View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 25th, 2014, 11:51 pm



Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 Gameday Thread: Bears @ Lions. 
Author Message
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1387
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Gameday Thread: Bears @ Lions.
TheRealWags wrote:
Love this!
Image


It was also funny seeing them laughing about it on the sidelines when the game was going to commercial. Great to see the team have a big enough lead they could actually have fun on the sidelines.


September 30th, 2013, 10:32 am
Profile
Rookie Player of the Year
User avatar

Joined: August 24th, 2010, 9:54 pm
Posts: 2311
Post Re: Gameday Thread: Bears @ Lions.
I wanted to give credit to Durham. Played a much better game than I thought he was capable of.

We're getting contributions from different places in different games. That's what good teams do.

_________________
Driver of the Jim Caldwell bandwagon. Climb aboard.


September 30th, 2013, 10:34 am
Profile
Online
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9495
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Gameday Thread: Bears @ Lions.
This is the 4th straight game I felt the Lions were in control of. Detroit, for the most part, seems to be controlling the line of scrimmage. They have been really good at the point of contact - you expect that from Nick and Ndamukong - but they are also doing so on offense, Dom may be having his best season.

If Detroit can play composed/under control - they are going to be tough to beat this year....

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


September 30th, 2013, 10:43 am
Profile WWW
3rd Round Selection

Joined: October 19th, 2005, 1:24 pm
Posts: 1166
Location: Nottingham, England
Post Re: Gameday Thread: Bears @ Lions.
m2karateman wrote:
HechePipe wrote:
So now that Chicago is 3-1, I think it's a good time to wonder if Chicago really deserves a 3-1 record.
I mean, who have the Bears really beaten?
We were all saying this about the 2-1 Lions, but now I think it's time we ask the same question of the Bears. Looking at the Bears right now, they look like fool's gold without Urlacher. After all of the expensive toys the Bears got Cutler to play with, HE IS STILL INACCURATE. I.E. says he's not, but CUTLER CAN NOT ACCURATELY STAND IN THE POCKET AND THROW. Dude just got shown what's up by something called Glover Quin. Can we stop talking about how Cutler is on the verge of becoming this All-Pro quarterback? Hasn't happened yet, Bearfan and it's not going to anytime soon. The Lions secondary made him look like Joey Harrington today. Lost, confused, slinging the ball any damn where he pleases. Bearfan: Stop comparing Cutler to Stafford. Stafford is one of the top 8 quarterbacks in the league. Also, stop acting like your defense is as good as it was in years past. It's not. Players age, Urlacher left and clearly you're struggling to compensate and can not. The Bears are looking very Lionesque. Won 3 quick games and then exposed only to land at below .500 by the end of the year.
Good luck with Minnesota, Green Bay and yes, Detroit the rest of the way. Hope your GM nails that high draft pick this April.
\:D/


I don't think thumping your chest is the right move at this point. The Lions beat the Bears. Good. Act like you've been there before. While the Bears haven't really faced stellar competition thus far, neither did the Lions. Both teams have some challenges ahead.

And before any of you jump down my throat AGAIN, let me reiterate, I am very happy about their win over the Bears. But it doesn't change that the Lions were fortunate. Yes, fortunate. Stafford fumbles, recovers for a TD. Bush fumbles, Calvin recovers, Bush scores on the next play. If those two fumbles don't bounce to the Lions, this is a different ball game folks.

There was a boatload of GOOD things in this game....
-Reduced penalties (Lions flagged just three times)
-Rushing game was incredible
-Defensive line was awesome
-Playcalling was NOT predictable
-Offensive line was really good
-Safety play was good
-Lions created turnovers
-Pettigrew and Durham started catching passes

The BAD was limited, but not non-existant....
-Offense disappeared in second half
-Injuries to Houston and Mathis
-Stafford highly inconsistent throughout game
-Turnover in red zone

The UGLY was there as well....
-FUMBLES......the Lions were fortunate to cover two of their three, but ball security needs to be addressed by all.

Schwartz was quoted as saying he didn't care about the statistics. He only cared about getting the win, and that's all that matters. Well, that's not what the winning NFL head coaches focus on. Let the players celebrate the win. And Schwartz should celebrate it as well. But you don't ignore those parts of the game that need to be improved during the remaining 12 games because you just beat a division opponent at home. Now the Lions have to take a trip to Lambeau against a Green Bay team that is rested and looking to show that they are the elite team of the NFC North. Sitting back and simply enjoying the win would be a monumental mistake. Green Bay lost twice, but against two pretty good teams in San Francisco and Cincinnati. I don't see them rolling over for the Lions at Lambeau any time soon.

