Bears game 13: Sunday, Dec 12 vs NE on CBS

[bukie]

Fine, openly hoping.

[UMFan83]

So you put GB above the Falcons? The Falcons just beat them a week and a half ago.

At home, by 3. Basically a toss-up game, and Green Bay looked better than Atlanta last week.

 

Well I would hope so...GB played a 4-8 team, while Atlanta had to contend with a team that is trying to get a wild card spot in the playoffs. I don't think that's comparing apples to apples.

It's never comparing apples to apples. That is why it's a subjective process. I think Green Bay is better on a neutral field.

 

EDIT: As far as real justification: the Packers have just 3 wins by 7 or fewer points, and have not lost a game by more than 3. The Falcons have just 3 wins by more than 7 points (and 2 against the NFC West...that hardly counts), and lost to Philly by 14.

 

In a one game sample size where everything can and will happen I wouldn't take what happened in the GB/ATL game as indisputable proof that one team is better than another. I would look more or less at the entire season as a sample size, as well as how good that team has played over the last several games. Atlanta has played 12 games and lost 2, GB has played 12 games and last 4, including one to Atlanta. But GB has probably played like the better team over the last several weeks, as they have only lost once in their last 6 games (to ATL) and have blown out several teams along the way.

[Banedon]

But GB has probably played like the better team over the last several weeks, as they have only lost once in their last 6 games (to ATL) and have blown out several teams along the way.

 

Atlanta's won 7 in a row and their only 2 losses this season have come to division leaders on the road. No Dolphin or Redskin losses in there.

[Guest]

And none of those injuries that the Packers are recovering from.

[Banedon]

And none of those injuries that the Packers are recovering from.

 

We aren't measuring the team that they'd be if they were fully healthy. We're measuring who the best team is now.

[sneakypower]

My totally subjective power rankings:

 

1. New England

2. Green Bay

3. Atlanta

4. Pittsburgh

5. Baltimore

6. Chicago

7. Philly

8. NY Giants

9. NY Jets

10. New Orleans

11. Kansas City

12. San Diego

13. Tampa Bay

14. Indy

15. Minnesota

16. Miami

17. Cleveland

18. Dallas

19. Washington

20. Jacksonville

21. Detroit

22. Houston

23. Tennessee

24. Oakland

25. St. Louis

26. Cincinnati

27. Denver

28. San Francisco

29. Seattle

30. Buffalo

31. Arizona

32. Carolina

it'd be really cool if we were in the NFCW this year. the fans would think we were making huge improvements/strides (we are) and i have to think we'd be in strong contention for the playoffs too. at this point, i'd be ok with a successful season tainted by dismal competition.

 

for your list, Oakland and Washington probably ought to be flip-flopped, imo.

[Guest]

And none of those injuries that the Packers are recovering from.

 

We aren't measuring the team that they'd be if they were fully healthy. We're measuring who the best team is now.

 

Correct. If you're going to incorporate W-L record, you have to consider injuries in those losses if those players have returned (like Matthews vs Miami).

[Formerly Snayke]

for your list, Oakland and Washington probably ought to be flip-flopped, imo.

 

Yeah, Washington is awful.

[jersey cubs fan]

for your list, Oakland and Washington probably ought to be flip-flopped, imo.

 

Yeah, Washington is awful.

 

So is Oakland, and they play in and against the worst divisions in football.

[Banedon]

And none of those injuries that the Packers are recovering from.

 

We aren't measuring the team that they'd be if they were fully healthy. We're measuring who the best team is now.

 

Correct. If you're going to incorporate W-L record, you have to consider injuries in those losses if those players have returned (like Matthews vs Miami).

 

UMfan brought up GB's winning streak. I was pointing out that Atlanta's is longer. During their streak they had 4 wins against playoff contending teams (TB Twice, GB and Baltimore). During GB's, they played 2 winning teams...and lost one...to Atlanta.

 

Again, I'm not saying that GB is a bad team. But I think Atlanta has done plenty to earn the benefit of the doubt, imo.

[minnesotacubsfan]

OF THE BEARS 3 LOSSES, TWO WERE BY 3 POINTS. AND WE HAVE FEWER LOSSES THEN GB.

 

THAT MEANS SOMETHING.

 

THATS WHY I'M SHOUTING

[bukie]

And none of those injuries that the Packers are recovering from.

 

We aren't measuring the team that they'd be if they were fully healthy. We're measuring who the best team is now.

