Week 4 - Chicago Bears vs. Detroit Lions, 12 PM FOX

[dew1679666265]

The Saints' defense is better than Minnesota's? Gregg Williams is a good defensive coordinator, but there's no way he's making that big an improvement.

 

Stafford showed improvement from Week 1 to Week 2 going against a better defense and then showed improvement again in Week 3 going against an admittedly worse defense (though still a pretty good one, the Redskins were a top 10 defense last year according to yards and points allowed).

 

If our basis of "improvement" is going from 3 picks to 2 picks from week 1 to 2, I'm calling the difference negligible.

 

It's also because of a 17% increase in completion percentage. That's not negligible. His QB rating also increased significantly from Week 1 to Week 2.

 

My point was the drop to zero was against a far inferior opponent than the first two.

 

I don't think he's gotten worse...but I'm just not sure he's really gotten significantly better.

 

Nobody has said significantly better. He's shown improvement and that's a good sign for a rookie QB.

 

The Redskins have allowed 351, 362, and 381 total yards in the first 3 games.

 

The Saints and Vikings have only allowed one 300 yard game out of 5.

 

And again, even if you don't look at the Washington game, Stafford has still shown improvement. He improved from one week to the next and continued that trend in the third game. There may be something to the trend, or there may not. But the trend is there.

[Soul]

I really like where our team is right now. 2-1

 

I was factoring in a period of time where the Bears would need to get used to each other on offense.

 

So yeah, I'm thrilled with 2-1. This offense should continue to get better. The only thing that scares me is that I was expecting better from the OLine yesterday in the run game, and I didn't really see it. Better late in the game though.

 

The way I look at it, we were dealt a tough hand for our opening 3 games, and we came through it looking very good.

[JonJayCutler]

In the fourth period of his last two games, Cutler has completed 14 of 15 passes for 152 yards with 2 touchdowns, no interceptions and a sparkling 148.4 passer rating.

 

http://www.chicagobears.com/news/NewsStory.asp?story_id=6152

 

:shock: :D

[Banedon]

And again, even if you don't look at the Washington game, Stafford has still shown improvement. He improved from one week to the next and continued that trend in the third game. There may be something to the trend, or there may not. But the trend is there.

 

Well his first game was a 26 rating. It'd be awfully hard to not improve from that. I dunno... I guess I'm having a hard time getting too worked up over a guy who's "improved" to an average QB rating against one of the worst teams in the league.

 

I'm not writing the guy off, but he's a rookie QB, and like most of them (although less of them lately), rookie QB's tend to be....unsteady.

[Soul]

In the fourth period of his last two games, Cutler has completed 14 of 15 passes for 152 yards with 2 touchdowns, no interceptions and a sparkling 148.4 passer rating.

 

http://www.chicagobears.com/news/NewsStory.asp?story_id=6152

 

:shock: :D

 

After unsuccessfully campaigning for roughing-the-passer penalties on previous occasions, Cutler drew one on defensive end Patrick Kerney on the game-winning TD. The 15-yard penalty enabled the Bears to kick off from their own 45, and Robbie Gould drilled the ball out of the end zone for a touchback.

 

“I finally got one,” Cutler said with a smile. “I’m going to be yelling for them all game. Whether it is or whether it isn’t, I’m going to be yelling.”

 

 

This is something where Bear fans will think of it as a good thing, and opposing fans will see it as whining.

[Banedon]

In the fourth period of his last two games, Cutler has completed 14 of 15 passes for 152 yards with 2 touchdowns, no interceptions and a sparkling 148.4 passer rating.

 

http://www.chicagobears.com/news/NewsStory.asp?story_id=6152

 

:shock: :D

 

After unsuccessfully campaigning for roughing-the-passer penalties on previous occasions, Cutler drew one on defensive end Patrick Kerney on the game-winning TD. The 15-yard penalty enabled the Bears to kick off from their own 45, and Robbie Gould drilled the ball out of the end zone for a touchback.

 

“I finally got one,” Cutler said with a smile. “I’m going to be yelling for them all game. Whether it is or whether it isn’t, I’m going to be yelling.”

 

 

This is something where Bear fans will think of it as a good thing, and opposing fans will see it as whining.

 

I watched his postgame. He was laughing when he said that. He actually was really funny during that pc.

 

They asked him about the shovel pass and he said something like "Well I saw Brett do that a lot so I thought I'd try it. I don't think I'll be adding that to my repertoire too often."

[Keener98]

In the fourth period of his last two games, Cutler has completed 14 of 15 passes for 152 yards with 2 touchdowns, no interceptions and a sparkling 148.4 passer rating.

 

http://www.chicagobears.com/news/NewsStory.asp?story_id=6152

 

:shock: :D

 

After unsuccessfully campaigning for roughing-the-passer penalties on previous occasions, Cutler drew one on defensive end Patrick Kerney on the game-winning TD. The 15-yard penalty enabled the Bears to kick off from their own 45, and Robbie Gould drilled the ball out of the end zone for a touchback.

 

“I finally got one,” Cutler said with a smile. “I’m going to be yelling for them all game. Whether it is or whether it isn’t, I’m going to be yelling.”

