bears under 8 wins (1 Viewer)

[billrob]

the betting line for bears wins is 8.

am i missing something here or is this as easy of a bet as i think it is. their afc schedule is against arguablly the toughest division in football. their first divisional game is vs detroit after detroit's bye week. and they play undervalued (better than last year) teams like car, phi and no

@ind

@car

tb

phi

@det

@atl

min

det

ten

@gb

@stl

@min

jax

no

gb

@hou

 

[FavreCo]

5 wins would be a miracle.

 

[moderated]

People underestimate how much a defense/special teams can affect games.

I would bet the under, but in no way is this a lock, and i hate the Bears.

There are no such things as locks when it comes to NFL lines.

 

[billrob]

i was thinking 5ish wins.

i never used the work lock. but 8 wins??? even if they win 8 it's a push so they'd have to win 9 for me to lose.

 

[Mik789fl]

5 looks good to me,if the qb situation doesn't improve I'd knock them down 1 more.

 

[KellysHeroes]

the betting line for bears wins is 8.am i missing something here or is this as easy of a bet as i think it is. their afc schedule is against arguablly the toughest division in football. their first divisional game is vs detroit after detroit's bye week. and they play undervalued (better than last year) teams like car, phi and no@ind - L@car - ?tb - Lphi - L@det - W@atl - Wmin - Ldet - Wten - L@gb - L@stl - L@min - L (maybe they split w/ Minny, but I doubt it)jax - Lno - Lgb - W (they always spilt w/ gb)@hou - L

yeap.. thats an easy bet. No way they get 6 wins

 

[KellysHeroes]

No QB / No WR / RB & OL is very very ? /

D and SP are only going to get u so far

 

[hacman]

I'll add that the Vikings and Packers should be good and the Lions may be able to beat them at least once.

 

[sholditch]

the betting line for bears wins is 8.am i missing something here or is this as easy of a bet as i think it is. their afc schedule is against arguablly the toughest division in football. their first divisional game is vs detroit after detroit's bye week. and they play undervalued (better than last year) teams like car, phi and no@ind L@car Wtb Lphi W@det W@atl Wmin Ldet Wten L@gb W@stl W@min Ljax Lno Lgb W@hou W

As bad as this team seems right now, let's remember that they won 7 games last year with a worse team (line and RB have improved). The under is not a lock at all. If you give them Ws against similarly suspect teams, they could end up with nine wins. The under is definitely the side to take though.As easy as it is to ridicule the bears because of their QB situation, remember that a good-great defense can keep a lot of games close, close enough to where a punt return could be the deciding factor. 2 of their losses last year were by three points.

 

[The Jacket]

the betting line for bears wins is 8.am i missing something here or is this as easy of a bet as i think it is. their afc schedule is against arguablly the toughest division in football. their first divisional game is vs detroit after detroit's bye week. and they play undervalued (better than last year) teams like car, phi and no@ind L@car Wtb Lphi W@det W@atl Wmin Ldet Wten L@gb W@stl W@min Ljax Lno Lgb W@hou W

As bad as this team seems right now, let's remember that they won 7 games last year with a worse team (line and RB have improved). The under is not a lock at all. If you give them Ws against similarly suspect teams, they could end up with nine wins. The under is definitely the side to take though.

You say "similarly suspect," I say the Bears get destroyed in Houston, Green Bay and Carolina, and some of the home wins are generous.

 

[moderated]

yes, the betting line is completely wrong and vegas is going to lose billions on this Bears lock.

anything can happen in the NFC North. They could easily sweep the Lions, they always play GB well, and Minnesota has the most horrendous QB i've seen in some time.

Like i said i'd bet the under, but this is not the mortal lock that most of the above posters seem to think it is.

So much parity in the NFL year to year there is no way to be so sure that the line is "wrong".

 

[FavreCo]

No QB / No WR / RB & OL is very very ? / D and SP are only going to get u so far

I wonder if they still haven't figured out that the only reason they were good 2 years ago is because of the D and special teams. Case in point last year when the idiot defender had an angle on Adrian Peterson and instead of knocking Peterson out of bounds, he grabbed for the ball and Peterson flung the bum out of bounds on his way in for a TD. They tried that maneuver all year long. Silly Bears. Other teams figured that out for the most part.

