Bears game 1: Sunday, Sep 11 vs ATL, noon on Fox

[sneakypower]

The Bears were 7-3 in games decided by a touchdown or less, and that includes a mostly meaningless loss to the Packers in Week 17. Winning close games at that rate is not a product of talent.

 

Steelers were 6-2 in games decided by a touchdown or less last year. I wonder if that will be mentioned?

the Steelers also had a pt differential of +143 vs. +58 for the Bears, which better allows them to escape that criticism

[Banedon]

I'm feeling pretty good about this game. The Falcons have not been able to run the ball either of the last couple times they have played. Both teams are mostly the same (Falcons add Julio Jones, lost Dahl; Bears have Peppers and different safeties) from the last time they played 2 seasons ago.

 

That makes the Falcons 1-dimensional. From what I've seen this preseason, the Falcons D looks just like it did in the playoffs last year. The Steelers really lit them up in Week 3, which is the telling week of the preseason. Not that I'm putting a ton of stock into that, but the last 2 times they've gameplanned, the Falcons have given up 580 passing yards in 6 quarters.

 

Plus, the Bears usually come out pretty strong defensively to start the season when everyone is healthy. I think the Bears take this one. Not sure about the 2 after that.

 

The secondary for the Bears better be strong. Ryan is gonna throw until his shoulder snaps.

[Banedon]

The Bears were 7-3 in games decided by a touchdown or less, and that includes a mostly meaningless loss to the Packers in Week 17. Winning close games at that rate is not a product of talent.

 

Steelers were 6-2 in games decided by a touchdown or less last year. I wonder if that will be mentioned?

the Steelers also had a pt differential of +143 vs. +58 for the Bears, which better allows them to escape that criticism

 

How so? The author flat out said that games decided by a touchdown or less are not a product of talent. There was no equivocation. So either the Steelers were lucky, or the author's premise is wrong.

[Castro13]

Lance Briggs has requested a trade....

 

http://espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/story/_/id/6921421/chicago-bears-lance-briggs-seeks-trade-not-getting-raise

[Banedon]

Lance Briggs has requested a trade....

 

http://espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/story/_/id/6921421/chicago-bears-lance-briggs-seeks-trade-not-getting-raise

 

Much discussion in the preseason game 4 thread.

[ELCABALLO45]

Excited to have football back. Excited to watch Julio Jones, Bears by 3.

[UMFan83]

At the end of this Simmons podcast, the guy who wrote the afore mentioned pretenders article says: "The Bears might be the worst team in football this year. They are that bad"

 

Geez. I cannot see a defense led by Urlacher Briggs and Peppers even being close to the worst team in football. They might go like 7-9 if things don't work out but not 4-12. As questionable as Lovie has been at times, he has only 1 season where the team has finished worst than 7-9, and that was way back in 2004, his first season as a head coach.

[JonJayCutler]

At the end of this Simmons podcast, the guy who wrote the afore mentioned pretenders article says: "The Bears might be the worst team in football this year. They are that bad"

 

Geez. I cannot see a defense led by Urlacher Briggs and Peppers even being close to the worst team in football. They might go like 7-9 if things don't work out but not 4-12. As questionable as Lovie has been at times, he has only 1 season where the team has finished worst than 7-9, and that was way back in 2004, his first season as a head coach.

 

On one hand there is really no excuse for such predictions. What is this even based off of? Saying a team will regress is one thing, but saying they will go from a Top 4 finish in the NFL right down to 32nd without losing any core players reaks of pure ignorance. How come every good the year the Bears have is due to "luck" or a "fluke"? Two NFC Championship game appearances in the last five years, when does it stop becoming a fluke? Maybe wishful thinking so people can say they were right about Cutler being a "loser"? It wouldn't surprise me.

 

On the other hand, I'm very glad once again to see all the Bears hate. Locker room fodder seems to go along way for this team. The last two times before this year when they were predicted by some to be the worst team in the NFL (going into 2008 and 2010), they finished 9-7 and 11-5 respectively.

[jersey cubs fan]

You forgot about dr z in 2005

[rawaction]

Don't understand how anyone could pick the Bears as the worst team. Also don't understand the "easy schedule" stuff from last year.

