Chicago Bears, 39 wins (1 Viewer)

[flapgreen]

Stole this from the Bears website. I had no idea. I should be much happier with the Bears than I have been.

Even now, the Bears have gotten little love from the media or fans. Not flashy but I'll take winning any day over popularity.

2005 until now:

giants- 40 wins, 3 playoff wins, 1 superbowl win

dallas cowboys- 40 wins, ZERO playoff wins

chicago bears- 39 wins, 2 playoff wins 1 superbowl apperance

panthers- 37 wins, 2 playoff wins

seahawks- 35 wins, 3 playoff wins, 1 superbowl appearance

tampa bay- 33 wins, zero playoff wins

vikings- 32 wins, Zero playoff wins

eagles- 31 wins, 1 playoff win

redskins- 31 wins, 1 playoff win

greenbay - 29 wins , 1 playoff win

atlanta- 28 wins zero playoffs

new orleans- 27 wins, 1 playoff win

arizona- 26 wins , zero playoffs

niners- 21 wins , zero playoffs

rams- 19 wins, zero playoffs

detriot- 15 wins Zero playoffs

 

[The Man with the Plan]

Not to mention 2 (possibly 3) division titles in that time period. Lovie Smith is an underrated coach. It's probably because he's not really a loud rah-rah type. He gets the job done regardless.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Not to mention 2 (possibly 3) division titles in that time period. Lovie Smith is an underrated coach. It's probably because he's not really a loud rah-rah type. He gets the job done regardless.

I'd say it's more because the teams have not been that good. That Super Bowl year was one where everything went right. All the Bears fans are going to freak now, but that was an overrated team. This year too; they'll be done soon enough.

 

[flapgreen]

Not to mention 2 (possibly 3) division titles in that time period. Lovie Smith is an underrated coach. It's probably because he's not really a loud rah-rah type. He gets the job done regardless.

I'd say it's more because the teams have not been that good. That Super Bowl year was one where everything went right. All the Bears fans are going to freak now, but that was an overrated team. This year too; they'll be done soon enough.

Not sure what your definition of that good is but mine is based on winning. Whether people give them credit for their success isn't important. Winning is what's important, and that's what they've done. And over a 4 year period at that. As far as saying the Super Bowl team was overrated, that is subjective. Winning is not

And the comment: "everything went right" on their trip to the Super Bowl doesn't deserve any further discussion.

 

[theplayer11]

blah..blah..it's all about the ring

 

[theplayer11]

"Not sure what your definition of that good is but mine is based on winning"

exactly...winning a Super Bowl

 

[flapgreen]

I don't want this thread to turn further into a, "Bears are good. No they're not", thread. Just putting something out there I found interesting. I'll leave the rest alone

 

[MDSkinner]

As a Bears fan this thread makes me feel a bit better about things. Frankly we were horrible last year in a year that we expected to be very good. This year we have been OK in a year where we expected to be bad. The fact that we still have a shot at the division right now is great even given the fact that winning it would very likely just mean a first round playoff loss for us.

And if the Bears were overrated the year that we went to the Super Bowl I have no clue what it means to be rated correctly or to be underrated. That year the Bears were the best team in the NFC for essentially the whole year other than for a few weeks at the end of the season when the Saints made a spectacular run. We had been so much better throughout the season that we got homefield throughout the playoffs and had no problem with the Saints in a nasty day in Chicago. If that is overrated, I will take it.

As to defining "good" as winning the Super Bowl, I am comfortable with that if that is how you want to define it. I guess the 16-0 Pats were not a good team. Seems weird, but if that is the definition that is fine and it is nothing more than semantics.

 

[wraith5]

Not to mention 2 (possibly 3) division titles in that time period. Lovie Smith is an underrated coach. It's probably because he's not really a loud rah-rah type. He gets the job done regardless.

I'd say it's more because the teams have not been that good. That Super Bowl year was one where everything went right. All the Bears fans are going to freak now, but that was an overrated team. This year too; they'll be done soon enough.

They were who we thought they were.

 

[Ghost Rider]

That Super Bowl year was one where everything went right. All the Bears fans are going to freak now, but that was an overrated team.

No, it wasn't. It was a damn good team. I am not a Bears fan, but that team was good. And the argument could be made that everything went right for any team that made the Super Bowl. Let's face it...you are not going to make the Super Bowl unless a lot of things go right for you (keeping key players healthy, bounces going your way in close games, luck, etc.).

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

So it's semantics, I see. Overrated is the wrong word. It would be more accurate to say that Bears fans continue to overrate that team. Yeah, that's better...because everyone else knew it.

That was one of the worst teams to play in a Super Bowl since the 95' Chargers got creamed by the 9'ers...with honorable mention to Oakland (Tampa).

