Week 16: Bears at 49ers on Fox Sunday at 3pm

[WrigleyField 22]

I'm still of the mindset that the 49ers weren't taking Trubisky and the Bears didn't need to trade up to get him, but I'm not annoyed with the trade anymore.

Um, the theory wasn't that the 9ers were selecting Mitch. It's that other teams were active in the trade-up market. A decent theory as two other teams did indeed trade up for a QB.

[WrigleyField 22]

Although it does kinda suck that Mahomes is looking like the better QB, but we can hold out hope that Mitch is just a year behind in the system and can catch up. But it's also hard to imagine him actually catching up since Mahomes arm talent is Cutler-ian, and Trubisky is not. So we'll have the second best QB in that class, but hopefully he ends up being the second best QB in the league at his peak too. But it will still kinda suck.

[gflore34]

I'm still of the mindset that the 49ers weren't taking Trubisky and the Bears didn't need to trade up to get him, but I'm not annoyed with the trade anymore.

Um, the theory wasn't that the 9ers were selecting Mitch. It's that other teams were active in the trade-up market. A decent theory as two other teams did indeed trade up for a QB.

 

At the end of day didn't it boil down to flipping spots for a draft pick? Pace got one the picks back in a later trade with Arizona, isn't that correct?

[WrigleyField 22]

I'm still of the mindset that the 49ers weren't taking Trubisky and the Bears didn't need to trade up to get him, but I'm not annoyed with the trade anymore.

Um, the theory wasn't that the 9ers were selecting Mitch. It's that other teams were active in the trade-up market. A decent theory as two other teams did indeed trade up for a QB.

 

At the end of day didn't it boil down to flipping spots for a draft pick? Pace got one the picks back in a later trade with Arizona, isn't that correct?

I wouldn't view him as having gotten any of those picks back. Separate deals.

 

It was basically a somewhat expensive premium he paid on an insurance policy. Once he had the pick he was certain no one else could pay more to get it.

[BigbadB]

How delicious is it that Solomon Thomas, the player that the Niners got in that "fleecing" of the Bears by the genius of a GM - Lynch, has been less than average while the Trubisky and the Bears have turned it around? Hell, Roquan Smith has been better than Thomas.

 

They gambled on Reuben Foster later in that same first round and lost. I also noticed that San Fran traded the 3rd round pick they got from the Bears to the Saints, which the Saints took Alvin Kamara with that pick.

[BigSlick]

I can’t believe there’s any debate at all over having a bye week at all. Yes, you want to avoid a round of the playoffs and you want to play at home. This is like, basic stuff.

 

Numbers on how beneficial a bye week are will be naturally skewed because the holders of the bye week will on average be better than wild card week teams. (And also play at home)

[Butterscup]

I'm still of the mindset that the 49ers weren't taking Trubisky and the Bears didn't need to trade up to get him, but I'm not annoyed with the trade anymore.

Um, the theory wasn't that the 9ers were selecting Mitch. It's that other teams were active in the trade-up market. A decent theory as two other teams did indeed trade up for a QB.

 

yeah i edited my post right after you quoted it, though i do recall the 49ers being linked to trubisky as well at some point. i have my doubts on how "real" the interest was in all these teams trading up to #2, but if trubisky was the bears' guy, and clearly he was, i don't have issue with going and getting him as opposed to hoping everything falls into your lap.

[Brian]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Wilson A2000]

Best Bears team since ‘85?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Best Bears team since ‘85?

 

TBD but probably not

[raw]

I think it's a huge difference between maintaining a bye and getting a bye. If the Rams lose this week (they won't it's Arizona) and the Bears win, then yeah you play to keep the bye. If the Bears need to win and the Rams to lose in week 17, then I think you play backups. I don't think you can risk injury against the very team you'd play the next week if you aren't guaranteed a win gets you a bye.

 

Sent from my moto e5 supra using Tapatalk

[Wilson A2000]

I don't see the Rams or Saints losing, so it's going to be a moot point. Nagy will play the starters this week and then sit most of them week 17. Nagy didn't play the starters in the final 2 preseason games, so he doesn't fear rest. But my fear is that the Bears haven't played well after weeks off or extended time off so maybe that changes how he goes about playing guys against the Vikings.

[Brian707]

Best Bears team since ‘85?

 

86 and 06 were better at least at this point. The 2011 team before the Cutler then Forte injury was rolling too. I thought that team had a shot to go to the SB.

[WrigleyField 22]

Best Bears team since ‘85?

 

86 and 06 were better at least at this point. The 2011 team before the Cutler then Forte injury was rolling too. I thought that team had a shot to go to the SB.

