NFC's best team is.. (1 Viewer)

[two_dollars]

THE Chicago Bears!

Sitting at 8-3 with what some can argue is the best defense in the NFL, and an offense that has become one of the most balanced in the NFL.

I do not believe there is a team they would not have an advantage against, right now, in the NFC.

 

[duaneok66]

I'm a Martz fan but I think Atlanta and the Packers are better . . .

 

[FUBAR]

THE Chicago Bears!

Sitting at 8-3 with what some can argue is the best defense in the NFL, and an offense that has become one of the most balanced in the NFL.

I do not believe there is a team they would not have an advantage against, right now, in the NFC.

that seems about right although it's far from a lock. Bring out the Cutler-haters!

 

[H.Wiggen]

As a Bears fan I'm hopeful but right now it looks like Atlanta to me.

 

[nysportsfan]

ATL

Pack

CHI

 

[BobbyLayne]

THE Chicago Bears!an offense that has become one of the most balanced in the NFL.

I think two or three teams have less rushing TDs, and they're in the bottom have of most meaningful rushing stats (YPC, ypg, et al).

 

[Soxwhat]

They only have two wins versus teams over .500

Best team in the NFC is a bit of a stretch. However, they do deserve more credit than they are getting.

 

[basher]

I think what you have in the NFC is a grouping of teams at the top that match up well with some and not others. I think the Bears have exactly the personnel to cause problems for teams like the Eagles but will have a hard time exact a team like the Falcons and definitely will not matchup well against the Saints. (I won't interject my opinion of the Packers into a bears thread)

 

[Glaven]

THE Chicago Bears!

Sitting at 8-3 with what some can argue is the best defense in the NFL, and an offense that has become one of the most balanced in the NFL.

I do not believe there is a team they would not have an advantage against, right now, in the NFC.

Forte has averaged over 4.0 yards per carry just 3 times so far this season. Although the Bears running game was successful this week, more often than not this season that is not the case. Although they likely have one of the top 3 defenses in their league, and really good special teams, they still have too many question marks on offense to be considered the best in the NFC imo.

Atlanta and New Orleans are clearly better, and Philly and Green Bay are arguably better (even though Philly lost today, I still think Philly is the better team).

 

[renesauz]

It was a good win for chicago today, but that "good" defense gave up a ton of yards and points at home, and their offense took advantage of a Philly Defense playing without their best secondary player.

Not sure Chicago wins on a neutral field, and the claim they're the best in the NFC is extremely weak.

 

[two_dollars]

THE Chicago Bears!an offense that has become one of the most balanced in the NFL.

I think two or three teams have less rushing TDs, and they're in the bottom have of most meaningful rushing stats (YPC, ypg, et al).

I was talking about current production and play calling, not year to date. Teams evolve as the year goes on, you need a "snapshot" of the last few weeks when talking about situations like this.

 

[Gadabout]

It's a different team every week. All of the top NFC teams (PHI, GB, NYG, ATL, NO, and CHI) all seem to be about the same.

 

[two_dollars]

It was a good win for chicago today, but that "good" defense gave up a ton of yards and points at home, and their offense took advantage of a Philly Defense playing without their best secondary player.Not sure Chicago wins on a neutral field, and the claim they're the best in the NFC is extremely weak.

The Eagles have a great offense. The Bears gave up a lot of yards at the end of the game in prevent. When talking about the best team, right now, you can't "what if" with injuries. Either they are playing or they aren't. The bears are staying healthy, that's part of the reason I put them at #1 in the NFC.1) Bears2) Eagles3) Atlanta4) New Orleans5) Green Bay6) Giants

 

[dansav]

They only have two wins versus teams over .500Best team in the NFC is a bit of a stretch. However, they do deserve more credit than they are getting.

Chicago should be in the hunt for best team in nfc.... you can't use you reasoning mentioned above, see jets in afc. They have one win with a team over 500. I would definately consider the jets in the hunt of best in afc with out a doubt.

 

[two_dollars]

THE Chicago Bears!

Sitting at 8-3 with what some can argue is the best defense in the NFL, and an offense that has become one of the most balanced in the NFL.

I do not believe there is a team they would not have an advantage against, right now, in the NFC.

Forte has averaged over 4.0 yards per carry just 3 times so far this season. Although the Bears running game was successful this week, more often than not this season that is not the case

. Although they likely have one of the top 3 defenses in their league, and really good special teams, they still have too many question marks on offense to be considered the best in the NFC imo.

Atlanta and New Orleans are clearly better, and Philly and Green Bay are arguably better (even though Philly lost today, I still think Philly is the better team).