I said after the win against Washington that the Lions needed to fix some things to be able to beat Chicago. The did fix a number of them. They cut down on penalties, made stops on third downs, and the players caught the ball better. Had they not improved in those areas, do you think they still would have beaten the Bears?

It was a great win for this team, one they needed to show themselves they could play a good game against a good opponent. And make no mistake, the Bears are a good team. But the game is over, the victory won, and a new opponent awaits. And that opponent isn't trembling in fear. The Packers EXPECT to win, and the Lions are going to have to continue to improve in certain areas while maintaining their excellence in others to squash the Packers expectations. I'd love to see that happen.

=D> Completely agree M2. Well said.


September 30th, 2013, 10:44 am
Profile
Online
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2795
Post Re: Gameday Thread: Bears @ Lions.
m2karateman wrote:
HechePipe wrote:
So now that Chicago is 3-1, I think it's a good time to wonder if Chicago really deserves a 3-1 record.
I mean, who have the Bears really beaten?
We were all saying this about the 2-1 Lions, but now I think it's time we ask the same question of the Bears. Looking at the Bears right now, they look like fool's gold without Urlacher. After all of the expensive toys the Bears got Cutler to play with, HE IS STILL INACCURATE. I.E. says he's not, but CUTLER CAN NOT ACCURATELY STAND IN THE POCKET AND THROW. Dude just got shown what's up by something called Glover Quin. Can we stop talking about how Cutler is on the verge of becoming this All-Pro quarterback? Hasn't happened yet, Bearfan and it's not going to anytime soon. The Lions secondary made him look like Joey Harrington today. Lost, confused, slinging the ball any damn where he pleases. Bearfan: Stop comparing Cutler to Stafford. Stafford is one of the top 8 quarterbacks in the league. Also, stop acting like your defense is as good as it was in years past. It's not. Players age, Urlacher left and clearly you're struggling to compensate and can not. The Bears are looking very Lionesque. Won 3 quick games and then exposed only to land at below .500 by the end of the year.
Good luck with Minnesota, Green Bay and yes, Detroit the rest of the way. Hope your GM nails that high draft pick this April.
\:D/


I don't think thumping your chest is the right move at this point. The Lions beat the Bears. Good. Act like you've been there before. While the Bears haven't really faced stellar competition thus far, neither did the Lions. Both teams have some challenges ahead.

And before any of you jump down my throat AGAIN, let me reiterate, I am very happy about their win over the Bears. But it doesn't change that the Lions were fortunate. Yes, fortunate. Stafford fumbles, recovers for a TD. Bush fumbles, Calvin recovers, Bush scores on the next play. If those two fumbles don't bounce to the Lions, this is a different ball game folks.

There was a boatload of GOOD things in this game....
-Reduced penalties (Lions flagged just three times)
-Rushing game was incredible
-Defensive line was awesome
-Playcalling was NOT predictable
-Offensive line was really good
-Safety play was good
-Lions created turnovers
-Pettigrew and Durham started catching passes

The BAD was limited, but not non-existant....
-Offense disappeared in second half
-Injuries to Houston and Mathis
-Stafford highly inconsistent throughout game
-Turnover in red zone

The UGLY was there as well....
-FUMBLES......the Lions were fortunate to cover two of their three, but ball security needs to be addressed by all.

Schwartz was quoted as saying he didn't care about the statistics. He only cared about getting the win, and that's all that matters. Well, that's not what the winning NFL head coaches focus on. Let the players celebrate the win. And Schwartz should celebrate it as well. But you don't ignore those parts of the game that need to be improved during the remaining 12 games because you just beat a division opponent at home. Now the Lions have to take a trip to Lambeau against a Green Bay team that is rested and looking to show that they are the elite team of the NFC North. Sitting back and simply enjoying the win would be a monumental mistake. Green Bay lost twice, but against two pretty good teams in San Francisco and Cincinnati. I don't see them rolling over for the Lions at Lambeau any time soon.

