UMFan83

No but they are going to use those comments as proof the Bears would rather face the Seahawks and don't respect them. Or something. I don't necessarily believe it matters, but teams seek out thing kinda stuff all the time and Gould delivered it to them on a platter.

Maybe poor luck plays a little bit into the Hawks poor record. They do have the 4th best goal differential in the West after tonight, and 9th best in the NHL.

I disagree. They weren't as good as the first half of the season clearly but they were still a playoff caliber team. And they proved it by making the Super Bowl. In the second half they beat next years Super Bowl champs by 18, lost to the AFC runners up by 4 points in a game they should have won if Grossman didn't unleash the sex pistol and throw 4 ints, went 6-2 overall and still won 2 of their last 3 despite locking up HFA.

Nice post

BTW, why is your name Lo Pan Fan? Why did you leave sulley?

Yeah I think they are slightly better. Going into the playoffs the 2006 team did not have a better overall defense. They were without Harris and Brown. This year's defense is healthy, has a better defensive line, and better safety play. The 2006 was not flawed, but they did not have the kind of QB play that Cutler brings right now. And since that is the most important position in major sports, it is key. Cutler is what makes this team better. Minus Brown and Harris, the 06 Bears were still a better team than the 10 Bears. Grossman was clearly not in the realm of Cutler, but still gave you a chance to have a great game. He wasn't Todd Collins and despite his issues with protecting the ball could still move the ball down the field and score points.

What confidence 1 win gives you. I am reading these blog comments in the Hawks blog: http://www.fieldgulls.com/2011/1/9/1925384/road-to-the-big-game-path-to-the-super-bowl#comments Not one single comment shows any fear for Chicago. The biggest discussion has been about who is going to wave the 12th man flag in the NFC Championship game or something.

What's the point in comparing this to 2006? The obvious point is that the Bears should easily win. The Saints should have easily won too.

You really think this team is better than the 2006 team? The 06 Bears had a differential of +172. The 10 Bears had a differential of +48. The 06 Bears won in Minnesota for only the 2nd time in the last decade. They blew out the previous year's conference champs by 31 points. They had 4 other 25+ point blowouts and 9 of their 13 wins were by 10 points or more (and 2 of the wins that weren't came after clinching HFA). They shut out the Packers for the only time in Brett Favre's career. I mean I think this years team is better at this point than it's differential but there is no way they are more complete than the 06 team. Better offensive line, better running backs (arguably), better overall defense and probably just as good special teams. The QB spot is the only position group where the 10 Bears are clearly better IMO. I don't know why some people seem to think the Bears were a flawed team that fluked its way into a Super Bowl. This was a really really good team.

all the bears fans I know focus on the gould kick but that wasn't that important to me because, perhaps i'm delusional, i already considered it a forgone conclusion because its robbie gould and he is the best guy ever the play that i remember the most in that game is right before it when grossman hit rashied davis for a 30 yard gain or so. that year was the pinnacle of rashied davis' career as he was good for one insane clutch 30 yard catch (but only one!) every game. now he sucks. i also remember hester broke one but it was called back for some bullcrap penalty. don't call phantom holding this time! I still have this game on my computer and watch it occasionally. I honestly think almost as big as the Davis catch is the stop on 4th and inches around midfield towards the end of regulation. If the Seahawks had gotten a 1st, they'd be about 15 yards from FG range with plenty of time on the clock, but also at a spot where the Seahawks could milk the clock down if they got into FG range. If I remember correctly, the ball was just barely short of a first like an inch short, so they probably should have gotten the first 80-90% of the time. But Hasselbeck and Alexander botched the handoff, giving (i think) Briggs enough time to get through the wall and make the game saving play. Also, after the Bears got nowhere on the next possession, the Seahawks got it back to about midfield again with a minute left and Tank Johnson made a nice coverage sack to kill that drive and send the game into OT. Just a fantastic game all around and everyone made big plays. Edit: Also, I forgot about this but it was also huge that a play after the Davis catch, Benson fumbled the ball and the Seahawks recovered, however the play was luckily called dead. Huge break.

