oldstyle81

So? They do have them. I'm sure the Bears wouldn't have made the playoffs without a bunch of their studs. What's the point of this conversation? my point is the Bears eventhough they havent shown it the past month have a great defense and if they stop Bush and Duece, this offense will sputter and fall apart. This is especially true if its snowing and the ground is wet and Bush cant cut back and forth

"NO OFFENSE"??? Did you know we have a quarterback who has the most passing yards in the entire NFL. Had 11 games this year with a 90+ passer rating. Has only thrown one interception in his last 7 games. We have the number one passing offense in the NFL, yet without our RB's we have "no offense?" the offense begins and ends with Bush and Mccallister, if they werent there defenses would sit on the pass You could say that about damn near any team that has a decent running back. "No Offense"...my aching ass. they wouldnt have made the playoffs without them Now take away Urlacker (sp) and another key Bear and you could say the same thing. Mike Brown, Tommie Harris

"NO OFFENSE"??? Did you know we have a quarterback who has the most passing yards in the entire NFL. Had 11 games this year with a 90+ passer rating. Has only thrown one interception in his last 7 games. We have the number one passing offense in the NFL, yet without our RB's we have "no offense?" the offense begins and ends with Bush and Mccallister, if they werent there defenses would sit on the pass You could say that about damn near any team that has a decent running back. "No Offense"...my aching ass. they wouldnt have made the playoffs without them

"NO OFFENSE"??? Did you know we have a quarterback who has the most passing yards in the entire NFL. Had 11 games this year with a 90+ passer rating. Has only thrown one interception in his last 7 games. We have the number one passing offense in the NFL, yet without our RB's we have "no offense?" the offense begins and ends with Bush and Mccallister, if they werent there defenses would sit on the pass and what you quoted is entirely true, the hacks at ESPN make it sound like the saints won every game since october and are steamrolling teams the way the colts did 2 years ago.

yeah CSN had like all the sox games last year

You had the 32nd ranked strength of schedule. That's dead last. Saints had the 3rd ranked SOS. The saints played 9 games against teams with a record of .500 or better The bears played 8 both teams are 3-1 against teams with winning records

I agree. I saw your post after reading the end of this article. http://www.nbc5.com/sports/10774432/detail.html while i agree with that article somewhat, its now as cut and dry as they make it seem. the bears have now played on this field which has been really bad 2 times, new orleans hasnt at all. that is a advantage to the bears in my opinon. the field being what it is will most likely limit Reggie Bush and his ability to cut back and forth. Cold and wind are small factors but if it snows, that will be a big factor. im not saying the Saints cant come in here in bad conditions and beat the bears, im saying that the bears have experience in bad weather conditions on a bad field, New Orleans dosent, the saints have only played 11 games in domes this year (8 at home, 2 against Atlanta, 1 against Dallas, semi dome) The teams they beat not in domes were, Browns, Packers (first 2 games of the season), Tampa Bay and the Giants the article says this "I’d be willing to bet that if you went back and looked the Bears record in so called “Bear Weather” games wouldn’t be all that impressive." um, you're the reporter writing the article, look it up and give us real answers. hard to say because i cant find stats for games played only in December and January however the bears are 5-2 the past 2 years at home in those months and 2-0 in bitterly cold games (2005 Atlanta and 2006 Vikings) They lost the only game they played in Snow against Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh

cubs world is the same way, its been up on both sites for 2 weeks

Then maybe it was Carolina. Carolina won that game, i only put games they won before

I agree. I saw your post after reading the end of this article. http://www.nbc5.com/sports/10774432/detail.html while i agree with that article somewhat, its now as cut and dry as they make it seem. the bears have now played on this field which has been really bad 2 times, new orleans hasnt at all. that is a advantage to the bears in my opinon. the field being what it is will most likely limit Reggie Bush and his ability to cut back and forth. Cold and wind are small factors but if it snows, that will be a big factor. im not saying the Saints cant come in here in bad conditions and beat the bears, im saying that the bears have experience in bad weather conditions on a bad field, New Orleans dosent, the saints have only played 11 games in domes this year (8 at home, 2 against Atlanta, 1 against Dallas, semi dome) Both Pittsburgh's field and the Giants field were chewed up pretty bad. I remember thinking how scared I was that one of our guys would get hurt. But ya, Bears definitely have the advantage in that respect. New York has Field Turf, it couldnt have been that bad