 

GB isn't going to be any tougher

Detroit may be tougher, but Minnesota isn't as good as they were last year

Play Carolina again. Play Seattle again. Play the Eagles again. All should be about the same as last year in "difficulty"

 

Replace: Giants, Cowboys, Redskins (lost 2 of 3) with Saints, Falcons, Buccaneers. Ok, probably tougher on paper in the NFC schedule.

But also replace: Patriots, Jets, Dolphins (on short week), Bills with Chargers, Chiefs, Raiders, Broncos. Pats and Jets better last year than any of AFC West will be this year.

 

The Bears have 7 games vs. 10-win teams from last year on the schedule this year. All other teams had .500 or worse records.

Last year, the Bears went into the season with 7 games vs. 10-win teams from 2009 on the schedule. Also, played the Jets who won 9 in 2009.

 

The schedule isn't much tougher than last year, especially when the Bears went to Dallas early enough that they were still a shoe-in playoff pick. Can talk about the Bears getting an injured Dolphins team, but they still had to travel to Miami on a short week.

[Magnetic Curses]

http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/articles/lovie-smith-says-voices-in-headset-keep-calling-hi,21267/

[Soul]

Every year it seems there is someone who thinks the Bears will be horrible (usually more than one person).

 

I like it. Please forward this on to Lovie & crew.

[UMFan83]

Don't understand how anyone could pick the Bears as the worst team. Also don't understand the "easy schedule" stuff from last year.

 

GB isn't going to be any tougher

Detroit may be tougher, but Minnesota isn't as good as they were last year

Play Carolina again. Play Seattle again. Play the Eagles again. All should be about the same as last year in "difficulty"

 

Replace: Giants, Cowboys, Redskins (lost 2 of 3) with Saints, Falcons, Buccaneers. Ok, probably tougher on paper in the NFC schedule.

But also replace: Patriots, Jets, Dolphins (on short week), Bills with Chargers, Chiefs, Raiders, Broncos. Pats and Jets better last year than any of AFC West will be this year.

 

The Bears have 7 games vs. 10-win teams from last year on the schedule this year. All other teams had .500 or worse records.

Last year, the Bears went into the season with 7 games vs. 10-win teams from 2009 on the schedule. Also, played the Jets who won 9 in 2009.

 

The schedule isn't much tougher than last year, especially when the Bears went to Dallas early enough that they were still a shoe-in playoff pick. Can talk about the Bears getting an injured Dolphins team, but they still had to travel to Miami on a short week.

 

Everytime the Bears were brought up in that podcast, the refrain was "everything went right for them last year, weak schedule, third string QBs, no injuries" That's all they think about the Bears. They don't talk about how much we improved after the bye week. They don't talk about how we beat the Eagles rather handily (final score closer than game) back when Vick and the Eagles were considered unbeatable and expected to destroy us, beat the Lions in Detroit the week before Detroit started their 4 game winning streak to end the season, put up 34 points on the Jets defense in a win, beat the Packers in a primetime game and were seemingly the only team to make Aaron Rodgers look rather pedestrian at times in all 3 games.

 

That's the problem with national pundits. They can't sit and watch all 32 teams and make impressions, so teams get labeled, and with few exceptions, groupthink takes over and everyone says the same thing. As a national fan, when they think of the Bears they probably think "jackass quitting QB throwing interceptions like crazy, awful offensive line (from watching the Giants game), no named receivers, aging defense, no way are they going to be good".

 

Whatever, if there's one thing we've learned about the "experts" is that they are rarely ever accurate.

[Soul]

That's the problem with national pundits. They can't sit and watch all 32 teams and make impressions, so teams get labeled, and with few exceptions, groupthink takes over and everyone says the same thing.

 

This is exactly 100% accurate.

 

And the thing is, sure the Bears could wind up bad this year. In that case, someone like this guy will trumpet his incredible prognostication skills. But even if that happens, it's still just a guessing game.

 

I wish people would stop taking these guys seriously, but what can you do? People want to hear banter about football because they are excited about the season. These guys give it to them, even though what they are saying can't possibly be anything more than wild speculation.

