2009 Chicago Bears offseason

[Vanilla Ice]

I love those ratings. Apparently, the best quarterback was worth as many points as the third best cornerback

 

...

 

yea

[David]

I actually meant that idiotic rating system that Rogers came up with an offseason or two ago.

[Soul]

Ignoring the obvious ridiculousness of the analysis itself....

 

The confounding thing about that article in my view is the fact that some of his top teams didn't make the playoffs, and the 2 Super Bowl teams were ranked 7th and 14th. And he was shocked at how accurate his system is.

 

Assuming that the bar for success in the NFL is still winning the Super Bowl, that would be like doing a study, and then publishing a paper that comes to the opposite conclusion as the actual study.

[David]

Ignoring the obvious ridiculousness of the analysis itself....

 

The confounding thing about that article in my view is the fact that some of his top teams didn't make the playoffs, and the 2 Super Bowl teams were ranked 7th and 14th. And he was shocked at how accurate his system is.

 

Assuming that the bar for success in the NFL is still winning the Super Bowl, that would be like doing a study, and then publishing a paper that comes to the opposite conclusion as the actual study.

 

 

Well, not necessarily. The best team and the champion aren't the same thing, especially given the nature of the NFL playoff format. That said, the analysis is still a bunch of nonsense.

[Soul]

Ignoring the obvious ridiculousness of the analysis itself....

 

The confounding thing about that article in my view is the fact that some of his top teams didn't make the playoffs, and the 2 Super Bowl teams were ranked 7th and 14th. And he was shocked at how accurate his system is.

 

Assuming that the bar for success in the NFL is still winning the Super Bowl, that would be like doing a study, and then publishing a paper that comes to the opposite conclusion as the actual study.

 

 

Well, not necessarily. The best team and the champion aren't the same thing, especially given the nature of the NFL playoff format. That said, the analysis is still a bunch of nonsense.

 

I can't see any measure being worthwhile other than winning the Super Bowl. If that's not the measure, then it's just blowing wind.

 

Therefore, if your system isn't predicting Super Bowl winners -- it's rather pointless. We can argue who's good and who's not until we're old & gray, and still accomplish nothing. I guess that's why you wind up with articles like this in the offseason: people want to argue pointlessly about stuff. For me, who wins the Super Bowl: they had the great season, they had the success. After all the pontificating about who might be good and who might not be, that pretty much ends it for me.

[David]

Ignoring the obvious ridiculousness of the analysis itself....

 

The confounding thing about that article in my view is the fact that some of his top teams didn't make the playoffs, and the 2 Super Bowl teams were ranked 7th and 14th. And he was shocked at how accurate his system is.

 

Assuming that the bar for success in the NFL is still winning the Super Bowl, that would be like doing a study, and then publishing a paper that comes to the opposite conclusion as the actual study.

 

 

Well, not necessarily. The best team and the champion aren't the same thing, especially given the nature of the NFL playoff format. That said, the analysis is still a bunch of nonsense.

 

I can't see any measure being worthwhile other than winning the Super Bowl. If that's not the measure, then it's just blowing wind.

 

Therefore, if your system isn't predicting Super Bowl winners -- it's rather pointless. We can argue who's good and who's not until we're old & gray, and still accomplish nothing. I guess that's why you wind up with articles like this in the offseason: people want to argue pointlessly about stuff. For me, who wins the Super Bowl: they had the great season, they had the success. After all the pontificating about who might be good and who might not be, that pretty much ends it for me.

 

 

What I'm saying is that there's a team out there that is intrinsically the best. It may not manifest itself in the results, but there's a team out there that has a (marginally) better chance than the rest to win it all. It can be difficult to measure, and even if it were measurable, it's not going to predict the Super Bowl winner all that often because the Super Bowl winner is just the last team standing after a group of team qualifies for the playoffs and then purposefully eliminates all but one team in a series of single elimination one on one match-ups based on a bracket. Lots of things stand in the way of a team becoming the last one standing. I don't know if what I'm trying to say there makes sense, but basically, the best team will win the Super Bowl sometimes, but the Super Bowl winner isn't necessarily the best team.

 

Had the Cardinals held on at the end of last year's game (when they very easily could have), for instance, they would've been the Champions, but I think very few people would argue that they were the best team in the NFL last year. The year before, the Patriots were probably the best team in football by a decent margin but lost to the Giants in the big game.

 

The fact that there's so much parity in the league and the fluky nature of the game itself makes it even harder for me to say that whoever wins the Super Bowl = the best team.

