Bears game 14: Monday Dec 20, at MIN (TCF)

[jersey cubs fan]

well, they aren't going to win the division every year and if you really want to be fair, smith has won 3 out of 7, that's nearly 50% in a 4 team division, playing against at least one franchise that always seems to find success and doesn't accept failure.

 

And Detroit sucks every year while Minnesota and Green Bay are inconsistent.

 

Even if you don't win the division every year, the good ones should be picking up wild cards with regularity and not finishing at 7-9.

[jersey cubs fan]

Chicago hasn't been New England good, but they also haven't been Indy good, or Philly good or Giants good or Pittsburgh good, or even Chargers good. There are multiple teams that win with a lot of regularity and don't go through 3 year droughts the way the Bears did. Chicago has been better than average under these guys, but let's not pretend it's more than that.

[Magnetic Curses]

It's the same "hey we may not contend for the playoffs every year with our $130 million pay roll, but at least the Cubs are more competitive than they were in the 90s!" reasoning.

 

i don't get your analogy. the bears are far more competitive than they were in the 90's when they were getting spanked by favre every single year and winning one division title, early, under ditka, when there was like one good offensive player in the entire division.

[jersey cubs fan]

It's the same "hey we may not contend for the playoffs every year with our $130 million pay roll, but at least the Cubs are more competitive than they were in the 90s!" reasoning.

 

i don't get your analogy. the bears are far more competitive than they were in the 90's when they were getting spanked by favre every single year and winning one division title, early, under ditka, when there was like one good offensive player in the entire division.

 

And the Cubs have been more competitive than they were in the 90's but still massively disappointing.

[UMFan83]

say what you want about the crappy drafting of angelo and the gutless decision-making and quiet demeanor of smith, but they've brought an era of success with them. smith has won the division 3 out of 7 years competing against some very talented vikings and packer teams. this is a far-cry form the days of wannstedt and jauron.

 

No doubt, but until last night it was 2 in 6 years, and none in the last 4. This division title makes his numbers look a lot better. So go Lovie and Angelo.

 

i don't understand how you can say "none in the last 4," it doesn't make sense.

 

Sorry brain fart. None in the last 3

 

well, they aren't going to win the division every year and if you really want to be fair, smith has won 3 out of 7, that's nearly 50% in a 4 team division, playing against at least one franchise that always seems to find success and doesn't accept failure.

 

I didnt say that 3 out of 7 isn't good. I said that before they won the division, 2 out of 6 with none in the last 3 didn't look good. But this really solidifies his results in his 7 years here.

[Magnetic Curses]

It's the same "hey we may not contend for the playoffs every year with our $130 million pay roll, but at least the Cubs are more competitive than they were in the 90s!" reasoning.

 

i don't get your analogy. the bears are far more competitive than they were in the 90's when they were getting spanked by favre every single year and winning one division title, early, under ditka, when there was like one good offensive player in the entire division.

 

And the Cubs have been more competitive than they were in the 90's but still massively disappointing.

 

the bears have played few meaningless games since lovie's been here and have been to the superbowl. teams don't often make the the super bowl, 2 per year.

 

i don't get what you're expecting, you've named 5 teams that have had more success than the bears, one of which hasn't been to a super bowl and another that is a super bowl victory from being the exact same team as the bears. that's 15% of the league.

 

in the 7 years that lovie has been here, the bears have been valid super bowl contenders 3 times. that should satisfy your "contend for championships, don't just compete within the division" philosophy.

[jersey cubs fan]

the bears have played few meaningless games since lovie's been here and have been to the superbowl. teams don't often make the the super bowl, 2 per year.

 

i don't get what you're expecting, you've named 5 teams that have had more success than the bears, one of which hasn't been to a super bowl and another that is a super bowl victory from being the exact same team as the bears. that's 15% of the league.

 

in the 7 years that lovie has been here, the bears have been valid super bowl contenders 3 times. that should satisfy your "contend for championships, don't just compete within the division" philosophy.

