NFC Championship (Bears fans)

[erik316wttn]

I've seen this on a lot of Packer sites, but don't think anyone's posted it here. Terry McAulay will be referee for the game. He was the ref for the Week 3 game when the Packers got 18 penalties.

 

In a game like this I don't think they'll call everything. They'll let them play to an extent and only call the really egregious penalties.

[rawaction]

I've seen this on a lot of Packer sites, but don't think anyone's posted it here. Terry McAulay will be referee for the game. He was the ref for the Week 3 game when the Packers got 18 penalties.

 

In a game like this I don't think they'll call everything. They'll let them play to an extent and only call the really egregious penalties.

 

I'm sure that will be the case as it seemed like it was vs. Seattle this past weekend. But GB had a lot of penalties that are going to get called no matter what. False starts, offsides, late hits will get called regardless of situation. Maybe a few holds are missed, but if Peppers is getting molested like last time, you can't overlook that either.

[Banedon]

There were like 5 pass interference calls against the Pack. 3 personal fouls on the D for roughing the passer, late hit, and facemask. There was an offside on a kickoff.

 

But I also counted 4 holding calls on the OL, an intentional grounding on Rodgers, 2 false starts, and a penalty for the LT on Peppers who got flagged for lining up in the backfield, which was obviously to get an advantage on a passing play.

 

I'd guess you might get fewer PI's. Roughing the passer they'll probably still call, though hopefully they'll be hitting Cutler less than week 3. But PI's and holding are the only ones on there I would think they'd let "play through". Mayyyybe the late hit?

[Soul]

I think this is the biggest game in Chicago for the Bears in the modern era. I think it was a pretty safe assumption the 85 Bears would win. Anything but the Superbowl was just a formality (and that turned out to be that way with the Dolphins not being the opponent). I felt the 2006 NFCC was pretty close to a given to, with a dome team coming to Chicago .

 

This year, you have an underdog team playing their longest and most hated rival. Sure, you lose the NFCC to anyone it's going to suck, but it will suck more to lose to GB.

 

The only game that can really come close IMO is the 88 game vs. the 49ers

 

The whole area was still on a collective high from 85/86 to care as much about 88. I think you are completely overlooking the have never been there, haven't been there in a generation aspect that made those games huge. People think of the January 86 playoff games as formalities now, but that is not how they were at the time. After the loss in Miami, people were thrown for a loop. Doubt definitely crept in. And again, it was the first one ever in a depressingly title starved city. There were no Bulls rings to fall back on, there was no Stanley Cup. There were a couple of miserable failures by the White Sox and Cubs in the early 80's, and nothing.

 

And nobody assumed anything with the Rex Grossman Bears. They were the most talented team, but the outcome was very much in doubt.

 

Regardless, the level of confidence doesn't change the fact that we just did this a couple years ago, but in 85/86 and 06/07, Chicago was coming off very large droughts of football glory - and in the case of 85/86 any glory at all.

 

It's tough, but what I remember about 85/86 was more intense than what I'm seeing now.

 

And I think that's saying something, given that there wasn't the flood of media that there is today.

[bukie]

I think this is the biggest game in Chicago for the Bears in the modern era. I think it was a pretty safe assumption the 85 Bears would win. Anything but the Superbowl was just a formality (and that turned out to be that way with the Dolphins not being the opponent). I felt the 2006 NFCC was pretty close to a given to, with a dome team coming to Chicago .

 

This year, you have an underdog team playing their longest and most hated rival. Sure, you lose the NFCC to anyone it's going to suck, but it will suck more to lose to GB.

 

The only game that can really come close IMO is the 88 game vs. the 49ers

 

The whole area was still on a collective high from 85/86 to care as much about 88. I think you are completely overlooking the have never been there, haven't been there in a generation aspect that made those games huge. People think of the January 86 playoff games as formalities now, but that is not how they were at the time. After the loss in Miami, people were thrown for a loop. Doubt definitely crept in. And again, it was the first one ever in a depressingly title starved city. There were no Bulls rings to fall back on, there was no Stanley Cup. There were a couple of miserable failures by the White Sox and Cubs in the early 80's, and nothing.

 

And nobody assumed anything with the Rex Grossman Bears. They were the most talented team, but the outcome was very much in doubt.