 

[sholditch]

the betting line for bears wins is 8.am i missing something here or is this as easy of a bet as i think it is. their afc schedule is against arguablly the toughest division in football. their first divisional game is vs detroit after detroit's bye week. and they play undervalued (better than last year) teams like car, phi and no@ind L@car Wtb Lphi W@det W@atl Wmin Ldet Wten L@gb W@stl W@min Ljax Lno Lgb W@hou W

As bad as this team seems right now, let's remember that they won 7 games last year with a worse team (line and RB have improved). The under is not a lock at all. If you give them Ws against similarly suspect teams, they could end up with nine wins. The under is definitely the side to take though.

You say "similarly suspect," I say the Bears get destroyed in Houston, Green Bay and Carolina, and some of the home wins are generous.

Love Smith is 5-1 against Green Bay. He owns them. The only win they got was the one two years ago in week 17 before they went into the playoffs, the one Rex admitted to not being prepared for. So the year that Brett Favre retires is suddenly the year they get crushed by Green Bay? Makes a lot of sense... It's time for a dose of reality here: the Bears are bad at QB, yes, and no longer have a dominant line. You can call it questionable. But the facts are that they have improved their line and rb, their defense from last year, and could easily beat last year's record with the team they have now and with their 08 sched. We are talking about a team that has one of the league's best LBs, best DT, best DE, and best secondaries when healthy. Even if Mike Brown wilts in the 1st game of the season, we are prepared with a very promising rookie and two younger guys waiting. We have the best return man in the league by a very, very wide margin. Truth be told, the bears are one good OG and QB away from being a superbowl contender. Laugh away, but it's the truth.

 

[The Jacket]

Love Smith is 5-1 against Green Bay. He owns them. The only win they got was the one two years ago in week 17 before they went into the playoffs, the one Rex admitted to not being prepared for. So the year that Brett Favre retires is suddenly the year they get crushed by Green Bay? Makes a lot of sense...

Six games is a pathetic sample size. That's like Shaq shooting 90% at the charity stripe for six straight games and saying "he's a great FT shooter."But keep your spirits up, homer. Maybe Rex Grossman will finally get it.

 

[sholditch]

Love Smith is 5-1 against Green Bay. He owns them. The only win they got was the one two years ago in week 17 before they went into the playoffs, the one Rex admitted to not being prepared for. So the year that Brett Favre retires is suddenly the year they get crushed by Green Bay? Makes a lot of sense...

Six games is a pathetic sample size. That's like Shaq shooting 90% at the charity stripe for six straight games and saying "he's a great FT shooter."But keep your spirits up, homer. Maybe Rex Grossman will finally get it.

So a coaches entire career with a team is too small of a sample size? My god that's a pathetic argument. Why even waste your time posting it?ETA: I don't think Rex will ever get it. HE sucks, and sucks horribly. I think the team's record with him under center is a testament to just how strong the bears are in other areas. Very few teams in the league would be able to get to the playoffs, much less the Superbowl, with Rex under center.

 

[Delusions Of Adequacy]

Love Smith is 5-1 against Green Bay. He owns them. The only win they got was the one two years ago in week 17 before they went into the playoffs, the one Rex admitted to not being prepared for. So the year that Brett Favre retires is suddenly the year they get crushed by Green Bay? Makes a lot of sense...

Six games is a pathetic sample size. That's like Shaq shooting 90% at the charity stripe for six straight games and saying "he's a great FT shooter."But keep your spirits up, homer. Maybe Rex Grossman will finally get it.

So a coaches entire career with a team is too small of a sample size? My god that's a pathetic argument. Why even waste your time posting it?ETA: I don't think Rex will ever get it. HE sucks, and sucks horribly. I think the team's record with him under center is a testament to just how strong the bears are in other areas. Very few teams in the league would be able to get to the playoffs, much less the Superbowl, with Rex under center.

6 games is not a pathetic sample size for nfl football team vs team

 

[sholditch]

Also would like to add that Shaq shooting 90% for six straight games would be the NFL equivalent of Freddie Mitchell having 100+ catch, 1400-yards season, and never saying a word about it in the press.

 

[moderated]

But keep your spirits up, homer. Maybe Rex Grossman will finally get it.

I guess all the book makers are also homers willing to give us all free money by making such a bad line. Let's all pool our money together and get rich off those suckers.