I agree. I saw your post after reading the end of this article. http://www.nbc5.com/sports/10774432/detail.html while i agree with that article somewhat, its now as cut and dry as they make it seem. the bears have now played on this field which has been really bad 2 times, new orleans hasnt at all. that is a advantage to the bears in my opinon. the field being what it is will most likely limit Reggie Bush and his ability to cut back and forth. Cold and wind are small factors but if it snows, that will be a big factor. im not saying the Saints cant come in here in bad conditions and beat the bears, im saying that the bears have experience in bad weather conditions on a bad field, New Orleans dosent, the saints have only played 11 games in domes this year (8 at home, 2 against Atlanta, 1 against Dallas, semi dome) The teams they beat not in domes were, Browns, Packers (first 2 games of the season), Tampa Bay and the Giants

more than New Orleans Minnesota Seattle off the top of my head i think the coldest game New Orleans has played in this year was upper 40's in NY What about the Giants? 63 against the Giants (daytime High) 49 against the Jets 58 against the Pats 54 against the Packers 52 against Tampa Bay (if i remember the last 2)

more than New Orleans Minnesota 21 Degrees, (15 at game start) Seattle 35 degrees off the top of my head coldest games for New Orleans 42 at Pittsburgh 54 at NYG

a lot of forecasters (NWS, Skilling ect) have the chances of snow increasing with highs in the upper 20's. if the field is bad, that will limit what Reggie Bush can do somewhat

id rather see Anderson in there than Ogunleye, Ogunleye hasant done much of anything the past month

unless Zambrano really sucks it up, i dont see him having a 3.70 ERA this year. hell his highest was 3.66 in 2002 i also think Hill and lilly will be in the 3's and if Hill can pitch like he did at the end of last year, high 2's is possible

But doesn't everyone? :) exactly, now if the Giants were say the Chargers, Baltimore, ect then it would be saying something.

The cubs projected performance was before or after the injuries? i find it hard to believe that all these "projections" only had the cubs winning 4 more games with a healthy Derrek Lee and rotation 20 win improvement is possibly mainly because the cubs dont have a [expletive] with the label manager saying OBP isint important and clogs the basepaths.

i really hope Wood closes if healthy, he was truly lights out out of the bullpen in 2005.

and then utterly chocked when it mattered most.

http://kamala.cod.edu/il/latest.flus43.KLOT.html there also might be a stiff wind off the lake enhancing the snow in some areas

Perhaps if the Bears had actually played well in such conditions you'd have a point. The Bears are the more talented team, and they are the faster team. Crappy weather is a disadvantage. not like seattle has played well on a much better surface But the bad surface levels the playing field for them. It makes the better team less likely to perform as well as it can. i understand this but i think the bears have a advantage because we have 2 healthy backs where as alexander seems like he still is feeling pain. it also will limit the passing game

Perhaps if the Bears had actually played well in such conditions you'd have a point. The Bears are the more talented team, and they are the faster team. Crappy weather is a disadvantage. not like seattle has played well on a much better surface

What do you do with a player who never tested positive for steroids, yet we all know cheated? Example: Sammy Sosa Because baseball never really tested for steroids for a long period of time, to be fair, you should only exclude players who legally tested positive. Otherwise, it is just hearsay. McGuire should get in....Sammy should get in. Bonds should not. Ken Did Bonds ever legally tested positive? well if you consider testifying before a grand jury that he took steroids testing, then yes

it looks like Chicago is going to be near the rain snow line for this upcoming storm. i think this puts the bears in a advantage mainly because while seattle has played in bad weather this year, they have played in the weather on field turf and not natural grass