NFL Week 7

[Rcal10]

2 hours ago, Bobson Dugnutt said:

In this world where the Vikings currently hold the tiebreaker over the bears.

Still not 2.5 games. If the Bears didn’t play them again, I could see more concern. But they do play them again. A win and the Vikings don’t have the head to head tiebreaker any longer. A loss and there is no reason to talk about the Bears beating out the Vikings. Personally I think the Bears will beat them rather easily the last game of the season.  They should have won the dust kne and would have had Caleb not gotten hurt. Bears need to take care of their division. Win at least 3 of the next 4 they play in division. If they do that, they should be fine. 11-6 or even 12-5. I am also not too worried if they play as a wild card against a division winner. Other than the West, I would like the Bears chances against any division winner, even in the road. 

[Bobson Dugnutt]

15 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Still not 2.5 games. If the Bears didn’t play them again, I could see more concern. But they do play them again. A win and the Vikings don’t have the head to head tiebreaker any longer. A loss and there is no reason to talk about the Bears beating out the Vikings. Personally I think the Bears will beat them rather easily the last game of the season.  They should have won the dust kne and would have had Caleb not gotten hurt. Bears need to take care of their division. Win at least 3 of the next 4 they play in division. If they do that, they should be fine. 11-6 or even 12-5. I am also not too worried if they play as a wild card against a division winner. Other than the West, I would like the Bears chances against any division winner, even in the road. 

He said effectively 2.5 games. They are 1.5 games behind them in the standings, but even if the Bears were dead even with the Vikings record-wise, they’d still be behind them in the division race. It’s pretty common parlance for people to talk this way when one team holds a tiebreaker over another, so I’m not sure why you took exception.
 

Aside from that, if the bears played the Vikings tomorrow and won, the Vikings would still hold the tiebreaker over the bears by way of a better in-division record. It’s evident you didn’t consider the tiebreaker when you responded with your typical brand of condescension, and it’s evident in this response that you don’t understand the tiebreaker rules.

[Soul]

23 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Still not 2.5 games. If the Bears didn’t play them again, I could see more concern. But they do play them again. A win and the Vikings don’t have the head to head tiebreaker any longer. A loss and there is no reason to talk about the Bears beating out the Vikings. Personally I think the Bears will beat them rather easily the last game of the season.  They should have won the dust kne and would have had Caleb not gotten hurt. Bears need to take care of their division. Win at least 3 of the next 4 they play in division. If they do that, they should be fine. 11-6 or even 12-5. I am also not too worried if they play as a wild card against a division winner. Other than the West, I would like the Bears chances against any division winner, even in the road. 

Beat Seattle in their building. Then I’ll start talking like this.

[gflore34]

Think there's a decent chance that JJ develops to such an extent that Dart is traded to a QB needy team.

[sneakypower]

[Rcal10]

12 minutes ago, Bobson Dugnutt said:

He said effectively 2.5 games. They are 1.5 games behind them in the standings, but even if the Bears were dead even with the Vikings record-wise, they’d still be behind them in the division race. It’s pretty common parlance for people to talk this way when one team holds a tiebreaker over another, so I’m not sure why you took exception.
 

Aside from that, if the bears played the Vikings tomorrow and won, the Vikings would still hold the tiebreaker over the bears by way of a better in-division record. It’s evident you didn’t consider the tiebreaker when you responded with your typical brand of condescension, and it’s evident in this response that you don’t understand the tiebreaker rules.

Maybe the “effectively” brought me back to the argument about Shaw during the off desk. With the Cubs. Someone used that phrase to explain why Shaw was so good because he can walk or get a single and steal second. So “effected” he doubled. Maybe a trigger!🤷 That said, I promise you I know the rules of tie breakers. I just think the Bears are a very good team and better than the Vikings. And I think the Vikings will lose 6 games the rest of the year, including one to the Bears. So that tie breaker would be eliminated. If they lose 6, some will be in the division and conference. Which could eliminate that as an advantage for them too. Too early to start looking at tie breakers IMO. 

[Rcal10]

22 minutes ago, Soul said:

Beat Seattle in their building. Then I’ll start talking like this.

