Week 7: Bears at Rams 7:15 MNF on ESPN

[jersey cubs fan]

Bears go on the road as big underdogs again (+6 at time of publishing). Rams have 4 wins, all against NFC East teams with losses against Buffalo and a grossly overrated 49ers team coming off back to back huge upset losses. The Rams are highly rated and well respected but haven't done anything in 2 years. These two teams have combined to score 45 points the past two seasons and the over/under is 46 right now. I can't imagine them getting there...

 

 

..., okay just got back from placing a bet.

 

Anyway, I hate primetime matchups but in covid times I actually don't mind staying up late on a school night and having other options on a Sunday afternoon. This would be a huge win for the Bears if they have hopes of hosting a playoff game. Maybe this is more Lucy pulling the football away but hey it's still possible the offense will get decent the more time Foles has to work with it.

[minnesotacubsfan]

if the Bears break Goff: 17-13 bears win

 

if they dont break Goff: 38-17 bears lose

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Aaron Donald vs. Bears interior o-line.

 

Better be prepared to win 13-10. It's a good thing running the ball doesn't matter, because they won't be able to.

[bukie]

I'm so tired of football experts declaring the Bears have to establish the run because that's Bear football. Nobody establishes the run anymore. The run is for a change of pace once the passing game is established.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I'm so tired of football experts declaring the Bears have to establish the run because that's Bear football. Nobody establishes the run anymore. The run is for a change of pace once the passing game is established.

 

I think what they are trying to say is ",...look Bear fans, you'll never in a million years have a QB worth a horsefeathers so enjoy your running back instead..." which is accurate

[SpongeWorthy]

-6 seems excessive

[bukie]

if the Bears break Goff: 17-13 bears win

 

if they dont break Goff: 38-17 bears lose

Goff has been broken for 2 years. Neither team breaks 25 in this game.

[BigbadB]

Lots of spot on comments in this thread already. I would predict a low scoring game for both teams. Donald is scary good and our line....not so much. Quick releases will be important in this game. Screw the running game. Let Montgomery throw a block and swing out for more screens or dumps. I'm worried about the Bears vs. the TE's in this game.

[raw]

Rams are a weird team, and I don't really know what we're going to get on Monday. They are statistically very close to the Bears defensively. Separated by less than 20 total yards allowed per game. They've allowed 2 fewer points than the Bears. They have 20 sacks as a team, but had 0 against SF. So, they had 20 in their first 5 games. But they got fat off of Washington, missing linemen and throwing in a QB who almost lost a leg. Rams allowed 108 total yards to the WFT and had 8 sacks. Other than that, they've been average at best.

 

They've played decent against bad teams. Played poorly vs. SF on Sunday. They got down 28-3 to Buffalo and made a comeback then blew it probably due to a bad call. They seem very similar to the Bears in a lot of respects. But honestly and without bias, I think the Bears are a better team.

 

If the Bears pressure Goff like they did Brady and Bridgewater, Goff will struggle. He has 5 INTs to 0 TDs against the Bears D the last 2 years. The Bears DBs can take away a lot of what they want to do in the pass game. Jackson and Fuller are a no-fly zone. Gipson has quietly done well against TEs though the Bears haven't faced any good ones (Rams have a couple decent ones). They'll try to get the ball to Kupp in the slot against Skrine. They'll try to pick on Johnson, especially if they get him in man vs. Woods. But I think he'll be up to the task.

 

The Bears won't be able to block Donald as per usual. Probably won't be able to run the ball. Foles will have some shots though against most of their DBs, and I'd even take a couple shots with Robinson even against Ramsey or on a double move with Mooney. Low scoring game, turnover battle will be the difference. I trust Foles to protect the ball more than Goff, stupid play last week notwithstanding.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

 

He’s better than Coward or Bars.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-the-chicago-bears-good-or-just-lucky/

[UMFan83]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-the-chicago-bears-good-or-just-lucky/

 

I would like to hope there is room for improvement with the offense. Maybe he is in decline or maybe its the talent around him but Foles has performed much better than this in the past, even in the recent past. The line sucks, Montgomery is maybe average and the play calling is not balanced enough, so there will always be a ceiling. But if they were the 16th best offense instead of the 26th? Those 4 point wins will become 10 point wins.

 

But this is basically the same circular conversation we've had our entire lives as Bears fans "If the offense can just be a little better we will be a good team"

[WrigleyField 22]

Frauds for sure, but frauds that should make the Playoffs.