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Not to mention 2 (possibly 3) division titles in that time period. Lovie Smith is an underrated coach. It's probably because he's not really a loud rah-rah type. He gets the job done regardless.

I'd say it's more because the teams have not been that good. That Super Bowl year was one where everything went right. All the Bears fans are going to freak now, but that was an overrated team. This year too; they'll be done soon enough.

They were who we thought they were.

I was gonna say... Love that.Here's a true, honest Chicagoan.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Seahawks have 4 playoff wins over that period, not three.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Seahawks have 4 playoff wins over that period, not three.

The Seahawks SB team was much better than the Bears one. Hell, they were the best team that day. The Bears, not so much...

 

[kevjones22]

Seahawks were the best in the NFL that year

 

[RBM]

Not to mention 2 (possibly 3) division titles in that time period. Lovie Smith is an underrated coach. It's probably because he's not really a loud rah-rah type. He gets the job done regardless.

I'd say it's more because the teams have not been that good. That Super Bowl year was one where everything went right. All the Bears fans are going to freak now, but that was an overrated team. This year too; they'll be done soon enough.

Not sure what your definition of that good is but mine is based on winning. Whether people give them credit for their success isn't important. Winning is what's important, and that's what they've done. And over a 4 year period at that. As far as saying the Super Bowl team was overrated, that is subjective. Winning is not

And the comment: "everything went right" on their trip to the Super Bowl doesn't deserve any further discussion.

VERY

 

[RBM]

Seahawks have 4 playoff wins over that period, not three.

The Seahawks SB team was much better than the Bears one.

Based on what?The Bears beat the same Seahawk team the next year.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Not to mention 2 (possibly 3) division titles in that time period. Lovie Smith is an underrated coach. It's probably because he's not really a loud rah-rah type. He gets the job done regardless.

I'd say it's more because the teams have not been that good. That Super Bowl year was one where everything went right. All the Bears fans are going to freak now, but that was an overrated team. This year too; they'll be done soon enough.

Not sure what your definition of that good is but mine is based on winning. Whether people give them credit for their success isn't important. Winning is what's important, and that's what they've done. And over a 4 year period at that. As far as saying the Super Bowl team was overrated, that is subjective. Winning is not

And the comment: "everything went right" on their trip to the Super Bowl doesn't deserve any further discussion.

VERY

Hmm, I didn't know you were such a homer. That's too bad.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Seahawks have 4 playoff wins over that period, not three.

The Seahawks SB team was much better than the Bears one.

Based on what?The Bears beat the same Seahawk team the next year.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Not to mention 2 (possibly 3) division titles in that time period. Lovie Smith is an underrated coach. It's probably because he's not really a loud rah-rah type. He gets the job done regardless.

I'd say it's more because the teams have not been that good. That Super Bowl year was one where everything went right. All the Bears fans are going to freak now, but that was an overrated team. This year too; they'll be done soon enough.

I think overrated is just the wrong word. There just wasn't anyone else in the NFC who was that good. That was the year the AFC probably had the top 5 best teams and anyone who could get to the SB from the AFC was going to win it. Who did you think was better from the NFC that year?

 

[RBM]

Seahawks have 4 playoff wins over that period, not three.

The Seahawks SB team was much better than the Bears one.

Based on what?The Bears beat the same Seahawk team the next year.

<_<

Thats funny?What was different? Besides the addition of Julian Peterson which made the '06 D better probably

 

[MDSkinner]

Seahawks have 4 playoff wins over that period, not three.

The Seahawks SB team was much better than the Bears one. Hell, they were the best team that day. The Bears, not so much...

I have no disagreement with this and I am a Bears fan. And I definitely think the NFC was really bad the year the Bears went to the SB, and the Bears were definitely the best team in a bad NFC. I will still take it.I am guessing you are a Packer fan. You just seem to hate the Bears and that is absolutely your prerogative (no reason for me to lose sleep over that). We have had some really bad teams, and we are well aware of that fact. It is nice to see that over the Lovie period we have actually been pretty high up there in terms of the NFC. Overrated by us? Probably. But doesn't every fan of every team tend to look at their team through rose colored glasses (other than the Lions perhaps)? I am comfortable with your saying I am biased towards my team. Hell, the sky is blue...what a revelation.

 

[flapgreen]

So it's semantics, I see. Overrated is the wrong word. It would be more accurate to say that Bears fans continue to overrate that team. Yeah, that's better...because everyone else knew it.

That was one of the worst teams to play in a Super Bowl since the 95' Chargers got creamed by the 9'ers...with honorable mention to Oakland (Tampa).