Not only rematches, but all 4 games have been played on the same field this year.

I forgot about this game and was shocked to see the Hawks have a 5 goal lead when I turned it on. I feel like the Hawks haven't had many laughers this year so it's good to see.

If I was a Packers fan, I don't know how I'd feel about facing the Seahawks after beating the Saints and Bears and having a crapload of momentum and a game at Qwest field. Not sounding cocky (i'm trying to write as a general NFL fan), but if they beat the Bears after beating the Saints, something strange is going on and I wouldn't want anything to do with playing them.

Take it however you want, but I sorta know someone in the Cubs org (someone that directly reports to Hendry), and I was told that Hendry believes, based on what him and his scouts have seen, that the Cubs just acquired a Cy Young caliber ace for the next decade. PS, I will never be able to get scoops on trades or whatever because of this source. I hardly talk to them unless I bump into them. I also don't think this person is directly involved in transactions, they are more of an assistant to Hendry. You could probably figure out the who it is, but I don't feel like revealing it

Agreed. The only thing that would be more epic (for me at least) is a Cubs/Cardinals NLCS

they are the GREATEST #6 SEED EVER. I can see that. Are you sulley's apprentice or something?

It's crazy that either the Falcons (last SB: 1998), Packers (last SB: 1997), Bears (last SB: 2006), or Seahawks (last SB: 2005) will represent the NFC in the Super Bowl.

I was wrong, the Bears open as 9 point favorites.

Also, given the way the season has gone, I fully expect Hasselbeck to get injured during the week and Whitehurst starting. Lynch as well. Also, an accident at Soldier field will force the game to be played at Wrigley Field, with Seattle for some reason having to drive towards the OF wall all game.

The Fox guys are all saying Seattle caught lightning in the bottle yesterday and there is no way they can beat Chicago. It kind of sucks that we can't play the underdog role in this one. We will be the heavy favorite with all the pressure on us. How will we respond?

Seahawks it is. What do you think the line will be? My very uneducated guess is something like Bears -6. The Seahawks game pissed me off this season. The offense was very mediocre as we only scored 13 offensive points to the 4th worst defense in the NFL (the other 7 points were on a Hester return in almost garbage time when we were down 10 with under 2 minutes left). But the defense pissed me off more than the offense in that game, which is the only thing that worries me about this game. I remember the Seahawks kept stringing together first down after first down on short gains, I think using checkdowns and screens. The tackling was bad. They dominated the TOP for the game 34-25. I think we'll see a similar type of game plan this week, with the Seahawks taking what the Bears give them and hoping no mistakes are made. In the first matchup, neither team committed a turnover, which worked out for the Seahawks well in extending their drives and controlling the TOP. Given the fact that we lost to Seattle in Chicago earlier this year, I do not think there's any chance the Bears underestimate the Seahawks. In fact, I am now very happy that we lost that game, all things considered. My early prediction is that this game will be a lot closer than we hope for, with the Bears special teams leading the way to a victory. I'll say 24-20 Bears.

They are. Good. It looks like the Bears game is the only unappealing matchup for the general NFL fan next weekend, but even that has some appeal as folks will want to see if the Seahawks can shock the world again.

the luck they get, and more glorification all week I'm sure their luck is perfect. it's good enough so that they win, and bad enough so that they can complain about their luck. Maybe I'm taking this root for the packers thing too far, but I can't believe a Bears fan is complaining about the Packers luck after the season we've had. You can almost see the Bears logo becoming a horseshoe more and more each week.

So Saturday: Ravens @ Steelers Packers @ Falcons Sunday: Seahawks @ Bears Jets @ Patriots I cant remember if the AFC games are correct in terms of when thye are played

Time for a rematch of the 2006 NFC Divisional Round. Bears vs. Seahawks. I thought there was at best a 2% chance of that matchup going into this week. It's actually happening. Don't blow this break Bears.