2009 Regular Season - Week 1 - Bears vs Pack - 9/13 7pm NBC

[Keener98]

Tillman practiced today and was able to do everything they asked him to do, but hes still saying its 50-50 if he plays. We really need Tillman vs the Pack

 

It would be a huge boost. But I'm actually pretty confident in Bowman. When he's been healthy, he's been great. Him vs. Jennings would be a pretty good matchup. I wonder who starts at the other CB if Tillman can't go.

 

Im pretty confident in Bowmans ability as well, but Im not very confident in his ability to stay healthy. Im hoping Peanut plays so we can line up him and Bowman together, because I really dont want to see Vasher out there against the Pack.

[Guest]

Hillenmeyer is on the team because hes the only true backup MLB in case something happens to Urlacher.

 

I find that hard to believe. If Urlacher had to miss time, I would much rather take our chances with Briggs at MLB and let one of the youngsters fill in for Briggs on the outside than give the most important defensive position on the field to Hunter.

 

I wasn't aware of the salary hit, which must be the only explanation for him to still be on the roster.

[Keener98]

Hillenmeyer is on the team because hes the only true backup MLB in case something happens to Urlacher.

 

I find that hard to believe. If Urlacher had to miss time, I would much rather take our chances with Briggs at MLB and let one of the youngsters fill in for Briggs on the outside than give the most important defensive position on the field to Hunter.

 

I wasn't aware of the salary hit, which must be the only explanation for him to still be on the roster.

 

"Hunter is a professional, so while he may not be happy about not starting anymore, he will do what he must in order to help this team win," Lance Briggs said. "Hunter knows our system extremely well. He is a good [middle linebacker] and a good player who will help us win in '09."

 

But the real world will have to wait. Hillenmeyer, who originally signed with the Bears in 2003 after being cut by the Packers, returns for his seventh season in Chicago as the team's best option at middle linebacker if anything happens to Brian Urlacher. He also will back up Tinoisamoa, in addition to diversifying his football portfolio, if you will.

 

Like I said he made the team because hes Urlachers backup.

[Soul]

We better win this game. Packers fans confidence is at an obscene level. They really need to be knocked down a notch.

 

True, I'm hearing plenty of people up here penciling the Packers into the Super Bowl. And doing it with a straight face -- no exaggeration.

 

I still want to see that defense over the course of a season, but whatever. There's no doubt they'll be able to put up points. That makes them a dangerous team, IMO. Super Bowl might be a bit ambitious coming off a sub-.500 season, before even playing a single game.

[jersey cubs fan]

Hillenmeyer is on the team because hes the only true backup MLB in case something happens to Urlacher.

 

I find that hard to believe. If Urlacher had to miss time, I would much rather take our chances with Briggs at MLB and let one of the youngsters fill in for Briggs on the outside than give the most important defensive position on the field to Hunter.

 

I wasn't aware of the salary hit, which must be the only explanation for him to still be on the roster.

 

Briggs should not be the first choice to play middle if Urlacher goes down.

[rawaction]

Hillenmeyer is on the team because hes the only true backup MLB in case something happens to Urlacher.

 

I find that hard to believe. If Urlacher had to miss time, I would much rather take our chances with Briggs at MLB and let one of the youngsters fill in for Briggs on the outside than give the most important defensive position on the field to Hunter.

 

I wasn't aware of the salary hit, which must be the only explanation for him to still be on the roster.

 

Briggs should not be the first choice to play middle if Urlacher goes down.

 

I'm not so sure. Briggs would be good in the middle. The question is would he be AS good as he is at WLB. And then would Briggs/Williams be better than Hillenmeyer/Briggs. I'd also prefer to keep the All Pro in the position he plays better than anyone else in the league, though. But I think Williams is better than Hillenmeyer.

[UMFan83]

I'm in the mood for predictions...game, season, doesn't matter. Here are mine.

 

NFC North

Z-Minnesota Vikings 11-5

X-Chicago Bears 10-6

Green Bay Packers 9-7

Detroit Lions 3-13

 

Not gonna do the other divisions, but I'll say that the NFC Champion comes from someone other than the biggest favorites Minnesota, Giants and Philly

 

As for the game... I think GB should be the favorite in the game, being at home and all, but something about Lovie at Lambeau...

 

Bears 27

Packers 23

 

Suck it Packers fans.

[JonJayCutler]

I'm in the mood for predictions...game, season, doesn't matter. Here are mine.