[jersey cubs fan]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-the-chicago-bears-good-or-just-lucky/

 

I would like to hope there is room for improvement with the offense. Maybe he is in decline or maybe its the talent around him but Foles has performed much better than this in the past, even in the recent past.

when?

[UMFan83]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-the-chicago-bears-good-or-just-lucky/

 

I would like to hope there is room for improvement with the offense. Maybe he is in decline or maybe its the talent around him but Foles has performed much better than this in the past, even in the recent past.

when?

 

If 2018 is recent past he started 5 games and had a vastly better YPA (7.2 vs. 5.8 this year), completion percentage (72 vs 62) and QBR/Rating. Small Sample size, but he was also coming off the Super Bowl run the year prior where he performed like an elite QB. He was not actually an elite QB mind you, but the numbers he put up were elite.

 

2 years is a long time and the 2018 numbers wouldnt really constitute a very good QB but if he was performing at that level in Chicago this year it would make a big difference moving forward. Don't think he will for various reasons but he's probably capable of playing better than he has thus far.

[minnesotacubsfan]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-the-chicago-bears-good-or-just-lucky/

 

I would like to hope there is room for improvement with the offense. Maybe he is in decline or maybe its the talent around him but Foles has performed much better than this in the past, even in the recent past.

when?

Foles current production is his basic level of play for nearly his entire career. And stat wise to date, guess who's outplayed him? Trubisky!

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

I would like to hope there is room for improvement with the offense. Maybe he is in decline or maybe its the talent around him but Foles has performed much better than this in the past, even in the recent past.

when?

 

If 2018 is recent past he started 5 games and had a vastly better YPA (7.2 vs. 5.8 this year), completion percentage (72 vs 62) and QBR/Rating. Small Sample size, but he was also coming off the Super Bowl run the year prior where he performed like an elite QB. He was not actually an elite QB mind you, but the numbers he put up were elite.

 

2 years is a long time and the 2018 numbers wouldnt really constitute a very good QB but if he was performing at that level in Chicago this year it would make a big difference moving forward. Don't think he will for various reasons but he's probably capable of playing better than he has thus far.

 

He's had one short stint of great play and looong stretches of below average-mundane play. Bringing him on was simply trying to catch lightening in a bottle.

 

I still hate we traded for him when others like Dalton, Bridgewater, Newton either became available or were available.

[UMFan83]

 

I would like to hope there is room for improvement with the offense. Maybe he is in decline or maybe its the talent around him but Foles has performed much better than this in the past, even in the recent past.

when?

Foles current production is his basic level of play for nearly his entire career. And stat wise to date, guess who's outplayed him? Trubisky!

 

That's not really true...his career averages across the board are noticeably higher than his numbers this year. He's been an extremely streaky QB over the course of his career though so the averages don't tell the full story I guess. When he's been bad, he's been god awful.

[minnesotacubsfan]

when?

Foles current production is his basic level of play for nearly his entire career. And stat wise to date, guess who's outplayed him? Trubisky!

 

That's not really true...his career averages across the board are noticeably higher than his numbers this year. He's been an extremely streaky QB over the course of his career though so the averages don't tell the full story I guess. When he's been bad, he's been god awful.

 

I'm unaware of a single stat that is wildly lower and out of place with his career averages, a point or two, sure, but this is who he is 90% of the time.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

I would like to hope there is room for improvement with the offense. Maybe he is in decline or maybe its the talent around him but Foles has performed much better than this in the past, even in the recent past.

when?

 

If 2018 is recent past he started 5 games and had a vastly better YPA (7.2 vs. 5.8 this year), completion percentage (72 vs 62) and QBR/Rating. Small Sample size, but he was also coming off the Super Bowl run the year prior where he performed like an elite QB. He was not actually an elite QB mind you, but the numbers he put up were elite.

 

2 years is a long time and the 2018 numbers wouldnt really constitute a very good QB but if he was performing at that level in Chicago this year it would make a big difference moving forward. Don't think he will for various reasons but he's probably capable of playing better than he has thus far.

Didn't he more recently suck in Jacksonville? He went to the most talented team in the league at the time and helped them win a Super Bowl, but it was hardly his doing. He famously pretty much stunk until getting hot in a couple playoff games. I would say his level of performance with the Bears is pretty much on par with expectations.

[UMFan83]

when?

 

If 2018 is recent past he started 5 games and had a vastly better YPA (7.2 vs. 5.8 this year), completion percentage (72 vs 62) and QBR/Rating. Small Sample size, but he was also coming off the Super Bowl run the year prior where he performed like an elite QB. He was not actually an elite QB mind you, but the numbers he put up were elite.