It's not all about ypc. It's also about big runs, receiving out of the backfield, screens, 1st down conversions, play calling balance.. a lot more than Forte's ypc.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

As a Bears fan, while I liked what I saw out of the Offense today....I would like to see that more consistently before I put them out there as the Best team in the NFC.

That defense is sick though.

 

[ScottyFargo]

It was a good win for chicago today, but that "good" defense gave up a ton of yards and points at home, and their offense took advantage of a Philly Defense playing without their best secondary player.Not sure Chicago wins on a neutral field, and the claim they're the best in the NFC is extremely weak.

The Eagles have a great offense. The Bears gave up a lot of yards at the end of the game in prevent. When talking about the best team, right now, you can't "what if" with injuries. Either they are playing or they aren't. The bears are staying healthy, that's part of the reason I put them at #1 in the NFC.1) Bears2) Eagles3) Atlanta4) New Orleans5) Green Bay6) Giants

You have Green Bay too high and Atlanta too low. Other than that, pretty good. Oh yeah, and you have Chicago too high, too. But it's a good start.

 

[sho nuff]

Bears are up there but Atlanta currently holds that title.

 

[Glaven]

THE Chicago Bears!

Sitting at 8-3 with what some can argue is the best defense in the NFL, and an offense that has become one of the most balanced in the NFL.

I do not believe there is a team they would not have an advantage against, right now, in the NFC.

Forte has averaged over 4.0 yards per carry just 3 times so far this season. Although the Bears running game was successful this week, more often than not this season that is not the case

. Although they likely have one of the top 3 defenses in their league, and really good special teams, they still have too many question marks on offense to be considered the best in the NFC imo.

Atlanta and New Orleans are clearly better, and Philly and Green Bay are arguably better (even though Philly lost today, I still think Philly is the better team).

It's not all about ypc. It's also about big runs, receiving out of the backfield, screens, 1st down conversions, play calling balance.. a lot more than Forte's ypc.

Even using this criteria, Forte would be considered a below average running back so far this season.

 

[sho nuff]

It was a good win for chicago today, but that "good" defense gave up a ton of yards and points at home, and their offense took advantage of a Philly Defense playing without their best secondary player.Not sure Chicago wins on a neutral field, and the claim they're the best in the NFC is extremely weak.

The Eagles have a great offense. The Bears gave up a lot of yards at the end of the game in prevent. When talking about the best team, right now, you can't "what if" with injuries. Either they are playing or they aren't. The bears are staying healthy, that's part of the reason I put them at #1 in the NFC.1) Bears2) Eagles3) Atlanta4) New Orleans5) Green Bay6) Giants

You have Green Bay too high and Atlanta too low. Other than that, pretty good. Oh yeah, and you have Chicago too high, too. But it's a good start.

Scotty still showing his packer hate.

 

[two_dollars]

It's unfortunate that the NFC West has to have a representative. Would be a great playoff year with those 6 teams. Someone deserving will be left out.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I think what you have in the NFC is a grouping of teams at the top that match up well with some and not others. I think the Bears have exactly the personnel to cause problems for teams like the Eagles but will have a hard time exact a team like the Falcons and definitely will not matchup well against the Saints. (I won't interject my opinion of the Packers into a bears thread)

Are you sure about that???See the last 4 times they played:

2008: Chicago 27 Saints 24

2007: Chicago 33 Saints 25

2006 NFC Championship game- Chicago 39 Saints 14

2005 Chicago 20 Saints 17

 

[BobbyLayne]

THE Chicago Bears!an offense that has become one of the most balanced in the NFL.

I think two or three teams have less rushing TDs, and they're in the bottom have of most meaningful rushing stats (YPC, ypg, et al).

I was talking about current production and play calling, not year to date. Teams evolve as the year goes on, you need a "snapshot" of the last few weeks when talking about situations like this.

Actually, I was basing it on YTD because their RB production overall is better than the last 5 weeks or the last 3 weeks. 19th YTD in Fantasy Football Points scored by RBs in non-PPR, and 27th/25th in the the aforementioned more recent periods.But hey, don't let facts stop you...

 

[Osaurus]

It's unfortunate that the NFC West has to have a representative. Would be a great playoff year with those 6 teams. Someone deserving will be left out.

NFC West =

 

[two_dollars]

THE Chicago Bears!an offense that has become one of the most balanced in the NFL.

I think two or three teams have less rushing TDs, and they're in the bottom have of most meaningful rushing stats (YPC, ypg, et al).

I was talking about current production and play calling, not year to date. Teams evolve as the year goes on, you need a "snapshot" of the last few weeks when talking about situations like this.