They don’t have to beat Seattle for me to think they will go 11-6 or 12-5. They need to win 3 of 4 in their division, win the games they are supposed to win and they should be fine with 11 or 12 wins. I can see losing to Seattle and the Bills and probably the Lions on Thanksgiving. But I think they can/should win the rest. So that puts them at 12-5. But if they slip up and lose a second division game or lose to then jags, that means 11-6. Of course they  can make up for one of those loses by beating a team I think they can lose to.  But, if not, and they do just get WC, I am not very concerned with beating any division winner except for the West. So I m fine talking this way now. 

Edited Monday at 05:23 PM by Rcal10

[Bobson Dugnutt]

28 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Maybe the “effectively” brought me back to the argument about Shaw during the off desk. With the Cubs. Someone used that phrase to explain why Shaw was so good because he can walk or get a single and steal second. So “effected” he doubled. Maybe a trigger!🤷

lol fair. As much as I respect the confidence and agree the Vikings are poised to come back down to earth (their offense has only scored 10 TDs all year and their schedule has been pretty soft), banked wins are banked wins.

 

Fortunately the bears have the Bucs, Saints, and dolphins on their schedule, but they really need to start finding wins in their own division. 2-6 (3-6 including the playoff win over GB) under Ben obviously won’t cut it.

[Andy]

2 hours ago, bukie said:

The Buccaneers scored more TDs (6) than Baker Mayfield threw passes beyond the line of scrimmage (5).

Honestly might be the worst performance in Carolina franchise history. Even the 2023 team was mostly semi competitive. 

[Rcal10]

13 minutes ago, Bobson Dugnutt said:

lol fair. As much as I respect the confidence and agree the Vikings are poised to come back down to earth (their offense has only scored 10 TDs all year and their schedule has been pretty soft), banked wins are banked wins.

 

Fortunately the bears have the Bucs, Saints, and dolphins on their schedule, but they really need to start finding wins in their own division. 2-6 (3-6 including the playoff win over GB) under Ben obviously won’t cut it.

Agreed. That is a huge point to my post. They need to win in their division. If they do that and win the others games they should win, they should end up with 11 or 12 wins. Assuming one is against the Vikings, and the Vikings do come back down to earth, I feel ok about them catching them. And, if not, I can see them winning in Minnesota in the playoffs. 

[PackLandVA]

[Derwood]

Jay-Z headlining the Super Bowl halftime show.

 

[gflore34]

8 hours ago, PackLandVA said:

Really hard for me to have any empathy, for years it was open season on Bears QB's.  Most especially Justin Fields, it's a miracle he didn't suffer any truly serious injuries.

Edited 19 hours ago by gflore34

[Banedon]

8 hours ago, PackLandVA said:

I made one using the same data source, but using 2025 data....

 

[PackLandVA]

I'm not a stats guy, but it seems that if you use the same variable measurements on the  X and Y axes, then the outliers are much more prevalent/exaggerated in 2026. (grant it, 2026 is not quite half a season versus a full 2025 season).

 

[Banedon]

45 minutes ago, PackLandVA said:

I'm not a stats guy, but it seems that if you use the same variable measurements on the  X and Y axes, then the outliers are much more prevalent/exaggerated in 2026. (grant it, 2026 is not quite half a season versus a full 2025 season).

 

Exactly.....small sample size for this year makes it much more exaggerated.

[Banedon]

 

 

[BigbadB]

4 minutes ago, Banedon said:

 

 

For a '27 3rd rounder and a '28 5th rounder.

[Wilson A2000]

 

[Derwood]

Hey Bears

 

[cwood218]

Spotrac is showing the compensation as a 2027 4th round pick.

EDIT: for Buckner

 

Edited 10 hours ago by cwood218

[Tryptamine]

Think that's a huge mistake not getting him even if you had to give up more

[PackLandVA]

6 hours ago, Banedon said:

Exactly.....small sample size for this year makes it much more exaggerated.

Good point, although I wouldn't say it makes it much more exaggerated. It's not like it's only a couple games. It's 40% of the season. But yes, the sample sizes are different.

[Rex Buckingham]

3 hours ago, Tryptamine said:

Think that's a huge mistake not getting him even if you had to give up more

Pretty sure it was reported that Buckner wanted SF