 

Correct. If you're going to incorporate W-L record, you have to consider injuries in those losses if those players have returned (like Matthews vs Miami).

 

UMfan brought up GB's winning streak. I was pointing out that Atlanta's is longer. During their streak they had 4 wins against playoff contending teams (TB Twice, GB and Baltimore). During GB's, they played 2 winning teams...and lost one...to Atlanta.

 

Again, I'm not saying that GB is a bad team. But I think Atlanta has done plenty to earn the benefit of the doubt, imo.

It's not like I put Atlanta 10th or anything, though.

[JonJayCutler]

Green Bay is not the best team in the NFL, or the 2nd best. I'd rank them around 5th. I prefer people overrating them though.

[Banedon]

And none of those injuries that the Packers are recovering from.

 

We aren't measuring the team that they'd be if they were fully healthy. We're measuring who the best team is now.

 

Correct. If you're going to incorporate W-L record, you have to consider injuries in those losses if those players have returned (like Matthews vs Miami).

 

UMfan brought up GB's winning streak. I was pointing out that Atlanta's is longer. During their streak they had 4 wins against playoff contending teams (TB Twice, GB and Baltimore). During GB's, they played 2 winning teams...and lost one...to Atlanta.

 

Again, I'm not saying that GB is a bad team. But I think Atlanta has done plenty to earn the benefit of the doubt, imo.

It's not like I put Atlanta 10th or anything, though.

 

Yeah...and it probably got a lot more discussion than it needed...lol

[UMFan83]

And none of those injuries that the Packers are recovering from.

 

We aren't measuring the team that they'd be if they were fully healthy. We're measuring who the best team is now.

 

Correct. If you're going to incorporate W-L record, you have to consider injuries in those losses if those players have returned (like Matthews vs Miami).

 

UMfan brought up GB's winning streak. I was pointing out that Atlanta's is longer. During their streak they had 4 wins against playoff contending teams (TB Twice, GB and Baltimore). During GB's, they played 2 winning teams...and lost one...to Atlanta.

 

Again, I'm not saying that GB is a bad team. But I think Atlanta has done plenty to earn the benefit of the doubt, imo.

 

Point taken, but I wouldn't consider TB a playoff contender until they win a game against a .500 team. I realize they are technically "contending" but they have never really been considered a playoff contender to me. They aren't horrible, but not particularly good IMO. They are on the upswing though. I like their D and I like Josh Johnson.

[JonJayCutler]

Correct. If you're going to incorporate W-L record, you have to consider injuries in those losses if those players have returned (like Matthews vs Miami).

 

If we're doing this, then you have to take into consideration the Bears injury to Cutler. They trailed just 3-0 at the half in that game against the Giants. If Cutler starts the 2nd half instead of Todd freaking Collins, who knows how that game ends up? Same with the Seattle and Washington games where one can argue that the concussion had a lasting effect on his play. If the Bears are 12-0 or even 11-1, I'm pretty sure they're ranked #1 or 2.

 

Of course this argument goes against my butterfly effect theory to some extent, but what the hell. Flap, Lovie, flap! :-)

[UMFan83]

Article about the Bears this season from a gambling perspective as it relates to the Bears/Pats game:

 

Oh those crazy Chicago Bears. There were 105 Hilton contestants who picked them to win by 3.5 points or more in Detroit on Sunday, including me, and they were all rewarded. But it wasn't easy, which is true of every game this team seems to play. Let me take you to the end of the first half.

 

During the Bears' five-game win streak, Jay Cutler has 10 touchdown passes and just three interceptions.The Bears, after trailing most of the game, went ahead 14-10 with 4:40 remaining after a solid five-minute drive. It was everything you expect from a team that is 9-3 and atop its division: A mix of good runs and short passes that ate up yardage and time, while frustrating the defense. As a fan, nee as a gambler, you see that and think, "Okay, these Bears are so much better than the Lions. This game should go my way."

 

Then the Lions get the ball at their own nine-yard-line with 53 seconds left in the half and need just two plays to score a go-ahead touchdown against one of the best defenses in football.

 

"Uh oh," I thought. "It's going to be one of those days." And it was. The Lions went up 20-14 midway through the third on another field goal. It wasn't until eight minutes remained in the fourth that the Bears, who have one of the best records in football, were able to wrestle control back from the 2-10 Lions and score the cover (if you had minus-3.5) touchdown. And they needed a phantom unnecessary roughness call against Ndamukong Suh to aid the drive.

