Bears game 11: Sunday, Nov 28 vs PHI on FOX

[Flames24Rulz]

They are consistently the lowest rated team with their record by most people.

 

That's simply not true. Tampa Bay?

 

I've seen them below Tampa on many lists. They've been behind a crappy Oakland team and the rest of that weak AFC West as well.

 

I'd like to see these lists.

 

Tampa Bay didn't even have their highlights shown on SportsCenter after shutting out the Niners. I know that's not exactly a big game, but a team did move to 7-3 because of it. I think most of the general public just seems to think of the Bucs as a joke that really do not do anything well where people know the Bears can at least play defense and special teams at a high level.

 

That's nice and all, but this season has been going on for a while now and lists are updated every week. Many times Tampa has been ranked ahead of Chicago. A couple weeks ago Simmons had the Bears ranked 28 while Tampa was upper half. After week 10, Don Banks had the Bears 16 and Tampa 13. After week 11 it was Bears 14 Tampa 11. I've seen this is multiple places. Not all of them, but multiple.

 

I don't think Bill Simmons is a great voice of reason for the NFL.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't think Bill Simmons is a great voice of reason for the NFL.

 

Obviously not, but he and King are probably the two biggest.

[rawaction]

Why is there an article in the Trib that says "Not the time to extend Lovie's contract"? What moron has suggested it is the time? They have won 7 games. They won 7 games last year. This is not an accomplishment worth rewarding. Making the playoffs is not reason enough for an extension. If he wins the Super Bowl, go ahead, but he's already signed through next season and the last time they gave him an extension his team did nothing but disappoint for three straight seasons.

 

Winning the Superbowl is still not reason to give Lovie an extension, IMO. Like you said, last time he took the Bears to the Superbowl, it didn't start any sort of consistent winning. So, why extend him when history shows you could just go 7-9 again next year? With 1 more year on his deal, the decision doesn't have to made this year at all, and shouldn't by any means. Bears go deep into the playoffs, and start next season 7-3, then talk extension. This is not even close to a rush situation no matter how much they win this year.

 

While I see no reason to rush, a Super Bowl victory is obviously a reason to extend him. He's only signed through next season, and a super bowl winning coach doesn't work in lame duck fashion. If all they do is make the playoffs then I don't talk extension until after the CBA is finalized, and even then it has to be done without a raise, because he certainly hasn't earned one. Haugh is claiming he's done more with less this year which is absolutely absurd. This team is talented enough to make the playoffs. They are light on the line and WR. But they've spent big money on big time players, Peppers, Urlacher and Briggs are huge investments. Not to mention Harris and Tillman. And they have gone out and acquired a big time QB.

 

I don't know man. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but the last time Lovie went to the Superbowl, he was made the highest paid coach in the league and proceeded to go .500 with 0 playoff appearances. Granted, winning the Superbowl is another thing entirely, but that would likely mean Lovie would again command one of the highest coaching salaries in the league and he is clearly nowhere near being the best coach. I don't know if you can just put yourself in the same position again (overpaid coach, that you can't afford to fire) for just 1 successful year, albeit the ultimate success.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't know man. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but the last time Lovie went to the Superbowl, he was made the highest paid coach in the league and proceeded to go .500 with 0 playoff appearances. Granted, winning the Superbowl is another thing entirely, but that would likely mean Lovie would again command one of the highest coaching salaries in the league and he is clearly nowhere near being the best coach. I don't know if you can just put yourself in the same position again (overpaid coach, that you can't afford to fire) for just 1 successful year, albeit the ultimate success.

 

Well, a Super Bowl win has a long carry over effect. I'd be willing to put up with a .500 record for three years after winning one. It would be awesome if they could pull off playing tought with him and keeping his demands in check, but if they do win (which they won't) the pressure will be enormous, 100x the ridiculous pressure they got for not extending him right away last time. The key is not going 5 years. Give him a huge raise for 2011 with 2 years added on and if they do take that step back it's a lot easier to can him.

 

But the key is if they make the playoffs and lose do not extend him right away, unless he'll take a one year extension at no more than current salary. Talk extension after the CBA is done.

[UMFan83]

ESPN:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

 

Week 12: Bears 12, TB 11

Week 11: Bears 17, TB 11

Week 10: Bears 19, TB 13

 

AOL Fanhouse:

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/11/23/nfl-power-rankings-week-12-finally-some-seperation/

 

Bears 11, TB 10

 

CBS Sports:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/powerrankings

 

Bears 12, TB 10

 

Whatever this is:

http://larrybrownsports.com/football/lbs-nfl-power-rankings-week-12/40873

 

Bears 12, TB 9

 

Those are 4 of the first 5 I pulled up (Yahoo had the Bears ahead). I'm sure there are plenty that have the Bears first but I would say the consensus has the Bucs higher than Chicago despite not beating a single +500 team and having a negative point differential.

