Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

Look, the Bears are 1999 STL good, but no team in the current NFL is a favorite to run the table with 11 games left. We shouldn't talk about it just yet.

And the every 20 years argument is BS.

Re: Bears could cruise to 16-0
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a Pats fan and I would almost take a loss if it meant Chicago goes undefeated, just so I wouldn't have to listen to those insufferable 72 Dolpins

[/ QUOTE ]
I dunno if you'd be gaining much:

http://services.windowsmedia.com/dvd...50526npi41.jpg

Go Bears.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what I have noticed is that the bears tend to win a championship every 20 or so years. THey won in 63, they won in 85, now its 06 so its time for them to do it up again

[/ QUOTE ]

Were you listening to the Score 670 at 3:45pm today too? They were saying pretty much the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]


yea, I did. I must've missed boers and bernstein saying that. Its been something that I think about everynow and then

Re: Bears could cruise to 16-0
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a Pats fan and I would almost take a loss if it meant Chicago goes undefeated, just so I wouldn't have to listen to those insufferable 72 Dolpins

[/ QUOTE ]

ugh....i still hear about 85....Bears fans would be much worse

Re: Bears could cruise to 16-0
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm a Pats fan and I would almost take a loss if it meant Chicago goes undefeated, just so I wouldn't have to listen to those insufferable 72 Dolpins

[/ QUOTE ]

ugh....i still hear about 85....Bears fans would be much worse

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice to see MyTurn2Raise loyally trolling anything Chicago.

Re: Bears could cruise to 16-0
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm a Pats fan and I would almost take a loss if it meant Chicago goes undefeated, just so I wouldn't have to listen to those insufferable 72 Dolpins

[/ QUOTE ]
I dunno if you'd be gaining much:

http://services.windowsmedia.com/dvd...50526npi41.jpg

Go Bears.

[/ QUOTE ]

hey that team beat the Pats in the SB...I remember them all too well [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
Look, the Bears are 1999 STL good, but no team in the current NFL is a favorite to run the table with 11 games left. We shouldn't talk about it just yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

comparing the Bears to the 99 Rams is really really weird.

if you had to make the lines for the Bears for every game right now, they would be big favorites in most of their games, and small favorites in a couple of others. that's all people are saying.

now, a couple big injuries could happen, or Grossman could regress or all kinds of things could happen...so going undefeated is a long shot. But, they look like a great team right now with a very easy schedule AND they are my defense in a fantasy league which stresses defense which makes KBZ a GENIUS [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

If they get through @ NYG @ NYJ @ NE they can play their backups in their last 3 and still go undefeated.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

The bears in 5 games, have racked up a 120 point differential, second best ever. Guess who's 1st? 1999 STL.

1999 STL is one of the best teams ever. The Bears look like they belong in that caliber.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
The bears in 5 games, have racked up a 120 point differential, second best ever. Guess who's 1st? 1999 STL.

1999 STL is one of the best teams ever. The Bears look like they belong in that caliber.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was talking about comparing the 2 teams, not comparing the 2 teams point differentials.

especially for a franchise that had a dominating team led by an overwhelming defense 20 years ago, bringing up the 99 Rams - who had a track meet offense and quick, effective defense - as a comparison is funny.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

Chicago's passing attack has been great so far. STL's defense that year was excellent.

They're both teams that excel in almost every phase of the game. The Bears offense in 1986 was relatively average. The 2006 offense is one of the best in the league so far.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The bears in 5 games, have racked up a 120 point differential, second best ever. Guess who's 1st? 1999 STL.

1999 STL is one of the best teams ever. The Bears look like they belong in that caliber.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was talking about comparing the 2 teams, not comparing the 2 teams point differentials.

especially for a franchise that had a dominating team led by an overwhelming defense 20 years ago, bringing up the 99 Rams - who had a track meet offense and quick, effective defense - as a comparison is funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

06 bears D is probably as good as the 99 rams O, and the 99 rams D is probably as good as the 06 Bears O, so the comparrison workds in a Yin-Yang sort of way.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Bears offense in 1986 was relatively average.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know the D scored a lot of points in the 85-86 season so the scoring numbers might be a little skewed, but that team did put up nearly 29 points a game which is way above average. Their average RB that season was only getting 4.8 yards per carry. They led the league in rushing yards and were 6th in total yards. If they had more close games i'm sure the stats would have been even more favorable.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
The bears in 5 games, have racked up a 120 point differential, second best ever. Guess who's 1st? 1999 STL.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you making this statistic up?