 

I guess I've always separated the idea of the "best team" and the "champion," though. The latter is a result. It's the one that came through, after the fact. It's the one that ultimately performed the best in terms of winning football games and winning important ones. The former is the one who simply had the best chance to come through. Can be the same team, but not necessarily.

[David]

Larry Meyer on Bears.com is typically nothing more than a propaganda-ist/mouthpiece for the team, so it is weird how much he seems to pimp the idea of Plaxico in his latest mail-bag. Makes you think the Bears are looking in that direction...assuming he doesn't end up in jail.

Do you think the Bears should pursue a veteran wide receiver like Anquan Boldin or Plaxico Burress? I think they may be that one player away from winning a championship.

Keith R.

Rockton, Illinois

It’s been widely reported that the Bears inquired about possibly trading for Anquan Boldin during the draft. There doesn’t seem to be much chance of a deal happening at this point. Personally, I would rather see the Bears pursue Plaxico Burress [assuming he’s permitted to play this season if and when his legal issues are resolved]. Can you imagine putting a receiving threat like Burress on a Bears offense with Jay Cutler, Matt Forte, Devin Hester and Greg Olsen? Burress is scheduled to appear in court June 15 and could face the possibility of at least three and a half years in jail for carrying an unlicensed firearm. I’m no legal expert, but I don’t understand why the punishment could be so severe. I’m not condoning what he did—allegedly carrying a loaded unlicensed gun and accidentally shooting himself in the leg. But to me, it was a lapse in judgment and not a heinous criminal act. You often hear about athletes receiving a much less severe punishment after assaulting someone, pointing a gun at someone or injuring someone while driving drunk. To me, those transgressions are far worse than what Burress allegedly did.

[CubColtPacer]

Ignoring the obvious ridiculousness of the analysis itself....

 

The confounding thing about that article in my view is the fact that some of his top teams didn't make the playoffs, and the 2 Super Bowl teams were ranked 7th and 14th. And he was shocked at how accurate his system is.

 

Assuming that the bar for success in the NFL is still winning the Super Bowl, that would be like doing a study, and then publishing a paper that comes to the opposite conclusion as the actual study.

 

 

Well, not necessarily. The best team and the champion aren't the same thing, especially given the nature of the NFL playoff format. That said, the analysis is still a bunch of nonsense.

 

I can't see any measure being worthwhile other than winning the Super Bowl. If that's not the measure, then it's just blowing wind.

 

Therefore, if your system isn't predicting Super Bowl winners -- it's rather pointless. We can argue who's good and who's not until we're old & gray, and still accomplish nothing. I guess that's why you wind up with articles like this in the offseason: people want to argue pointlessly about stuff. For me, who wins the Super Bowl: they had the great season, they had the success. After all the pontificating about who might be good and who might not be, that pretty much ends it for me.

 

Then there really is no point to any system. Nobody can predict Super Bowl winners because it runs so much on luck and momentum which can go to any team at any time. Execution over 1 game also plays a huge role, and even the best teams can't turn on their A game at will.

 

Besides, if you had to pick teams for next year, would you rather want the teams that people said were the 4 best teams, or the teams in the conference championship game and Super Bowl? History would suggest that the teams in the first category do better than those in the second in predicting future seasons.

[jersey cubs fan]

I can't see any measure being worthwhile other than winning the Super Bowl. If that's not the measure, then it's just blowing wind.

 

Therefore, if your system isn't predicting Super Bowl winners -- it's rather pointless.

 

You can't be serious. That's absurd. The best teams don't always win championships, especially in a format like the NFL's one and done playoffs. Do you not agree that baseball playoffs are a crapshoot? And those involve 5 and 7 game series. The difference is the best football teams usually win a much greater percentage of their games than the best baseball teams, so one would expect the better team to prevail more often in any one game than say, in baseball. But it's still not a guarantee that the best team wins the SB. Any prognostication can only be expected what is most likely to happen, not what will definitely happen. Failing to predict that Tom Brady would get injured and his team would therefore lose 5 more games and not make the playoffs does not make something a poor predictor.

[Soul]

I can't see any measure being worthwhile other than winning the Super Bowl. If that's not the measure, then it's just blowing wind.

 

Therefore, if your system isn't predicting Super Bowl winners -- it's rather pointless.

 

You can't be serious. That's absurd. The best teams don't always win championships, especially in a format like the NFL's one and done playoffs. Do you not agree that baseball playoffs are a crapshoot? And those involve 5 and 7 game series. The difference is the best football teams usually win a much greater percentage of their games than the best baseball teams, so one would expect the better team to prevail more often in any one game than say, in baseball. But it's still not a guarantee that the best team wins the SB. Any prognostication can only be expected what is most likely to happen, not what will definitely happen. Failing to predict that Tom Brady would get injured and his team would therefore lose 5 more games and not make the playoffs does not make something a poor predictor.