 

And you know, even some guys who focus more on the Bears still can't accurately predict what is going to happen. The fact is, football is terribly difficult to predict. It just is, and we see it time & time again.

[bcl412]

The Bears were 7-3 in games decided by a touchdown or less, and that includes a mostly meaningless loss to the Packers in Week 17. Winning close games at that rate is not a product of talent.

 

Steelers were 6-2 in games decided by a touchdown or less last year. I wonder if that will be mentioned?

 

I always thought that winning close games, especially when you do it year after year, was more indicative of one side of the ball being pretty good and carrying a weak other side of the ball. In the Bears case, a very good defense keeps what is usually a average at best offense in the game week after week after week.

 

However I do think luck is applied quite a bit when you play so many close games because you are usually talking about 1 play that can change the game. The Bears have shown to have some talent considering they usually are in games with the best teams year after year after year at this point. Because of the way they play though I also do see where they have to rely on some element of luck. Then again, pretty much every good NFL team, except maybe the 2007 Patriots sans Super Bowl, has some luck on their side.

 

I guess what I am saying is, as a Packers fan, I counted the Bears out last year but I'm not going to do that until they prove they deserve to be.

[JonJayCutler]

The Bears were 7-3 in games decided by a touchdown or less, and that includes a mostly meaningless loss to the Packers in Week 17. Winning close games at that rate is not a product of talent.

 

Steelers were 6-2 in games decided by a touchdown or less last year. I wonder if that will be mentioned?

 

I always thought that winning close games, especially when you do it year after year, was more indicative of one side of the ball being pretty good and carrying a weak other side of the ball. In the Bears case, a very good defense keeps what is usually a average at best offense in the game week after week after week.

 

However I do think luck is applied quite a bit when you play so many close games because you are usually talking about 1 play that can change the game. The Bears have shown to have some talent considering they usually are in games with the best teams year after year after year at this point. Because of the way they play though I also do see where they have to rely on some element of luck. Then again, pretty much every good NFL team, except maybe the 2007 Patriots sans Super Bowl, has some luck on their side.

 

I guess what I am saying is, as a Packers fan, I counted the Bears out last year but I'm not going to do that until they prove they deserve to be.

 

Some of it's luck, sure. The Bears, however, should not have to pay for being a rather clutch team in close games. Being clutch is part of being good. Plus, like UM said, the Eagles score was close due to garbage time but the Bears dominated that game. The same can be said for the Dallas game in September.

[Guest]

It's the lazy way of predicting the future. Close games + no more special teams points + no big name additions to the roster + a QB who refuses to play when he's hurt = the worst team in the league.

 

If the Bears can get anything from the interior defensive linemen and some semblance of pass protection, this team wins more games than they lose.

[Banedon]

Bears release:

 

DT Marcus Harrison

RB Chester Taylor

LB Patrick Trahan

[rawaction]

Don't understand how anyone could pick the Bears as the worst team. Also don't understand the "easy schedule" stuff from last year.

 

GB isn't going to be any tougher

Detroit may be tougher, but Minnesota isn't as good as they were last year

Play Carolina again. Play Seattle again. Play the Eagles again. All should be about the same as last year in "difficulty"

 

Replace: Giants, Cowboys, Redskins (lost 2 of 3) with Saints, Falcons, Buccaneers. Ok, probably tougher on paper in the NFC schedule.

But also replace: Patriots, Jets, Dolphins (on short week), Bills with Chargers, Chiefs, Raiders, Broncos. Pats and Jets better last year than any of AFC West will be this year.

 

The Bears have 7 games vs. 10-win teams from last year on the schedule this year. All other teams had .500 or worse records.

Last year, the Bears went into the season with 7 games vs. 10-win teams from 2009 on the schedule. Also, played the Jets who won 9 in 2009.

 

The schedule isn't much tougher than last year, especially when the Bears went to Dallas early enough that they were still a shoe-in playoff pick. Can talk about the Bears getting an injured Dolphins team, but they still had to travel to Miami on a short week.