 

NFC North

Z-Minnesota Vikings 11-5

X-Chicago Bears 10-6

Green Bay Packers 9-7

Detroit Lions 3-13

 

Not gonna do the other divisions, but I'll say that the NFC Champion comes from someone other than the biggest favorites Minnesota, Giants and Philly

 

As for the game... I think GB should be the favorite in the game, being at home and all, but something about Lovie at Lambeau...

 

Bears 27

Packers 23

 

Suck it Packers fans.

 

I think the standings will end up pretty close to that. Should definitely be a 3-team fight to the end. I'm going to go with:

 

Chicago Bears 11-5

Green Bay Packers 11-5

Minnesota Vikings 10-6

Detroit Lions 2-14

 

I predict the Bears and Packers split their games and therefore the tiebreaker for the division will come down to division or conference record. I think both wildcards come out of this division. I put the Vikings third because I still think Favre is a question mark to some extent, and we really aren't sure what he is going to do to that offense. Packers will have the best offense in the division, but Chicago and Minnesota will have them beat defensively.

 

As for Sunday's game, I'm going to change the score of my original prediction and say 24-13 Bears, with the Packers beating us at Soldier later this year. That is usually the way it goes with the exception of last year. Go Bears!

[rawaction]

Inspired by this article. http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/10009742/Top-10-bold-NFL-predictions-for-2009?GT1=39002. I thought it would be fun to give my top 10 BOLD predictions. Make fun if you want.....

 

10. None of last year's "worst to first/playoffs" will make the playoffs in 2009. The Atlanta Falcons, Baltimore Ravens, and Miami Dolphins will all be watching the playoffs from home this year.

 

9. The Cincinnati Bengals will go 8-8 this year.

 

8. They ain't dead yet. Tomlinson, OchoCinco, Westbrook, and Larry Johnson will all have good years. Not like they've had in the past, but LT, LJ, and 85 will all be over 1000 yards. Westbrook will be good for 850 rush/500 receiving. All 4 will score at least 8 times.

 

7. The San Francisco 49ers will sweep the NFC North this year, and somehow still NOT have a winning record.

 

6. There will be two 1-15 teams this year. The Detroit Lions will NOT be one of them.

 

5. The New York Jets will make the playoffs as Mark Sanchez follows in the footsteps of Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco before him.

 

4. Will be a busy trade deadline as at least 3 big names will be traded among those will be Brandon Marshall, Thomas Jones, Braylon Edwards, Tavaris Jackson/Sage Rosenfels, Willie Parker, and Terrell Owens.

 

3. Ray Rice, Miles Austin, Kevin Smith, Robert Meachem, and Chansi Stuckey will all have breakout seasons.

 

2. Brees, Peterson, and Fitzgerald will NOT be the leading passer, rusher and receiver in yards, respectively.

 

1. The Minnesota Vikings will finish in 3rd place and OUT of the NFC playoffs.

[bukie]

Inspired by this article. http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/10009742/Top-10-bold-NFL-predictions-for-2009?GT1=39002. I thought it would be fun to give my top 10 BOLD predictions. Make fun if you want.....

 

10. The Pittsburgh Steelers will not make the playoffs this year.

 

9. Brett Favre will not be able to get out of his own way enough to lead the Vikings to a winning record. Minnesota finishes 8-8 and out of the NFC playoffs.

 

8. The Cleveland Browns will finish 9-7 this year.

 

7. Nobody in the AFC West will finish with a winning record, but the Chargers will win the division at 8-8 anyway.

 

6. The San Francisco 49ers will win the NFC West this year.

 

5. The NFC will beat the AFC in head-to-head record this year.

 

4. Only one team out of the NFC East will make the playoffs, and it won't be the Giants.

 

3. The Bills will make the playoffs this year at 9-7.

 

2. The top 3 fantasy QBs this year will all be from the NFC in Rodgers, Brees and Cutler.

 

1. The Bears will get the #1 seed in the NFC with a 13-3 record.

[Flames24Rulz]

We better win this game. Packers fans confidence is at an obscene level. They really need to be knocked down a notch.

 

True, I'm hearing plenty of people up here penciling the Packers into the Super Bowl. And doing it with a straight face -- no exaggeration.

 

I still want to see that defense over the course of a season, but whatever. There's no doubt they'll be able to put up points. That makes them a dangerous team, IMO. Super Bowl might be a bit ambitious coming off a sub-.500 season, before even playing a single game.