I said after the win against Washington that the Lions needed to fix some things to be able to beat Chicago. The did fix a number of them. They cut down on penalties, made stops on third downs, and the players caught the ball better. Had they not improved in those areas, do you think they still would have beaten the Bears?

It was a great win for this team, one they needed to show themselves they could play a good game against a good opponent. And make no mistake, the Bears are a good team. But the game is over, the victory won, and a new opponent awaits. And that opponent isn't trembling in fear. The Packers EXPECT to win, and the Lions are going to have to continue to improve in certain areas while maintaining their excellence in others to squash the Packers expectations. I'd love to see that happen.



I agree with everything, but I think fortunate might be a little harsh. I think we're winning with some luck, but for different reasons than we're used too.

Most will point to Bush and Bell, but I think it's telling that in years past, any positive running gains were always to the left side of the line, behind Backus and Sims. This year, the ability to run on the right side of the line for big gains has opened up the running game to another level. Defenses could always play the left side of the line with more strength and not have to drop a safety. Now they have to play balanced and stay close, which opens up the passing game. Playing Warford all those snaps in the preseason has paid off. Finally a 3rd rounder that paid off.

Calvin doesn't need to have a personal best every game in order to win. Last year and even 2011, a 4 catch, 44 yard game by CJ = guaranteed loss. Not having to rely on Calvin opens the field up for everyone else, and will pay dividends for Calvin later in the year.

Healthy safeties are a difference. Delmas being healthy is boon for the defense. Quin was almost as important as the Bush signing. Last year with Wendling and Spievey on the field, they cost us in a lot of games. This year, with the pressure the Dline is getting, having that duo back there is paying dividends and I think it'll get better. It allows the corners a little more flexibility and leeway in their coverages and while it's seemed sloppy at times, they're taking away more than they're giving up.

I completely agree that they still have a lot they need to improve on, but in the past, the list of bad outweighed the good by a lot. And any of the things on that bad list would guarantee a loss. Now it's just guaranteeing a closer game than it should be. Every team has things it can work on, but we're a much more complete team this year as opposed to the past. In the past, after a loss, we'd just say we sucked. Other teams beat us regularly. It's a completely different feeling to know that when we lose, it's because we beat ourselves (Like the Arizona game) as opposed to other teams beating us. That is a hurdle that was bigger to get over and I think we as fans just haven't completely adjusted to having different expectations.


September 30th, 2013, 10:45 am
Profile
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1387
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Gameday Thread: Bears @ Lions.
It seems like Delmas is playing a little more under control now. I wonder how much of that is because of Quinn and his presence on the field. They seem to be working well with each other and Delmas isn't trying to run around everywhere to make a play.


September 30th, 2013, 10:51 am
Profile
Pop Warner Allstar

Joined: September 23rd, 2013, 1:09 pm
Posts: 146
Post Re: Gameday Thread: Bears @ Lions.
rao wrote:
HechePipe wrote:
I'm sorry, but if the Lions defensive line merely just outplayed the Bears offensive line, then I guess World War II was "just a skirmish." They were beaten badly in TOP (when it was still a competitive game), they allowed 2 sacks on Cutler in the first half, and I think the soft coverage the Lions were playing in the second half helped Forte's 3.2 YPC because in that first half, I doubt he was getting anything over 2.5ypc aside from that one run. Cutler had pretty much nothing when Mathis, Houston and Delmas were on the field.
So either the Lions basically dominated an "above average" (your words) Bears team in every facet of the game, including special teams.
Or, the more likely scenario, that the Bears are not very good this year and their offensive line is in deep sh1t with problems on both sides of the ball.
Then again if you're just a contrarian like most Lions fans, you probably would say this game is a complete fluke for both teams and the Lions are still garbage and the Bears are still a very good team that had a hiccup today.

I really don't see what there is to debate... The Bears are below average (how far below average, I'm not sure) and their offense laid right down when the game was competitive. The Lions played soft zone with their backups in the game, Cutler scores a few to make the score seem not so embarrassing and here we sit, hashing out whether or not the Bears are a good team this year. They have weapons, but the Lions defensive line gave Cutler trouble due to what looked like weakness in their offensive line. Cutler got rattled and became Rex Grossman, and the Bears were never able to overcome it. The score was 40-13 at one point. I know you want to disagree with me because that's the nature of a Lions fan, but they laid down, dude. The Lions d-line is good, but they're not 40-13 against an "above average" Bears team good.