 

So who are these guys? The team that started the season 3-0? The team that went 1-3 the next month -- and looked very bad against the Seattle Seahawks, Washington Redskins and New York Giants in those losses? Or the team that has steamrolled the Philadelphia Eagles, Miami Dolphins and Minnesota Vikings during its recent five-game win streak? All season bettors had been against the Bears because of their mercurial ways the first six weeks of the year. But during the win streak -- playing quality teams, mind you -- they are 3-1-1 against the spread. They have averaged 24 points per game and given up just 15.6. Jay Cutler has 10 touchdown passes and just three interceptions. And, from a gambling perspective, here's what is most interesting: For the season Chicago's D allows just 4.9 yards per play, third best in the league.

 

After last night's annhilation of the Jets, Tom Brady and the Pats are 2.5-point favorites against the Bears.Now, they happen to be playing at home against the hottest team in football this weekend: the New England Patriots. Perhaps you have heard of them. It's worth noting that, despite last night's dominant performance, the Pats allow 5.7 yards per play, which is amongst the league's worst. And there is this, too: The Pats are currently favored by 2.5. Two other times this season the Bears faced the league's team of the moment at home as underdogs: the Packers in Week 3 and the Eagles in Week 12.

 

They won both times. These guys are just that crazy.

 

[cubweiser03]

Patriots defense doesnt put a whole lot of pressure on opposing qbs, this is the Bears major weakness so it shouldn't be exploited too dramatically. NE is slight notch above average running the ball, im not too worried with BGE. They have no deep threats and dont push it down the field at all, the Bears safties better not be sitting back like the Eagles game. DJ Moore on Welker will be interesting to see how DJ does. A win would be fantastic, id just like to see the Bears stay competitive which i think they can.

[tfarks]

2.5 points. Its gonna be hard to bet against the Pats winning by a field goal.

 

Hopefully the Bears piss off a bunch of people not just Patriot fans.

[rawaction]

Patriots defense doesnt put a whole lot of pressure on opposing qbs, this is the Bears major weakness so it shouldn't be exploited too dramatically. NE is slight notch above average running the ball, im not too worried with BGE. They have no deep threats and dont push it down the field at all, the Bears safties better not be sitting back like the Eagles game. DJ Moore on Welker will be interesting to see how DJ does. A win would be fantastic, id just like to see the Bears stay competitive which i think they can.

 

The Pats are 4th in the league in yards per passing attempt. And while they are middle of the pack in yards per reception, they have just 2 plays fewer over 20 yards than Green Bay does.

 

True, they don't have a guy that is a bonafide deep threat, but they will send any and every receiver (besides Welker) down the field. Tate, Hernandez, and Branch can beat you deep if they have the matchup in their favor (1-on-1).

 

I definitely wouldn't play a ton of 2-deep. But you can't just not play Cover 2. Can't really play just 1 style against the Patriots at all, because they can do so many different things offensively.

[Fred Hornkohl]

OF THE BEARS 3 LOSSES, TWO WERE BY 3 POINTS. AND WE HAVE FEWER LOSSES THEN than GB.

 

THAT MEANS SOMETHING.

 

THATS WHY I'M SHOUTING

 

Don't shout. Some people are trying to sleep. :-$

[Magnetic Curses]

Patriots defense doesnt put a whole lot of pressure on opposing qbs, this is the Bears major weakness so it shouldn't be exploited too dramatically. NE is slight notch above average running the ball, im not too worried with BGE. They have no deep threats and dont push it down the field at all, the Bears safties better not be sitting back like the Eagles game. DJ Moore on Welker will be interesting to see how DJ does. A win would be fantastic, id just like to see the Bears stay competitive which i think they can.

 

The Pats are 4th in the league in yards per passing attempt. And while they are middle of the pack in yards per reception, they have just 2 plays fewer over 20 yards than Green Bay does.

 

True, they don't have a guy that is a bonafide deep threat, but they will send any and every receiver (besides Welker) down the field. Tate, Hernandez, and Branch can beat you deep if they have the matchup in their favor (1-on-1).

 

I definitely wouldn't play a ton of 2-deep. But you can't just not play Cover 2. Can't really play just 1 style against the Patriots at all, because they can do so many different things offensively.

