jersey cubs fan

I'm sorry but this is absurd. You are arbitrarily deciding that the only game that can match it is another Bears/Packers game. This is among the biggest non-championship games in the past couple decades, but the fact that the Bears A) have a SB title on their resume and B) were in the Super Bowl a couple years ago and C) are playing their 4th NFC championship game in that timeframe is a number of reasons why the 86 game was bigger. Your first shot at a title is always the biggest. People ignoring that game either weren't alive or were too young to remember how freaking huge it was.

Except that it's not. Name 1 game in the last 27 years, that can match the importance of this game (semi-finals of a major sport playoffs), where the teams playing match the rivalry and hatred of Bears and Packers fans, and the team and event was big enough to impact the entire city, from people who barely follow sports all the way down to the diest of the die hards. You can't I don't have to match your arbitrary parameters. The NFC championship game in 1986 was freaking huge. Have you not read all the comments in this thread about how starved for a championship Chicago was at that point? The Bears had never been to a Super Bowl. This game is arguably not as big as the 2007 game, considering that was the first shot at getting back to the Super Bowl in a generation. The rivalry is big, but playing for a Super Bowl dwarfs the rivalry. The opponent only adds to the story.

Except that it's not.

http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2011/01/a-fat-peoples-history-of-the-packers-bears-rivalry.html#more-34144

How much do you consider the fact that he is 28 years old? He's at the age where he out of the "young guy overthrowing" arm injury and not yet at the point of "old guy who can't take the arm stress anymore" arm injury. It just seems like if the elbow or shoulder injury doesn't get a guy early, it's not going to get him until late in his career. Marmol has thrown this way for now 4 years thru heavy bullpen use. When did Eric Gagne fall apart? 28/29? Billy Koch was around that age. I think it's incredibly difficult to compare Marmol to others. He came into the position late, is a max effort reliever who relies heavily on breaking balls and a crazy delivery. I can't justify hoping he's passed some magical age where it's no longer a concern.

That was true in just about every city in America. The 70's sucked for a variety of reasons.

The whole area was still on a collective high from 85/86 to care as much about 88. I think you are completely overlooking the have never been there, haven't been there in a generation aspect that made those games huge. People think of the January 86 playoff games as formalities now, but that is not how they were at the time. After the loss in Miami, people were thrown for a loop. Doubt definitely crept in. And again, it was the first one ever in a depressingly title starved city. There were no Bulls rings to fall back on, there was no Stanley Cup. There were a couple of miserable failures by the White Sox and Cubs in the early 80's, and nothing. And nobody assumed anything with the Rex Grossman Bears. They were the most talented team, but the outcome was very much in doubt. Regardless, the level of confidence doesn't change the fact that we just did this a couple years ago, but in 85/86 and 06/07, Chicago was coming off very large droughts of football glory - and in the case of 85/86 any glory at all.

Yeah, the Cubs games were the next biggest when Boers and Bernstein were talking about it, but I think like constablerabbit said, they determined that since there's so many Sox fans in Chicago, that it wasn't as anticipated universally by the whole city. BS. It was huge. The entire sports world was weighing in. I remember reading BBC articles about the Cubs being in the position they were in. Still, there have been several NFCC games in Chicago, and they came under situations where the team was more desperate to win it. 1) The first time getting to the Super Bowl. 2) The first time getting there in 20 years. That desperation to reach a pinnacle you've never seen or have not seen in a generation trumps any increased hype due to the Packers being involved.

Don't think I agree with that one, either. Granted, the NHL is well behind the NFL in overall interest, but game 5 of the Stanley Cup Finals was just 7 months ago, and that was a pretty big game. The White Sox had two World Series games in town 5 years back, and the Cubs played some pretty important NLCS games back in '03, too. On the NFL level, the 2006 NFC Championship 4 years ago was a pretty big deal, as well. Not to mention the playoff games in 85. That Rams game was enormous, even if it was in an entirely different era with regards to hype. The argument is that the NFC Championship games are all of equal value, except that being GB makes it bigger. The Blackhawks game wasn't a "win or go home" game, and therefore didn't have the same weight. Same for the White Sox games. This is a win or go home, for the SB, in Chicago, against the Bears biggest rival. Basically, by that argument, unless it's a game 7, there's no way a basketball, hockey, or baseball game could be "bigger". The Score is the one that's hyping it that way, btw. It's kind of a stupid argument. Either way, the Cubs had a game 6 and a game 7 in Chicago to win or go home. This is the 2nd NFCC game in 4 years, and the 4th in 25. The one in 85 was the first ever. They'd never been to a Super Bowl. The Bears have been there, and they've been beyond there recently. This must be coming out of the Jets talk. That was legit. The Jets are clearly the Patriots little brother. New England has all the recent titles, divisional dominance and the Jets haven't been to a Super Bowl in 2 generations. Nobody thought they stood a chance last year and ultimately they lost as expected in the championship game. The Packers adds to the story, but this isn't a bigger game than previous NFCC games or other games played in Chicago. It's another chance to win and go on, and those games have happened quite a bit.