 

Regardless, the level of confidence doesn't change the fact that we just did this a couple years ago, but in 85/86 and 06/07, Chicago was coming off very large droughts of football glory - and in the case of 85/86 any glory at all.

 

It's tough, but what I remember about 85/86 was more intense than what I'm seeing now.

 

And I think that's saying something, given that there wasn't the flood of media that there is today.

The thing about 85/86 that made things so much more intense than they are now is that nobody in Chicago had won anything in sports since 1963 (Bears won NFL in pre-SB era), or even 1961 in a playoff that meant much of anything (Blackhawks). The Bulls were terrible, the Cubs had just choked away their only decent chance in 50 years, the White Sox did pretty much the exact same thing a year earlier, and the Blackhawks couldn't buy a Stanley Cup in an era where 80% of the league made the playoffs.

 

Couple that with the team making a music video about winning the Super Bowl well before the playoffs started (hell, Hampton wanted nothing to do with it because he thought it was cocky and unnecessary), and the terrible Miami loss (Miami was the most likely Super Bowl opponent) there were plenty of reasons to think the Bears wouldn't be able to hold up in the playoffs.

[rawaction]

I think this is the biggest game in Chicago for the Bears in the modern era. I think it was a pretty safe assumption the 85 Bears would win. Anything but the Superbowl was just a formality (and that turned out to be that way with the Dolphins not being the opponent). I felt the 2006 NFCC was pretty close to a given to, with a dome team coming to Chicago .

 

This year, you have an underdog team playing their longest and most hated rival. Sure, you lose the NFCC to anyone it's going to suck, but it will suck more to lose to GB.

 

The only game that can really come close IMO is the 88 game vs. the 49ers

 

The whole area was still on a collective high from 85/86 to care as much about 88. I think you are completely overlooking the have never been there, haven't been there in a generation aspect that made those games huge. People think of the January 86 playoff games as formalities now, but that is not how they were at the time. After the loss in Miami, people were thrown for a loop. Doubt definitely crept in. And again, it was the first one ever in a depressingly title starved city. There were no Bulls rings to fall back on, there was no Stanley Cup. There were a couple of miserable failures by the White Sox and Cubs in the early 80's, and nothing.

 

And nobody assumed anything with the Rex Grossman Bears. They were the most talented team, but the outcome was very much in doubt.

 

Regardless, the level of confidence doesn't change the fact that we just did this a couple years ago, but in 85/86 and 06/07, Chicago was coming off very large droughts of football glory - and in the case of 85/86 any glory at all.

 

It's tough, but what I remember about 85/86 was more intense than what I'm seeing now.

 

And I think that's saying something, given that there wasn't the flood of media that there is today.

 

I was too young to remember the hoopla surrounding 1985, but it just seemed to me that hype was more about solidifying the spot of "best team ever" and what could be the first year of a dynasty.

 

I do buy the "first modern championship for a city that hasn't won anything" but the Bears/Rams game was probably much less stressful for fans leading up to the game.

[UMFan83]

I read an article the other day in the Trib which was basically an interview of Wayne Larivee, who did Bears games in 85 and he said the entire city was nervous wrecks during the playoffs in 85. He said you could walk around the city and almost feel the tension. It wasn't until the first or second touchdown of the NFC title game until people relaxed again. A collective sigh of relief was had. From what I read, the playoffs were absolutely no formality for the fans of this city.

 

On a side note, talking about how the Chicago area was title starved, the 1970's must have been the most depressing time ever to be a Chicago sports fan. The Cubs and Sox didn't make the playoffs once the entire decade, the Bears were awful for a good part of the 70's and were never real contenders the entire decade. The Hawks lost a couple stanley cups earlier in the decade but were a non-factor the rest of the time. The Bulls of the mid-to-late 70's were probably Chicago's best hope for a title, coming within 1 game of the NBA finals once, and making another Western Conference Finals another year, but for the most part the general Chicago public couldnt give 2 shits about them, and even still the team really didn't stand a chance against the Eastern powers like Boston.