Your opinion on the Bears is so incredibly infused with your Bears hate. Your calling the Bears a bad team because of one game. Their Oline is still bad but it has been worse and their defense is still leading the league in takeaways. The only part of their team that is worse than previous years is their pass rush because they lost Milton and Peppers has been showing his age since last year. They have yet to lose to a bad team, so calling them below average is unfounded.

Laid down means you gave up or surrendered, if there was one good thing the Bears actually did in that game it was that they did not lay down. Cutler even took a hit to the knees from Suh and just got up walked it off without yelling at his Oline or the refs. That team stayed calm and continued to try to get back in the game.

Of course I hate the Bears.
But if I'm wrong and the Bears are an "above average" team, then they should at least keep it competitive this Sunday against the Saints, right? I'm not saying they have to win it, but at no point next week should the score favor New Orleans by 30 or more. I mean... as long as they're "above average." Above average teams do not play the way the Bears played against the Lions. With all the problems that you all like to point out about the Lions, the Lions hung 40 on them yesterday. That's not an "above average" team, no matter how you slice it.


September 30th, 2013, 11:02 am
Profile
Pop Warner Allstar

Joined: September 23rd, 2013, 1:09 pm
Posts: 146
Post Re: Gameday Thread: Bears @ Lions.
If you're going to minimize the Lions win and assert that they got lucky, then what does that say about the Bears? If the Lions had so many drawbacks in the game and still manage to put up 40 on the Bears, then what does that say about the Bears?

You can't have it both ways. If they were beaten badly by the Lions (and they were) in their only stiff competition so far, then I think I have every reason to believe that the Bears just aren't very good.
But if they are "above average" as you all assert, then what does that say about the Lions hanging 40 on them? Of course, Lions fan, they were just lucky.
The Lions can't suck as bad some of you say they suck and still win against the Bears if they're good. So either the Lions are looking bound for the playoffs, or the Bears just aren't very good. To me, the Bears just aren't very good.


September 30th, 2013, 11:12 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9891
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Gameday Thread: Bears @ Lions.
HechePipe wrote:
If you're going to minimize the Lions win and assert that they got lucky, then what does that say about the Bears? If the Lions had so many drawbacks in the game and still manage to put up 40 on the Bears, then what does that say about the Bears?

You can't have it both ways. If they were beaten badly by the Lions (and they were) in their only stiff competition so far, then I think I have every reason to believe that the Bears just aren't very good.
But if they are "above average" as you all assert, then what does that say about the Lions hanging 40 on them? Of course, Lions fan, they were just lucky.
The Lions can't suck as bad some of you say they suck and still win against the Bears if they're good. So either the Lions are looking bound for the playoffs, or the Bears just aren't very good. To me, the Bears just aren't very good.



Nobody said the Lions were 'lucky' to beat the Bears. The Lions controlled both lines of scrimmage. Our defense pressured Cutler nearly all day, and other than his long TD run, Forte wasn't much of a factor. And despite our two starting CBs going out of the game due to injury, the team still managed to win. I think Darius Slay played pretty well, even if he did give up some pass plays to Jeffrey. Alshon made some INCREDIBLE catches to make those plays. It wasn't that Darius played those passes poorly. Jeffrey just made a great catch.

Now, if you can't accept the fact that on the two fumbles in question that the Lions were fortunate to get the balls back, then I can't help you. And if you further cannot accept that if the Bears had recovered those balls the game probably would have had a different outcome (not definitely, but highly probable) then you have your head in the sand.

Nobody said the Lions suck, those are your words. And bad teams beat good teams all the time. IIRC, last year the Lions beat the Seahawks. The Lions were a bad team, and the Seahawks were a good team. And as much as I HATE Richard Sherman, he did shut down Calvin in that game (keeping in mind that CJ was nursing multiple injuries but still playing), even though he had safety help the entire game.

If you want to say the Bears are a bad team, go right ahead. If you sleep better at night because you believe in that, more power to you. If you want to think that the Lions are now a genuine force to be reckoned with based on this one game, then keep blowing that horn. It's a fact, most of the team played their best game, by far, that they have in a LONG time. Nobody is taking that away from them, and nobody is saying they were lucky to win. They EARNED that victory, and they dominated the Bears for three of four quarters.