Really? I guess the Colts were an average team that year also, since the Bears were in the game until the 4th quarter and only lost by 12. Good reasoning here. That's worse than saying Chicago hasn't been that good over the last 4 years, even though they are near the top in wins and also have a SB appearance.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I think what some need to remember is, winning is ultimately what matters. The Bears often win ugly. The QB play isn't always pretty, and they sometimes need special teams or defensive scores to win, but winning is winning, and since they have done a lot of over the last four years, only a fool would deny that they have been one of the best teams of the last few years.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Not to mention 2 (possibly 3) division titles in that time period. Lovie Smith is an underrated coach. It's probably because he's not really a loud rah-rah type. He gets the job done regardless.

I'd say it's more because the teams have not been that good. That Super Bowl year was one where everything went right. All the Bears fans are going to freak now, but that was an overrated team. This year too; they'll be done soon enough.

I think overrated is just the wrong word. There just wasn't anyone else in the NFC who was that good. That was the year the AFC probably had the top 5 best teams and anyone who could get to the SB from the AFC was going to win it. Who did you think was better from the NFC that year?

I already addressed the semantics. In fact, it brought up the real issue. Why do Bears fans overrate that team? Nobody else does. Are there THAT many Saturday Night Live-type Bears fans? On the other hand, Cubs fans seem more realistic, but I could be wrong.

 

[Sweetness_34]

Not to mention 2 (possibly 3) division titles in that time period. Lovie Smith is an underrated coach. It's probably because he's not really a loud rah-rah type. He gets the job done regardless.

I'd say it's more because the teams have not been that good. That Super Bowl year was one where everything went right. All the Bears fans are going to freak now, but that was an overrated team. This year too; they'll be done soon enough.

I think overrated is just the wrong word. There just wasn't anyone else in the NFC who was that good. That was the year the AFC probably had the top 5 best teams and anyone who could get to the SB from the AFC was going to win it. Who did you think was better from the NFC that year?

I already addressed the semantics. In fact, it brought up the real issue. Why do Bears fans overrate that team? Nobody else does. Are there THAT many Saturday Night Live-type Bears fans? On the other hand, Cubs fans seem more realistic, but I could be wrong.

The real question is why do you hate the Bears so much? Must be a bitter packer fan. Winning is everything, and the Bears have done more of that than every other NFC team other than the Giants. Now just because that FACT makes some of you feel uncomfortable because you hate the Bears, that is your problem. The world is full of idiots, and definitely this country is full of them. Just look at who was the President of this country for the last 8 years.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Seahawks have 4 playoff wins over that period, not three.

The Seahawks SB team was much better than the Bears one. Hell, they were the best team that day. The Bears, not so much...

I have no disagreement with this and I am a Bears fan. And I definitely think the NFC was really bad the year the Bears went to the SB, and the Bears were definitely the best team in a bad NFC. I will still take it.I am guessing you are a Packer fan. You just seem to hate the Bears and that is absolutely your prerogative (no reason for me to lose sleep over that). We have had some really bad teams, and we are well aware of that fact. It is nice to see that over the Lovie period we have actually been pretty high up there in terms of the NFC. Overrated by us? Probably. But doesn't every fan of every team tend to look at their team through rose colored glasses (other than the Lions perhaps)? I am comfortable with your saying I am biased towards my team. Hell, the sky is blue...what a revelation.

Your first comments are good, then it unravels a bit into the homer arena. You jumped to conclusions. I'm not a Packers fan by any means (Broncos). I actually don't have anything against the Bears...maybe some of the homers though, at this point.Here's why I bring it up. The thread topic is a little ridiculous. It's a selective statistic some hack drummed up to sell a rag to homers. Why didn't he take a 5 year sample? Because Smith's 5 - 11 record that year doesn't fit.

So if Bears fans want to hang their hat on a fairly meaningless and skewed stat, so they can feel better about their team, then I see no problem with explaining why their best team in years, was actually not that good...not Superbowl good, that's for sure.

I do applaud the fact you can be somewhat unbiased.

 

[flapgreen]

Seahawks have 4 playoff wins over that period, not three.

The Seahawks SB team was much better than the Bears one. Hell, they were the best team that day. The Bears, not so much...

I have no disagreement with this and I am a Bears fan. And I definitely think the NFC was really bad the year the Bears went to the SB, and the Bears were definitely the best team in a bad NFC. I will still take it.I am guessing you are a Packer fan. You just seem to hate the Bears and that is absolutely your prerogative (no reason for me to lose sleep over that). We have had some really bad teams, and we are well aware of that fact. It is nice to see that over the Lovie period we have actually been pretty high up there in terms of the NFC. Overrated by us? Probably. But doesn't every fan of every team tend to look at their team through rose colored glasses (other than the Lions perhaps)? I am comfortable with your saying I am biased towards my team. Hell, the sky is blue...what a revelation.

Here's why I bring it up. The thread topic is a little ridiculous. It's a selective statistic some hack drummed up to sell a rag to homers. Why didn't he take a 5 year sample? Because Smith's 5 - 11 record that year doesn't fit.So if Bears fans want to hang their hat on a fairly meaningless and skewed stat, so they can feel better about their team, then I see no problem with explaining why their best team in years, was actually not that good...not Superbowl good, that's for sure.