 

So then what's the point of talking about who's great and who isn't? It doesn't really mean all that much in the end.

 

Congrats, you were the "best team in football" but missed the playoffs.

 

Pointless and stupid.

[jersey cubs fan]

Going back the past few years, which super bowl winners were the best team?

 

Pittsburgh? Maybe but I'm not so sure, they were kind of flawed and were lucky to win a couple games.

 

Giants? No.

 

Colts? No. They were probably better in years they didn't win.

 

Pittsburgh? No.

 

New England back to back? Yes, most likely they were truly the best and the champion.

 

Tampa? Arguably yes. They didn't lead on point differential but absolutely dominated on defense.

 

The first New England win? No

 

Baltmore? I don't think so. They did dominate defensively, but didn't even win their division.

 

STL? Probably. Ridiculous point differential.

 

The 90's basically had 4 great teams taking turns winning, with SF, Dallas, Denver and maybe GB. In any one of those years its possible one of the others was actually a better team.

 

The 80's was mostly a "best team won" decade, but that was a different era of the NFL, pre free agency.

 

Bottom line, the best team in the league has won super bowls, but it's not a consistent indicator of who the best team was.

[Soul]

Then there really is no point to any system.

 

Pretty much. What IS the point to all this masturbatory pontification anyway? It never means much.

[jersey cubs fan]

I can't see any measure being worthwhile other than winning the Super Bowl. If that's not the measure, then it's just blowing wind.

 

Therefore, if your system isn't predicting Super Bowl winners -- it's rather pointless.

 

You can't be serious. That's absurd. The best teams don't always win championships, especially in a format like the NFL's one and done playoffs. Do you not agree that baseball playoffs are a crapshoot? And those involve 5 and 7 game series. The difference is the best football teams usually win a much greater percentage of their games than the best baseball teams, so one would expect the better team to prevail more often in any one game than say, in baseball. But it's still not a guarantee that the best team wins the SB. Any prognostication can only be expected what is most likely to happen, not what will definitely happen. Failing to predict that Tom Brady would get injured and his team would therefore lose 5 more games and not make the playoffs does not make something a poor predictor.

 

So then what's the point of talking about who's great and who isn't? It doesn't really mean all that much in the end.

 

Congrats, you were the "best team in football" but missed the playoffs.

 

Pointless and stupid.

 

Following sports is pointless and stupid. But we do it presumably because it's entertaining and fun. NE missed the playoffs because their best player got hurt early. They easily win that mediocre division with a ridiculously easy record against both western divisions if Brady was healthy. Personally, I don't really care much about talking about who's great and who isn't. I just want to see the teams I like win champsionship. The best way to do that is probably to field the best team you possibly can.

[Soul]

I can't see any measure being worthwhile other than winning the Super Bowl. If that's not the measure, then it's just blowing wind.

 

Therefore, if your system isn't predicting Super Bowl winners -- it's rather pointless.

 

You can't be serious. That's absurd. The best teams don't always win championships, especially in a format like the NFL's one and done playoffs. Do you not agree that baseball playoffs are a crapshoot? And those involve 5 and 7 game series. The difference is the best football teams usually win a much greater percentage of their games than the best baseball teams, so one would expect the better team to prevail more often in any one game than say, in baseball. But it's still not a guarantee that the best team wins the SB. Any prognostication can only be expected what is most likely to happen, not what will definitely happen. Failing to predict that Tom Brady would get injured and his team would therefore lose 5 more games and not make the playoffs does not make something a poor predictor.

 

So then what's the point of talking about who's great and who isn't? It doesn't really mean all that much in the end.

 

Congrats, you were the "best team in football" but missed the playoffs.

 

Pointless and stupid.

 

Following sports is pointless and stupid. But we do it presumably because it's entertaining and fun. NE missed the playoffs because their best player got hurt early. They easily win that mediocre division with a ridiculously easy record against both western divisions if Brady was healthy. Personally, I don't really care much about talking about who's great and who isn't. I just want to see the teams I like win champsionship. The best way to do that is probably to field the best team you possibly can.

It probably means more in baseball, where you have 162 games to equalize some of the short term success.

[David]

Sure, but then the playoffs and the champion comes down to what amounts to a crapshoot in the playoffs.

[jersey cubs fan]

It probably means more in baseball, where you have 162 games to equalize some of the short term success.