 

They were not a legit super bowl contender in 2005. 2006 yeah, 2010, maybe. Although if they finish as the 3 seed I really doubt it happens. The Cubs have been just as close to being in contention.

 

The Bears have been above average, but nothing special. You are overplaying their success. Plenty of teams have done just as much and more.

[UMFan83]

In terms of playoff appearances only, here is a list of teams that have as good or better of a track record over the last 7 seasons as the Bears:

 

Patriots

Jets

Steelers

Ravens

Colts

Chargers

Eagles

Giants

Cowboys

Packers

Vikings

Falcons

Saints

Seahawks

 

So the Bears are 1 of 15 teams with 3 appearances in the last 7 years. Now I know your rebuttals....all of the Bears were division champs, the Bears went to a Super Bowl, the Bears havent lost more than 9 in a season. But to me, playoff games between teams without a huge talent disparity are a crapshoot, and divisions can we won by 7 wins teams and lost by 12 win teams so I'm not willing to deem a season less successful because you went 12-4 and won a wild card spot instead of going 9-7 and winning your division.

 

3 in 7 years is not bad, but lets not pretend like the Bears were some super power over the last 7 years or that Lovie should get an extension because he made 3 appearances in 7 years. He should be applauded IMO because he's getting the team places where he previous couple of predicessors could not, but he's not the next Tom Landry.

[Magnetic Curses]

It's the same "hey we may not contend for the playoffs every year with our $130 million pay roll, but at least the Cubs are more competitive than they were in the 90s!" reasoning.

 

i don't get your analogy. the bears are far more competitive than they were in the 90's when they were getting spanked by favre every single year and winning one division title, early, under ditka, when there was like one good offensive player in the entire division.

 

And the Cubs have been more competitive than they were in the 90's but still massively disappointing.

 

but the bears haven't spent an exhorbitant amount more than other teams.

 

and it shouldn't have to be said that watching your team play well and make playoff appearances is less disappointing than not watching them do these things. if that's what the analogy is about, it's [expletive] mongoloid.

[jersey cubs fan]

but the bears haven't spent an exhorbitant amount more than other teams.

 

and it shouldn't have to be said that watching your team play well and make playoff appearances is less disappointing than not watching them do these things. if that's what the analogy is about, it's [expletive] mongoloid.

 

They traded for a franchise QB and signed an elite pass rusher, something most teams can't ever do, let alone in back to back seasons. They spent more than most this season and without it likely would have remained on that mediocre path. They haven't done better than about half the league. They are above average but nothing special. I'm not sure how you can possibly argue otherwise and I'm not sure why you would be so giddy if you realized that simple truth.

[Magnetic Curses]

In terms of playoff appearances only, here is a list of teams that have as good or better of a track record over the last 7 seasons as the Bears:

 

Patriots

Jets

Steelers

Ravens

Colts

Chargers

Eagles

Giants

Cowboys

Packers

Vikings

Falcons

Saints

Seahawks

 

So the Bears are 1 of 15 teams with 3 appearances in the last 7 years. Now I know your rebuttals....all of the Bears were division champs, the Bears went to a Super Bowl, the Bears havent lost more than 9 in a season. But to me, playoff games between teams without a huge talent disparity are a crapshoot, and divisions can we won by 7 wins teams and lost by 12 win teams so I'm not willing to deem a season less successful because you went 12-4 and won a wild card spot instead of going 9-7 and winning your division.

 

3 in 7 years is not bad, but lets not pretend like the Bears were some super power over the last 7 years or that Lovie should get an extension because he made 3 appearances in 7 years. He should be applauded IMO because he's getting the team places where he previous couple of predicessors could not, but he's not the next Tom Landry.

 

i'm not pretending that they've been some super-power, expecting them to roll over other teams-year-after year is just juvenile.

 

they've been a good team in the mix for a super bowl appearance in any given year and that's all you can ask. asking them to be the patriots or the steelers pays no attention to just how hard it is or just how forthunate you have to be to build teams like that.

 

there aren't many bill belichicks or dick lebeau's out there up for grabs. those guys are geniuses, they don't get those reputations by being simply successful and they don't move around very often.