Umm...Lovie took over the team that had a losing record in 9 of it's last 12 seasons, and 2 of those were 9-7. It's a reach to think he was going to change the Bears last 12 years in 1 season. Hell, that 12 years stretch goes all of the way back to Ditka's last season. It is what is. The record speaks for itself. Neither this thread nor the statistics are showing anything, except the Bears success over the last 4 years in the NFC. Not sure what is ridiculous about stating facts.

Does it mean the Bears are now a perennial powerhouse? Of course not. But it does mean the Bears have had success and proven to be a top team. The Bears have turned things and become a good team. Sorry if you are living in the past.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Seahawks have 4 playoff wins over that period, not three.

The Seahawks SB team was much better than the Bears one. Hell, they were the best team that day. The Bears, not so much...

I have no disagreement with this and I am a Bears fan. And I definitely think the NFC was really bad the year the Bears went to the SB, and the Bears were definitely the best team in a bad NFC. I will still take it.I am guessing you are a Packer fan. You just seem to hate the Bears and that is absolutely your prerogative (no reason for me to lose sleep over that). We have had some really bad teams, and we are well aware of that fact. It is nice to see that over the Lovie period we have actually been pretty high up there in terms of the NFC. Overrated by us? Probably. But doesn't every fan of every team tend to look at their team through rose colored glasses (other than the Lions perhaps)? I am comfortable with your saying I am biased towards my team. Hell, the sky is blue...what a revelation.

Here's why I bring it up. The thread topic is a little ridiculous. It's a selective statistic some hack drummed up to sell a rag to homers. Why didn't he take a 5 year sample? Because Smith's 5 - 11 record that year doesn't fit.So if Bears fans want to hang their hat on a fairly meaningless and skewed stat, so they can feel better about their team, then I see no problem with explaining why their best team in years, was actually not that good...not Superbowl good, that's for sure.

Umm...Lovie took over the team that had a losing record in 9 of it's last 12 seasons, and 2 of those were 9-7. It's a reach to say he was going to instantly change the Bears last 12 years in 1 season.It is what is. The record speaks for itself. The Bears have turned things around and have become one of the top teams in the NFC over the past few years. Sorry you are living in the past.

Grasp whatever makes you feel better buddy, like the writer. Bears were one of the worst Superbowl teams in 20 years...along with some crap years sandwiched around that. Hang onto it all you want.And I forget, but was it me who posted a topic about the past?

If you want to talk about the present, I'm all for it. They're going nowhere. And how did last year turn out for you?

 

[flapgreen]

Seahawks have 4 playoff wins over that period, not three.

The Seahawks SB team was much better than the Bears one. Hell, they were the best team that day. The Bears, not so much...

I have no disagreement with this and I am a Bears fan. And I definitely think the NFC was really bad the year the Bears went to the SB, and the Bears were definitely the best team in a bad NFC. I will still take it.I am guessing you are a Packer fan. You just seem to hate the Bears and that is absolutely your prerogative (no reason for me to lose sleep over that). We have had some really bad teams, and we are well aware of that fact. It is nice to see that over the Lovie period we have actually been pretty high up there in terms of the NFC. Overrated by us? Probably. But doesn't every fan of every team tend to look at their team through rose colored glasses (other than the Lions perhaps)? I am comfortable with your saying I am biased towards my team. Hell, the sky is blue...what a revelation.

Here's why I bring it up. The thread topic is a little ridiculous. It's a selective statistic some hack drummed up to sell a rag to homers. Why didn't he take a 5 year sample? Because Smith's 5 - 11 record that year doesn't fit.So if Bears fans want to hang their hat on a fairly meaningless and skewed stat, so they can feel better about their team, then I see no problem with explaining why their best team in years, was actually not that good...not Superbowl good, that's for sure.

Umm...Lovie took over the team that had a losing record in 9 of it's last 12 seasons, and 2 of those were 9-7. It's a reach to say he was going to instantly change the Bears last 12 years in 1 season.It is what is. The record speaks for itself. The Bears have turned things around and have become one of the top teams in the NFC over the past few years. Sorry you are living in the past.

Grasp whatever makes you feel better buddy, like the writer. Bears were one of the worst Superbowl teams in 20 years...along with some crap years sandwiched around that. Hang onto it all you want.And I forget, but was it me who posted a topic about the past?

If you want to talk about the present, I'm all for it. They're going nowhere. And how did last year turn out for you?

I think I'm being taken on a trip here. Damn SP.

 

[djcolts]

So it's semantics, I see. Overrated is the wrong word. It would be more accurate to say that Bears fans continue to overrate that team. Yeah, that's better...because everyone else knew it.