[JonJayCutler]

Yeah I think we're currently better than both the Bucs and Giants (now that they've lost their top two receivers). Hopefully that rings true and we at least grab the final Wild Card spot. Or if both CHI and GB keep winning, there's an outside chance that the Week 17 game could be for the division and HFA, with the loser taking the 5th seed. In that case, losing the game would still suck, but there would at least be a nice consolation prize in that the loser would play the winner of the West. But needless to say we need the Saints to start losing games, and tomorrow would be a good start.

 

I want to be optimistic for Sunday. Cold weather and a bad playing surface aren't exactly ideal conditions for Vick, which is why we'll probably play well enough to stay in the game only to have our hearts broken by Akers at the end. Prove me wrong, though.

 

Eagles 24

Bears 23

[rawaction]

Yeah I think we're currently better than both the Bucs and Giants (now that they've lost their top two receivers). Hopefully that rings true and we at least grab the final Wild Card spot. Or if both CHI and GB keep winning, there's an outside chance that the Week 17 game could be for the division and HFA, with the loser taking the 5th seed. In that case, losing the game would still suck, but there would at least be a nice consolation prize in that the loser would play the winner of the West. But needless to say we need the Saints to start losing games, and tomorrow would be a good start.

 

I want to be optimistic for Sunday. Cold weather and a bad playing surface aren't exactly ideal conditions for Vick, which is why we'll probably play well enough to stay in the game only to have our hearts broken by Akers at the end. Prove me wrong, though.

 

Eagles 24

Bears 23

 

Yeah, if Dallas can pull off one more "rally" game for Garrett that would be wonderful. If not, the Saints should win the rest of their games easily, except for at Baltimore and at Atlanta, which I think they are a better team than the Ravens.

 

I got a strange feeling about the Bears/Eagles game. I feel like the Bears win a close one or Cutler completely craps the bed and the Eagles win easily.

[Banedon]

I know that most of you probably don't watch Glee, but last night, one of the lead characters (the QB of the HS football team) was talking about not wanting to call out one his O-lineman on his bullying of another kid, because "I'd get get sacked more than Jay Cutler."

[Banedon]

ESPN:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

 

Week 12: Bears 12, TB 11

Week 11: Bears 17, TB 11

Week 10: Bears 19, TB 13

 

AOL Fanhouse:

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/11/23/nfl-power-rankings-week-12-finally-some-seperation/

 

Bears 11, TB 10

 

CBS Sports:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/powerrankings

 

Bears 12, TB 10

 

Whatever this is:

http://larrybrownsports.com/football/lbs-nfl-power-rankings-week-12/40873

 

Bears 12, TB 9

 

Those are 4 of the first 5 I pulled up (Yahoo had the Bears ahead). I'm sure there are plenty that have the Bears first but I would say the consensus has the Bucs higher than Chicago despite not beating a single +500 team and having a negative point differential.

 

CNNsi's rankings were just posted with the Bears below TB and two 6-4 teams.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/don_banks/11/23/nfl-power-rankings-week-12/index.html?eref=sihp

[jersey cubs fan]

CNNsi's rankings were just posted with the Bears below TB and two 6-4 teams.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/don_banks/11/23/nfl-power-rankings-week-12/index.html?eref=sihp

 

And his reasoning is because Tampa shutout SF on the road this past week. Despite the fact that the Bears shutout a team he has ranked 8 spots higher than SF.

 

I don't have a problem with people being skeptical about the Bears or ranking Tampa lower. I do have a problem with idiots stating Chicago has been getting more respect than they deserve. Most people have undersold them. Peter King and a handful of others have been pretty fair, still doubting their record throughout the majority of the season.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I blame Sulley. his teams never get any respect.

[UMFan83]

ESPN:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

 

Week 12: Bears 12, TB 11

Week 11: Bears 17, TB 11

Week 10: Bears 19, TB 13

 

AOL Fanhouse:

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/11/23/nfl-power-rankings-week-12-finally-some-seperation/

 

Bears 11, TB 10

 

CBS Sports:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/powerrankings

 

Bears 12, TB 10

 

Whatever this is:

http://larrybrownsports.com/football/lbs-nfl-power-rankings-week-12/40873

 

Bears 12, TB 9

 

Those are 4 of the first 5 I pulled up (Yahoo had the Bears ahead). I'm sure there are plenty that have the Bears first but I would say the consensus has the Bucs higher than Chicago despite not beating a single +500 team and having a negative point differential.

