erik316wttn

It's cute how people take things completely out of context and try to pick fights over the internet. THAT'S why this thread should be perma-stickied. How much better can it get?

What's odd about that list is that was his first ML hit.

See? Awesome!

I'll say!

Actually, Brandon Marshall might work out better than your current options. LOL I meant Brandon Jackson. For real? 22nd overall in rush yards per game. I just think those options listed would be better options than what we have in-house. And if Jackson or Kuhn would go down, then we're totally screwed.

Actually, Brandon Marshall might work out better than your current options. LOL I meant Brandon Jackson.

I'd be surprised if Bush was available...McFadden's had 3 good games. I'd guess they at least want to feel out this season with him. If the Packers are willing to overpay by a decent amount, I think it'd be a good idea to deal Bush. If they don't get a really good deal for him, though, you're probably right. If we're willing to overpay, I'd take Williams or Lynch ahead of Bush. But again, any of those options sound outstanding to me right about now. They gotta do something with the run game, and they've got to do it soon. Brandon Marshall just isn't the answer.

That boggles my mind every year when that stat comes up. I mean it makes sense but it's difficult for any team to lose 20 years in a row when they play there once a year. Yeah, it is pretty nuts. The Lions have had some not terrible teams a few of those years, too (was it 1992 they got to the NFC Championship?). You'd think statistically they'd have won at least one of them.

The Lions have not won in Green Bay since way back in the Don Majikowski/ Lindy Infante days.

I enjoyed part 1. It was fun re-living a lot of the baseball memories I had as a kid. Of course it was pretty much: Strike, Ripken, Yankees, PED's, Home run chase, foreshadowing on Bonds, end.

oh i see we still don't understand the rule about completing a catch. the call was correct, it may be a stupid rule but it was ruled properly after the review. and the "unimpressive dallas team" just won in houston; that houston team beat indianapolis in week one. dallas is still a good team and winning in dallas is a very good win. and your third point, i haven't really seen anyone saying that the bears are the favorites to make the super bowl because they won last night's game. i HAVE seen you suffer a complete meltdown because of your team losing a close game to a rival, though, so that's been pretty fun. I don't think that word means what you think it means. Was I upset after the loss? Yes. Did I have a "complete meltdown" as you put it? No. I didn't say anything that wouldn't have been said from the Bears side had the shoe been on the other foot. And I probably would have said a lot of the things you guys said in response. That's part of the fun of sports rivalries: the back and forth between the fanbases. You guys sure get uppity. Breathe! Or, as Frankie said: Relax! You guys gave me lots of entertainment, but sadly this thread no longer amuses me. Peace!

Wow, people. The Super Bowl comment was sarcasm at how "good" the Bears have been this year. Not to be taken literally. Everyone take some deep breaths, calm down, go to your respective happy places. We'll get through this together.

It's fun how worked up people get, isn't it?

I'm pretty sure the Packers gave them those games though. I don't know what's more hilarious to me. Bears fans acting holier than thou to Packers fans right now, or Bears fans fellating themselves over one win. Or fellating themselves over 3 wins vs: the Lions in which they needed a BS call to negate the game-winning touchdown, a win over an unimpressive Dallas team, and a game where they needed 150 free yards to barely beat the Packers. Start printing those Super Bowl tickets!

WHATCHA GONNA DO, BROTHER?

Careful. Folk don't take kindly to that kinda talk 'round here.

It was like a storybook ending. Would have been better had that final HR come in a meaningful game, but it was still a fitting exit for the greatest hitter who ever lived.

he's still not afraid. You're right. I'm not. Because I know in my heart the Packers are the superior team. At the end of the season the records will prove it.

Well, I guess we won't have to worry about that this year Cause the Packers lost yesterday To the Bears. Really? You don't say...

At this point, it seems more like 2001, when we went 12-4 and got demolished by the Eagles in the playoffs. 13-3 but i don't agree... this team is a lot better than that team was if i had to guess... among decent bears teams of the last 10 years... i'd put them something like 2001<2008<2010<2006 I didn't leave out the 05 team, I'm just having a really hard time placing them and deciding whether i'd put it ahead of this team or not... the offense was abysmal but the defense was fantastic. I'd like to see how we do in a few more games against some lesser opponents the next few weeks (asI still consider Dallas to be a good team). I'm hoping to see us be able to dominate some of them. Didn't the Packers beat that team twice that year? :)

What about the holding penalty on Tauscher that negated the Packer TD? I say it evened out. Except that Tauscher held. And Melton hit Rodgers in the head with his helmet. Your point?

Cheating really? I guess when a basketball player fouls at the end of the game on purpose to stop the clock, that's cheating too right? "Cheating is an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition. Cheating characteristically is employed to create an unfair advantage, usually in one's own interest, and often at the expense of others,[1] Cheating implies the breaking of rules. " Yea, I think that holding, pass interference, and roughing the passer all fit under there. Fouling in basketball is cheating too. The fact that its done because the penalty may not outweigh the reward is irrelevant. Anyways, the point I was making was that your line looked pretty good for instance (compared to the Bears), but due in large part to the holding of Peppers that kept happening. So in order for that strategy to be successful will almost always rely on not getting caught. If you hadn't held him at certain points, or interfered with receivers at certain points, they may have not looked as good as they did. And the Packers got called for those penalties in spades. And the Packers still almost won. And I don't know what you mean that the Packers wouldn't have looked so good since the Bears got over 150 free yards in penalties. Are you saying the Packers got away with some penalties as well? I'd like to see some examples. Just re watch the game and watch nothing but Peppers. You will see plenty of examples. They were holding him every pass play and only got called for 2. And as for the 150 free yards in penalties, you Packer fans still haven't said anything about the penalty on Melton that was total BS and led to a Packer TD. What about the holding penalty on Tauscher that negated the Packer TD? I say it evened out. I'm just about done here, but the Bears should be 1-2. They barely beat the Packers even with 170-some free yards in penalties, and the only reason they beat the Lions was because of a BS non-catch rule. 3-0 is smoke and mirrors at this point. And I fully acknowledge that the Packers got out of Philly by the skin of their teeth. Probably should have lost that game, but should have won last night, so 2-1 seems fair.

Is saying "we lost because of missed tackles" in a game where a team missed a lot of tackles and lost the same as saying "we lost because we had a lot of penalties"? Because I said that, too. We lost because of _____ = They won because we did _____ the fact that you cannot grasp THIS is.... also not surprising. I await your post in which you choose to personally attack me instead of arguing the facts. I'll read it in the morning.

It's your right to say so, my man.

No you aren't. Yes. I am. All I'm saying is that after a comment like this there had better not be complaining about how the Bears "should have won" if there is a game they lose where there were a bunch of missed tackles. Again, what the hell are you talking about? Do you ever expect a Bears fan to come onto a forum heavily populated by Packers fans minutes after a Bears loss and immediately say "we gave you the game because of missed tackles. You got a gift win."? If you do, you are unbelievably insane. I'm on a forum full of Cubs fans who have various other allegiances when it comes to other sports. And if that hypothetical Bears loss did happen, you bet there'd be a ton of discussion here and on other Bears forums about it, and someone would say "We lost because of the missed tackles." It's something fans do. How many times as fans of the Cubs have we said "We should have won, but lost because of ______?" Yes, I don't go onto boards of other teams and say that, but I figured seeing as I don't really visit any football boards I'd discuss the game here. Did you miss the part where I said I knew I was in the minority? I completely get that. I expect Bears fans to do lots of things. Crack, namely. It would explain a lot about certain unnamed posers. Goodnight, NSBB!