 

i disagree, gotta go with heavy doses of the tampa-2, which is player contingent not scheme contingent. if the players are doing well, it needs very little tweaking. the bears shouldn't outthink themselves. do what you do well and make new england play differently, don't get into a chess match with belichick, you'll lose.

[bcl412]

So you put GB above the Falcons? The Falcons just beat them a week and a half ago.

At home, by 3. Basically a toss-up game, and Green Bay looked better than Atlanta last week.

 

Well I would hope so...GB played a 4-8 team, while Atlanta had to contend with a team that is trying to get a wild card spot in the playoffs. I don't think that's comparing apples to apples.

It's never comparing apples to apples. That is why it's a subjective process. I think Green Bay is better on a neutral field.

 

EDIT: As far as real justification: the Packers have just 3 wins by 7 or fewer points, and have not lost a game by more than 3. The Falcons have just 3 wins by more than 7 points (and 2 against the NFC West...that hardly counts), and lost to Philly by 14.

 

In a one game sample size where everything can and will happen I wouldn't take what happened in the GB/ATL game as indisputable proof that one team is better than another. I would look more or less at the entire season as a sample size, as well as how good that team has played over the last several games. Atlanta has played 12 games and lost 2, GB has played 12 games and last 4, including one to Atlanta. But GB has probably played like the better team over the last several weeks, as they have only lost once in their last 6 games (to ATL) and have blown out several teams along the way.

 

I think Atlanta is better and am kind of surprised to see Green Bay at the top of any power rankings. However, their (along with every one elses schedule in the North) has been tough.

[cubweiser03]

Patriots defense doesnt put a whole lot of pressure on opposing qbs, this is the Bears major weakness so it shouldn't be exploited too dramatically. NE is slight notch above average running the ball, im not too worried with BGE. They have no deep threats and dont push it down the field at all, the Bears safties better not be sitting back like the Eagles game. DJ Moore on Welker will be interesting to see how DJ does. A win would be fantastic, id just like to see the Bears stay competitive which i think they can.

 

The Pats are 4th in the league in yards per passing attempt. And while they are middle of the pack in yards per reception, they have just 2 plays fewer over 20 yards than Green Bay does.

 

True, they don't have a guy that is a bonafide deep threat, but they will send any and every receiver (besides Welker) down the field. Tate, Hernandez, and Branch can beat you deep if they have the matchup in their favor (1-on-1).

 

I definitely wouldn't play a ton of 2-deep. But you can't just not play Cover 2. Can't really play just 1 style against the Patriots at all, because they can do so many different things offensively.

 

Brady completes 67% of his passes, yards per attempt doesnt mean he throws the ball down the field. Bears should play their defense but the safties can cheat on the short/intermediate routes more with NE than Philly. Their zone defense should stop the YAC's and their big run after the catches plays. Jets got beat bad on a lot of man-to-man plays. The dline needs to get pressure or they are complete toast.

[rawaction]

Patriots defense doesnt put a whole lot of pressure on opposing qbs, this is the Bears major weakness so it shouldn't be exploited too dramatically. NE is slight notch above average running the ball, im not too worried with BGE. They have no deep threats and dont push it down the field at all, the Bears safties better not be sitting back like the Eagles game. DJ Moore on Welker will be interesting to see how DJ does. A win would be fantastic, id just like to see the Bears stay competitive which i think they can.

 

The Pats are 4th in the league in yards per passing attempt. And while they are middle of the pack in yards per reception, they have just 2 plays fewer over 20 yards than Green Bay does.

 

True, they don't have a guy that is a bonafide deep threat, but they will send any and every receiver (besides Welker) down the field. Tate, Hernandez, and Branch can beat you deep if they have the matchup in their favor (1-on-1).

 

I definitely wouldn't play a ton of 2-deep. But you can't just not play Cover 2. Can't really play just 1 style against the Patriots at all, because they can do so many different things offensively.

 

i disagree, gotta go with heavy doses of the tampa-2, which is player contingent not scheme contingent. if the players are doing well, it needs very little tweaking. the bears shouldn't outthink themselves. do what you do well and make new england play differently, don't get into a chess match with belichick, you'll lose.

 

Agree, Bears gotta do what they do well. And what they do well is play aggressively and mix things up. Tampa-2 is fine, but it's not really aggressive at times. They can't let the Patriots catch the ball and then go tackle them. If so, you'll get the SB vs. the Colts all over again. The Bears DBs actually have a size advantage. I'd like to see them disrupt NEs timing as much as they can.