That was one of the worst teams to play in a Super Bowl since the 95' Chargers got creamed by the 9'ers...with honorable mention to Oakland (Tampa).

Really? I guess the Colts were an average team that year also, since the Bears were in the game until the 4th quarter and only lost by 12. Good reasoning here. That's worse than saying Chicago hasn't been that good over the last 4 years, even though they are near the top in wins and also have a SB appearance.

I can say this with some crediblity. I think it is safe to say that the 2006 Colts team was one of the worst teams to ever win a Super Bowl. They were more of a "big game" team than a team with a lot of significant talent. And, that's fine with me.

 

[MDSkinner]

Your first comments are good, then it unravels a bit into the homer arena. You jumped to conclusions. I'm not a Packers fan by any means (Broncos). I actually don't have anything against the Bears...maybe some of the homers though, at this point.

Here's why I bring it up. The thread topic is a little ridiculous. It's a selective statistic some hack drummed up to sell a rag to homers. Why didn't he take a 5 year sample? Because Smith's 5 - 11 record that year doesn't fit.

So if Bears fans want to hang their hat on a fairly meaningless and skewed stat, so they can feel better about their team, then I see no problem with explaining why their best team in years, was actually not that good...not Superbowl good, that's for sure.

I do applaud the fact you can be somewhat unbiased.

I can even understand this. I think nearly all teams have homers that take it too far. I am a Bear homer and I probably annoy some people because of it, that is part of sports really. If not for the freakish homers there would be no rivalries.That said, sorry for calling you a Packers fan...that was uncalled for.

 

[Statcruncher]

As a Bears fan number of wins over the past X doesn't mean squat. There's only one win that matters and we haven't seen that since my avatar. The year the Bears faced the Colts was a brutal year for me. They had a great defense, a coin-flip every game for Good Rex/Bad Rex, and a record setting return game. They pretty much tore through weak NFC competition to make it to the superbowl. As each win stacked up and they drew closer to the big game I was torn, I hoped they had what it takes to win a superbowl but I knew they could be beaten by any team any sunday.

As we all know Indy outcoached and embarassed them exposing their flaws. That is what happens when an over-rated coach leads his over-rated team against a better prepared and fundamentally more sound opponent. The Bears won the whole season because they were a pretty good team who got all the breaks they needed. Unfortunately it ended 1 game too soon.

I like Lovie, he seems like a upstanding coach who demands respect from his players. Unfortunately I don't see him making genious personnel moves or getting the most out of his teams. I get the feeling that Bear's teams under him typical perform worse than their talent level. Their inconsistency is maddening, and I can't help but think that's a coaching problem. I'm not saying I think Lovie should go as there are many worse coaches out there, but I don't think he's anything more than a slightly above average NFL head coach.

 

[RBM]

Bears were one of the worst Superbowl teams in 20 years

Based on what?

 

[kerpow]

Colts are top on 49, which could of course rise to 51.

I believe that the 49ers and Patriots have the record of 52 in a 4 year period betwen '89 and '92, and 04 to '07 respectively

 

[Marked]

Really? I guess the Colts were an average team that year also, since the Bears were in the game until the 4th quarter and only lost by 12. Good reasoning here. That's worse than saying Chicago hasn't been that good over the last 4 years, even though they are near the top in wins and also have a SB appearance.

I can say this with some crediblity. I think it is safe to say that the 2006 Colts team was one of the worst teams to ever win a Super Bowl. They were more of a "big game" team than a team with a lot of significant talent. And, that's fine with me.

Statistics are a funny thing. (Courtesy of NFL.com)2006 Regular Season (ranking 32 teams) ----- Indianapolis Colts -- Chicago BearsTotal Offense (YPG) -- #3 ----- #15Passing (YPG) ----- #2 ----- #14Rushing (YPG) ----- #18 ----- #15Total Defense (YPG) -- #21 ----- #5Passing (YPG) ----- #2 ----- #11 Rushing (YPG) ----- #32 ----- #62006 Post Season (ranking 12 teams) ------ Indianapolis Colts -- Chicago BearsTotal Offense (avg YPG) -- #2 ----- #7Passing (avg YPG) ----- #3 ----- #8Rushing (avg YPG) ----- #2 ----- #5Total Defense (avg YPG)-- #1 ----- #10Passing (avg YPG) ----- #2 ----- #9Rushing (avg YPG) ----- #2 ----- #7Over the last 4 years the Bears are 39-23, over the last 7 years: 55-55.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Bears were one of the worst Superbowl teams in 20 years

Based on what?

