bears because the Bears might "beat" themselves?

[UMFan83]

This Bears group, and pretty much every Bear team since Urlacher has become the MLB, is not a cold weather team. They have drafted a lot of players from warm weather teams and for as much props as the D gets, they are pretty much a finesse defense. Meaning, they rely a lot more on speed than they do getting up in people's faces and physically beating them. The Ravens are the same way. Urlacher, Ogunleye, and Harris are completely different players than Singletary, Dent, and Hampton.

 

I agree. Just need to look at the Steelers game from last season when their speed was limited in the snow.

 

But the B & B debunking needs to be looked at carefully all the same, to make sure their observations indeed hold true.

 

They sure looked good in the 8 degree Atlanta game last year though...but that might be because Vick was slowed because of the cold. The Bears are still hard hitters, and no one likes to be hit hard in the cold.

[goonys evil twin]

This Bears group, and pretty much every Bear team since Urlacher has become the MLB, is not a cold weather team. They have drafted a lot of players from warm weather teams and for as much props as the D gets, they are pretty much a finesse defense. Meaning, they rely a lot more on speed than they do getting up in people's faces and physically beating them. The Ravens are the same way. Urlacher, Ogunleye, and Harris are completely different players than Singletary, Dent, and Hampton.

 

I agree. Just need to look at the Steelers game from last season when their speed was limited in the snow.

 

But the B & B debunking needs to be looked at carefully all the same, to make sure their observations indeed hold true.

 

They sure looked good in the 8 degree Atlanta game last year though...but that might be because Vick was slowed because of the cold. The Bears are still hard hitters, and no one likes to be hit hard in the cold.

 

The difference there is the cold vs the snow. Snow is bad for speed teams. Cold is not. The Bears don't have big fat guys taking on blocks, but they hit very hard.

[rawaction]

This Bears group, and pretty much every Bear team since Urlacher has become the MLB, is not a cold weather team. They have drafted a lot of players from warm weather teams and for as much props as the D gets, they are pretty much a finesse defense. Meaning, they rely a lot more on speed than they do getting up in people's faces and physically beating them. The Ravens are the same way. Urlacher, Ogunleye, and Harris are completely different players than Singletary, Dent, and Hampton.

 

I agree. Just need to look at the Steelers game from last season when their speed was limited in the snow.

 

But the B & B debunking needs to be looked at carefully all the same, to make sure their observations indeed hold true.

 

They sure looked good in the 8 degree Atlanta game last year though...but that might be because Vick was slowed because of the cold. The Bears are still hard hitters, and no one likes to be hit hard in the cold.

 

The difference there is the cold vs the snow. Snow is bad for speed teams. Cold is not. The Bears don't have big fat guys taking on blocks, but they hit very hard.

 

I don't think the Bears are necessarily a team that thrives on playing in cold weather either.

[goonys evil twin]

I don't think the Bears are necessarily a team that thrives on playing in cold weather either.

 

I'm not saying they thrive on it, I'm just saying their winter weather troubles have had more to do with snow than temps, and that was just one game. I don't think they are truly a finesse team, because a true finesse team isn't going to hit as hard, or create as many turnovers as the Bears defense. And the offense is clearly not finesse.

 

One might question the wisdom of building a Chicago team that struggles in the snow, but the reality is a bad track isn't going to doom them. They went into a very wet Meadowlands and outplayed what was then a good Giants team. Plus, if they do make the super bowl, those are either warm weather or domed sites. I think they have a team that is neither helped nor hindered by any specific weather conditions. They've had bad games in snow, but they've looked awful in clear sunny days as well. They can win on the road in December, as they showed last year in Green Bay, they can win in extreme cold, they can win on bad tracks, they can win in domes.

 

They are susceptible to great running games and teams that efficiently pass the ball. But they are also capable of lighting up the scoreboard at any time, offense, defense or special teams.

[soccer10k]

I know that the Seahawks are stinking up the joint, but they put up a pretty good showing vs the best team in the NFL. stupid 30 seconds.

 

Anywho, I think that they are just on fumes and coasting. I would doubt that they lose at home in the playoffs and are guranteed a home game now. So likely they beat Dallas (VERY Plausible) and move on to face the Bears in all liklihood assuming that Philly beats NY or GB.

 

I would imagine that a different team shows up against the Bears. We would likely have a better line assembled and have Alexander back. The defense would not give up in the 2nd half. If you remember, the Seahawks were actually in the game in the 3rd quarter but seemed to give up in the middle.

 

That would leave a Seattle/Saints NFC Championship matchup. In the dome, the Seahawks will be able to match the team speed of the Saints but they will be hard pressed to stop the run.

 

Ok. What about a 20-6 halftime score and an opening drive TD by the Bears to start the 3rd quarter says that the Seahawks were in that game?

 

I'm not disputing that the Bears aren't likely to beat Seattle as bad as 37-6 if they played again, but Seattle was never in that game, and has to be a longshot, at best at this point, to beat the Bears.

 

Agreed. Hubes, are you sure you are remembering the same game? Seriously---that one was a blowout pretty early. Seattle was never in it. Rex seemed to just keep slashing them with long passes-----all day long. I know they had a couple drives, but the only one that was meaningful was the first drive of the game. I do remember a long pass opportunity that was just badly overthrown by Hasselbeck. But that would have only brought Seattle to within a couple scores----and it was desperation under heavy pressure anyhow (Bears were putting great pressure on back then).

 

There's just no way in hell Seattle comes to Chicago in the blistering cold and actually *beats* the Bears. Alexander or not. It's not their MO. They play great at home. But get them out of their element and that team often begins to resemble a top 10 draft team, not the NFC champs.