 

 

This is something where Bear fans will think of it as a good thing, and opposing fans will see it as whining.

 

I watched his postgame. He was laughing when he said that. He actually was really funny during that pc.

 

They asked him about the shovel pass and he said something like "Well I saw Brett do that a lot so I thought I'd try it. I don't think I'll be adding that to my repertoire too often."

 

The best part of that interview was when they asked if anybody else had any questions, and as soon as that person said it, Jay says"Nope, ok thanks guys" and walks off the stage.

[Derwood]

nice to see that the idiotic sports-writing isn't just limited to the Cubs in Chicago

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-28-haugh-bears-chicago-sep28,0,6808002.column

[Banedon]

nice to see that the idiotic sports-writing isn't just limited to the Cubs in Chicago

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-28-haugh-bears-chicago-sep28,0,6808002.column

 

What's your issue? The headline? Cuz I'm sure David Haugh didn't write that.

 

If you're saying that's an anti-Cutler article, I disagree strongly.

[UMFan83]

Did you guys see Peter King named Brandon McGowin one of his 2 defensive players of the week for his play with the Pats? Figures.

[brinoch]

nice to see that the idiotic sports-writing isn't just limited to the Cubs in Chicago

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-28-haugh-bears-chicago-sep28,0,6808002.column

 

What's your issue? The headline? Cuz I'm sure David Haugh didn't write that.

 

If you're saying that's an anti-Cutler article, I disagree strongly.

 

It's not anti-Cutler, it's just dumb. Haugh is clearly making the case that it is the wide receivers are making Cutler look good, rather than Cutler making them look good. Read for yourself:

 

If Jerry Angelo is writing that thesis on his belief that the quarterback makes the wide receiver in the NFL, a theory Angelo brought Jay Cutler to Chicago to prove, then some minor edits are recommended.

 

Everybody expected Cutler to make the Bears' wide receivers better. But a week after Johnny Knox provided the fourth-quarter heroics, a second straight victory resulted from a Bears wide receiver making Cutler look pretty good.

 

The fact of the matter is that both Knox and Hester made excellent runs after their catches, but to say that it was all the wide receiver and nothing to do with the QB is silly. By that logic, all that was needed was to draft Knox, right? That's the only real change in the offense (other than that Cutler guy). Anyone who actually watches football (and specifically the Bears) will know that the real difference in the offense this year over last is having a QB who is strong-armed, accurate, understands and reads the game well, and makes the good decisions (generally-speaking).

 

It's a dumb article and dumb premise.

[Banedon]

The article is simply highlighting how well the receivers have played with a little bit of hyperbole introducing it. If the WR's had been playing like crap and he was writing some fluff article, well then fine. But they have played well and did make some plays on some balls that weren't thrown perfectly. I don't see the problem.

 

I don't think he ever says that Cutler didn't have anything to do with it. I think he was simply highlighting the WR contributions.

[brinoch]

The article is simply highlighting how well the receivers have played with a little bit of hyperbole introducing it. If the WR's had been playing like crap and he was writing some fluff article, well then fine. But they have played well and did make some plays on some balls that weren't thrown perfectly. I don't see the problem.

 

I don't think he ever says that Cutler didn't have anything to do with it. I think he was simply highlighting the WR contributions.

 

I do. It's typical sportwriter tripe. Rather than praising Knox for his catches or discussing the amazing growth a 5th round pick from Abilene Christian has made, Haugh weaves his pro-Knox article into a broader story about who is making who better, the WR or the QB. He has a flawed premise, but he sticks with it inserts the Knox story into his narrative -- irrespective of facts or game conditions.

 

I've long been a fan of the Sun Times coverage of the Bears over the Tribune's. After reading this article, I've pretty much concluded that Haugh and Tribune aren't worth the bother. Why is it so hard to find good Bears coverage?

[dew1679666265]

And again, even if you don't look at the Washington game, Stafford has still shown improvement. He improved from one week to the next and continued that trend in the third game. There may be something to the trend, or there may not. But the trend is there.

 

Well his first game was a 26 rating. It'd be awfully hard to not improve from that. I dunno... I guess I'm having a hard time getting too worked up over a guy who's "improved" to an average QB rating against one of the worst teams in the league.

 

I'm not writing the guy off, but he's a rookie QB, and like most of them (although less of them lately), rookie QB's tend to be....unsteady.

 

The QB rating hasn't been good yet, that's true. But, lowering his INTs, even slightly, while at the same time improving his completion percentage significantly is a good sign.

 

I'm not really trying to read anything into it, just commenting that he has indeed shown improvement.

[Banedon]

The article is simply highlighting how well the receivers have played with a little bit of hyperbole introducing it. If the WR's had been playing like crap and he was writing some fluff article, well then fine. But they have played well and did make some plays on some balls that weren't thrown perfectly. I don't see the problem.

 

I don't think he ever says that Cutler didn't have anything to do with it. I think he was simply highlighting the WR contributions.

