Week 2: Bears at Panthers - 12 noon CT, FOX

[NCCubFan]

I'm going to the game. With both teams pulling off upsets on the road this week the game is suddenly looking more interesting than I previously thought. If the Bears start 2-0 with two road wins over playoff contenders it will definitely be time for people to reassess expectations for this year.

 

My expectations have been officially revised from historic failure to the 2001 Carolina Panthers. In that season the Panthers began the season with a road win vs. the previous year's NFC Championship runner up (the Vikings), only to lose the next 15 games in disappointing fashion.

 

I also like to keep expectations as low as possible for as long as possible to avoid expecting too much.

I remember the 2001 Panthers season very well. It was George Seifert's last season as head coach. Chris Weinke was the starting QB (that explains it all) because Steve Beuerline, a Pro Bowl player the previous year, missed the entire season due to injury. They got the #2 overall pick for the 2002 draft (the expansion Houston Texans were given the top pick) and drafted Julius Peppers. Two years later they were in the Super Bowl.

[BigbadB]

People are talking like its just natural that the Bears had a bad team last year and they are going back to being Super Bowl contenders.

 

This team is completely different than the 2006 team. New QB, new RB, new backup RB, all new WRs (besides Bradley and Davis), 2 new offensive lineman, new NT, 2 new safeties (considering Brown was hurt almost all year), the rest of the core is 2 years older. Really nothing that's "new" on the team can be considered an upgrade to their 2006 counterpart (unless you want to say Grossman). This is a completely different team and opinions should not be made from one game.

 

I'm not at all shocked that you are providing pessimism in the Bears game thread considering how much pessimism you toss around in the Cubs game threads. It was a tremendous road victory against a team that very well could be representing the AFC in the Super Bowl this year. By your views, we should all be gloomy and doomy with dread on how horribly the Bears will perform in the next 15 games rather than share a little excitement of how well they performed last night.

 

 

Ouch. If you were playing darts, you would have just missed the board completely. -1 respect

 

I don't think so. If I want to form the opinion that this team has an opportunity to match what the 2006 team did, why try to rain on my parade?

 

It's really no different than wanting and hoping to see the Cubs win the World Series.

 

I like to enjoy the positives rather than dwell on the negatives. Unlike the verbiage in your sig.

[David]

UM isn't a Cubs pessimist anymore.

[UK1679666180]

I wouldn't put the Bears into the best of the NFC yet, althoiugh yesterday's win probably bumped them to a 7 win team, IMO.

 

Dallas is better than anybody in the NFC by a decent margain.

 

Winning a game that everybody (except BBB) had written in as a loss in permanent ink, and doing so in such impressive fashion, has to put them in 8 win territory. Were you predicting 4 before this game?

 

I was predicting 4-5 wins at the start.

[UMFan83]

People are talking like its just natural that the Bears had a bad team last year and they are going back to being Super Bowl contenders.

 

This team is completely different than the 2006 team. New QB, new RB, new backup RB, all new WRs (besides Bradley and Davis), 2 new offensive lineman, new NT, 2 new safeties (considering Brown was hurt almost all year), the rest of the core is 2 years older. Really nothing that's "new" on the team can be considered an upgrade to their 2006 counterpart (unless you want to say Grossman). This is a completely different team and opinions should not be made from one game.

 

I'm not at all shocked that you are providing pessimism in the Bears game thread considering how much pessimism you toss around in the Cubs game threads. It was a tremendous road victory against a team that very well could be representing the AFC in the Super Bowl this year. By your views, we should all be gloomy and doomy with dread on how horribly the Bears will perform in the next 15 games rather than share a little excitement of how well they performed last night.

 

 

Ouch. If you were playing darts, you would have just missed the board completely. -1 respect

 

I don't think so. If I want to form the opinion that this team has an opportunity to match what the 2006 team did, why try to rain on my parade?

 

It's really no different than wanting and hoping to see the Cubs win the World Series.

 

I like to enjoy the positives rather than dwell on the negatives. Unlike the verbiage in your sig.

 

If only the entire world shared the same opinion as yours, we could all hold hands and sing in unity. Oh but wait, we don't, so thats why we have discussion forums.

 

And again, you completely missed the point. I was saying I wouldn't base the opinion of the 2008 Bears on the 2006 Bears because they are completely different teams. But you used irrational bias to assume that I was blatently being a pessimist (AFTER A WIN! LOL) or trying to rain on people's parade or something. It's perfectly acceptable to disagree with me, and I welcome a discussion of different thoughts. But the random disgust you seemed to convey towards me was quite disapointing for someone who I previously held in high regard.