His opinion, and nothing more. I'll agree with the poster who said they took advantage of a weak NFC (heck, a 10-6 team was the 2 seed), but they were a 13-3 team that had the 15th-ranked offense and 5th-ranked defense. I'll betcha we could find quite a few Super Bowl teams over the last two decades that weren't as good overall as that team. To wit...'06 Bears:13-3 record15th in offense5th in defense'01 Patriots:11-5 record19th in offense24th in defense'02 Bucs:12-4 record24th in offense1st in defense'99 Titans:13-3 record13th in offense17th in defense'07 Giants:10-6 record16th in offense7th in defense'03 Panthers:11-5 record16th in offense8th in defense'96 Patriots:11-5 record7th in offense19th in defense'94 Chargers:11-5 record11th in offense14th in defense'93 Bills12-4 record6th in offense27th in defense

 

[flapgreen]

Bears were one of the worst Superbowl teams in 20 years

Based on what?

His opinion, and nothing more. I'll agree with the poster who said they took advantage of a weak NFC (heck, a 10-6 team was the 2 seed), but they were a 13-3 team that had the 15th-ranked offense and 5th-ranked defense. I'll betcha we could find quite a few Super Bowl teams over the last two decades that weren't as good overall as that team. To wit...'06 Bears:13-3 record15th in offense5th in defense'01 Patriots:11-5 record19th in offense24th in defense'02 Bucs:12-4 record24th in offense1st in defense'99 Titans:13-3 record13th in offense17th in defense'07 Giants:10-6 record16th in offense7th in defense'03 Panthers:11-5 record16th in offense8th in defense'96 Patriots:11-5 record7th in offense19th in defense'94 Chargers:11-5 record11th in offense14th in defense'93 Bills12-4 record6th in offense27th in defense

Wins and stats are meaningless and can be skewed. They don't have a SB win. The NFC was weak. What about the last 20 years? blah blah blah

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Bears were one of the worst Superbowl teams in 20 years

Based on what?

His opinion, and nothing more. I'll agree with the poster who said they took advantage of a weak NFC (heck, a 10-6 team was the 2 seed), but they were a 13-3 team that had the 15th-ranked offense and 5th-ranked defense. I'll betcha we could find quite a few Super Bowl teams over the last two decades that weren't as good overall as that team. To wit...'06 Bears:13-3 record15th in offense5th in defense'01 Patriots:11-5 record19th in offense24th in defense'02 Bucs:12-4 record24th in offense1st in defense'99 Titans:13-3 record13th in offense17th in defense'07 Giants:10-6 record16th in offense7th in defense'03 Panthers:11-5 record16th in offense8th in defense'96 Patriots:11-5 record7th in offense19th in defense'94 Chargers:11-5 record11th in offense14th in defense'93 Bills12-4 record6th in offense27th in defense

Eat all the popcorn you want, Bears would be underdogs against almost all of them, except maybe San Diego.You've got to be kidding me that you think the Rex's 06' Bears could beat two of the Patriots Superbowl teams, that Buccaneers squad, the Bills, and last year's Giants? That's laughable.Tell me which teams on that list they were better than.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Wins and stats are meaningless and can be skewed. They don't have a SB win. The NFC was weak. What about the last 20 years? blah blah blah

Listen, can we have a discussion without you putting words in my mouth? I was talking about selective statistics which can be meaningless and skewed (to "fit" an argument). All of which is absolutely true, and is exactly what the author chose to do, and the topic of YOUR thread.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

As a Bears fan number of wins over the past X doesn't mean squat. There's only one win that matters and we haven't seen that since my avatar. The year the Bears faced the Colts was a brutal year for me. They had a great defense, a coin-flip every game for Good Rex/Bad Rex, and a record setting return game. They pretty much tore through weak NFC competition to make it to the superbowl. As each win stacked up and they drew closer to the big game I was torn, I hoped they had what it takes to win a superbowl but I knew they could be beaten by any team any sunday.As we all know Indy outcoached and embarassed them exposing their flaws. That is what happens when an over-rated coach leads his over-rated team against a better prepared and fundamentally more sound opponent. The Bears won the whole season because they were a pretty good team who got all the breaks they needed. Unfortunately it ended 1 game too soon.I like Lovie, he seems like a upstanding coach who demands respect from his players. Unfortunately I don't see him making genious personnel moves or getting the most out of his teams. I get the feeling that Bear's teams under him typical perform worse than their talent level. Their inconsistency is maddening, and I can't help but think that's a coaching problem. I'm not saying I think Lovie should go as there are many worse coaches out there, but I don't think he's anything more than a slightly above average NFL head coach.

Far and away the most cognizant, well-written post from a Bears fan in here. Excellent.

 

[TitusIII]

So it's semantics, I see. Overrated is the wrong word. It would be more accurate to say that Bears fans continue to overrate that team. Yeah, that's better...because everyone else knew it.

That was one of the worst teams to play in a Super Bowl since the 95' Chargers got creamed by the 9'ers...with honorable mention to Oakland (Tampa).