 

2 years is a long time and the 2018 numbers wouldnt really constitute a very good QB but if he was performing at that level in Chicago this year it would make a big difference moving forward. Don't think he will for various reasons but he's probably capable of playing better than he has thus far.

Didn't he more recently suck in Jacksonville? He went to the most talented team in the league at the time and helped them win a Super Bowl, but it was hardly his doing. He famously pretty much stunk until getting hot in a couple playoff games. I would say his level of performance with the Bears is pretty much on par with expectations.

 

There's just not a lot to go off of either way. He was great in Philly with a much better supporting cast. He was terrible in Jacksonville with a broken collar bone and worse supporting cast. In both situations we are talking very small sample sizes. I'm not arguing that we should expect him to play better, just that I believe he has the capacity to play like a slightly below average QB rather than a bottom of the barrel QB, and that incremental improvement could make a difference in the outcome of the Bears season.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

The Bears are lucky that they can have this ongoing debate about 2 QBs who ... have both started games.

 

Neither are good.

[raw]

when?

 

If 2018 is recent past he started 5 games and had a vastly better YPA (7.2 vs. 5.8 this year), completion percentage (72 vs 62) and QBR/Rating. Small Sample size, but he was also coming off the Super Bowl run the year prior where he performed like an elite QB. He was not actually an elite QB mind you, but the numbers he put up were elite.

 

2 years is a long time and the 2018 numbers wouldnt really constitute a very good QB but if he was performing at that level in Chicago this year it would make a big difference moving forward. Don't think he will for various reasons but he's probably capable of playing better than he has thus far.

 

He's had one short stint of great play and looong stretches of below average-mundane play. Bringing him on was simply trying to catch lightening in a bottle.

 

I still hate we traded for him when others like Dalton, Bridgewater, Newton either became available or were available.

 

Foles is better than all those guys though. Maybe not better than Bridgewater, but just clearly outplayed him head-to-head (of course didn't face the same caliber of defense). Not to mention a better fit.

 

I know this is unpopular, but I kinda feel like this is going to be a best case scenario type of season. Foles is winning games, but not playing so well that the Bears do something stupid like giving him more money or pretending he's a long-term answer. They should still go out and get a long-term QB in the draft, and they don't necessarily have to throw him on the field right away or have pressure to do so like they did with Trubisky, because they should have competent play ahead of the rookie. It's a lot better scenario than losing a bunch of games, still not losing enough to get the top QB, and not having a competent bridge guy for your potential franchise QB.

[WrigleyField 22]

 

If 2018 is recent past he started 5 games and had a vastly better YPA (7.2 vs. 5.8 this year), completion percentage (72 vs 62) and QBR/Rating. Small Sample size, but he was also coming off the Super Bowl run the year prior where he performed like an elite QB. He was not actually an elite QB mind you, but the numbers he put up were elite.

 

2 years is a long time and the 2018 numbers wouldnt really constitute a very good QB but if he was performing at that level in Chicago this year it would make a big difference moving forward. Don't think he will for various reasons but he's probably capable of playing better than he has thus far.

 

He's had one short stint of great play and looong stretches of below average-mundane play. Bringing him on was simply trying to catch lightening in a bottle.

 

I still hate we traded for him when others like Dalton, Bridgewater, Newton either became available or were available.

 

Foles is better than all those guys though. Maybe not better than Bridgewater, but just clearly outplayed him head-to-head (of course didn't face the same caliber of defense). Not to mention a better fit.

 

I know this is unpopular, but I kinda feel like this is going to be a best case scenario type of season. Foles is winning games, but not playing so well that the Bears do something stupid like giving him more money or pretending he's a long-term answer. They should still go out and get a long-term QB in the draft, and they don't necessarily have to throw him on the field right away or have pressure to do so like they did with Trubisky, because they should have competent play ahead of the rookie. It's a lot better scenario than losing a bunch of games, still not losing enough to get the top QB, and not having a competent bridge guy for your potential franchise QB.

Yea, if Foles and the D can win ugly, at least Foles won't hit a bunch of incentives. And then he's basically the perfect bridge QB in terms of ability and contract.

 

Next year is still a train wreck waiting to happen due to the cap situation (potentially REALLY bad due to lost covid revenue), but Pace's moves have pretty much always pointed to a short 3-ish year window (as is typically the case with windows built around an elite D).

[mias_tisg]