[rawaction]

Of those 15 teams, only the Patriots, Colts, Steelers (2), Giants and Saints have rings. Only the Eagles and Seahawks have even been to the SB besides the Bears.

 

It's hard to put the rest of those teams over the Bears, even with the same (or more) years of playoffs. So, at worst, the Bears are 8th in the NFL the last 7 years. But then when you consider the Eagles SB appearance was 7 years ago. The Seahawks are on their way to a 3rd straight 10 loss season. Even the Saints are only included if you count this year as them being in (haven't clinched yet), and they have 4 of 7 season at 500 or worse, including a 3-13.

[jersey cubs fan]

i'm not pretending that they've been some super-power, expecting them to roll over other teams-year-after year is just juvenile.

 

they've been a good team in the mix for a super bowl appearance in any given year and that's all you can ask. asking them to be the patriots or the steelers pays no attention to just how hard it is or just how forthunate you have to be to build teams like that.

 

How have they been super bowl contenders in any given year? It's not just Pittsburgh and New England, there are several other teams that have done more than them and avoided the longterm mediocrity that they provided.

 

It's not about expecting them to roll over teams every year. It's about not getting carried away with the praise you are handing out. They did a hell of a job bouncing back from the mess they made this year, but it took them way too long to get over the super bowl hangover and they really haven't done anything special.

[jersey cubs fan]

Of those 15 teams, only the Patriots, Colts, Steelers (2), Giants and Saints have rings. Only the Eagles and Seahawks have even been to the SB besides the Bears.

 

It's hard to put the rest of those teams over the Bears, even with the same (or more) years of playoffs. So, at worst, the Bears are 8th in the NFL the last 7 years. But then when you consider the Eagles SB appearance was 7 years ago. The Seahawks are on their way to a 3rd straight 10 loss season. Even the Saints are only included if you count this year as them being in (haven't clinched yet), and they have 4 of 7 season at 500 or worse, including a 3-13.

 

I'm not sure why the Eagles super bowl appearance being 7 years ago and the Bears being 4 matters. Philly wins every year. They don't suffer the three year drought the Bears did. And while getting to the super bowl was great, they shouldn't receive that much of a boost from it unless they win it. Making the playoffs every year is what matters. Going 7-9, 9-7, 7-9 should count heavily against them. That is prolonged mediocrity.

[Magnetic Curses]

but the bears haven't spent an exhorbitant amount more than other teams.

 

and it shouldn't have to be said that watching your team play well and make playoff appearances is less disappointing than not watching them do these things. if that's what the analogy is about, it's [expletive] mongoloid.

 

They traded for a franchise QB and signed an elite pass rusher, something most teams can't ever do, let alone in back to back seasons. They spent more than most this season and without it likely would have remained on that mediocre path.

 

that's not the argument, the bears are barely in the top 10 in payroll. what the [expletive] are you going off about? so they got lucky and were able to trade for cutler and give enough to get peppers, it's not like they are top 3 in salary and at the bottom in terms of performance.

 

the analogy was asinine, regardless of the bizarre places you've taken us trying to defend it. and it wasn't even yours in the first place. fall on your own sword next time.

[jersey cubs fan]

but the bears haven't spent an exhorbitant amount more than other teams.

 

and it shouldn't have to be said that watching your team play well and make playoff appearances is less disappointing than not watching them do these things. if that's what the analogy is about, it's [expletive] mongoloid.

 

They traded for a franchise QB and signed an elite pass rusher, something most teams can't ever do, let alone in back to back seasons. They spent more than most this season and without it likely would have remained on that mediocre path.

 

that's not the argument, the bears are barely in the top 10 in payroll. what the [expletive] are you going off about? so they got lucky and were able to trade for cutler and give enough to get peppers, it's not like they are top 3 in salary and at the bottom in terms of performance.

 

the analogy was asinine, regardless of the bizarre places you've taken us trying to defend it. and it wasn't even yours in the first place. fall on your own sword next time.

