Bears week 9: vs Tampa SNF on NBC

[gflore34]

Apparently teams that play 3 consecutive prime time games struggle on third?  Anybody ever heard of this?

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

35 minutes ago, gflore34 said:

Apparently teams that play 3 consecutive prime time games struggle on third?  Anybody ever heard of this?

Sounds made up

[Wilson A2000]

 

[Wilson A2000]

54 minutes ago, gflore34 said:

Apparently teams that play 3 consecutive prime time games struggle on third?  Anybody ever heard of this?

What about most every Super Bowl winner?

[Wilson A2000]

So it wasn’t his ACL or he’d be assuredly out?

[Rcal10]

On 11/3/2026 at 12:35 PM, Tryptamine said:

Absolutely have to take care of Tampa and NO before that hellacious last 8 games where every team but Miami is likely a playoff team.

Actually after these 2 games they have 7 left. And while those 7 games are against playoff teams, the Bears are as good as any of them and better than most. Assuming they win the three they absolutely should win that put them at 9 wins. Win 3 of 4 in the division and beat the Jags at home and we have 13 wins. I do expect them to beat the Packers and Lions in Chicago as well as the Jags. Then I expect a win against the Vikings too. Even if I am wrong on 1 or 2, that is an 11’win season. Why do you continue to worry about the schedule? It is what it is and it isn’t as bad as you make it out to be. 

[Soul]

3 hours ago, gflore34 said:

Apparently teams that play 3 consecutive prime time games struggle on third?  Anybody ever heard of this?

I found 6 cases 2021-2025 and it was 50/50 W/L.

The Packers played 4 in 2024 and blew out their opponents in both the 3rd and 4th game. This year there have been more cases, and most of the time the team has lost the 3rd game.

I think it’s case of being fatally flawed by small sample size. There aren’t going to be a ton of data points to work with.

[We Got The Whole 9]

12 hours ago, raw said:

THIS WAS ALWAYS THE WAY.

All the nerdy analysis during the offseason was that the Bears were a big regression candidate.

- "They aren't going to lead the league in takeaways again!"
- "They won 7 one-score games, they aren't going to get that luck again!"
- "The 4th quarter comebacks are unsustainable!"
- "They didn't add pass rush help!"

While those were legitimate concerns from the outside looking in, I think anyone that watched this team last year could see that these conversations needed to be had with a lot more nuance. The Bears got off to pretty slow starts last year. They were playing from behind a lot while trying to learn one of the most detailed oriented offenses in the league. Two of the top 4 pass catchers were rookies. Rookie at RB. 4 new offensive linemen. This was a team that got better as the game went on, and performed a lot better when they could stop sweating the details and just try to get points in a hurry....which just so happened to be what they did best. 

I went back and looked at all of the turnovers from last year. I can't remember where I put the data, but the more of the Bears turnovers took points OFF the board, rather than put points ON the board. Again, a nuanced conversation. The Bears actually weren't given a bunch of short fields from their turnovers. Over 1/2 the turnovers they took away were when the opponents were in FG range. So obviously, the turnovers were a huge factor, and they were winning because of the takeaways, but it was always a scenario where just getting actual stops 1 or 2 times per game would make up for the lack of takeaways. Also, turnovers are a lot less necessary to get, when you don't turn the ball over yourself. Caleb is literally the best QB in NFL history at keeping the ball out of harm's way. He doesn't throw picks. He doesn't fumble much. So to win turnover margins the Bears didn't have to keep up a historic level of INTs. Just needed a fumble here. A pick there. A banana punt getting muffed every few weeks.

And while the Bears did win 8 one-score games (including playoffs), they were actually a very modest 8-5 in those games. This year they are 2-1 in one-score games. One in the monsoon, with Caleb tearing his hamstring while assumingly taking the lead. The 2 wins were games the Bears otherwise dominated vs Atlanta and New England, and never actually trailed....but ended with a 1 score difference. Clearly, a different formula to end up with around the same result.

And that formula was always the key. You don't need 4th quarter comebacks if you play with the lead. I'd argue it was an anomaly that the Bears even needed comebacks with the fact that they had the league's best run game. Teams that lead the league in rush are usually those teams that are playing with leads. Of the Bears 19 games last year, they played with the lead the majority of the game, only 6 times. So theoretically, a strong run game and a QB that doesn't turn the ball over, and 11 guys on the field that are in Year 2 of a difficult offense should be able get leads early and hold onto to them, because they aren't going to beat themselves by turning the ball over or being forced to throw the ball around like GB is right now. And the run game hasn't even been THAT good the last few weeks without Monangai.

While there is still a long way to go this season and the Bears could certainly still miss the playoffs if they don't beat division teams, it looks like the expectations of the Bears' demise were greatly exaggerated. And I'm feeling big "I told you so" energy. 

Oh, and now they have pass rush help too!

 

It really is something to behold; Caleb just keeps the chains moving, never turns it over. Hes in total control of the offense and raises the play of everyone on the unit.