[UMFan83]

On a related note, this might just be the golden era of Chicago sports. The baseball teams are still mostly unsuccessful, but they no longer go more than 3-4 years without making the playoffs, and the Sox actually brought a World Series to the city. The Bears have been to the NFC title game twice in the last 5 years, and potentially could be going to 2 super bowls in that time. The Bulls have one of the best and most likable young stars in the NBA, who is Chicago raised and has enormous pride for the team and city, and are now starting to get into that range of possible contenders. And the Hawks won the Stanley Cup last year and has a dynamic core that is poised to contend for the next decade. It's not a stretch to say that all 5 Chicago teams have a chance to win a title in the next decade, although almost surely some will not.

[DiamondMind]

On a related note, this might just be the golden era of Chicago sports.

 

I don't know about a golden era, but recent times have certainly brought us a level of respectability.

[Jon]

Not to mention an awful time to live in the city. 1970s Chicago was probably a post-WWII low point.

[jersey cubs fan]

Not to mention an awful time to live in the city. 1970s Chicago was probably a post-WWII low point.

 

That was true in just about every city in America. The 70's sucked for a variety of reasons.

[Soul]

'70s, and early '80s too.

 

From a Bears perspective, I remember things like "They sent the wrong Armstrong to the Moon" signs, bags over people's heads, freezing in the cold lamenting Avellini tossing another pass into the ground at the receiver's feet. Only Payton brought us any joy -- his greatness was magnified by the sheer ineptitude of the rest of the team.

 

People were crazy for the '85 Bears team. Yes, there was a sense of destiny, but also a real sense that if they blew it, there would be no other chance. That was IT -- the one chance to be more than losers.

 

 

This is really great, with the Packers rivalry and all. But even if this Bears team were to win the Super Bowl it just won't rise to the level that the '85 team did. I think for that to happen, the Bears would have to establish themselves as a dynasty -- win it more than once under Lovie, or someone else. That's the only way a Bears team could eclipse the '85 squad in my mind. Because that's the one thing they failed to do.

[Jon]

Not to mention an awful time to live in the city. 1970s Chicago was probably a post-WWII low point.

 

That was true in just about every city in America. The 70's sucked for a variety of reasons.

Yeah. New York may have been worse.

 

Driving to Carpentersville this evening to pick up my Bears tickets. Never have I been more excited to fork over $700 in cash.

[mul21]

You also have to consider the huge personalities on the team and the fact that there were several sure fire HOFers on that 85 team, then you add in Ditka as the HC and Buddy Ryan as the DC. The hoopla around this team just isn't quite there. The only reason it's even in the ballpark of some of the other things being discussed is because it's against the Packers.

 

That said, I'm excited as hell about the game and hope they just curb stomp the Pack.

[biittner77]

I was too young to remember the hoopla surrounding 1985, but it just seemed to me that hype was more about solidifying the spot of "best team ever" and what could be the first year of a dynasty.

 

I do buy the "first modern championship for a city that hasn't won anything" but the Bears/Rams game was probably much less stressful for fans leading up to the game.

 

You were probably too young to realize that there was any way they wouldn't win. The Rams IIRC still had Eric Dickerson. The Giants were on their way up. People may have had more confidence about the super bowl but not during the playoffs.

 

This game feels more like the Saints game. All the experts were drooling over the Saints and Brees and what a great story it would be for the Saints to win and the usual hate for all things Chicago that the 4 letter is so famous for.

[erik316wttn]

Man, I really wish I didn't have to work on Sunday. Stupid job.

[jersey cubs fan]

http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2011/01/a-fat-peoples-history-of-the-packers-bears-rivalry.html#more-34144

 

1919: Packers established. Town of Green Bay formed 30 years later.

 

1927: Curly Lambeau suspended after sending telegram to team seamstress Eunice Niemankurtz describing the size of his bed

 

1970: Brian Piccolo out with a lung

 

1997: Mark Chmura fondles a young Jay Cutler. Psychologists determine this has little effect on the future quarterback’s already dour demeanor

 

2005: The ’90s arrive in Green Bay

[Flames24Rulz]

I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned Game 7 of the Bulls-Pacers series in 1998. From what I remember before that game, there wasn't really too much of a question of whether or not the Bulls would win. I guess that has something to do with why that isn't being considered as one of the bigger games in the history of Chicago. But the Pacers built a pretty sustainabile lead before the Bulls came charging back down the stretch to win an, otherwise, ugly game.