 

We definitely weren't as bad as our record indicated last year (and we probably weren't as good as our record indicated in 2007). In 2007, we won all of our close games with the exception of the Bears game at Lambeau. You guys blew us out, and then Dallas was blowing us out for the better part of that game before Rodgers came in to relieve Favre and we made a game out of that.

 

Last year, we lost every single close game we had. People who don't care for Rodgers have unfairly pinned that on him, although many times it was because our defense blew it late by allowing late scoring drives. We lost back to back road games against Tennessee and Minnesota last year in the final seconds, both due to FG attempts. Of course I can't forget the blocked FG against the Bears towards the end of the year, as well. We blew a game against Carolina because we settled for 3 at the goal line instead of going for it on 4th and goal at the 1. Then Steve Smith burned our defense before they ended up winning that one. Houston, Jacksonville, Tampa, and ATL were all more than winnable games too (if our defense could have actually got a stop in the 4th).

 

I don't think I've ever seen a season where a team had that many close games go against them. All of our wins were by double digits, with the exception of our season opener against Minnesota. Keep in mind that was against a very difficult schedule (NFC South and AFC South) as well. I think it's fair to assess with a Dom Capers led defense that the Packers should improve this year and by improvement, I mean a 4 or a 5 win turnaround.

 

I would have loved to be in the position that the Bears are in right now. A lot of 'experts' have us going to the Super Bowl, which is kind of scary especially for a young team. I think being an under-the-radar team definitely helped us out in 2007. I'm not making predictions this year, but like I said in another thread there's about six or seven teams in the conference that can legitimately say they can win the NFC.

[Moon Rock]

I've heard so much about how the Packers could have won 9 games last year but they lost them by a couple of points. If people are going to go with that, then you have to remember how many games the Bears blew in the final minutes last season. This is a 12 win team last year with Kyle Orton as our QB and a tougher schedule than this year if those games go a different direction.

[Flames24Rulz]

I've heard so much about how the Packers could have won 9 games last year but they lost them by a couple of points. If people are going to go with that, then you have to remember how many games the Bears blew in the final minutes last season. This is a 12 win team last year with Kyle Orton as our QB and a tougher schedule than this year if those games go a different direction.

 

Agreed, but the Bears actually won some close games too. The only close game the Packers won was the season opener on MNF against Minnesota. To have that many games go against you is real unlucky.

[Splendid_Splinter]

As for the game... I think GB should be the favorite in the game, being at home and all, but something about Lovie at Lambeau...

That something was Brett Favre. Favre was always terrible against Tampa 2 defenses, and sure enough that trend continued after Lovie Smith installed it in Chicago.

 

Even though I am a Packers fan I am expecting the Bears to win by less than 7. Right now I am most worried about Greg Olsen and Desmond Clark. Now that they have a competent quarterback both of them will be able to take advantage of coverage breakdowns in the middle of the field.

[ELCABALLO45]

ESPN.com has all their experts picks out....

 

Here are who they think will win the NFC North, and if one of them are the Wildcard...

 

John Banks - D- Green Bay WC - Minnesota

 

Jeffri Chadiha - D- Minnesota WC - None

 

John Clayton - D- Minnesota WC- Green Bay

 

Tim Graham - D- Minnesota WC- Green Bay

 

Jeremy Green - D- Minnesota WC- None

 

Paul Kuharsky - D- Green Bay WC- None

 

Matt Mosley - D- Green Bay WC- Minnesota

 

Len Pasquarelli - D- Minnesota WC- None

 

Mike Sando - D- Green Bay WC- Chicago

 

Adam Schefter - D- Green Bay WC- None

 

Kevin Seifert - D- Minnesota WC- Green Bay, Chicago

 

James Walker - D- Minnesota WC- None

 

Seth Wickersham- D- Green Bay WC- None

 

Bill Williamson - D- Minnesota WC- None

 

Matt Williamson - D- Chicago WC- None

 

Pat Yasinskas - D- Green Bay WC- None

 

Other Notes

 

- 2 writers picked Green Bay to represent the NFC in the Superbowl.

 

- 4 writers picked Mike McCarthy win coach of the year.

 

- 4 writers picked Adrian Peterson to win MVP.

 

- 1 writer picked Aaron Rodgers to win MVP.

 

- 7 writers picked Adrian Peterson to win Offensive player of the year.

 

- 1 writer picked Aaron Rodgers to win Offensive player of the year.