 

I don't know. The best baseball teams win a little more than 60% of the time, and that's including against all competition, good or bad. How often does the best baseball team beat another top 8 team? 53%? The best NFL teams win 80% or more of the time. I think being the best might matter more in football, but it still doesn't absolutely determine the champion.

[Banedon]

It probably means more in baseball, where you have 162 games to equalize some of the short term success.

 

I don't know. The best baseball teams win a little more than 60% of the time, and that's including against all competition, good or bad. How often does the best baseball team beat another top 8 team? 53%? The best NFL teams win 80% or more of the time. I think being the best might matter more in football, but it still doesn't absolutely determine the champion.

 

That still has a lot to do with the length of the season though. If football played 162 games, there wouldn't be anybody winning 80% of the time.

 

Similarly, if baseball played only 16 games, it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that a team on a hot start wins 10 or 12.

[Soul]

It probably means more in baseball, where you have 162 games to equalize some of the short term success.

 

I don't know. The best baseball teams win a little more than 60% of the time, and that's including against all competition, good or bad. How often does the best baseball team beat another top 8 team? 53%? The best NFL teams win 80% or more of the time. I think being the best might matter more in football, but it still doesn't absolutely determine the champion.

 

Zona got to the Super Bowl with a 9-7 record last year.

 

Pitt recently won a Super Bowl as a 6 seed.

 

I really do think, after all is said and done, alot of this analysis winds up being just bunk.

 

Give me the 6 seed Steelers and a Super Bowl championship over the other team that was better, but didn't make it.

 

I'm an emotional guy. I'll take that emotional Super Bowl run from a team that maybe wasn't all that great on paper any day. The championship is really all that matters to me. That goes for all sports.

[Keener98]

Would someone explain the whole "NFL wont enforce the 4 game suspensions given to the fat Williams twins on the Vikes"? What the hell

[David]

It probably means more in baseball, where you have 162 games to equalize some of the short term success.

 

I don't know. The best baseball teams win a little more than 60% of the time, and that's including against all competition, good or bad. How often does the best baseball team beat another top 8 team? 53%? The best NFL teams win 80% or more of the time. I think being the best might matter more in football, but it still doesn't absolutely determine the champion.

 

Zona got to the Super Bowl with a 9-7 record last year.

 

Pitt recently won a Super Bowl as a 6 seed.

 

I really do think, after all is said and done, alot of this analysis winds up being just bunk.

 

Give me the 6 seed Steelers and a Super Bowl championship over the other team that was better, but didn't make it.

 

I'm an emotional guy. I'll take that emotional Super Bowl run from a team that maybe wasn't all that great on paper any day. The championship is really all that matters to me. That goes for all sports.

 

It's not bunk. Unless it's actually attempting to predict one team as a champion. And in that case, said analysis usually amounts to a big chart with pictures of "experts" and their Super Bowl picks, which is obvious crap to begin with.

 

Legitimate analysis tells you things of value. And the fact that it isn't going to do a great job of saying who ultimately wins is implied due to the nature of all this. I don't think legit analysis attempts to do that, anyway. It tells you who is likely to win and might or might not give you a good idea of what teams are actually better than others, but you're not going to see them say, "Team X will win the Super Bowl," at least, not without major qualification. If they do, you know what you're reading is crap to begin with. Unfortunately, like 90% of fans don't realize this and that's why the crap analysis is what you mostly find in the mainstream sources.

[jersey cubs fan]

It probably means more in baseball, where you have 162 games to equalize some of the short term success.

 

I don't know. The best baseball teams win a little more than 60% of the time, and that's including against all competition, good or bad. How often does the best baseball team beat another top 8 team? 53%? The best NFL teams win 80% or more of the time. I think being the best might matter more in football, but it still doesn't absolutely determine the champion.

 

That still has a lot to do with the length of the season though. If football played 162 games, there wouldn't be anybody winning 80% of the time.

 

Similarly, if baseball played only 16 games, it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that a team on a hot start wins 10 or 12.

 

If football played 162 game seasons I don't think you'd see a single team make it through the season, and I might get called up before December.

 

Baseball games can essentially be won by one guy, and often that guy doesn't play all that much. A pitcher can more or less determine a game on his own in a series of 1 on 1 matchups, but then he doesn't come back for 5 more games. Football teams are 11 on 11 every play. A good baseball team can lose 12 of 16, I don't think a good football team can. And a bad baseball team can win the same, not so with football.

[jersey cubs fan]

Would someone explain the whole "NFL wont enforce the 4 game suspensions given to the fat Williams twins on the Vikes"? What the hell

 

They are in a legal battle and there's no real need for it to be enforced until September. So they aren't enforcing it yet.