But the fact is, the Lions allowed the Bears to come back into that game. The Bears never gave up, kept fighting and made a game of it at the end. 60 minutes, not 45 minutes, is the standard, non-overtime game length in the NFL. Great teams don't coast and don't invite other teams back into the game after holding a three TD lead in the second half. Just like I said last week, there is room for improvement. Had the Lions played against Chicago like they did against Washington, we'd be discussing a Lions loss instead of a victory. There's no denying that. They improved several areas that needed improving and it resulted in a victory.

This coming Sunday we face Green Bay at Lambeau. Green Bay is 1-2. You want to tell me they aren't that good? The Lions are going to have to play an even better game against the Packers than they did against the Bears to come back to Detroit on Monday 4-1. Even the players interviewed yesterday after the game stated there are still some things that need to be improved on if they are to continue winning. If they understand this, why can't you?

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


September 30th, 2013, 11:37 am
Profile
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1387
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Gameday Thread: Bears @ Lions.
HechePipe wrote:
Of course I hate the Bears.
But if I'm wrong and the Bears are an "above average" team, then they should at least keep it competitive this Sunday against the Saints, right? I'm not saying they have to win it, but at no point next week should the score favor New Orleans by 30 or more. I mean... as long as they're "above average." Above average teams do not play the way the Bears played against the Lions. With all the problems that you all like to point out about the Lions, the Lions hung 40 on them yesterday. That's not an "above average" team, no matter how you slice it.


First thing, I said they were average to above average. What will determine that will be how well they play some of the better teams this season, but the 4 games they have played so far aren't a great indicator since every team is a little suspect.

Second, match ups do matter. The Lions had their biggest strength on defense against the Bears biggest weakness on their team. It's also not something the Bears will see much from other teams this season because most other teams get their pressure from the outside. If the interior of the pocket holds up better for Cutler those quick passes he's been doing will be a lot more accurate and the offense should play much better.

The Ravens won the Super Bowl last season but also had a game in season where Houston put up 43 on them. Sometimes teams, even good teams, can get steamrolled. The Lions still have problems, but they have the talent with Reggie Bush and CJ to drop 40 on just about any team. Just like in 2011 they are a 30 pts/gm offense and if the defense helps out it's not hard for a 40 point game to happen. Hopefully the Lions continue to get better and play with better discipline like in the Bears game so the scoring continues.

I don't see NO beating the Bears by a large margin. We'll see how they play Miami tonight, but other than the Cards game they really haven't been putting up big points.


September 30th, 2013, 11:46 am
Profile
Pop Warner Allstar

Joined: September 23rd, 2013, 1:09 pm
Posts: 146
Post Re: Gameday Thread: Bears @ Lions.
m2karateman wrote:
HechePipe wrote:
If you're going to minimize the Lions win and assert that they got lucky, then what does that say about the Bears? If the Lions had so many drawbacks in the game and still manage to put up 40 on the Bears, then what does that say about the Bears?

You can't have it both ways. If they were beaten badly by the Lions (and they were) in their only stiff competition so far, then I think I have every reason to believe that the Bears just aren't very good.
But if they are "above average" as you all assert, then what does that say about the Lions hanging 40 on them? Of course, Lions fan, they were just lucky.
The Lions can't suck as bad some of you say they suck and still win against the Bears if they're good. So either the Lions are looking bound for the playoffs, or the Bears just aren't very good. To me, the Bears just aren't very good.



Nobody said the Lions were 'lucky' to beat the Bears. The Lions controlled both lines of scrimmage. Our defense pressured Cutler nearly all day, and other than his long TD run, Forte wasn't much of a factor. And despite our two starting CBs going out of the game due to injury, the team still managed to win. I think Darius Slay played pretty well, even if he did give up some pass plays to Jeffrey. Alshon made some INCREDIBLE catches to make those plays. It wasn't that Darius played those passes poorly. Jeffrey just made a great catch.

Now, if you can't accept the fact that on the two fumbles in question that the Lions were fortunate to get the balls back, then I can't help you. And if you further cannot accept that if the Bears had recovered those balls the game probably would have had a different outcome (not definitely, but highly probable) then you have your head in the sand.