[UMFan83]

UM isn't a Cubs pessimist anymore.

 

I was bad for a little yesterday, but after 5-10 minutes got better :)

[RedFlash]

UM isn't a Cubs pessimist anymore.

 

I was bad for a little yesterday, but after 5-10 minutes got better :)

 

Why the sudden change? Was it Jack, Jim or something stronger? 8-)

[UMFan83]

UM isn't a Cubs pessimist anymore.

 

I was bad for a little yesterday, but after 5-10 minutes got better :)

 

Why the sudden change? Was it Jack, Jim or something stronger? 8-)

 

Xanax.

[Soul]

UM isn't a Cubs pessimist anymore.

 

I was bad for a little yesterday, but after 5-10 minutes got better :)

 

Why the sudden change? Was it Jack, Jim or something stronger? 8-)

 

Xanax.

JD's been working pretty good for me this year.

[RedFlash]

UM isn't a Cubs pessimist anymore.

 

I was bad for a little yesterday, but after 5-10 minutes got better :)

 

Why the sudden change? Was it Jack, Jim or something stronger? 8-)

 

Xanax.

JD's been working pretty good for me this year.

 

Tequila has been my answer, but the problem is after the third shot, I don't remember anything..........

[rawaction]

I can't believe all the people picking the Bears as a 4-5 win team. Looking at the schedule before the season, anything less than 6 wins to me would have been a shock, even for a team as bad on paper as the Bears are offensively. Teams with the talent the Bears have on defense don't lose 12 games. This franchise isn't nearly in as bad of shape as Atlanta, Miami, or Oakland.

 

I predicted anywhere from 6-10 to 8-8, leaning toward the high end if no major injuries are suffered on defense.

[bukie]

I can't believe all the people picking the Bears as a 4-5 win team. Looking at the schedule before the season, anything less than 6 wins to me would have been a shock, even for a team as bad on paper as the Bears are offensively. Teams with the talent the Bears have on defense don't lose 12 games. This franchise isn't nearly in as bad of shape as Atlanta, Miami, or Oakland.

 

I predicted anywhere from 6-10 to 8-8, leaning toward the high end if no major injuries are suffered on defense.

 

But looking at the schedule, did they look like a better team than Minnesota, Green Bay, Philadelphia, Tennessee, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Tampa or Detroit? Detroit was a better team last year, and New Orleans was looking to be much improved. The Bears didn't look much like an improved team. All those 8 teams? Those were the home games. The only real winnable games looked to be the ones vs. Detroit, and the games at Atlanta and St. Louis.

 

Sure, the possibility existed of stealing wins against unprepared teams, but 7 wins against that slate was asking a bit much, I think. Considering the offseason, preseason, and line issues, they looked to be one of the 4-5 worst teams in the NFC, and the rest played in the NFC West.

 

Now? If they play like they did Sunday all year, they could sneak into the upper half of the NFC with Dallas, Philly, New York, Green Bay, Minnesota, and whoever the best team in the NFC South decides to be (NO/Carolina/Tampa).

[UMFan83]

I can't believe all the people picking the Bears as a 4-5 win team. Looking at the schedule before the season, anything less than 6 wins to me would have been a shock, even for a team as bad on paper as the Bears are offensively. Teams with the talent the Bears have on defense don't lose 12 games. This franchise isn't nearly in as bad of shape as Atlanta, Miami, or Oakland.

 

I predicted anywhere from 6-10 to 8-8, leaning toward the high end if no major injuries are suffered on defense.

 

I bit hard on the defense's preseason performance. Normally I know better than that, but missed tackles and defensive lapses aren't normally stuff I attribute to the preseason. Plus the defense greatly underperformed last year (albeit with some injuries), and is 2 years older than the last time it was relevant.

 

I should have given them a bigger leash though considering how dominant they were in 05 and 06.

[BigbadB]

People are talking like its just natural that the Bears had a bad team last year and they are going back to being Super Bowl contenders.

 

This team is completely different than the 2006 team. New QB, new RB, new backup RB, all new WRs (besides Bradley and Davis), 2 new offensive lineman, new NT, 2 new safeties (considering Brown was hurt almost all year), the rest of the core is 2 years older. Really nothing that's "new" on the team can be considered an upgrade to their 2006 counterpart (unless you want to say Grossman). This is a completely different team and opinions should not be made from one game.