 

The analogy was perfectly reasonable. I do not understand your insistence on suddenly pretending this organization has been outstanding, coming off weeks and weeks of your pathetic handwring it makes even less sense.

[Magnetic Curses]

but the bears haven't spent an exhorbitant amount more than other teams.

 

and it shouldn't have to be said that watching your team play well and make playoff appearances is less disappointing than not watching them do these things. if that's what the analogy is about, it's [expletive] mongoloid.

 

They traded for a franchise QB and signed an elite pass rusher, something most teams can't ever do, let alone in back to back seasons. They spent more than most this season and without it likely would have remained on that mediocre path.

 

that's not the argument, the bears are barely in the top 10 in payroll. what the [expletive] are you going off about? so they got lucky and were able to trade for cutler and give enough to get peppers, it's not like they are top 3 in salary and at the bottom in terms of performance.

 

the analogy was asinine, regardless of the bizarre places you've taken us trying to defend it. and it wasn't even yours in the first place. fall on your own sword next time.

 

The analogy was perfectly reasonable. I do not understand your insistence on suddenly pretending this organization has been outstanding, coming off weeks and weeks of your pathetic handwring it makes even less sense.

 

okay, so the analogy is perfectly reasonable except the bears aren't even close to spending the most money in the nfc and have won the division with doing it?

 

you got me, it's perfectly reasonable.

[Magnetic Curses]

Of those 15 teams, only the Patriots, Colts, Steelers (2), Giants and Saints have rings. Only the Eagles and Seahawks have even been to the SB besides the Bears.

 

It's hard to put the rest of those teams over the Bears, even with the same (or more) years of playoffs. So, at worst, the Bears are 8th in the NFL the last 7 years. But then when you consider the Eagles SB appearance was 7 years ago. The Seahawks are on their way to a 3rd straight 10 loss season. Even the Saints are only included if you count this year as them being in (haven't clinched yet), and they have 4 of 7 season at 500 or worse, including a 3-13.

 

I'm not sure why the Eagles super bowl appearance being 7 years ago and the Bears being 4 matters. Philly wins every year. They don't suffer the three year drought the Bears did. And while getting to the super bowl was great, they shouldn't receive that much of a boost from it unless they win it. Making the playoffs every year is what matters. Going 7-9, 9-7, 7-9 should count heavily against them. That is prolonged mediocrity.

 

in 2008, they were a matt ryan prayer away from the playoffs and philly being out. it was a pretty exciting season that ultimately ended in disappointment, but it was worth watching. it was the same year the cardinals made the playoffs at 9-7 and made the super bowl.

[jersey cubs fan]

okay, so the analogy is perfectly reasonable except the bears aren't even close to spending the most money in the nfc and have won the division with doing it?

 

you got me, it's perfectly reasonable.

 

The analogy is Bears sucked in the 90's and have been better the latter half of the 2000's, and so you are pretending they have been something more than they have. Likewise, the Cubs sucked in the 90's but did better in the mid 2000's and some people were willing to pretend that was amazing because of the lack of prior success.

 

It seems to me you are trying to make up for your extreme lack of faith in this team prior to this morning by acting as though this organization has been terrific. They have been better than average and nothing more and there's no reason to pretend otherwise.

[Magnetic Curses]

okay, so the analogy is perfectly reasonable except the bears aren't even close to spending the most money in the nfc and have won the division with doing it?

 

you got me, it's perfectly reasonable.

 

The analogy is Bears sucked in the 90's and have been better the latter half of the 2000's, and so you are pretending they have been something more than they have. Likewise, the Cubs sucked in the 90's but did better in the mid 2000's and some people were willing to pretend that was amazing because of the lack of prior success.

 

this is where it's completely stupid, even if you take payroll out of it, you get "success isn't better than no success."

 

i like when my teams are successful and the bears have been successful in the lovie smith era. i don't know how you can dispute that.

[jersey cubs fan]

in 2008, they were a matt ryan prayer away from the playoffs and philly being out. it was a pretty exciting season that ultimately ended in disappointment, but it was worth watching. it was the same year the cardinals made the playoffs at 9-7 and made the super bowl.