 

CNNsi's rankings were just posted with the Bears below TB and two 6-4 teams.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/don_banks/11/23/nfl-power-rankings-week-12/index.html?eref=sihp

 

From that article:

 

After throwing a shutout in San Francisco to jack their winning percentage to a fat .700, the Bucs deserve to crack the top 10.

 

So the Bucs, with a negative point differential and no wins over +.500 teams deserve to be in the top 10 because they shutout a bad 49ers team. But the Bears with a positive point differential, and 2 wins over +500 teams are stuck at 12 after shuting out a better Dolphins team.

 

Makes sense.

[Flames24Rulz]

ESPN:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

 

Week 12: Bears 12, TB 11

Week 11: Bears 17, TB 11

Week 10: Bears 19, TB 13

 

AOL Fanhouse:

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/11/23/nfl-power-rankings-week-12-finally-some-seperation/

 

Bears 11, TB 10

 

CBS Sports:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/powerrankings

 

Bears 12, TB 10

 

Whatever this is:

http://larrybrownsports.com/football/lbs-nfl-power-rankings-week-12/40873

 

Bears 12, TB 9

 

Those are 4 of the first 5 I pulled up (Yahoo had the Bears ahead). I'm sure there are plenty that have the Bears first but I would say the consensus has the Bucs higher than Chicago despite not beating a single +500 team and having a negative point differential.

 

Guess I was wrong. My apologies, goony.

 

Even I think those lists are bunk.

[jersey cubs fan]

Guess I was wrong. My apologies, goony.

 

Even I think those lists are bunk.

 

Like I said, I don't have a problem with them or necessarily disagree with most of them (not counting Banks/Simmons early ridiculously low rankings). It's the nonsensical statements made to justify some of them.

[DivineBovine]

ESPN:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings

 

Week 12: Bears 12, TB 11

Week 11: Bears 17, TB 11

Week 10: Bears 19, TB 13

 

AOL Fanhouse:

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/11/23/nfl-power-rankings-week-12-finally-some-seperation/

 

Bears 11, TB 10

 

CBS Sports:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/powerrankings

 

Bears 12, TB 10

 

Whatever this is:

http://larrybrownsports.com/football/lbs-nfl-power-rankings-week-12/40873

 

Bears 12, TB 9

 

Those are 4 of the first 5 I pulled up (Yahoo had the Bears ahead). I'm sure there are plenty that have the Bears first but I would say the consensus has the Bucs higher than Chicago despite not beating a single +500 team and having a negative point differential.

 

CNNsi's rankings were just posted with the Bears below TB and two 6-4 teams.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/don_banks/11/23/nfl-power-rankings-week-12/index.html?eref=sihp

 

From that article:

 

After throwing a shutout in San Francisco to jack their winning percentage to a fat .700, the Bucs deserve to crack the top 10.

 

So the Bucs, with a negative point differential and no wins over +.500 teams deserve to be in the top 10 because they shutout a bad 49ers team. But the Bears with a positive point differential, and 2 wins over +500 teams are stuck at 12 after shuting out a better Dolphins team.

 

Makes sense.

 

 

 

If the Bears beat Philly, then they'd better leapfrog the Bucs. But I'm not going to get too worked up about this right now.

[JonJayCutler]

If the Bears beat Philly, then they'd better leapfrog the Bucs.

 

They won't if the Bucs pull off a win in Baltimore. I fully expect TB to be ranked in the top 5 if that happens.

[SpongeWorthy]

I hope we beat Philly and then somehow drop in various power rankings. The lower the better.

[ELCABALLO45]

I hope we beat Philly and then somehow drop in various power rankings. The lower the better.

 

Actually it really means nothing :)

[BigSlick]

i would sacrifice a live (preferably small) animal to guarantee a victory sunday. a win doesn't just mean we're virtually guaranteed playoffs, it would make a statement on the status of the cutler, martz and smith eras. i want a win so very bad. i want to really believe in this team, even though i'm possibly more doubtful of the defense than ever (is that defensive backfield that good? is urlacher really back? is it all smoke and mirrors again?) and putting my faith in coaches that seem to flub the easiest decisions of all time.