 

I'm not at all shocked that you are providing pessimism in the Bears game thread considering how much pessimism you toss around in the Cubs game threads. It was a tremendous road victory against a team that very well could be representing the AFC in the Super Bowl this year. By your views, we should all be gloomy and doomy with dread on how horribly the Bears will perform in the next 15 games rather than share a little excitement of how well they performed last night.

 

 

Ouch. If you were playing darts, you would have just missed the board completely. -1 respect

 

I don't think so. If I want to form the opinion that this team has an opportunity to match what the 2006 team did, why try to rain on my parade?

 

It's really no different than wanting and hoping to see the Cubs win the World Series.

 

I like to enjoy the positives rather than dwell on the negatives. Unlike the verbiage in your sig.

 

If only the entire world shared the same opinion as yours, we could all hold hands and sing in unity. Oh but wait, we don't, so thats why we have discussion forums.

 

And again, you completely missed the point. I was saying I wouldn't base the opinion of the 2008 Bears on the 2006 Bears because they are completely different teams. But you used irrational bias to assume that I was blatently being a pessimist (AFTER A WIN! LOL) or trying to rain on people's parade or something. It's perfectly acceptable to disagree with me, and I welcome a discussion of different thoughts. But the random disgust you seemed to convey towards me was quite disapointing for someone who I previously held in high regard.

 

Admittedly, I have been riding your ass lately, and I apologize for that. Maybe I did read more into that post than you actually meant. But, it's hard for me to not see negativity in your posts considering how much you share(d) in the game thread forums.

 

This is a completely different team and opinions should not be made from one game.

 

I watched the entire game, and I have already formed an opinion. You just don't go into a visiting team's stadium and kick that very good team's ass if you aren't a good team. Maybe I'm setting myself up for a letdown. I've been a Bears fan since 1972. I've had a lot more disappointing seasons of being a fan than years to be excited. And when they come out in game 1 of a new season with a can of whoop ass, I don't appreciate someone telling me that I shouldn't form an opinion based on one game.

 

There is no doubt that this team has question marks. A rookie RB, a back up QB, old, young, and inexperienced WR's and an aging O-Line to name a few. But, if everyone does their job, this team can win 10+. But, that's every team in football, except for a small handful of VERY bad teams.

[jersey cubs fan]

I can't believe all the people picking the Bears as a 4-5 win team. Looking at the schedule before the season, anything less than 6 wins to me would have been a shock, even for a team as bad on paper as the Bears are offensively. Teams with the talent the Bears have on defense don't lose 12 games. This franchise isn't nearly in as bad of shape as Atlanta, Miami, or Oakland.

 

I predicted anywhere from 6-10 to 8-8, leaning toward the high end if no major injuries are suffered on defense.

 

But looking at the schedule, did they look like a better team than Minnesota, Green Bay, Philadelphia, Tennessee, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Tampa or Detroit? Detroit was a better team last year, and New Orleans was looking to be much improved. The Bears didn't look much like an improved team. All those 8 teams? Those were the home games. The only real winnable games looked to be the ones vs. Detroit, and the games at Atlanta and St. Louis.

 

Sure, the possibility existed of stealing wins against unprepared teams, but 7 wins against that slate was asking a bit much, I think. Considering the offseason, preseason, and line issues, they looked to be one of the 4-5 worst teams in the NFC, and the rest played in the NFC West.

 

Now? If they play like they did Sunday all year, they could sneak into the upper half of the NFC with Dallas, Philly, New York, Green Bay, Minnesota, and whoever the best team in the NFC South decides to be (NO/Carolina/Tampa).

 

I was really down on the team, but still didn't see the 4-5 wins as likely. When Vegas had them at 8 wins, I was taking the under no question. When it moved to 6.5, it was really hard to take the under. This team is no worse than the one that won 7 games last year. And they have every single important player that played on the 2006 team. Last year's defensive letdown was clearly health related.

 

As for that schedule, Detroit was not better. Detroit beat them, but the Bears beat GB twice and they weren't better than the Packers. New Orleans at home in December is very clearly a winnable game. Tennessee is a very similar team to the Bears, and since they play at home, I would say that's clearly winnable. And while Philly and Tampa are both definitely tough, neither was a juggernaut and both play in Chicago, either game is winnable. 7 wins was probably a good bet going in, and now that they've won a game that was a clear loss, 8-9 seems very reasonable.