Actually, I was basing it on YTD because their RB production overall is better than the last 5 weeks or the last 3 weeks. 19th YTD in Fantasy Football Points scored by RBs in non-PPR, and 27th/25th in the the aforementioned more recent periods.But hey, don't let facts stop you...

No, I know what the numbers say and I also don't care about fantasy points. You don't need to be a top rushing offense to run the ball effectively. If you are setting up play action and keeping people in the box, you are running the ball effectively. When the play calling is one of the more balanced in the league and you are winning games, you are running the ball effectively.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

THE Chicago Bears!an offense that has become one of the most balanced in the NFL.

I think two or three teams have less rushing TDs, and they're in the bottom have of most meaningful rushing stats (YPC, ypg, et al).

I was talking about current production and play calling, not year to date. Teams evolve as the year goes on, you need a "snapshot" of the last few weeks when talking about situations like this.

Actually, I was basing it on YTD because their RB production overall is better than the last 5 weeks or the last 3 weeks. 19th YTD in Fantasy Football Points scored by RBs in non-PPR, and 27th/25th in the the aforementioned more recent periods.But hey, don't let facts stop you...

When the Chicago Bears are worried more about FF....I'm directing them right at you. When it comes to winning games and getting the running game more involved and productive, I will leave it up to them.

 

[sho nuff]

I think what you have in the NFC is a grouping of teams at the top that match up well with some and not others. I think the Bears have exactly the personnel to cause problems for teams like the Eagles but will have a hard time exact a team like the Falcons and definitely will not matchup well against the Saints. (I won't interject my opinion of the Packers into a bears thread)

Are you sure about that???See the last 4 times they played:

2008: Chicago 27 Saints 24

2007: Chicago 33 Saints 25

2006 NFC Championship game- Chicago 39 Saints 14

2005 Chicago 20 Saints 17

Seriously using 2005 as an argument...even 2008...you are reaching here.

 

[JaxBill]

Well the best team in the NFC has a field that would make dairy farmers sue if you called it a cow pasture.

 

[Mike]

The Bears should have a big advantage at home on that terrible field of theirs. They'll be used to it; visiting teams will be griping about it.

I just took the Bears at 20-to-1 odds to win the SB (and Chiefs at 30-to-1... I'm not that convinced about either team but liked the odds).

 

[Tibetan Sherpa]

You misspelled "Atlanta Falcons"

 

[PizzaDeliveryGuy]

As long as Atlanta keeps home field they are your favorite to represent the NFC in the Superbowl.

 

[Fensalk]

They only have two wins versus teams over .500Best team in the NFC is a bit of a stretch. However, they do deserve more credit than they are getting.

There is no evidence that your record vs teams over .500 determines playoff success. The Bears won the NFC in 2006 despite going 0-2 against winning teams.The Giants won the Super Bowl in 2007 despite going 1-5 against winning teams in the regular season.The Cardinals won the NFC in 2008 despite going 2-5 against winning teams.All that really matters is you play well in postseason.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

THE Chicago Bears!Sitting at 8-3 with what some can argue is the best defense in the NFL, and an offense that has become one of the most balanced in the NFL.I do not believe there is a team they would not have an advantage against, right now, in the NFC.

There is no best team in the NFC, it changes every week. Since they won this week, they are the now team but in 3 weeks from now, I'd be surprised if they're still the team to bet in the NFC, it's just the way the year's gone.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I think what you have in the NFC is a grouping of teams at the top that match up well with some and not others. I think the Bears have exactly the personnel to cause problems for teams like the Eagles but will have a hard time exact a team like the Falcons and definitely will not matchup well against the Saints. (I won't interject my opinion of the Packers into a bears thread)

Are you sure about that???See the last 4 times they played:

2008: Chicago 27 Saints 24

2007: Chicago 33 Saints 25

2006 NFC Championship game- Chicago 39 Saints 14

2005 Chicago 20 Saints 17

really?

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I think what you have in the NFC is a grouping of teams at the top that match up well with some and not others. I think the Bears have exactly the personnel to cause problems for teams like the Eagles but will have a hard time exact a team like the Falcons and definitely will not matchup well against the Saints. (I won't interject my opinion of the Packers into a bears thread)

Are you sure about that???See the last 4 times they played:

2008: Chicago 27 Saints 24

2007: Chicago 33 Saints 25

2006 NFC Championship game- Chicago 39 Saints 14

2005 Chicago 20 Saints 17

Seriously using 2005 as an argument...even 2008...you are reaching here.

It's scheme vs scheme. Outside of the 2005(which i did this quickly) Brees was there all those games with Sean Payton....as was Lovie and the cover 2 scheme.