In 1985, the Bears outscored their opponents 147-22 over 5 games from Week 8-12.....a 125 point differential, which is more than mentioned above.

And thats the ONLY team and year I checked and found a better 5 game differential. I wonder how many more are out there.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

He meant the first 5 games of the season.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

Do people just try to interpret my posts incorrectly so they can tell me I'm wrong?

It really sucks.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do people just try to interpret my posts incorrectly so they can tell me I'm wrong?

It really sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry bro, I interpreted it as written. I didn't realize you meant *first 5 games*, since you didn't write that.

Tip for the future, if you are tired of people "misinterpreting" your posts, try writing what you mean to say, instead of leaving us to guess at it.

And talking just the first 5 games, the 1941 Bears outscored opponents 209-52 in the first 5 games, a whopping 157 point differential.

Or should I be interpreting you to mean "since the AFL-NFL merger", even though you didn't actually write that?

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

Yeah, after the AFL-NFL merger.

Do you realize how it much it would suck if I had to write out every assumption I make in my posts?

Admittedly, that post was vague though.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, after the AFL-NFL merger.

Do you realize how it much it would suck if I had to write out every assumption I make in my posts?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well you did say "2nd best ever", but apparently it's my fault for not properly interpreting "ever" to mean "since the AFL-NFL merger".

I simply interpreted "ever" to mean....you know..."ever".

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

comeuppance in 4 days

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
comeuppance in 4 days

[/ QUOTE ]

Are the Cardinals even bothering to show for this one?

Not that it's going to matter if they do or not. We could probably round up 11 guys from the forums and get the same result.

Bears - 144
Cards - (-6)


If Mike Ditka does the pregame show:

Bears - 2,746
Cards - (-384)



Just kidding of course.....with the second prediction. The first one is rock solid.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
comeuppance in 4 days

[/ QUOTE ]

Teehee

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
comeuppance in 4 days

[/ QUOTE ]
Hm... Chicago is -11.5. Well, I'm sure Vegas is off by 11.5 points or more.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
comeuppance in 4 days

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

comeuppance in 3 days

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

MT2R is usually such a great poster. Weird that he's posting this crap. And I'm not a Bears fan.

Hope he's not betting money on this.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

SomeWhat Amusing from www.thebrushback.com


Bears Tell King Jong Il to 'Cut the [censored].'

CHICAGO--Fed up with the Korean dictator’s blatant disregard for international law, the Chicago Bears defense, the most feared, hard-hitting defense in the NFL, told Kim Jong Il today to “cut the [censored]” or they would travel to Korea and rip his head off.

“Kim Jong Il really just needs to cut the [censored],” said linebacker Brian Urlacher. “He talks real tough, but we’re not intimidated by him. In fact, if he doesn’t stop with all the nuclear weapons-building, me and a few friends of mine I like to refer to as ‘the Bears defense’ are going to hop on a plane to North Korea or South Korea or wherever the hell he lives and snap his little neck. We will not let him threaten this nation, and we will not let him draw attention away from our undefeated season.”

Defensive tackle Tommie Harris, who has 5 sacks this year, also had a little message for the communist dictator.

“Cease and desist, man. Stop with the games,” Harris said at a press conference Sunday. “You’re threatening global stability. If we have to come over there, little man, it’s not going to be pretty. Blood will be shed. Heads will be slammed in car doors. Just ask JP Losman. We made his life miserable today, and his only crime was that he’s kind of a pretty boy.”

The Bears defense has terrorized the NFL this year, allowing just 7.2 points per game after 5 games. Their roster boasts some of the hardest hitters in the league, such as Urlacher, Harris, and defensive end Alex Brown.