[Soul]

I can't believe all the people picking the Bears as a 4-5 win team. Looking at the schedule before the season, anything less than 6 wins to me would have been a shock, even for a team as bad on paper as the Bears are offensively. Teams with the talent the Bears have on defense don't lose 12 games. This franchise isn't nearly in as bad of shape as Atlanta, Miami, or Oakland.

 

I predicted anywhere from 6-10 to 8-8, leaning toward the high end if no major injuries are suffered on defense.

 

But looking at the schedule, did they look like a better team than Minnesota, Green Bay, Philadelphia, Tennessee, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Tampa or Detroit? Detroit was a better team last year, and New Orleans was looking to be much improved. The Bears didn't look much like an improved team. All those 8 teams? Those were the home games. The only real winnable games looked to be the ones vs. Detroit, and the games at Atlanta and St. Louis.

 

Sure, the possibility existed of stealing wins against unprepared teams, but 7 wins against that slate was asking a bit much, I think. Considering the offseason, preseason, and line issues, they looked to be one of the 4-5 worst teams in the NFC, and the rest played in the NFC West.

 

Now? If they play like they did Sunday all year, they could sneak into the upper half of the NFC with Dallas, Philly, New York, Green Bay, Minnesota, and whoever the best team in the NFC South decides to be (NO/Carolina/Tampa).

 

I was really down on the team, but still didn't see the 4-5 wins as likely. When Vegas had them at 8 wins, I was taking the under no question. When it moved to 6.5, it was really hard to take the under. This team is no worse than the one that won 7 games last year. And they have every single important player that played on the 2006 team. Last year's defensive letdown was clearly health related.

 

As for that schedule, Detroit was not better. Detroit beat them, but the Bears beat GB twice and they weren't better than the Packers. New Orleans at home in December is very clearly a winnable game. Tennessee is a very similar team to the Bears, and since they play at home, I would say that's clearly winnable. And while Philly and Tampa are both definitely tough, neither was a juggernaut and both play in Chicago, either game is winnable. 7 wins was probably a good bet going in, and now that they've won a game that was a clear loss, 8-9 seems very reasonable.

 

I worry about defensive injuries though. I worry about Mike Brown and Tommie Harris especially. It just seems like when those two guys are healthy, the center of the defense holds and teams start having difficulty against us. When they're out, we can be had. If the D stays relatively healthy Orton shouldn't need to come back from big deficits very often, and I can see the 8-9 win scenario. A few well-placed injuries to that D, and everything changes.

[jersey cubs fan]

I worry about defensive injuries though.

 

As do I. Defensive injuries and a collapse by the offensive line are probably the two easiest ways for this team to stumble.

 

I'm also a little concerned with their boisterous response to proving skeptics wrong. If they need that attitude to play with an edge, fine, but I think their cockiness played a role in the team suffering last year. Hopefully they stay a little bitter for the rest of the year.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I worry about defensive injuries though.

 

As do I. Defensive injuries and a collapse by the offensive line are probably the two easiest ways for this team to stumble.

 

I'm also a little concerned with their boisterous response to proving skeptics wrong. If they need that attitude to play with an edge, fine, but I think their cockiness played a role in the team suffering last year. Hopefully they stay a little bitter for the rest of the year.

 

I dont worry about the line, it will likely only get better with Bruenning (sp?) and possibly Williams, as well as with more playing time barring injuries.

 

but the backlash at the reporters is kind of weird. could be they are just trying to use any little mit of motivation they can find, but how long can it possibly last?

[cubweiser03]

I was between 7 and 9 wins, more towards the area of competeting for a playoff spot. After Sunday i now have my eyes firmly on taking the North. The win was huge on Sunday, the three other division teams have yet to play indianapolis, they are in way a game up. Minny plays them this week, good luck to them.

 

I loved Sundays showing, i cant wait for this Sunday. The defense was so bad ass flying around, press covering, blowing plays up in the backfield, i love that stuff.

 

Detroit is a garbage team. Garbage. I hear a lot of crap around here about ohh the Bears suck. No the Bears do not suck. Lets compare paper. There is like 1 player on their defense that i would like on the Bears, Cory Redding. The other guy is Ernie Sims but ill take Briggs thank you. The 9 other guys i dont even need to think twice about. I like their 4 WRs thats it. That team is already in my rearview mirror.

 

Carolina looks like they had a very good game against the Chargers. This will be a tough one. Their WR dont scare me downfield or in the openfield either. This week is all about the run defense.