 

[css2373]

the betting line for bears wins is 8.am i missing something here or is this as easy of a bet as i think it is. their afc schedule is against arguablly the toughest division in football. their first divisional game is vs detroit after detroit's bye week. and they play undervalued (better than last year) teams like car, phi and no@ind - L@car - Ltb - Wphi - W@det - L@atl - Wmin - Wdet - Wten - L@gb - L@stl - W@min - Ljax - Lno - Wgb - W@hou - L

toughest calls for me are home against philly, home against tenn, at st louis, and home against no.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Love Smith is 5-1 against Green Bay. He owns them. The only win they got was the one two years ago in week 17 before they went into the playoffs, the one Rex admitted to not being prepared for. So the year that Brett Favre retires is suddenly the year they get crushed by Green Bay? Makes a lot of sense...

Six games is a pathetic sample size. That's like Shaq shooting 90% at the charity stripe for six straight games and saying "he's a great FT shooter."But keep your spirits up, homer. Maybe Rex Grossman will finally get it.

So a coaches entire career with a team is too small of a sample size? My god that's a pathetic argument. Why even waste your time posting it?ETA: I don't think Rex will ever get it. HE sucks, and sucks horribly. I think the team's record with him under center is a testament to just how strong the bears are in other areas. Very few teams in the league would be able to get to the playoffs, much less the Superbowl, with Rex under center.

6 games is not a pathetic sample size for nfl football team vs team

Can you explain why?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Minnesota has the most horrendous QB i've seen in some time.

Have you seen Chicago's QB?

 

[sholditch]

Love Smith is 5-1 against Green Bay. He owns them. The only win they got was the one two years ago in week 17 before they went into the playoffs, the one Rex admitted to not being prepared for. So the year that Brett Favre retires is suddenly the year they get crushed by Green Bay? Makes a lot of sense...

Six games is a pathetic sample size. That's like Shaq shooting 90% at the charity stripe for six straight games and saying "he's a great FT shooter."But keep your spirits up, homer. Maybe Rex Grossman will finally get it.

So a coaches entire career with a team is too small of a sample size? My god that's a pathetic argument. Why even waste your time posting it?ETA: I don't think Rex will ever get it. HE sucks, and sucks horribly. I think the team's record with him under center is a testament to just how strong the bears are in other areas. Very few teams in the league would be able to get to the playoffs, much less the Superbowl, with Rex under center.

6 games is not a pathetic sample size for nfl football team vs team

Can you explain why?

Because it's three years? Because it encompasses the entire time Lovie has been with the Bears.Nice crack about our QBs. Pick one, and they both look worse than Tarvaris. He gets way more crap than a second-year QB deserves.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Love Smith is 5-1 against Green Bay. He owns them. The only win they got was the one two years ago in week 17 before they went into the playoffs, the one Rex admitted to not being prepared for. So the year that Brett Favre retires is suddenly the year they get crushed by Green Bay? Makes a lot of sense...

Six games is a pathetic sample size. That's like Shaq shooting 90% at the charity stripe for six straight games and saying "he's a great FT shooter."But keep your spirits up, homer. Maybe Rex Grossman will finally get it.

So a coaches entire career with a team is too small of a sample size? My god that's a pathetic argument. Why even waste your time posting it?ETA: I don't think Rex will ever get it. HE sucks, and sucks horribly. I think the team's record with him under center is a testament to just how strong the bears are in other areas. Very few teams in the league would be able to get to the playoffs, much less the Superbowl, with Rex under center.

6 games is not a pathetic sample size for nfl football team vs team

Can you explain why?

Because it's three years? Because it encompasses the entire time Lovie has been with the Bears.Nice crack about our QBs. Pick one, and they both look worse than Tarvaris. He gets way more crap than a second-year QB deserves.

Would it be a big enough sample size if Lovie had been with the Bears ten years, but we looked at just the last three?Would it be a big enough sample size if Lovie had been with the Bears for two years, and we looked at both?

 

[Chase Stuart]

The Bears scored slightly fewer points than they allowed against a harder than average schedule last year. Assuming no big changes in the off-season, 8 wins would seem like the logical projection for the next year.

 

[Andy Herron]

All you have to do is look at it from the other side-

Are the Bears going to win more than 8 games??? Is Jim McMahon coming back?

Not hardly. Easy money indeed.

 

[sholditch]

Love Smith is 5-1 against Green Bay. He owns them. The only win they got was the one two years ago in week 17 before they went into the playoffs, the one Rex admitted to not being prepared for. So the year that Brett Favre retires is suddenly the year they get crushed by Green Bay? Makes a lot of sense...