 

i don't hate lovie smith, more than that, i want to like lovie smith. he seems to make some really boneheaded decisions in game time, but he has never really put a stinker product (excepting his rookie season) out on the field for a whole season. i dunno. if lovie has a real downfall...its that he's loyal. loyal to bad coaches, loyal to certain bad gameplans, loyal sometimes, to players. (though, sometimes bizarrely quick to make other personnel changes while sticking with pitiful performance at other positions, its a conundrum)

 

and martz, though he doesn't seem to know his limitations, can actually call a damn offensive game, something we haven't had in decades. he and cutler are on the same page, and damn i just wish we had a [expletive] offensive line, jesus christ angelo, is this so hard???

 

please win. i would really like it.

[rawaction]

The defensive backfield is not that good. And Urlacher is not back to his old self. The DBs have been solid this year, but like any other team they've been exposed when there is no pass rush. Luckily, there has been enough of a pass rush and the run D has made teams 1-dimensional, so the DBs probably look a lot better than they really are. DJ Moore has been great this year, but Tillman is probably having his worst year in about 4-5 years and Chris Harris is still just serviceable.

 

As for Urlacher, I don't think he's the same player he was like in 2006. But he's still a very good player. I think it's pretty clear that Briggs is the better LB at this point, but Urlacher is still a quality player and better than any possible alternative the Bears would have at MLB.

 

It may be all smoke and mirrors, but the key is that the players believe. They believe the crap about getting the same OL unit in there together for consecutive weeks, they believe Martz is a genius (even though they are still a bottom 1/3 offensive team), they believe in Rod Marinelli (even though it's the same system they've been running w/ no success for the previous 3 years), and they believe in Lovie Smith. I guess that's all that matters.

[rawaction]

My keys to the game:

 

1. Make them work. The Eagles have scored on big plays, and they've shown they can score on long drives. But it's pretty clear they would rather strike quickly and hit you with big plays. Vick's QB rating is 83 on throws under 10 yards, and an opportunistic Bears defense can make him pay if he gets impatient and tries to go for the big play. I'd rather Vick run than be able to throw the ball over 20 yards down the field.

 

2. Make them pay. Vick, McCoy, Maclin, and Jackson are all small guys. Gotta get hits on them whenever you can. Jackson and Vick have already missed games due to being hit. McCoy has played with broken ribs. Maclin has been banged up a couple times this year, but played thru it. Hit any of them and I think they lose a step.

 

3. Remember the TE and RB. Eagles pass D is pretty solid, but they have been exposed by teams w/ good receiving TEs and RBs.

Had a stretch where they gave up 360 yards and 4 TDs to TEs in 3 games.

 

Week 2- Jahvid Best- 9 catches, 154 yards, Pettigrew 7 for 108.

Week 5- Vernon Davis 5 catches, 104 yards.

Week 8- Jacob Tamme, 11 for 108, Brown 3-47

 

Olsen and Forte are huge matchup problems for their LBs. Gotta make a strong effort to get them the ball.

 

4. Stay away from Samuel. Asante Samuel is a better version of Deangelo Hall. When the Eagles blitz (which is a lot) he will jump the quick short routes. He is susceptible to the double move though, so if you do pick on him you better have time in the pocket. Also, there is no need to really throw his way because the Eagles other CBs aren't anything special. Patterson has been decent since entering the lineup, but he and the nickel can be beat in man coverage.

[rawaction]

Asante Samuel is not practicing today either. He hasn't practiced all week. Meaning he is questionable at best for Sunday.

[Magnetic Curses]

i don't hate lovie smith, more than that, i want to like lovie smith. he seems to make some really boneheaded decisions in game time, but he has never really put a stinker product (excepting his rookie season) out on the field for a whole season. i dunno. if lovie has a real downfall...its that he's loyal. loyal to bad coaches, loyal to certain bad gameplans, loyal sometimes, to players. (though, sometimes bizarrely quick to make other personnel changes while sticking with pitiful performance at other positions, its a conundrum)

 

all coaches are loyal, though. the coaches maintain their assistants and players because they actuall DO believe in them.

 

remember our coach before lovie and a certain offensive coordinator he simply would not let go?

[UMFan83]

lol...Bill Simmons finally picks us in a game and spends the entire paragraph giving us backhanded compliments.

 

BEARS (+3.5) over Eagles

Because I'm tired of getting beaten by the Bears. Uncle. Besides, defense + special teams + a quarterback who can convert third-and-longs = good enough for 10-11 wins these days. I should have realized that about three weeks ago. FYI: The Eagles are long overdue for one of those textbook Andy Reid era "How the hell did we lose that game?????" losses: killer penalties, one brutal turnover at the worst possible time, poor clock management at the end of at least one half … you know what I mean. They're overdue.

[TruffleShuffle]

i love how much he goofs on andy reid for being an awful coach. yes, he makes some poor clock management decisions and poor challenges. those are not the only things a head coach does.