 

- 3 writers picked Jared Allen to win Defensive player of the year.

 

- 4 writers picked Percy Harvin to win Offensive Rookie of the year.

 

- 1 writer picked B.J. Raji to win the Defensive Rookie of the year.

 

- 0 writers picked the NFC to win in the Superbowl.

[JonJayCutler]

The less people that pick the Bears to win anything, the better off they are. We've all seen what happens to teams that are expected to run away with a division title (2007 Bears, 2009 Cubs).

 

While I do think the Packers will have a good season, I think its foolish to think their transition to a 3-4 defense will be cake, which is the impression I'm getting from some fans and sports writers. That defense was plain awful last year.

[Flames24Rulz]

The less people that pick the Bears to win anything, the better off they are. We've all seen what happens to teams that are expected to run away with a division title (2007 Bears, 2009 Cubs).

 

While I do think the Packers will have a good season, I think its foolish to think their transition to a 3-4 defense will be cake, which is the impression I'm getting from some fans and sports writers. That defense was plain awful last year.

 

I think the general sentiment is that the transition to a 3-4 really can't be any worse than the defense we had last year. We've been very LB heavy the last few years, so I don't think it'll be too difficult of a transition. Dom Capers led defense are usually very stout, so I'm confident that we'll be at least a little better this year. With the schedule we have in place, I think our defense only needs to be average to have a much improved win total this year.

 

It's going to be a fun race. Make no mistake, I wish we were in the Chargers or the Cardinals position where they have a cakewalk to the postseason. The four games against the Bears and Vikes should and will be four of the biggest games that I can remember against those teams.

[David]

People are really underrating our defense. First, lots of people are talking like it's terrible and you can't even come close to winning with it despite the fact that we went 9-7 with a below average offense last year, which is sort of mind boggling in itself. I've seen some chicken littles saying "8-8 at best with this defense."

 

Second, it wasn't even bad. The yardage totals have it ranked low as hell, but that's a dumb measure to begin with. They keep talking about "21st ranked defense" or wherever the hell we were like we are the Broncos.

 

We were top 5 in yards/play last year. 7th in DVOA. The problem was the defense was on the field way too freaking long due to an offense that was 29th in time of possession. This does a couple of things. First, more plays = more yards. The defense is out on the field for more plays and simply has to give up more yards by definition. Second, (and this one admittedly is a little less of a direct correlation and more difficult to prove) fatigue. The more the defense has to stay on the field, the more their performance is bound to suffer, be it within a given game or cumulatively over the course of the season. This seems to be especially pertinent with a defense that has some main cogs that are either aging or struggling with health. Keeping guys off the field would seem to especially help players like that (namely Urlacher and Harris).

 

 

Basically, what I'm saying is, even if they performed on the same level as last year, they'd still be significantly improved just by virtue of having an offense that stays on the field more and converts more first downs. There's obviously a big difference between top 5 in yards/play and 21st in yards (which is a stupid metric to begin with). If this offense performs as well as we expect (and I think we're being reasonable in doing so), the same defensive performance from last year would result in a pretty good defense overall.

 

If they actually improve their play in addition to this, be it due to new players like Tinoisamoa and Bowman, or Urlacher's health, or Marinelli's effects on the line, or Lovie calling the plays, or anything else, they could easily be very good, if not dominant, again.

 

 

Wasn't expecting to write that much but it's annoying hearing people talk about our de last year like it was the 08 Broncos, and on top of it, acting like we need an 05 or 06 like defense to be a great team despite the fact that we should have a much better offense.

Edited September 9, 2009 by David

[UMFan83]

I personally think having Lovie calling the plays will have the biggest positive effect on the defense, including Marinelli. Lovie was shown in past jobs to be able to think outside the box and be creative when calling plays.

[Cubswin11]

Usually it takes me a while to get into the NFL season. Normally NCAA Football keeps me more entertained the until end of October or early November. But this year NCAA seems pretty boring to me and the NFL has me jacked.

[bukie]

Yeah, the sheer amount of misunderstanding regarding so many facets of the Bears is mind-boggling...

 

- The team was not a loser last year. They finished 9-7.

- Jay Cutler was not responsible for Denver's 8-8 record, except maybe for it being that good.

- The defense was a top 10 efficient unit that got left out to rot in many games.

- If anything, Forte wasn't as good as billed, he just got so many touches that he was productive. I'm probably most concerned about this, especially now since Jones is out for the season.