Six games is a pathetic sample size. That's like Shaq shooting 90% at the charity stripe for six straight games and saying "he's a great FT shooter."But keep your spirits up, homer. Maybe Rex Grossman will finally get it.

So a coaches entire career with a team is too small of a sample size? My god that's a pathetic argument. Why even waste your time posting it?ETA: I don't think Rex will ever get it. HE sucks, and sucks horribly. I think the team's record with him under center is a testament to just how strong the bears are in other areas. Very few teams in the league would be able to get to the playoffs, much less the Superbowl, with Rex under center.

6 games is not a pathetic sample size for nfl football team vs team

Can you explain why?

Because it's three years? Because it encompasses the entire time Lovie has been with the Bears.Nice crack about our QBs. Pick one, and they both look worse than Tarvaris. He gets way more crap than a second-year QB deserves.

Would it be a big enough sample size if Lovie had been with the Bears ten years, but we looked at just the last three?Would it be a big enough sample size if Lovie had been with the Bears for two years, and we looked at both?

Yes. Yes.

 

[sholditch]

All you have to do is look at it from the other side-Are the Bears going to win more than 8 games??? Is Jim McMahon coming back?Not hardly. Easy money indeed.

It's a very good line. Those are the ones you don't want to bet on.

 

[Andy Herron]

All you have to do is look at it from the other side-Are the Bears going to win more than 8 games??? Is Jim McMahon coming back?Not hardly. Easy money indeed.

It's a very good line. Those are the ones you don't want to bet on.

Look, if you or anybody else thinks that the Bears can win 9 games, it would arguably put them in the running for the division or an NFC Wild Card.I will take that bet today, tomorrow, August, or Sept. 7th. Name it.

 

[moderated]

All you have to do is look at it from the other side-Are the Bears going to win more than 8 games??? Is Jim McMahon coming back?Not hardly. Easy money indeed.

It's a very good line. Those are the ones you don't want to bet on.

Look, if you or anybody else thinks that the Bears can win 9 games, it would arguably put them in the running for the division or an NFC Wild Card.I will take that bet today, tomorrow, August, or Sept. 7th. Name it.

you do realize you can bet the line yourself. If you think it's such a lock then bet a huge amount on it in Vegas or an online sportsbook.Good luck with your "lock".

 

[Chase Stuart]

Love Smith is 5-1 against Green Bay. He owns them. The only win they got was the one two years ago in week 17 before they went into the playoffs, the one Rex admitted to not being prepared for. So the year that Brett Favre retires is suddenly the year they get crushed by Green Bay? Makes a lot of sense...

Six games is a pathetic sample size. That's like Shaq shooting 90% at the charity stripe for six straight games and saying "he's a great FT shooter."But keep your spirits up, homer. Maybe Rex Grossman will finally get it.

So a coaches entire career with a team is too small of a sample size? My god that's a pathetic argument. Why even waste your time posting it?ETA: I don't think Rex will ever get it. HE sucks, and sucks horribly. I think the team's record with him under center is a testament to just how strong the bears are in other areas. Very few teams in the league would be able to get to the playoffs, much less the Superbowl, with Rex under center.

6 games is not a pathetic sample size for nfl football team vs team

Can you explain why?

Because it's three years? Because it encompasses the entire time Lovie has been with the Bears.Nice crack about our QBs. Pick one, and they both look worse than Tarvaris. He gets way more crap than a second-year QB deserves.

Would it be a big enough sample size if Lovie had been with the Bears ten years, but we looked at just the last three?Would it be a big enough sample size if Lovie had been with the Bears for two years, and we looked at both?

Yes. Yes.

Those aren't good definitions of sample size.You need a lot more than 4 or 6 to feel confident about the results of a sample. Put it this way: what would you put the odds on each of the following three events at:1) Bears sweep Packers in '082) Packers sweep Bears in '083) Split

 

[sholditch]

Point is, it's enough to call it a trend even if he had been there ten years. When it's three years and he's been there three, it's definitely a trend.

But streaks are made to be broken so I wouldn't stack the odds heavily in the Bears favor for a sweep again. what I found odd is predicting a GB sweep given Lovie's record and Favre's retirement. The team is in more upheaval than it's been in in 15 years (or however long Favre was there).