 

I do. It's typical sportwriter tripe. Rather than praising Knox for his catches or discussing the amazing growth a 5th round pick from Abilene Christian has made, Haugh weaves his pro-Knox article into a broader story about who is making who better, the WR or the QB. He has a flawed premise, but he sticks with it inserts the Knox story into his narrative -- irrespective of facts or game conditions.

 

I've long been a fan of the Sun Times coverage of the Bears over the Tribune's. After reading this article, I've pretty much concluded that Haugh and Tribune aren't worth the bother. Why is it so hard to find good Bears coverage?

 

He'd already done that article last week: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-21-tab-haugh-bearssep21,0,2870980.column

 

He can't write the same stuff every week, so instead he writes about how the receivers sometimes help the QB. Again, I'm not seeing the issue. Nobody is saying that Cutler isn't good.

 

Haugh is a good columnist. Tribune has a lot of bad writers...Haugh isn't one of them.

 

I will say I have grown to like Biggs better though.

[Guest]

I'm with Brinoch on this. Horrible article.

[brinoch]

I'm with Brinoch on this. Horrible article.

 

And Banedon, when the pro-Tillman/anti-Tillman faction leaders from three years ago (factions of about 1 member each, I might add) are in agreement on something like this, you can be certain that the opposing viewpoint is dead wrong.

[David]

nice to see that the idiotic sports-writing isn't just limited to the Cubs in Chicago

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-28-haugh-bears-chicago-sep28,0,6808002.column

 

What's your issue? The headline? Cuz I'm sure David Haugh didn't write that.

 

If you're saying that's an anti-Cutler article, I disagree strongly.

 

Agreed. Haugh is a huge Cutler fan and there was nothing really idiotic about it.

 

 

And Haugh is awesome. I can't blame the out of towners for not knowing that, though. You get a much better feel for who these guys are when you see them on local TV all the time and you hear them on the radio everyday.

[DiamondMind]

I do. It's typical sportwriter tripe. Rather than praising Knox for his catches or discussing the amazing growth a 5th round pick from Abilene Christian has made, Haugh weaves his pro-Knox article into a broader story about who is making who better, the WR or the QB. He has a flawed premise, but he sticks with it inserts the Knox story into his narrative -- irrespective of facts or game conditions.

 

I've long been a fan of the Sun Times coverage of the Bears over the Tribune's. After reading this article, I've pretty much concluded that Haugh and Tribune aren't worth the bother. Why is it so hard to find good Bears coverage?

 

You nailed it.

[Old Style]

I'm ready for the OLine to start run blocking so we can get Forte producing.

 

I liked Kyle Orton and thought he could have been more successful if he had some better WR's to throw to, but thank God for Jay Cutler.

[jersey cubs fan]

This has letdown game written all over it, for the Lions. They did a lap around the field high fiving fans after a win against the Redskins. It's understandable, but it's not the sign of a team poised to maintain that momentum into a tough road environment. 11 is a lot of points, but that's Vegas doing it's best to get people to take Detroit.

[Soul]

I won't accept the Bears coming out flat, looking like they didn't prepare, or didn't prepare for the right things. Like they did against Seattle.

 

I better not see highlights coming in like "Look at the Lions! Up by 10 against the Bears after their first win in 20 games!"

 

That simply better not happen.

[Guest]

I won't accept the Bears coming out flat, looking like they didn't prepare, or didn't prepare for the right things. Like they did against Seattle.

 

I better not see highlights coming in like "Look at the Lions! Up by 10 against the Bears after their first win in 20 games!"

 

That simply better not happen.

 

I sure hope it doesn't happen like it did against Seattle. It sucks being down 13-0 and turning the ball over like you want to give up even more points before you ever even get started.

 

For a minute, I was a bit scared when we were down 13-0, but then I remembered that we have Jay Cutler at quarterback instead of Rex Grossman, Kyle Orton or one of the other dozen or two guys we've been letting take snaps for the Bears for the last umpteen years.

[Burtonbell]

 

For a minute, I was a bit scared when we were down 13-0, but then I remembered that we have Jay Cutler at quarterback instead of Rex Grossman, Kyle Orton or one of the other dozen or two guys we've been letting take snaps for the Bears for the last umpteen years.

 

That was my exact thought on Sunday. What a smile that put on my face. I am loving the beginning of the Jay Cutler Era!

 

Oh,

Bears 28 Lions 10.

[UMFan83]

Apparently we're still middle of the road according to most power rankings. ESPN has us at 14. Only SF and Dallas are lower than us among the 2-1 teams. Makes me wonder if Minnesota would be ranked 14th and the Bears 5th if we had started out the season 3-0 against @ Cleveland, @ Detroit, vs. SF instead of 2-1 @ Green Bay, vs. Pittsburgh, @ Seattle. The Packers are ranked 10th of course, which is understandable since they beat the Bears (unless you would say the Bears beat themselves), but I'd like to see what their record would be if they played our schedule. The good news is they will.

 

Since our two non-common opponent conferences are the NFC South and East, we should all have pretty similar schedules. The Vikings non-common opponents are Carolina (who is better than an 0-3 team) and NYG, Bears have Philly and Atlanta (imo the hardest of the 3 teams), and GB has TB (ok theres a freebie) and Dallas.

Edited September 29, 2009 by UMFan83