Just to throw some numbers out there to put context to it: Year: O rank pts-yards, D rank pts-yards, SRS, Pt Diff (rank) *result

2018: O 6-22, D 3-3, 6.0, 119 (2)*TBD

2012: O 16-28, D 3-5, 6.9, 98 (6)*missed playoffs

2010: O 21-30, D 4-9, 4.1, 48 (10)*lost NFC Champ

2006: O 2-15, D 3-5, 7.9, 172, (2)*Lost SB

2001: O 11-26, D 1-15, 7.9, 135 (3)*Lost Div Rd

1988: O 18-11, D 1-2, 6.6, 97 (4)*lost NFC Champ

1987: O 9-12, D 4-2, 3.8, 74 (6)*Lost Div Rd

1986: O 13-7, D 1-1, 7.9,165 (1)*Lost Div Rd

1985: O 2-7, D 1-1, 15.9, 258, (1)*Won SB

(Jesus christ how did they only win one SB)

[Bertz]

By DVOA the '86 team was WAY better, while the '06 and '12 teams were modestly better. That being said. I think you could pretty easily make a qualitative argument that this team is more talented than those last two, that the results just aren't quite at that level because of Mitch and Mack's injuries, and Mitch's early season growing pains.

[Thed Hoyerstein]

(Jesus christ how did they only win one SB)

 

[Brian707]

 

(Jesus christ how did they only win one SB)

 

Yeah no horsefeathers. That's why I cringe when people speak highly of Ditka. Management is to blame as well. Plus injuries to McMahon in 86(Thanks Charles Martin and Forrest Greg)

[Brian]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

no one would notice if we put a Parkey jersey on him, would they?

[BigSlick]

I really miss Robbie Gould

 

I also think people have really underrated that 2006 team. That team kicked a bunch of ass.

[jersey cubs fan]

I also think people have really underrated that 2006 team. That team kicked a bunch of ass.

Yep, incredibly talented team that suffered from a lack of offensive coaching and a QB that couldn't develop.

[Brian]

it's crazy to think how fun that team was to watch when the offense was basically just Hester returns, Thomas Jones running and Rex bombing the ball all the way down field to Bernard Berrian.

[WrigleyField 22]

I also think people have really underrated that 2006 team. That team kicked a bunch of ass.

Yep, incredibly talented team that suffered from a lack of offensive coaching and a QB that couldn't develop.

Yea and that Indy team wasn't that great by usual SB winner standards either.

[David]

I also think people have really underrated that 2006 team. That team kicked a bunch of ass.

Yep, incredibly talented team that suffered from a lack of offensive coaching and a QB that couldn't develop.

Yea and that Indy team wasn't that great by usual SB winner standards either.

 

if two of the four best players on that defense hadn't been hurt, i believe we win that superbowl.

[BigSlick]

God....that 2006 Superbowl....After the Hester return I thought for sure this team was going to win it. Basically the rest of the game was a huge kick in the balls.

 

I also thought we were in for a decade of dominance and Rex Grossman developing into a strong top 10 QB. I had this idea that he had a really good 2006, but looking at the numbers, jeez. 52% completion percentage, 23 - 20 TD to INT ratio. Oof, those were far more pedestrian (bordering on bad) numbers than I remember.

 

Also Cedric Benson. Holy moly did he blow chunks.

[Brian]

And wasn't that 2006 Colts team like unbelievably terrible at stopping the run, like worst in the league or close to it?

 

 

aaaand I looked it up and they were -

 

The 2006 Colts run defense? Staggeringly bad – they gave up 173 yards per game on the ground and an eye-popping 5.3 yards per attempt. The only other team to give up more than 170 rushing yards per game since 2000 was the 2008 Detroit Lions (172 YPG) – who went 0-16. 7 times that year the Colts gave up more than 180 yards on the ground, including 3 games over 200 and 375 yards to the Jaguars. Their incompetence against the run made them one of only 4 teams to face a higher percentage of run plays than league average. Teams ran on the Colts 54.2% of the time, compared to a league average of 45.2%.

 

and the somehow figured it out for the playoffs

 

What the Colts defense did in the 2006 playoffs is truly remarkable. They didn’t end the season on a particularly good note going 2-3 in December while allowing 363 yards per game in that stretch. The big difference between December and the playoffs? In those 5 regular season games, the Colts managed only a combined 5 takeaways. Once the playoffs started, it was a different story with Indianapolis getting 13 takeaways in 4 games. Furthermore, they forced 21 punts in those 4 playoff games. In the entire regular season, they only forced 47. Key 3rd down stops and takeaways are the two biggest elements of a great defense and in the 2006 playoffs, Indianapolis’ defense managed to get both – despite struggling mightily from September-December.

 

From the article "The Worst Defense to Ever Win a Super Bowl: The 2006 Colts"

https://pick256.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/the-worst-defense-to-ever-win-a-super-bowl-the-2006-colts/