 

There was so much on the line in that game that, in retrospect, it should be considered one of the biggest games to take place in Chicago.

[bukie]

I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned Game 7 of the Bulls-Pacers series in 1998. From what I remember before that game, there wasn't really too much of a question of whether or not the Bulls would win. I guess that has something to do with why that isn't being considered as one of the bigger games in the history of Chicago. But the Pacers built a pretty sustainabile lead before the Bulls came charging back down the stretch to win an, otherwise, ugly game.

 

There was so much on the line in that game that, in retrospect, it should be considered one of the biggest games to take place in Chicago.

That one was weird, though, because I don't think too many of the fans in Chicago gave Indiana a real shot. Maybe due to the 5 previous championships, maybe due to the lack of a real rivalry with them during the 90's (it was mostly NY/Detroit/Miami/Cleveland during the dynasty, with maybe a touch of Orlando). Even when they got down, there was a sense they'd come back and win anyway.

[ConstableRabbit]

That was the series where MJ tripped in the lane on what would've been the game winning drive in game 6, right?

[UMFan83]

I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned Game 7 of the Bulls-Pacers series in 1998. From what I remember before that game, there wasn't really too much of a question of whether or not the Bulls would win. I guess that has something to do with why that isn't being considered as one of the bigger games in the history of Chicago. But the Pacers built a pretty sustainabile lead before the Bulls came charging back down the stretch to win an, otherwise, ugly game.

 

There was so much on the line in that game that, in retrospect, it should be considered one of the biggest games to take place in Chicago.

 

I respect your suggestion, but there is no way that game was even close. The hype for this game dwarfed the hype for this game. The Packers and Bears are one of the best rivlaries in sports, and we've played games against them in so many different scenarios, in 10 different decades, in rain, snow, wind, ice, heat waves, when the packers were good and the bears sucked, when the bears were good and the packers sucked, when both teams were good. But one place this rivalry hasn't played out besides once, is in the playoffs. This is huge. The Bulls are maybe the 4th biggest team in Chicago. The Bears are the unquestioned number 1. You never hear people talking about Bulls offseason in June like they do the Bears all year long. And with the Bulls, I remember my exact feelings going into that game. You know what they were? "I wonder how many games it will take us to win the finals". You know what they were when we were down going into the 4th? "This is an awesome way for the Bulls to pull it out". At that point, I wouldnt have believed the Bulls were going to lose until they actually lost. And they didn't. And I know I'm not the only one that thought that way.

 

The Bears and Packers fans both want this so badly. For for the chance to get to a game that each team has only gotten to a couple of times in the last 45 years, for the chance to get the ultimate one up on the fan base that it despises, etc. No one was thinking "oh man I cant wait to one up the stupid pacers fans when we win this", nor were any pacers fans looking to rub it in our faces (or if they did we'd jsut say "yawn we were bored of winning titles every year"). It's really completely different than any other sort of game a Chicago team has ever played, based on the importance of the game, the build up to the game, and the history of the 2 teams. No other game that wasn't a championship game has been able to claim all 3 of those things. That's why its the biggest non-championship game in Chicago history in my lifetime.

Edited January 20, 2011 by UMFan83

[jersey cubs fan]

It's really completely different than any other sort of game a Chicago team has ever played, and that's why its the biggest non-championship game in Chicago history in my lifetime.

 

Except that it's not.

[erik316wttn]

I think if the 8th inning had turned out differently, Game 6 would have been the "Biggest Game in Chicago History". At least to that point.

[UMFan83]

It's really completely different than any other sort of game a Chicago team has ever played, and that's why its the biggest non-championship game in Chicago history in my lifetime.

 

Except that it's not.

 

Name 1 game in the last 27 years, that can match the importance of this game (semi-finals of a major sport playoffs), where the teams playing match the rivalry and hatred of Bears and Packers fans, and the team and event was big enough to impact the entire city, from people who barely follow sports all the way down to the diest of the die hards.

 

You can't

[davell]

It's really completely different than any other sort of game a Chicago team has ever played, and that's why its the biggest non-championship game in Chicago history in my lifetime.

 

Except that it's not.

 

 

What else would be?