 

[Dexter Manley]

The OP omitted one very important piece of information. What's the vig on Bears under 8 wins? I'm guessing it's -120 or worse. Which makes this a sucker bet, since 8 wins is not a bad line.

I'm thinking the vig on the under would have to be +100 or better in order for this to be a profitable wager.

 

[moderated]

The OP omitted one very important piece of information. What's the vig on Bears under 8 wins? I'm guessing it's -120 or worse. Which makes this a sucker bet, since 8 wins is not a bad line. I'm thinking the vig on the under would have to be +100 or better in order for this to be a profitable wager.

good point. I just looked at an online sportsbook and it's -135 on the under.

 

[The Jacket]

The OP omitted one very important piece of information. What's the vig on Bears under 8 wins? I'm guessing it's -120 or worse. Which makes this a sucker bet, since 8 wins is not a bad line. I'm thinking the vig on the under would have to be +100 or better in order for this to be a profitable wager.

good point. I just looked at an online sportsbook and it's -135 on the under.

And it'll soon be 7.5 or 7 at a standard -110. Because it's a horrible line.

 

[Andy Herron]

What really gets me on this whole "wins line" thing is that the Bears are at 8 wins while the Super Bowl Champion Giants are at 8.5 wins.

Ya, o.k., so we have parity in the league, but THAT MUCH? Don't think so.

Sure, you can make the observation that the Giants are in the NFC East, but from a talent level, the Bears are looking at similar competition in the NFC North.

Giants vs. Cowboys, Eagles, Redskins. Interconference schedule vs. the AFC North (Bengals, Browns, Ravens, Steelers)

Bears vs. Lions, Packers, Vikings. Interconference schedule vs. the AFC South (Colts, Jaguars, Texans, Titans)

So where did the Giants get so much worse, or the Bears get so much better?

No significant changes on either side, although the Bears did lose WRs Berrian and Muhammad.

Just don't see the logic here.

 

[Chase Stuart]

What really gets me on this whole "wins line" thing is that the Bears are at 8 wins while the Super Bowl Champion Giants are at 8.5 wins.Ya, o.k., so we have parity in the league, but THAT MUCH? Don't think so.Sure, you can make the observation that the Giants are in the NFC East, but from a talent level, the Bears are looking at similar competition in the NFC North.Giants vs. Cowboys, Eagles, Redskins. Interconference schedule vs. the AFC North (Bengals, Browns, Ravens, Steelers)Bears vs. Lions, Packers, Vikings. Interconference schedule vs. the AFC South (Colts, Jaguars, Texans, Titans)So where did the Giants get so much worse, or the Bears get so much better? No significant changes on either side, although the Bears did lose WRs Berrian and Muhammad.Just don't see the logic here.

The Bears won 7 games against a pretty hard schedule last year. Assuming an average schedule this year, which is reasonable, why wouldn't 8 wins be the number?

 

[-X-]

Not many people (besides Bear fans) realize that the Bears could have won 10 or 11 games last season, but the defense caved in the second half of four games where they had early leads. If the defense improves by avoiding injuries and the offense decreases the dumb turnovers by a moderate percentage, nine wins is within reach. They nearly always play to the level of their competition, so most games will be close.

They rid themselves of two ancient O-linemen and have some promising ones (Beekman and Williams) that should make their way into the starting lineup this season. Forte will push Benson for starting time and perhaps motivate him (which would be shocking) to stop being a plodder like the A-train devolved into. Booker is as reliable as Muhammad, so that's a wash. Bradley could be just as good or better than Berrian if he can avoid the injury bug. Hester has better hands than most give him credit for and his route running will improve as his reps do. Brandon Lloyd is merely a nostalgia pickup for Ron Turner and I don't think he'll even make the final 53.

I definitely agree with most everyone in that the QB position is the weak point, the X factor for this season, if you will.

 

[AllVolUT]

I originally liked the under 8 wins. However, after reading some solid posts in this thread, coupled with the fact that the major consensus seems to be on the under...I'm going to stay away. Anytime the large consensus is on a side, a red flag has to immediately go up.

 

[Buckna]

Sucker's bet... for many of the reasons already mentioned. Maybe you come out on the right side, but it is FAR from a sure thing.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Point is, it's enough to call it a trend even if he had been there ten years. When it's three years and he's been there three, it's definitely a trend.

H-H-H-T-H-H Is your coin more likely to come up heads or tails next time?