 

Every football seasons ends with teams who think they were one play away from contending for the super bowl. We can only guy by the actual results and the actual results were disappointing for three straight seasons after the super bowl appearance. They have finished above .500 4 times in the Lovie era and below 3 times. They have been above .500 5 times in the Jerry Angelo era and below 5 times. There's no reason to pretend these guys have been outstanding. They've done an alright job.

[jersey cubs fan]

okay, so the analogy is perfectly reasonable except the bears aren't even close to spending the most money in the nfc and have won the division with doing it?

 

you got me, it's perfectly reasonable.

 

The analogy is Bears sucked in the 90's and have been better the latter half of the 2000's, and so you are pretending they have been something more than they have. Likewise, the Cubs sucked in the 90's but did better in the mid 2000's and some people were willing to pretend that was amazing because of the lack of prior success.

 

this is where it's completely stupid, even if you take payroll out of it, you get "success isn't better than no success."

 

i like when my teams are successful and the bears have been successful in the lovie smith era. i don't know how you can dispute that.

 

Are you that dumb?

 

What you get is, "People with low expectations and a history of failure are far more accepting of minimal success than they probably should be."

 

Seriously, it's a straight forward comparison that doesn't take a lot of thought to understand and you are completely oblivious.

 

Do you not remember the "well they were over .500 in back to back seasons for the first time in 30 years so Jim Hendry must be the guy for the job" nonsense?

[Magnetic Curses]

in 2008, they were a matt ryan prayer away from the playoffs and philly being out. it was a pretty exciting season that ultimately ended in disappointment, but it was worth watching. it was the same year the cardinals made the playoffs at 9-7 and made the super bowl.

 

Every football seasons ends with teams who think they were one play away from contending for the super bowl.

 

except in this instance they actually were literally 1 play away from the playoffs. and again, the cardinals were a super bowl team with the exact "mediocre" record we sported that year.

 

We can only guy by the actual results and the actual results were disappointing for three straight seasons after the super bowl appearance. They have finished above .500 4 times in the Lovie era and below 3 times. They have been above .500 5 times in the Jerry Angelo era and below 5 times. There's no reason to pretend these guys have been outstanding. They've done an alright job.

 

we're talking about the angelo/smith era, not the angelo era. and they've been a top quarter of the league team in that era. expecting them to be the patriots is childlike.

[Magnetic Curses]

okay, so the analogy is perfectly reasonable except the bears aren't even close to spending the most money in the nfc and have won the division with doing it?

 

you got me, it's perfectly reasonable.

 

The analogy is Bears sucked in the 90's and have been better the latter half of the 2000's, and so you are pretending they have been something more than they have. Likewise, the Cubs sucked in the 90's but did better in the mid 2000's and some people were willing to pretend that was amazing because of the lack of prior success.

 

this is where it's completely stupid, even if you take payroll out of it, you get "success isn't better than no success."

 

i like when my teams are successful and the bears have been successful in the lovie smith era. i don't know how you can dispute that.

 

Are you that dumb?

 

What you get is, "People with low expectations and a history of failure are far more accepting of minimal success than they probably should be."

 

Seriously, it's a straight forward comparison that doesn't take a lot of thought to understand and you are completely oblivious.

 

Do you not remember the "well they were over .500 in back to back seasons for the first time in 30 years so Jim Hendry must be the guy for the job" nonsense?

 

no, you're dumb.

[jersey cubs fan]

we're talking about the angelo/smith era, not the angelo era. and they've been a top quarter of the league team in that era. expecting them to be the patriots is childlike.

 

It may be unrealistic but I don't see what is childlike about it. That being said, I'm not expecting them to be Patriots like. There are plenty of other teams they don't measure up to either. But again, that isn't the point. I'm just not sure why you are suddenly fellating this often, and recently, disappointing organization. I am happy with where they are at and enjoying the hell out of this season. It's been good. You aren't making any sense though so I'm not sure there is any point continuing whatever discussion you are trying to have.