Really? I guess the Colts were an average team that year also, since the Bears were in the game until the 4th quarter and only lost by 12. Good reasoning here. That's worse than saying Chicago hasn't been that good over the last 4 years, even though they are near the top in wins and also have a SB appearance.

Sorry for the long post, not much going at work today...2nd in wins over that time-span eh? Not many of us would have guessed that, maybe the Schwab from ESPN...

Regarding the 2006 Chicago team that lost to Indianapolis in the Super-Bowl, when Tommie Harris(played in first 11) and Mike Brown(played in first 6 games) were on the field, the Bears appeared to be the one of the best, if not the best team in the NFL. Without Harris available to wreak havoc on the Colts offensive line/Manning, the Bears were up a creek without a paddle against the Colts offense, although by most accounts they did a commendable job. Even with Chicago missing two important defensive leaders during the playoffs/superbowl, the Bears were within 5 points of the Colts in the fourth quarter and driving towards the Colts goal-line, and then, well, Rex Grossman to Kelvin Hayden for the long int TD return happened, and the fat lady started to sing. At least Devin Hester made that game somewhat memorable to Bears and football fans alike.

As for the 2008 Chicago Bears, it's unfortunate for Jerry Angelo and Bears homers that Tommie Harris has yet to fully recover from the ruptured hamstring he suffered late in 2006(and I doubt he will ever be the force he once was, maybe a doctor, or someone who slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night can give me some info on the recovery rate/time for such an injury...I'm sure Jerry Angelo is starting to regret the contract he offered to Harris this past summer that made Harris the highest paid DT in the NFL, oh well, life is short in the NFL). Not too mention the vocal leader of the defense Mike Brown has lost a step due to the plethora of leg/knee/ankle/achilles injuries he has dealt with over the years. With that being said, I expect Chicago to finish with ten wins, but just miss the playoffs due to the strength of the NFC this season. Not bad for a team most had pegged for 6-8 wins. Considering the the complete and utter 4th quarter choke jobs against TB and CAR after out-playing both teams for 55 minutes, I have to consider this season a building block, assuming Kyle Orton can return to his pre-injury form in 2009.

Regarding Lovie Smith, while he certainly isn't the best coach in the NFL, I'd take him before all but a handfull of current NFL head coaches, as I believe Smith demands and receives respect from his players and from most accounts is the quintessential leader of men. If he can surround himself with top-notch coordinators(and McCaskey agrees to pay for the said assistants, yeah, most Bears fans will tell you this is probably a pipe-dream, but for crying out loud...this is Chicago, and the owner certainly don't spend like the typical big city fat cat), Smith will have the Bears in contention for the NFC North/NFC title more often than not, imo, of course.

Kind of off-topic, it might be a good time for Angelo to shop Urlacher if he thinks he can acquire a #1 WR in return. I don't see Urlacher playing at a high level for much longer. I've heard he isn't a fan of the Bears system because he is forced to drop back in pass coverage more often than not, even if this strategy is perfect for a freak like Urlacher. Maybe Urlacher would welcome a change of scenery/system, and I wouldn't be opposed to the move if the Cardinals feel like parting with Boldin. The Cards GM will probably ask for a high draft pick and/or a Nate Vasher-type as well, due to Urlacher's age(31), but I have faith in Lovie Smith's ability to get his defense to play at a high level, assuming he is working with a relatively healthy unit/decent talent provided by Jerry Angelo.

 

[flapgreen]

Wins and stats are meaningless and can be skewed. They don't have a SB win. The NFC was weak. What about the last 20 years? blah blah blah

Listen, can we have a discussion without you putting words in my mouth? I was talking about selective statistics which can be meaningless and skewed (to "fit" an argument). All of which is absolutely true, and is exactly what the author chose to do, and the topic of YOUR thread.

Putting words in your mouth? I haven't selectively skewed anything. All I showed were the records during the last 4 years. I'm not even sure what you're saying in here. You continually state the Bears haven't been that good and were one of if not the worst SB team in years, yet you have absolutely nothing to back it up with but your opinion. Nothing else. Come up with something objective to prove your point. Whether or not you want to acknowledge the Bears success over the last few years doesn't matter. It speaks for itself

fwiw, the post taken from the Bears website had nothing to do with gloating over their dominance. It was directed at Bears fans who continually whine about the Bears lack of success, which I have been guilty of, along with many other, myself. The information only brought to light things I hadn't been paying much attention to, due to my own short-sightedness. If you reread the initial post, you will see that for yourself. Also, you will see that the topic of my thread was also initially directed that way. Read the 1st line

 

[boubucarow]

What I love is how the story has changed.

During the '06 season, all Bear fans kept hearing is that the Bears would fall on their face in the playoffs. Bears fans basically stated that as long as Grossman doesn't cost the Bears the game, they would make the Super Bowl because they were the best team in the NFC unless they shot themselves in the the foot. Of course, after they win the NFC, then all of those teams everyone said would be the Bears in the playoffs were then too weak to beat the weak Bears.