Nobody said the Lions suck, those are your words. And bad teams beat good teams all the time. IIRC, last year the Lions beat the Seahawks. The Lions were a bad team, and the Seahawks were a good team. And as much as I HATE Richard Sherman, he did shut down Calvin in that game (keeping in mind that CJ was nursing multiple injuries but still playing), even though he had safety help the entire game.

If you want to say the Bears are a bad team, go right ahead. If you sleep better at night because you believe in that, more power to you. If you want to think that the Lions are now a genuine force to be reckoned with based on this one game, then keep blowing that horn. It's a fact, most of the team played their best game, by far, that they have in a LONG time. Nobody is taking that away from them, and nobody is saying they were lucky to win. They EARNED that victory, and they dominated the Bears for three of four quarters.

But the fact is, the Lions allowed the Bears to come back into that game. The Bears never gave up, kept fighting and made a game of it at the end. 60 minutes, not 45 minutes, is the standard, non-overtime game length in the NFL. Great teams don't coast and don't invite other teams back into the game after holding a three TD lead in the second half. Just like I said last week, there is room for improvement. Had the Lions played against Chicago like they did against Washington, we'd be discussing a Lions loss instead of a victory. There's no denying that. They improved several areas that needed improving and it resulted in a victory.

This coming Sunday we face Green Bay at Lambeau. Green Bay is 1-2. You want to tell me they aren't that good? The Lions are going to have to play an even better game against the Packers than they did against the Bears to come back to Detroit on Monday 4-1. Even the players interviewed yesterday after the game stated there are still some things that need to be improved on if they are to continue winning. If they understand this, why can't you?

In a way, I agree with everything you said. What I disagree with is the notion that the Bears are as good as they've been in years past.
If you look at the wholesale changes that Chicago has made, wouldn't it be unrealistic to think that they don't skip a beat and just continue their winning ways after the changes to the lines, changes to the schemes, changes in personnel, the loss of key players and the fact that a lot of their players are getting a little long in the tooth? What has Devin Hester done in the last two years? Why is this year any different for Cutler, who continues to disappoint Bear fans and make bad decisions with the football at key times?

Good teams do lose to bad teams. But I've seen nothing from the Bears so far to think they'll just continue their winning ways. If you have, then good on ya, because I'm not seeing it.

Speaking of Green Bay, I don't think the Lions win that game. I hope I'm wrong and it shocked me that they beat the Bears, but I'm not expecting a win in Green Bay at all.

I'm sorry but the only thing I'm claiming here is that the Chicago Bears are not as good as they've been in the past. If you've seen something this year that makes you think otherwise, then I'm all ears. Until then, I believe the Bears are going to have a rough season. If you want to point to their wins against lowly teams, fine. But that's not enough evidence for me.


September 30th, 2013, 11:52 am
Profile
Pop Warner Allstar

Joined: September 23rd, 2013, 1:09 pm
Posts: 146
Post Re: Gameday Thread: Bears @ Lions.
rao wrote:
HechePipe wrote:
Of course I hate the Bears.
But if I'm wrong and the Bears are an "above average" team, then they should at least keep it competitive this Sunday against the Saints, right? I'm not saying they have to win it, but at no point next week should the score favor New Orleans by 30 or more. I mean... as long as they're "above average." Above average teams do not play the way the Bears played against the Lions. With all the problems that you all like to point out about the Lions, the Lions hung 40 on them yesterday. That's not an "above average" team, no matter how you slice it.


First thing, I said they were average to above average. What will determine that will be how well they play some of the better teams this season, but the 4 games they have played so far aren't a great indicator since every team is a little suspect.

Second, match ups do matter. The Lions had their biggest strength on defense against the Bears biggest weakness on their team. It's also not something the Bears will see much from other teams this season because most other teams get their pressure from the outside. If the interior of the pocket holds up better for Cutler those quick passes he's been doing will be a lot more accurate and the offense should play much better.

The Ravens won the Super Bowl last season but also had a game in season where Houston put up 43 on them. Sometimes teams, even good teams, can get steamrolled. The Lions still have problems, but they have the talent with Reggie Bush and CJ to drop 40 on just about any team. Just like in 2011 they are a 30 pts/gm offense and if the defense helps out it's not hard for a 40 point game to happen. Hopefully the Lions continue to get better and play with better discipline like in the Bears game so the scoring continues.