[David]

Baseball games can essentially be won by one guy, and often that guy doesn't play all that much. A pitcher can more or less determine a game on his own in a series of 1 on 1 matchups, but then he doesn't come back for 5 more games. Football teams are 11 on 11 every play. A good baseball team can lose 12 of 16, I don't think a good football team can. And a bad baseball team can win the same, not so with football.

 

 

The funny thing is, I agree with your sentiment here, but at the same time, it almost seems illogical. Football is such a fluky game with an odd oblong ball that bounces crazy ways and can shift the tide in a game in a split second. A first and goal from the one can turn into a 99 yard fumble/INT return and completely change the complexion of a game. It just seems like when the mistakes or accidents (or straight up flukes when that ball just bounces crazy ways) do happen, they have a much more profound impact on the outcome of a game than in other sports.

[CubColtPacer]

It probably means more in baseball, where you have 162 games to equalize some of the short term success.

 

I don't know. The best baseball teams win a little more than 60% of the time, and that's including against all competition, good or bad. How often does the best baseball team beat another top 8 team? 53%? The best NFL teams win 80% or more of the time. I think being the best might matter more in football, but it still doesn't absolutely determine the champion.

 

Zona got to the Super Bowl with a 9-7 record last year.

 

Pitt recently won a Super Bowl as a 6 seed.

 

I really do think, after all is said and done, alot of this analysis winds up being just bunk.

 

Give me the 6 seed Steelers and a Super Bowl championship over the other team that was better, but didn't make it.

 

I'm an emotional guy. I'll take that emotional Super Bowl run from a team that maybe wasn't all that great on paper any day. The championship is really all that matters to me. That goes for all sports.

 

Of course you're going to take the Super Bowl title. If I could only relive one Colts season, I'd choose the 2006 season over the 04 or 05 (although it would be closer than it appears since the 06 season was so disappointing for over a month, while 04 and 05 just had a disappointing end but was still absolutely a wonderful ride.)

 

But when you realize how much luck plays a part in determining who wins the SB, it makes it hard just to care about who wins. The Steelers in 05 were one step away from losing the divisional round to the Colts. The Colts in 06 had a couple big bounces of the ball that went their way or they wouldn't have beat the Patriots that year. The Giants needed a miracle play that had very little to do with skill to beat the Patriots. The Steelers this year could have lost if any one of a handful of close plays hadn't gone their way against the Cardinals.

 

It's 2 very different ways to enjoy the sport, and I love to have both of them. First, figuring out the best team, which is usually done over the course of the regular season. It's fun to see how teams might match up or figuring out who has been more dominant. Why do so many people do analysis? Because it's fun to see all the different scenarios and what could happen. Plus it gives you a better idea of how your team will stack up against other teams.

 

Then you have the playoffs, which only have a tangential relationship with the best team. The fun in that is the same as March Madness..anything can happen, and most times games are close. Unless it's involving my team, I only care about teams playing close exciting games, and the NFL playoffs usually deliver. Sure, the end result is often determined by who gets the right luck, but the fun is watching that happen. It wouldn't be fun if it wasn't so unexpected.

 

Plus the luck factor has helped me not get so emotional either. I'm an emotional guy as well, but I also know some things are out of the players control. The Colts lost a playoff game last year in which any of 3 bounces down the stretch (including an actual coin flip) would have won them the game. None of them happened, and they lost. But it wasn't upsetting to me anymore, because I knew the team had played well.

 

It detracts from my enjoyment of sports if I base the whole season on the literal flip of a coin. I want to be able to enjoy each game of the regular season and playoffs for what it is..good competition played at a fantastic level. If you're always looking towards the Super Bowl, you can only enjoy one game every 15-20 years. You can never be satisfied until you have the win, and then you immediately want another one. Personally, I'm just happy that after 10 years during the 90's where the Colts were horrific most of the time, they have been incredibly entertaining to watch the last 6 years. And they still would have been a joy to watch if they hadn't won a SB title, although that was the absolute best icing on the cake.

[David]

Mike Brown is visiting the Chiefs soon.

 

I still think it's sort of dumb to not just sign him if it's cheap. If he's around, he's not worse than our other options. Reminds me of when many/most Cubs fans wanted to get rid of Prior just for the sake of getting rid of him. Granted, it seems nothing good would've come of it, but I didn't see much to lose there and I see even less to lose here since Brown is at least capable of taking the field for a decent percentage of the time.

Edited June 3, 2009 by David