 

[JKL]

Vegas sports books don't have all that money because they are in the business of giving away money by setting bad lines where they take a naked position on the wrong side.

And the teams that are generally most over-rated by the betting public are those with questionable quarterbacks.

My initial gut reaction would probably be the Under, but when I see an overwhelming number favoring one side of a Vegas line, my gut reaction is an overwhelming "go the other way", because someone with alot more money than me is driving that line against the masses.

 

[DoubleG]

Point is, it's enough to call it a trend even if he had been there ten years. When it's three years and he's been there three, it's definitely a trend.

H-H-H-T-H-H Is your coin more likely to come up heads or tails next time?

That may be one of the weakest statistical analysis posts of all time. Football games are not coin flips and have very little to do with random chance. Besides, the coin is 50/50 to come up T - it's called gambler's phallacy. Please stop posting nonsense.The line is a good one - hardly a gimme bet for the under. Especially keeping in t mind what many have said already in the thread. If the Bears can stay away from injury, this is in large part the same team that went to a SB 2 years ago (including the QB).

 

[Steady Mooobin]

Love Smith is 5-1 against Green Bay. He owns them. The only win they got was the one two years ago in week 17 before they went into the playoffs, the one Rex admitted to not being prepared for. So the year that Brett Favre retires is suddenly the year they get crushed by Green Bay? Makes a lot of sense...

Six games is a pathetic sample size. That's like Shaq shooting 90% at the charity stripe for six straight games and saying "he's a great FT shooter."But keep your spirits up, homer. Maybe Rex Grossman will finally get it.

So a coaches entire career with a team is too small of a sample size? My god that's a pathetic argument. Why even waste your time posting it?ETA: I don't think Rex will ever get it. HE sucks, and sucks horribly. I think the team's record with him under center is a testament to just how strong the bears are in other areas. Very few teams in the league would be able to get to the playoffs, much less the Superbowl, with Rex under center.

6 games is not a pathetic sample size for nfl football team vs team

Can you explain why?

Because it's three years? Because it encompasses the entire time Lovie has been with the Bears.Nice crack about our QBs. Pick one, and they both look worse than Tarvaris. He gets way more crap than a second-year QB deserves.

Would it be a big enough sample size if Lovie had been with the Bears ten years, but we looked at just the last three?Would it be a big enough sample size if Lovie had been with the Bears for two years, and we looked at both?

Yes. Yes.

Those aren't good definitions of sample size.You need a lot more than 4 or 6 to feel confident about the results of a sample. Put it this way: what would you put the odds on each of the following three events at:1) Bears sweep Packers in '082) Packers sweep Bears in '083) Split

How many more games do you need for a sample size that is actually applicable for this years projection? The problem with the NFL is that the most times you can face a team is 3. If you keep going back in year, you're compairing almost entirely different teams/rosters/coaches/play styles.Im just curious about the logic of needing more games. I would think a smaller sample size that is more recent is more indicative of what may or may not happen this year. No?

 

[Getinthemix]

I actually like the over here with a positive vig.

Too much overreaction to last year. Remember this team went to the SB two years ago, with mostly the same team on defense. They also had a bunch of injuries last year and the D seemed to not have the fire. I think they turn it around. They are still near the top of the league in D and ST. If they can run the ball at all this year, it will be a big improvement and will benefit every facet of the game for them.

 

[flapgreen]

5 wins would be a miracle.

agreed. I don't see the Packers doing squat for the next 20 years

 

[DoubleG]

5 wins would be a miracle.

agreed. I don't see the Packers doing squat for the next 20 years

 

[sho nuff]

the betting line for bears wins is 8.am i missing something here or is this as easy of a bet as i think it is. their afc schedule is against arguablly the toughest division in football. their first divisional game is vs detroit after detroit's bye week. and they play undervalued (better than last year) teams like car, phi and no@ind L@car Wtb Lphi W@det W@atl Wmin Ldet Wten L@gb W@stl W@min Ljax Lno Lgb W@hou W

As bad as this team seems right now, let's remember that they won 7 games last year with a worse team (line and RB have improved). The under is not a lock at all. If you give them Ws against similarly suspect teams, they could end up with nine wins. The under is definitely the side to take though.

You say "similarly suspect," I say the Bears get destroyed in Houston, Green Bay and Carolina, and some of the home wins are generous.