I don't see NO beating the Bears by a large margin. We'll see how they play Miami tonight, but other than the Cards game they really haven't been putting up big points.

OK... So the Saints are a "good" team, we can agree to that, right? Not looking like world champs just yet, but decent, right?
So then next week when they play the Bears, they shouldn't be up by 3 touchdowns at any point during the game. Provided that the Bears really are this "above average" team, they shouldn't get crushed by the Lions and then crushed again by NO next week.
If the Bears get beaten handily by the Saints next week, can the notion that the Bears are still this powerful force to be reckoned with in the NFCN be put to rest? How many losses is it going to take to convince you that the Bears are just a below average team? 10? 12?


September 30th, 2013, 12:22 pm
Profile
Online
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2795
Post Re: Gameday Thread: Bears @ Lions.
Heche, you're entitled to your opinions as is everyone else. They aren't fighting you about you thinking something, they're just arguing the facts that show differently.

To me, Chicago is still as good as they've always been, which is better than average. They rely on their defense to get turnovers otherwise they don't win. And most teams are pressured into making mistakes which feeds the beast. They aren't particularly great at anything, but they're efficient in all aspects. Something you couldn't say about the Lions, and even then we're closer, but not there yet.

I think we have a better chance of beating Green Bay this year than we have in recent years. It's the matchups. Defensively, our Line should get more consistent pressure, which should help out our secondary, but if it doesn't get pressure, we could be in for a long day. Getting pressure is more reliable to count on than requiring turnovers though. Their receivers aren't as deep as they have been, but they're still good. We just have to maintain coverage long enough to rattle Rodgers and we've done it pretty well in the past with a less dominant line. But it is Lambeau, so anything can happen.

The one last thing you have to think about, is all records get thrown out when it's a division foe. When the Packers were unstoppable, we beat them 7-3. When teams know each other, it comes down to who wants it more that day. Who executes and who doesn't. Last year we went 0-6 in the division, now we're 2-0. A win or loss by a division opponent doesn't make or break a team or season. Cleveland beat Cinci yesterday, does that give the Browns more power ranking leverage? No, because they always play their division teams tight. It's why they play twice a year and why winning the division actually means something. I can't and won't judge the Bears until the season's over. Would you have judged the 3-6 Redskins the same as the 10-6 redskins?


September 30th, 2013, 12:28 pm
Profile
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1387
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Gameday Thread: Bears @ Lions.
HechePipe wrote:
rao wrote:
HechePipe wrote:
Of course I hate the Bears.
But if I'm wrong and the Bears are an "above average" team, then they should at least keep it competitive this Sunday against the Saints, right? I'm not saying they have to win it, but at no point next week should the score favor New Orleans by 30 or more. I mean... as long as they're "above average." Above average teams do not play the way the Bears played against the Lions. With all the problems that you all like to point out about the Lions, the Lions hung 40 on them yesterday. That's not an "above average" team, no matter how you slice it.


First thing, I said they were average to above average. What will determine that will be how well they play some of the better teams this season, but the 4 games they have played so far aren't a great indicator since every team is a little suspect.

Second, match ups do matter. The Lions had their biggest strength on defense against the Bears biggest weakness on their team. It's also not something the Bears will see much from other teams this season because most other teams get their pressure from the outside. If the interior of the pocket holds up better for Cutler those quick passes he's been doing will be a lot more accurate and the offense should play much better.

The Ravens won the Super Bowl last season but also had a game in season where Houston put up 43 on them. Sometimes teams, even good teams, can get steamrolled. The Lions still have problems, but they have the talent with Reggie Bush and CJ to drop 40 on just about any team. Just like in 2011 they are a 30 pts/gm offense and if the defense helps out it's not hard for a 40 point game to happen. Hopefully the Lions continue to get better and play with better discipline like in the Bears game so the scoring continues.

I don't see NO beating the Bears by a large margin. We'll see how they play Miami tonight, but other than the Cards game they really haven't been putting up big points.

OK... So the Saints are a "good" team, we can agree to that, right? Not looking like world champs just yet, but decent, right?
So then next week when they play the Bears, they shouldn't be up by 3 touchdowns at any point during the game. Provided that the Bears really are this "above average" team, they shouldn't get crushed by the Lions and then crushed again by NO next week.
If the Bears get beaten handily by the Saints next week, can the notion that the Bears are still this powerful force to be reckoned with in the NFCN be put to rest? How many losses is it going to take to convince you that the Bears are just a below average team? 10? 12?