[rawaction]

Is Mike Brown really that bad of a loss this year? Payne and McGowan have gained valuable experience at safety. Steltz looks to be a pretty decent project that won't kill the team if he's in there. Danieal can play some FS. It's a lot different from last year when you had Archuleta who was horrible, DManning who was learning to play CB, and McGowan who had little experience to that point of hte season. They did fine in 06 without both Brown and Harris, though I wouldn't expect that again, in the case of Tommie.

[rawaction]

I worry about defensive injuries though.

 

As do I. Defensive injuries and a collapse by the offensive line are probably the two easiest ways for this team to stumble.

 

I'm also a little concerned with their boisterous response to proving skeptics wrong. If they need that attitude to play with an edge, fine, but I think their cockiness played a role in the team suffering last year. Hopefully they stay a little bitter for the rest of the year.

 

I dont worry about the line, it will likely only get better with Bruenning (sp?) and possibly Williams, as well as with more playing time barring injuries.

 

but the backlash at the reporters is kind of weird. could be they are just trying to use any little mit of motivation they can find, but how long can it possibly last?

 

I know Buenning is a decent OG, but is he really that much better than Beekman? Beekman has been impressive at times in the preseason and Sunday night. He's younger and could use the experience. Beekman's biggest problem seems to be reading the D and picking up blitzers, which Buenning wouldn't be much better at because he's further behind on the blocking schemes than Beekman due to not being in Chicago that long.

 

I think if Williams cracks the lineup at all this year, it will be because of disaster. Either JSC will suck or somebody will be hurt worse than he is. In which case, the Bears probably aren't any good by the time Williams is ready anyway.

[UMFan83]

Is Mike Brown really that bad of a loss this year? Payne and McGowan have gained valuable experience at safety. Steltz looks to be a pretty decent project that won't kill the team if he's in there. Danieal can play some FS. It's a lot different from last year when you had Archuleta who was horrible, DManning who was learning to play CB, and McGowan who had little experience to that point of hte season. They did fine in 06 without both Brown and Harris, though I wouldn't expect that again, in the case of Tommie.

 

Keep in mind, aren't they playing Brown at FS now, not SS where he was traditionally at his best?

[soapy]

i was thinking 6-10 going into the season. my expectations are still tempered though. i'm now thinking around 8-8. i won't get too excited after one game, despite how well they played.

[jersey cubs fan]

Is Mike Brown really that bad of a loss this year? Payne and McGowan have gained valuable experience at safety. Steltz looks to be a pretty decent project that won't kill the team if he's in there. Danieal can play some FS. It's a lot different from last year when you had Archuleta who was horrible, DManning who was learning to play CB, and McGowan who had little experience to that point of hte season. They did fine in 06 without both Brown and Harris, though I wouldn't expect that again, in the case of Tommie.

 

I thought Payne looked pretty lost at times on Sunday. That's definitely the weak link of the defense. It's possible to survive the loss of Brown, if he's the only loss. But what I'm worried about is multiple injuries. Brown + just about anybody else could be a disaster, or at the very least, weaken them to the point where they are just barely above average defense. This team still needs a dominant D to go anywhere.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I worry about defensive injuries though.

 

As do I. Defensive injuries and a collapse by the offensive line are probably the two easiest ways for this team to stumble.

 

I'm also a little concerned with their boisterous response to proving skeptics wrong. If they need that attitude to play with an edge, fine, but I think their cockiness played a role in the team suffering last year. Hopefully they stay a little bitter for the rest of the year.

 

I dont worry about the line, it will likely only get better with Bruenning (sp?) and possibly Williams, as well as with more playing time barring injuries.

 

but the backlash at the reporters is kind of weird. could be they are just trying to use any little mit of motivation they can find, but how long can it possibly last?

 

I know Buenning is a decent OG, but is he really that much better than Beekman? Beekman has been impressive at times in the preseason and Sunday night. He's younger and could use the experience. Beekman's biggest problem seems to be reading the D and picking up blitzers, which Buenning wouldn't be much better at because he's further behind on the blocking schemes than Beekman due to not being in Chicago that long.

 

I think if Williams cracks the lineup at all this year, it will be because of disaster. Either JSC will suck or somebody will be hurt worse than he is. In which case, the Bears probably aren't any good by the time Williams is ready anyway.

 

Buenning + Williams add good depth, and I am not at all sold on JSC. he might do ok, but he is far from a good LT, let alone league average