Don't think I agree with that one, either. Granted, the NHL is well behind the NFL in overall interest, but game 5 of the Stanley Cup Finals was just 7 months ago, and that was a pretty big game. The White Sox had two World Series games in town 5 years back, and the Cubs played some pretty important NLCS games back in '03, too. On the NFL level, the 2006 NFC Championship 4 years ago was a pretty big deal, as well. Not to mention the playoff games in 85. That Rams game was enormous, even if it was in an entirely different era with regards to hype.

I do quite a bit. Big QBs that move well, with bad offensive lines. Ben has better weapons and a consistently better defense throughout his career to get to where he's been.

Clearly he's not jewish. Are you saying Jews have slow turnarounds? I think traditional Jews have the quickest post-death funerals in the Western World. No, I wrote that all wrong. Was just comparing it to a recent one where they really rushed to keep it under 24 hours.

I do not understand this NY Cosmos story. I haven't heard any talk of it in NY. Just a few internet stories, including this site. Are they creating some sort of barnstorming team in hopes of becoming an MLS franchise?

I've only seen 4-5 but most of them seem to be taking somebody other than an OL. Why do you call it reflexively taking a lineman? It's still a real need.

Let's not forget the Tank Johnson/Cedrid Benson era, when the media spent a heck of a lot of time talking about the Bears. The McCaskeys understandably do not like that stuff. Add in the talk of Grossman/Orton partying, Urlacher knocking up strippers and Briggs driving a little poorly and Chicago had a decent list of controversy surrounding them. But they shut that stuff up. Urlacher does not seek attention. Briggs talked of wanting to be THE GUY on a new team but settled for being a fantastic sidekick. The Bears have a quiet owner (no Jerry Jones or Snyder), a quiet GM (no Parcells) a quiet coach (no Rex Ryan), a quiet QB (no Peyton), a quiet RB, no star receivers, therefore quiet receivers. They've made an effort to not be the Bengals and not allow the hints of ugliness post Super Bowl to carry over into the future. The Chicago Bears have made an effort not to be hyped like crazy. They also get criticized by the media for that since they supposedly don't exploit the brand as much as they do.

did you bump your head? You can see the band-aid can't you? http://cdn.ksk.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/al-davis.jpg

The Bears national imprint is very large. They might not have a Sal Palentonio, who is a Philly guy because he's from Philly, but they will always attract one of the largest audiences in primetime. They are one of the biggest draws in Vegas as well. They were more or less a non-entity for 1.5 decades and when they splashed on the scene 4 years ago it was with defense, and very short lived. If Chicago turns into a consistent contender with offense, they will be as marketable as any team in American sports.

They are excellent at stopping the run and special teams. It's not like they are devoid of blue chip players either. It is true that they just gloss over the big scoring outputs. 27, 31, 40, 38, 35 all over the past two months and they are still considered offensive failures.

What? I think he means that since the Cubs were stupid last year, they constantly put Hill in when they were facing a good running team. I'm not sure if it is statistically true, though. I'm sure you could probably just take a look at how many stolen base attempts were made off of him. I'm not sure there's any justification for claiming he faced more good running teams than a normal catcher. But his 28% isn't even impressive.

Brady got traded to the Jets yesterday, didn't you hear? Roethlisberger isn't that great either. Ben is pretty damn good. His early success was more about the team, but his past 4 years have been terrific. He has similar offensive line problems as Cutler, but better weapons at his disposal. He's also had a more dominating defense on his side.

Clearly he's not jewish.

There is nothing unusual about an 11 win team getting a bye.

No they have not. They've beaten 2 of the remaining top 4 teams. There is nothing unusual about an 11-5 team getting a bye. 10-6 teams have gotten them. Is everybody going to count Pittsburgh as lucky for getting to host the Jets instead of going to New England? How about for stealing a win against Miami on a crazy call which would have meant they didn't even win their division this year?

Silva's contract had more money in total, including a $2m buyout for next year. But Seattle kicked in more than the differential. But Bradley's voidability for 2011 was gone by the time the deal went down.

I realize you didn't exactly say that. But ESPN was running a collection of lucky breaks for the Bears this year that pretty much said the same thing as you. They talked about the 3rd string QB thing too which is just stupid. Miami didn't have a legit NFL starter on their roster, who cares who was 3rd? Every team that played them "lucked" into playing a garbage QB. Minnesota used a backup to beat the Eagles. Chicago lost their QB to concussions for 1.5 games and probably suffered from the hangover of that concussions for a couple more games. They lost a game because of a BS fumble call and horrible non challenge. They didn't luck into their record and things didn't fall into place anymore than they fall into place for everybody who moves on. Chicago beat Philly. That is the biggest reason they got the 2 seed. Chicago beat the Jets, but in the eyes of many they will be a sizeable underdog to them in a potential SB matchup because the Jets are real or something. This wasn't a 9-7 team that skated into the playoffs thanks to a better opponent resting its best players. They won the games they had to win and did as good a job as anybody in the regular season outside of New England. But New England was its own flawed self for all but about a 3-4 week period this year. Every one of these remaining teams is a good football team with flaws.