It is what it is, the Bears won their conference and made too many mistakes to win the Super Bowl. It doesn't matter how good they were, they gave Bears fans an amazing season to watch because as great as the defense could be, the offense was like a unpredictable roller coaster that cost them games. And to be fair to that Colts team, their run defense improved dramatically at the tail end of the season and into the playoffs and that is what made all the difference in them winning the stronger AFC and also forced the Bears to depend more on Grossman in the Super Bowl.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Bears were one of the worst Superbowl teams in 20 years

Based on what?

His opinion, and nothing more. I'll agree with the poster who said they took advantage of a weak NFC (heck, a 10-6 team was the 2 seed), but they were a 13-3 team that had the 15th-ranked offense and 5th-ranked defense. I'll betcha we could find quite a few Super Bowl teams over the last two decades that weren't as good overall as that team. To wit...'06 Bears:13-3 record15th in offense5th in defense'01 Patriots:11-5 record19th in offense24th in defense'02 Bucs:12-4 record24th in offense1st in defense'99 Titans:13-3 record13th in offense17th in defense'07 Giants:10-6 record16th in offense7th in defense'03 Panthers:11-5 record16th in offense8th in defense'96 Patriots:11-5 record7th in offense19th in defense'94 Chargers:11-5 record11th in offense14th in defense'93 Bills12-4 record6th in offense27th in defense

Eat all the popcorn you want, Bears would be underdogs against almost all of them, except maybe San Diego.You've got to be kidding me that you think the Rex's 06' Bears could beat two of the Patriots Superbowl teams, that Buccaneers squad, the Bills, and last year's Giants? That's laughable.Tell me which teams on that list they were better than.

I am not saying that they are necessarily better than all of those teams; just that they were better or as good on paper (taking wins, total offense and total defense into account) as all of those teams. Would they have beaten any or all of those teams? Who the hell knows. But you are the one who keeps insisting that they were so overrated, yet the numbers show that they were just as worthy a Super Bowl team as a number of other recent SB teams, including some that are very highly-regarded (that Bucs team, for example). That was my point. Your point is only, "the Bears were overrated," a subjective opinion on your part that has little merit. Objectively, the Bears were more than worthy of being considered a quality Super Bowl team, and the numbers demonstrate that quite clearly, unless a team with 13 wins, a great defense, great special teams, and an average offense is not worthy. And may I remind you that I am not a Bears fan. Like you, I am a Broncos fan.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

So far, my favorite is this one: "They only lost by 12."

Yeah, they only lost be 12 after running the opening kickoff back for a TD...which also means they scored 10 points after that.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Okay, the Bears average margin of victory in the '06 regular season was 16 points. That seems awfully impressive to me. I would be interested to see how that compares to all of these other Super Bowl teams we have been talking about. Perhaps if I have time later, I'll figure it out...

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

And Ghost Rider, people will always compare great teams from one era to another. And I think stathounds get a little carried away when doing so. For instance, trying to make a case that the 06' Bears were on the same level as any of those Patriots teams, last year's Giants, the Bucs and the like, is silly. I'd even take the Bills over them.

Stats aside for a minute...do you really believe the 06' Bears were as good as those I just mentioned above?

 

[Ghost Rider]

And Ghost Rider, people will always compare great teams from one era to another. And I think stathounds get a little carried away when doing so. For instance, trying to make a case that the 06' Bears were on the same level as any of those Patriots teams, last year's Giants, the Bucs and the like, is silly. I'd even take the Bills over them.Stats aside for a minute...do you really believe the 06' Bears were as good as those I just mentioned above?

They were not as good as that Bucs team, no, but they were as good as the Patriots team from '95. That Patriots team was not that great. And neither the '01 Patriots nor the '07 Giants were great teams. They were good teams that got hot at the right time, winning their Super Bowls after scoring huge upsets. Remember that last year's Giants were a 10-6 team that no one was giving a shot to win anything when the playoffs started. At this time last year, they were a 9-5 team coming off a 12-point loss at home to the Redskins.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

And Ghost Rider, people will always compare great teams from one era to another. And I think stathounds get a little carried away when doing so. For instance, trying to make a case that the 06' Bears were on the same level as any of those Patriots teams, last year's Giants, the Bucs and the like, is silly. I'd even take the Bills over them.Stats aside for a minute...do you really believe the 06' Bears were as good as those I just mentioned above?

They were not as good as that Bucs team, no, but they were as good as the Patriots team from '95. That Patriots team was not that great. And neither the '01 Patriots nor the '07 Giants were great teams. They were good teams that got hot at the right time, winning their Super Bowls after scoring huge upsets.

So you're saying they were as good or better than the 01 Patriots and the 07 Giants?