Losman, who left Sunday’s game battered, bruised, and demoralized, wasn’t surprised that the Bears decided to send a message to Kim Jong Il.

“They are an aggressive, in-your-face defense,” Losman said. “I would certainly take them seriously if I was that Korean guy. I mean, I’m not sure how they’d manage to get into the country since its such a reclusive regime, but they did get into our backfield so I guess anything’s possible. Of course, to get into our backfield all you have to do is make a menacing face at the lineman and then walk by him.”

Hours after the Bears warned North Korea, South Koreans officials reported mysterious troops movements near the country’s border. An unidentified South Korean diplomat said the country may be preparing for another nuclear test in order to “flex its muscles” in response to Urlacher’s and Harris’s statements.

“North Korea right now is responding to what it perceives to be aggressive statements by the Chicago Bears defense,” the diplomat said. “They want everybody to know that if the Bears follow through with their threats they have the capability to respond. The situation is now worse than it was before. Thanks a lot, [censored]. Maybe you should wait till you've played a few more decent offense before you start making threats.”

Unfortunately, the Bears would not back down from their statements. This time it was linebacker Lance Briggs who threw down the gauntlet.

“Oh, what, they’re going to test another nuclear bomb now? Big deal,” he said. “They barely even got the first test right. You tell that little troll that if he wants to mix it up, we’re ready for him. We don’t back down from anybody. We didn’t back down from the Buffalo Bills, the Seattle Seahawks, or the Minnesota Vikings. And those guys at least had some semblance of a game plan. Well, not the Bills, unless you consider falling down a game plan.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
MT2R is usually such a great poster. Weird that he's posting this crap. And I'm not a Bears fan.

Hope he's not betting money on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just his typical Chicago fodder. He feels an unspeakable urge to troll all Bears threads. He's pretty solid on College Football and spot on on College Basketball.

Are the Cardinals taking out insurance on Leinart? My prediction for him: Pain.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

I'm hoping to catch a leinart tooth in the stands monday night

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm hoping to catch a leinart tooth in the stands monday night

[/ QUOTE ]
I heard Leinart's mom tried to call him in sick.

I think some people make long-shot predictions because if they're right they're like "OMG Einstein was a moron compared to me especially at football," and when they're wrong they're like "OMG I was just supporting my team of course we lost we were 11 pt dogs, lollzz."

Well I've got news for you, MT2R. You won'g be lollzzing if Leinart's head is tackled and some of his brain comes out on the field and everyone's like eeewww. You're going to feel bad. Think about that. Also, what if when you make a college football/basketball/NHL pick people think back to this post and wonder whether you really thought Arizona would win. They won't know whether they can trust you. You're putting your reputation on the line just to say "lollzz" and watch a man's brain squirt out of his ear like that time I put a grape in the microwave? Doesn't make much sense, hombre. Doesn't make much sense.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

This was from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/4...htmare1kg5.jpg

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
MT2R is usually such a great poster. Weird that he's posting this crap. And I'm not a Bears fan.

Hope he's not betting money on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

ty

Nope...I just loyally troll the Bears threads. If you live in Chicago and try to be objective about sports, you end up hating the Bears with a passion....just happens.

The Bears fans here all know my feelings on this subject and I doubt any of them take me serious.




BTW.....

comeuppance in 2 days

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

Week 6
The 5-0 Bears face a team that the only thing going for em is their new stadium. I checked the depth charts of the bears and I beleive I have found a glaring weakness that Arizona's best bet is to attack. Longsnapper Patrick Mannely's backup Desomnd Clark has zero(count em ZERO) professional long snaps. If the cards can throw some different looks at Mannely, I'm sure that they can get to Clark, and book a win in the process. The battle at the long snapper position is my key to the game for Arizona. The number of times you will hear Bears and Super Bowl or Miami during the game is 44. And the number of times you will hear grass field and moves outdoors is 10. This is also the final score of the game Bears 44 Arizona 10. Cheer up cards fans at least next week you face Oak giving you the opportunity to shut up the only person on earth that thinks you guys are a worse team than the Raiders.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