 

Everytime the Bears were brought up in that podcast, the refrain was "everything went right for them last year, weak schedule, third string QBs, no injuries" That's all they think about the Bears. They don't talk about how much we improved after the bye week. They don't talk about how we beat the Eagles rather handily (final score closer than game) back when Vick and the Eagles were considered unbeatable and expected to destroy us, beat the Lions in Detroit the week before Detroit started their 4 game winning streak to end the season, put up 34 points on the Jets defense in a win, beat the Packers in a primetime game and were seemingly the only team to make Aaron Rodgers look rather pedestrian at times in all 3 games.

 

That's the problem with national pundits. They can't sit and watch all 32 teams and make impressions, so teams get labeled, and with few exceptions, groupthink takes over and everyone says the same thing. As a national fan, when they think of the Bears they probably think "jackass quitting QB throwing interceptions like crazy, awful offensive line (from watching the Giants game), no named receivers, aging defense, no way are they going to be good".

 

Whatever, if there's one thing we've learned about the "experts" is that they are rarely ever accurate.

 

Exactly. And I can't really fault analysts for for saying the Bears are not a playoff team this year. Can't even fault them for the perceptions they have of the 2010 team and the 2011 offseason. The Bears season was symbolized by Calvin Johnson not getting credit for what would have been a game-winning TD, a late fumble by James Jones that happened to hang on the sidelines for a Bears recovery, a record breaking 9 sacks allowed in 1 half with a concussed QB to go with it, a record breaking 4 INT game by DeAngelo Hall against Cutler, wins over injury riddled teams like Miami, Detroit, and Minnesota, a blowout loss at home vs. the Patriots, a late season loss to the Packers, and Cutler sitting on the sidelines as the Packers make their way to the Superbowl.

 

Those lowlights and "lucky" moments far outweigh the Eagles and Jets wins. But while those things gathered the headlines, lost in the shuffle were:

 

- The Bears completely dominated Detroit in Week 1 to the tune of 463 yards to 168.

- Julius Peppers dominated the Packers Week 3 causing about 5 holding penalties on his own and Cutler led comebacks down 10-0 early and down 3 with under 6 minutues to go in the game.

- While not much positive came out of the Giants game, the Bears still were only down 3 at halftime and just 7 with 5 minutes to go in the game in what was the worst offensive game in NFL history

- The Bears still win the Redskins game if Lovie knew how to challenge plays

- The Bears were clearly better teams than Miami, Detroit and Minnesota, who didn't do all that well when they were healthy.

- The gameplan was vanilla vs. the Packers in the season finale and they had a chance to tie late against a team in full-on desperation mode.

- The Bears had a chance to tie late with their 3rd string QB in the NFC championship game

 

The fact is, the Bears did have their share of luck, but they were also a damn good team that didn't get any worse this offseason. There was not enough that happened since last season to think the Bears go from hosting the NFCC to having the #1 draft pick the next year. Their QB didn't go to jail or retire. They didn't lose any free agents of severe consequence. They didn't age rapidly. Predicting them to miss the playoffs is fine, but worst team in the league is a freaking joke.

[Magnetic Curses]

the defense is still dominant, they manhandled the packers offense in the NFC championship and i expect nothing less this year. the defense will still be vicious, and i think the d-line will be improved. Edited September 3, 2011 by Stannis

[UMFan83]

Bears release:

 

DT Marcus Harrison

RB Chester Taylor

LB Patrick Trahan

 

No surprises there. Too bad for Marcus Harrison

[UMFan83]

the defense is still dominant, they manhandled the packers offense in the NFC championship and i expect nothing less this year. the defense will still be vicious, and i think the d-line will be improved.

 

Exactly. And the analysts hang on this "faced 3 3rd string QBs last year.". The three teams they are referring to are the Lions, Dolphins and Vikings. Do those analysts really think it was that much of a break that Cleo Lemon or whoever it was started against the Bears instead of Chad Henne? I can understand the argument if we beat the Packers without Rodgers or the Eagles without Vick, but come on.

[Banedon]

Bears cut TE Desmond Clark

[Banedon]

Bears waive:

 

RB Robert Hughes

TE Andre Smith

DT Jordan Miller

WR Kris Adams

 

All four are likely practice squad folks, per Brad Biggs.

[Banedon]

Bears cut OL Levi Horn. Possible practice squad.