 

This is the same team that got embarrassed by Arizona and SF and are on a 3 game bender at the end of the year. I'd have a tough time feeling comfortable with them beating their wild card opponent in the first round @ home, much less coming all the way to Chicago and beating the Bears.

 

You have to at least consider the possibility that the Bears (re: Grossman) will beat themselves. Now, before you jump on me, I'm not saying Grossman will play horrible in the playoffs and he has played well the last couple weeks but the possibility still exists. Don't get me wrong, if the Bears played Seattle 10 times in Chicago in the cold, the Bears would probably win 7 or 8 times. But to say Seattle has no chance to beat the Bears is flat out wrong.

 

So let me get this straight. Seattle has a chance to "beat" the Bears because the Bears might "beat" themselves?

 

Seattle has a decent team. They aren't a great team but they aren't a horrible team. If the Bears commit turnovers and Seattle doesn't, the Seahawks definitely could win the game. Also, Alexander didn't play in the game the teams played during the season. I'm not saying he would singlehandedly change the outcome of the game since he doesn't play defense but it sure didn't help them at all. Not to mention it was the first game Seattle had played without him. Anytime you are missing an MVP, you're going to be hurt. Seattle is a dangerous team and to take them lightly is not very smart. Again, I'm not saying the Seahawks would beat the Bears if they faced each other in the playoffs and would pick the Bears to win, but you can't say Seattle has no chance to win the game.

[Soul]

I said there's no way that Seattle comes in and *BEATS* the Bears.

 

Any team can lose if they beat themselves, which is the scenario you are describing.

 

As for Alexander, he's having a down year. Hasn't been himself, even now that he has recovered from his injury. If you look at his splits, he was horrible before the toe injury put him out (understandable), then he was alright when he came back (around 4 yds/carry), but in December he's dipped back down again to under 4 yds/carry. So having Alexander back doesn't mean much to the Seahawks this year-----which is one of the big reasons they are on a 3 game losing streak, 2 of which are losses to terrible divisional ballclubs.

 

Any way you slice it, this Seahawks club is weak in '06/'07. You're going to find scenarios in which they beat the Bears to be very rare indeed----and they all involve the Bears giving the ballgame away, as opposed to the Seahawks actually manning up and beating Chicago.

[soccer10k]

I could see the Seahawks "manning up", as you put it, and beating the Bears. It's not likely, but it's possible.

[TruffleShuffle]

I can see any team in the NFC beating any other team in the NFC. All the teams that will be in the playoffs are inconsistent to a degree, and have enough of a major weakness, that they can be conceivably lose to any of the other five teams.

[Soul]

I could see the Bears playing stupid----Hester muffing a punt, Grossman tossing multiple INTs, etc.

 

But as for the Seahawks just coming in and dominating us from start to finish---i.e. controlling the line of scrimmage, moving the ball up & down the field at will, stuffing everything we try to do on offense?

 

This I can not imagine. Not after I've seen them play this year. I have a hard time believing anyone who watched the 'hawks play against the 49ers & Cards could believe this, either. They were controlled, and by very, very weak teams.

 

Hey maybe I'm wrong. I'm thinking Seattle is a one-and-done anyway. If they aren't and they come to Chicago, I guess we'll see.

[soccer10k]

You don't have to completely dominate a game to win it.

[Derwood]

You don't have to completely dominate a game to win it.

 

I think Chicago vs. Arizona proves that

[Soul]

You don't have to completely dominate a game to win it.

 

I think Chicago vs. Arizona proves that

 

Seattle would have to in order to beat the Bears in Chicago, unless the Bears hand the game away.

 

Bring 'em on. I'll gladly take Seattle in that game over, say.....the Eagles or the Saints.

[bukie]

There is an actual scenario that will let Green Bay win strength of victory, even if the Giants and Packers both win. This would then be what needs to happen (ALL OF IT):

 

- Detoit defeats Dallas

- Minnesota defeats St. Louis

- Arizona defeats San Diego

- San Francisco defeats Denver

- Miami defeats Indianapolis

- New Orleans defeats Carolina

- Cleveland defeats Houston

- Tampa Bay defeats Seattle

 

So, as long as all that happens, if the Giants win tomorrow, there's still something to watch for.

[Flames24Rulz]

There is an actual scenario that will let Green Bay win strength of victory, even if the Giants and Packers both win. This would then be what needs to happen (ALL OF IT):

 

- Detoit defeats Dallas

- Minnesota defeats St. Louis

- Arizona defeats San Diego

- San Francisco defeats Denver

- Miami defeats Indianapolis

- New Orleans defeats Carolina

- Cleveland defeats Houston

- Tampa Bay defeats Seattle

 

So, as long as all that happens, if the Giants win tomorrow, there's still something to watch for.

 

In other words, go Redskins.

[bukie]

In other words, go Redskins.

 

Yeah, pretty much.

 

Technically, the most important SOV games are Detroit and Minnesota, since they count triple for the Packers (an opponent they beat twice over an opponent the Giants beat).

 

I think if just one of the other games goes the Giants way (say...Arizona/San Diego), it'll be too close to call, even maybe a tie.

[Banedon]

There is an actual scenario that will let Green Bay win strength of victory, even if the Giants and Packers both win. This would then be what needs to happen (ALL OF IT):

 

- Detoit defeats Dallas

- Minnesota defeats St. Louis

- Arizona defeats San Diego

- San Francisco defeats Denver

- Miami defeats Indianapolis

- New Orleans defeats Carolina

- Cleveland defeats Houston

- Tampa Bay defeats Seattle

 

So, as long as all that happens, if the Giants win tomorrow, there's still something to watch for.

 

I'm actually rooting for all of this to happen...and then the Packers to lose anyway....:D