 

Here's what I expect from the Bears: a top-10 QB (if not top 5), a top-10 defense, a top-5 special teams unit, and a top-10 TE receiver (or two). I also expect Forte's efficiency to improve slightly since teams will actually have to worry about the passer, and I expect the receiving corps to improve if only because they couldn't possibly be worse. The OL can't be worse than last year, but it's tough to see how much it could be improved. The DL is only going to be as good as the interior line, which was poor last year. Really, the biggest things the Bears needed to improve over the offseason was QB and both lines, and got Cutler, Pace and Marinelli.

[Banedon]

- If anything, Forte wasn't as good as billed, he just got so many touches that he was productive. I'm probably most concerned about this, especially now since Jones is out for the season.

 

I disagree with this for 2 reasons.

 

1) The O-Line was not good last year. We had freaking John St Clair out there for pete's sake.

2) The passing threat wasn't there either. Once they had Hester covered (which just about every team did) then all they had to worry about was the underneath stuff.

 

I will say I don't think Forte gets as many catches this year, because Cutler won't throw underneath nearly as often as Kyle did. But I think Forte will be a better runner this year. He has great vision, and is fantastic at finding a hole.

[Banedon]

I'm not gonna do 10 of these...at least not right now. But my bold prediction for the season is that two of the Bears WR finish with 1000 yards this season.

[rawaction]

People are really underrating our defense. First, lots of people are talking like it's terrible and you can't even come close to winning with it despite the fact that we went 9-7 with a below average offense last year, which is sort of mind boggling in itself. I've seen some chicken littles saying "8-8 at best with this defense."

 

Second, it wasn't even bad. The yardage totals have it ranked low as hell, but that's a dumb measure to begin with. They keep talking about "21st ranked defense" or wherever the hell we were like we are the Broncos.

 

We were top 5 in yards/play last year. 7th in DVOA. The problem was the defense was on the field way too freaking long due to an offense that was 29th in time of possession. This does a couple of things. First, more plays = more yards. The defense is out on the field for more plays and simply has to give up more yards by definition. Second, (and this one admittedly is a little less of a direct correlation and more difficult to prove) fatigue. The more the defense has to stay on the field, the more their performance is bound to suffer, be it within a given game or cumulatively over the course of the season. This seems to be especially pertinent with a defense who has some main cogs that are either aging or struggling with health. Keeping guys off the field would seem to especially help players like that (namely Urlacher and Harris).

 

 

Basically, what I'm saying is, even if they performed on the same level as last year, they'd still be significantly improved just by virtue of having an offense that stays on the field more and converts more first downs. There's obviously a big difference between top 5 in yards/play and 21st in yards (which is a stupid metric to begin with). If this offense performs as well as we expect (and I think we're being reasonable in doing so), the same defensive performance from last year would result in a pretty good defense overall.

 

If they actually improve their play in addition to this, be it due to new players like Tinoisamoa and Bowman, or Urlacher's health, or Marinelli's effects on the line, or Lovie calling the plays, or anything else, they could easily be very good, if not dominant, again.

 

 

Wasn't expecting to write that much but it's annoying hearing people talk about our de last year like it was the 08 Broncos, and on top of it, acting like we need an 05 or 06 like defense to be a great team despite the fact that we should have a much better offense.

 

Exactly. The Bears probably scored enough points last year. 375 good for 14th in the league. Even if Cutler doesn't lead the team to more points, he should be able to lead them to more than the 27th most first downs in the league with his ability to extend drives. He is mobile, accurate, and instills confidence in the coaches to let him throw the ball on 3rd down. I hate trying to make a point w/ no stats, but in the Denver preseason game on 3rd and 8, from the shadow of the end zone...how many QBs in recent Bears history would have been called on to throw the ball beyond the marker to get a 1st down? I think that consistency at QB will lead to more 1st downs, thus more time of possession.

 

The Bears D was on the field more than any other defense in the NFL. 100 plays more than the average defense. About 175 plays more than the elite defenses like Ten, Pit, and Balt. If you put the Bears D at the average number of plays, they would have been 9th in yards allowed.

[Magnetic Curses]

well, part of that is that the defense couldn't get off the field after 3rd downs. they were terrible at it, for whatever reason. it's possible that this "stick 'em between the sticks" tampa-2 philosophy is less effective now that the players are older. we need more pressure on the qb so that the linebackers don't have so much pressure on them to make difficult tackles on 3rd down.