I'm pretty sure Patrick Mannely has NEVER botched a long snap in his professional career. Accurate snaps from him are probably the surest thing in the NFL. Actually I think one could probably make a good arguement that he is the greatest longsnapper of all time.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
Week 6
The 5-0 Bears face a team that the only thing going for em is their new stadium. I checked the depth charts of the bears and I beleive I have found a glaring weakness that Arizona's best bet is to attack. Longsnapper Patrick Mannely's backup Desomnd Clark has zero(count em ZERO) professional long snaps. If the cards can throw some different looks at Mannely, I'm sure that they can get to Clark, and book a win in the process. The battle at the long snapper position is my key to the game for Arizona. The number of times you will hear Bears and Super Bowl or Miami during the game is 44. And the number of times you will hear grass field and moves outdoors is 10. This is also the final score of the game Bears 44 Arizona 10. Cheer up cards fans at least next week you face Oak giving you the opportunity to shut up the only person on earth that thinks you guys are a worse team than the Raiders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great analysis..lol.

Seriously though, what is Jerry Angelo thinking not picking up a veteran backup longsnapper with proven experience in case Mannelly goes down? Why do we risk our whole season on the health of one guy?

These guys have worked to hard to turn to Clark in a high pressure situation if he is needed!

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Week 6
The 5-0 Bears face a team that the only thing going for em is their new stadium. I checked the depth charts of the bears and I beleive I have found a glaring weakness that Arizona's best bet is to attack. Longsnapper Patrick Mannely's backup Desomnd Clark has zero(count em ZERO) professional long snaps. If the cards can throw some different looks at Mannely, I'm sure that they can get to Clark, and book a win in the process. The battle at the long snapper position is my key to the game for Arizona. The number of times you will hear Bears and Super Bowl or Miami during the game is 44. And the number of times you will hear grass field and moves outdoors is 10. This is also the final score of the game Bears 44 Arizona 10. Cheer up cards fans at least next week you face Oak giving you the opportunity to shut up the only person on earth that thinks you guys are a worse team than the Raiders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great analysis..lol.

Seriously though, what is Jerry Angelo thinking not picking up a veteran backup longsnapper with proven experience in case Mannelly goes down? Why do we risk our whole season on the health of one guy?

These guys have worked to hard to turn to Clark in a high pressure situation if he is needed!

[/ QUOTE ]

Fer all you know, Clark is a kick ass long snapper.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
Fer all you know, Clark is a kick ass long snapper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently Angelo and Lovie think so, as they didn't address this glaring need of backup long snapper in the off-season when there were SEVERAL PROVEN viable free agents available to fill the role.

No, in their smugness, they chose to leave this position undermanned, cutting corners again.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fer all you know, Clark is a kick ass long snapper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently Angelo and Lovie think so, as they didn't address this glaring need of backup long snapper in the off-season when there were SEVERAL PROVEN viable free agents available to fill the role.

No, in their smugness, they chose to leave this position undermanned, cutting corners again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh my god. If they need, I can long snap for them. Its easy as hell. Its not like not having a back up QB. Also, there's probably a 100 free agents out there right now that oculd be signed if the need be.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fer all you know, Clark is a kick ass long snapper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently Angelo and Lovie think so, as they didn't address this glaring need of backup long snapper in the off-season when there were SEVERAL PROVEN viable free agents available to fill the role.

No, in their smugness, they chose to leave this position undermanned, cutting corners again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh my god. If they need, I can long snap for them. Its easy as hell. Its not like not having a back up QB. Also, there's probably a 100 free agents out there right now that oculd be signed if the need be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really think he is joking.

Re: Bears 2006 Season Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fer all you know, Clark is a kick ass long snapper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently Angelo and Lovie think so, as they didn't address this glaring need of backup long snapper in the off-season when there were SEVERAL PROVEN viable free agents available to fill the role.

No, in their smugness, they chose to leave this position undermanned, cutting corners again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh my god. If they need, I can long snap for them. Its easy as hell. Its not like not having a back up QB. Also, there's probably a 100 free agents out there right now that oculd be signed if the need be.

[/ QUOTE ]

he's kidding, but long snapping isn't that easy.