I can't say them being down three scores makes them a bad team, if they came back and won the game from being down early that would make them look better. I have never once thought the Bears were a powerful force in the North, they have been a good team with a great defense for many years, but they have always been beatable. It would probably take 9 losses since that would put them at below .500.


September 30th, 2013, 12:51 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9891
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Gameday Thread: Bears @ Lions.
HechePipe wrote:

In a way, I agree with everything you said. What I disagree with is the notion that the Bears are as good as they've been in years past.
If you look at the wholesale changes that Chicago has made, wouldn't it be unrealistic to think that they don't skip a beat and just continue their winning ways after the changes to the lines, changes to the schemes, changes in personnel, the loss of key players and the fact that a lot of their players are getting a little long in the tooth? What has Devin Hester done in the last two years? Why is this year any different for Cutler, who continues to disappoint Bear fans and make bad decisions with the football at key times?


If you don't mind, I'll field these one at a time.

First, the Bears had to make changes because Lovie Smith continued to rely on aging parts. Trestman was forced to make changes, and I don't think he's done a bad job. While Suh played a strong game yesterday, it's not like Kyle Long was getting blown up by him on every play. And Willie Young had a good game, but he wasn't a huge factor. So Chicago's rookie right side did more than a respectable job. Personally, I think the Bears have a better receiving corps than they've had. Marshall, Jeffrey and Bennett are all gifted receivers, and I'd take anyone of them over who we have, with CJ being the obvious exception. Cutler had a bad day yesterday, but he still has the capacity to beat teams with his arm. He just has an issue with pressure, particularly with the Lions, it seems. As for Devin Hester, his strength on kickoff returns was taken away from him when the NFL changed the rules. Don't blame him for that. And he was never considered that much of a threat as a receiver because his route running was inconsistent. As for punt returns, he's still dangerous, make no mistake about that. Again, I'd take him over who we have. I think most Lions fans would, in a heart beat.
Defensively the Bears were missing a key player in Henry Melton. It happens, but that can hurt a team. He is by far their best interior player, particularly as a pass rusher. Tillman did a solid job against CJ. However, they miss Brian Urlacher in the middle. Of course, he aged and had to be replaced. How many players like him do you think are out there? He's a HOFer, and those don't come around that often.

HechePipe wrote:
Good teams do lose to bad teams. But I've seen nothing from the Bears so far to think they'll just continue their winning ways. If you have, then good on ya, because I'm not seeing it.


I'll agree that the Bears haven't really beaten anyone that they can hang their hat on. Given that, have the Lions? Washington at 0-4, Minnesota at 1-3 are their only other wins. And they lost to an Arizona team that needed a miracle to beat Tampa yesterday for their first victory of the season. If the Bears are not that good, then the Lions still can't be expected to beat the really good teams. I will say this, and I think you could agree....the Bears are a FAR better team than Minnesota or Washington this season. Agreed?

HechePipe wrote:
Speaking of Green Bay, I don't think the Lions win that game. I hope I'm wrong and it shocked me that they beat the Bears, but I'm not expecting a win in Green Bay at all.


I am not favoring the Lions in that one either, but Detroit usually plays the Packers pretty tough. I'd be pleasantly surprised if the Lions won at Lambeau. I wasn't shocked the Lions won yesterday, because I feel they have the talent to beat just about anyone. It's all about them putting together a complete game. And truthfully, the Lions didn't put together a complete game yesterday, but they still won. That can be seen as both good and bad.

HechePipe wrote:
I'm sorry but the only thing I'm claiming here is that the Chicago Bears are not as good as they've been in the past. If you've seen something this year that makes you think otherwise, then I'm all ears. Until then, I believe the Bears are going to have a rough season. If you want to point to their wins against lowly teams, fine. But that's not enough evidence for me.


I agree the Bears are not the same team as they have been. They are not as dominant on defense, and their offensive line is still something of a work in progress. But like the Lions, they can beat just about anyone if the pieces fall into place. And the Bears did represent the highest quality team we've faced so far this season. The Lions took a step yesterday in showing that they are a playoff consideration this season. But there are 12 more steps to take for the season. Let's hope they don't stumble too often.

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


September 30th, 2013, 1:26 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.