Love Smith is 5-1 against Green Bay. He owns them. The only win they got was the one two years ago in week 17 before they went into the playoffs, the one Rex admitted to not being prepared for. So the year that Brett Favre retires is suddenly the year they get crushed by Green Bay? Makes a lot of sense... It's time for a dose of reality here: the Bears are bad at QB, yes, and no longer have a dominant line. You can call it questionable. But the facts are that they have improved their line and rb, their defense from last year, and could easily beat last year's record with the team they have now and with their 08 sched. We are talking about a team that has one of the league's best LBs, best DT, best DE, and best secondaries when healthy. Even if Mike Brown wilts in the 1st game of the season, we are prepared with a very promising rookie and two younger guys waiting. We have the best return man in the league by a very, very wide margin. Truth be told, the bears are one good OG and QB away from being a superbowl contender. Laugh away, but it's the truth.

IMO...its not a fact yet that they have improved their Oline by adding a rookie. You are counting alot on that rookie...he could be like Joe Thomas...or he could be like Robert Gallery.They need a WR or 2 as well. And Im not sold on what they have in the backfield either.

 

[JKL]

I pulled all teams since 1978 that met the following:

1) Won 10 or more games (or its equivalent in strike year) in back to back seasons; and

2) Then won either 6 or 7 games (or its equivalent in strike year) the following season.

There were 25 such previous teams. These teams averaged 11.3 wins in year N-2 (Chi 11-5 in 2005), 11.4 wins (Chi 13-3 in 2006), and 6.6 wins in year N (Chi 7-9 in 2007). Then I looked at what they did the next season after the 6 or 7 win season. The teams run the range from the 2004 Steelers (who drafted Roethlisberger and went 15-1) to the 2004 49ers (who collapsed to 2-14 with the salary cap purge). The overall average in year N+1 was 8.6 wins.

If we use an Over/Under of 8 wins, 14 of them went Over the next season (all 14 winning 10 or more games and making the playoffs), 4 would have been Pushes with 8 wins (including the 1988 Jets at 8-7-1), and 7 were Unders, including complete collapses by the aforementioned 49ers, and the 1982 Oilers and 1998 Eagles.

Of the Overs, most had 10 wins. Only Pittsburgh 2004 and Saint Louis 2003 had 12 or more. None reached the Superbowl. Most of them lost in the wildcard round, and only 3 reached the Conference championship game (1989 Rams, 2002 Titans, 2004 Steelers).

The Under, with the additional vig, is looking more and more like a sucker bet. Yeah, no one thinks Grossman or Orton are very good. But these are the same guys who have been taking snaps for this team over the last 3 seasons when they won 31 regular season games. And I'm not crazy about the long term outlook of this team and the decisions at quarterback. But in the short term, history would suggest they are a decent rebound option to challenge for a WC spot.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Not easy money.

They play Detroit twice, Minny twice and Green Bay twice.

Green Bay without Farve........who knows how good or bad they'll be. Detroit blows and Minnesota is OK.

That's possibly 4 wins in those games.

You wins games in this league by playing good defense, running the ball and solid special teams. The Bears do those things pretty well.

I don't like the under with the Bears, just 2 years removed from the SB.

 

[sho nuff]

Love Smith is 5-1 against Green Bay. He owns them. The only win they got was the one two years ago in week 17 before they went into the playoffs, the one Rex admitted to not being prepared for. So the year that Brett Favre retires is suddenly the year they get crushed by Green Bay? Makes a lot of sense...

Six games is a pathetic sample size. That's like Shaq shooting 90% at the charity stripe for six straight games and saying "he's a great FT shooter."But keep your spirits up, homer. Maybe Rex Grossman will finally get it.

So a coaches entire career with a team is too small of a sample size? My god that's a pathetic argument. Why even waste your time posting it?ETA: I don't think Rex will ever get it. HE sucks, and sucks horribly. I think the team's record with him under center is a testament to just how strong the bears are in other areas. Very few teams in the league would be able to get to the playoffs, much less the Superbowl, with Rex under center.

6 games is not a pathetic sample size for nfl football team vs team

Can you explain why?

Because it's three years? Because it encompasses the entire time Lovie has been with the Bears.Nice crack about our QBs. Pick one, and they both look worse than Tarvaris. He gets way more crap than a second-year QB deserves.

Do you also realize it encompasses 2 of Green Bay's worst years in recent history?