Bears 2006 Season Thread

[lastchance]

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.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ 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.

[Cubswin]

[ 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.

[RedBean]

[ 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.

[ridonkulous]

He meant the first 5 games of the season.

[lastchance]

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

It really sucks.

[RedBean]

[ 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?

[lastchance]

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.

[RedBean]

[ 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".

[MyTurn2Raise]

comeuppance in 4 days