 

[sho nuff]

I think what you have in the NFC is a grouping of teams at the top that match up well with some and not others. I think the Bears have exactly the personnel to cause problems for teams like the Eagles but will have a hard time exact a team like the Falcons and definitely will not matchup well against the Saints. (I won't interject my opinion of the Packers into a bears thread)

Are you sure about that???See the last 4 times they played:

2008: Chicago 27 Saints 24

2007: Chicago 33 Saints 25

2006 NFC Championship game- Chicago 39 Saints 14

2005 Chicago 20 Saints 17

Seriously using 2005 as an argument...even 2008...you are reaching here.

It's scheme vs scheme. Outside of the 2005(which i did this quickly) Brees was there all those games with Sean Payton....as was Lovie and the cover 2 scheme.

Awesome...5 year old data is now relevant.You realize the defensive coaches for the Saints have changed right?

So...first year coach and QB being there is now relevant to how they would react today right?

As is data when the coaches and players were nearly all different.

Hilarious.

BTW...I put the Bears up there right with the Saints today, but your line of reasoning is downright laughable.

 

[Jack Burton]

THE Chicago Bears!Sitting at 8-3 with what some can argue is the best defense in the NFL, and an offense that has become one of the most balanced in the NFL.I do not believe there is a team they would not have an advantage against, right now, in the NFC.

Why because they beat Philly at home today? the Eagles shot themselves in the foot otherwise it would be a different outcome. Atl, GB, NYG, NO and Phi at home are better.

 

[Breesisdaman]

Atlanta has the best record by virtue of the gift given to them by Garrett Hartley. I still say the defending Champion Saints are the team to beat when all their players are healthy. They are just starting to roll on offense, while the defense has been pretty good all along. Seems weird to say that but its true.

 

[basher]

I think what you have in the NFC is a grouping of teams at the top that match up well with some and not others. I think the Bears have exactly the personnel to cause problems for teams like the Eagles but will have a hard time exact a team like the Falcons and definitely will not matchup well against the Saints. (I won't interject my opinion of the Packers into a bears thread)

Are you sure about that???See the last 4 times they played:

2008: Chicago 27 Saints 24

2007: Chicago 33 Saints 25

2006 NFC Championship game- Chicago 39 Saints 14

2005 Chicago 20 Saints 17

Is this seriously your argument? Worst. Rebuttal. Ever.

 

[Gadabout]

Atlanta has the best record by virtue of the gift given to them by Garrett Hartley. I still say the defending Champion Saints are the team to beat when all their players are healthy. They are just starting to roll on offense, while the defense has been pretty good all along. Seems weird to say that but its true.

Everybody will be singing a different tune once the Saints go to Atlanta on a Monday night and slap the taste out of their mouths.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I think what you have in the NFC is a grouping of teams at the top that match up well with some and not others. I think the Bears have exactly the personnel to cause problems for teams like the Eagles but will have a hard time exact a team like the Falcons and definitely will not matchup well against the Saints. (I won't interject my opinion of the Packers into a bears thread)

Are you sure about that???See the last 4 times they played:

2008: Chicago 27 Saints 24

2007: Chicago 33 Saints 25

2006 NFC Championship game- Chicago 39 Saints 14

2005 Chicago 20 Saints 17

Seriously using 2005 as an argument...even 2008...you are reaching here.

It's scheme vs scheme. Outside of the 2005(which i did this quickly) Brees was there all those games with Sean Payton....as was Lovie and the cover 2 scheme.

Awesome...5 year old data is now relevant.You realize the defensive coaches for the Saints have changed right?

So...first year coach and QB being there is now relevant to how they would react today right?

As is data when the coaches and players were nearly all different.

Hilarious.

BTW...I put the Bears up there right with the Saints today, but your line of reasoning is downright laughable.

Settle down...geeez people jump to conclusions.

This was in reference to the "and definitely will not matchup well against the Saints" comment made.

Considering the Bears have beat them with close to the same schemes the last 3 times they played...I don't know how someone can deem them DEFINITELY WILL NOT MATCHUP WELL AGAINST THE SAINTS comment when they are one of the best defenses in the NFL and not one offense has been a problem thus far in 2010.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I think what you have in the NFC is a grouping of teams at the top that match up well with some and not others. I think the Bears have exactly the personnel to cause problems for teams like the Eagles but will have a hard time exact a team like the Falcons and definitely will not matchup well against the Saints. (I won't interject my opinion of the Packers into a bears thread)

Are you sure about that???See the last 4 times they played:

2008: Chicago 27 Saints 24

2007: Chicago 33 Saints 25

2006 NFC Championship game- Chicago 39 Saints 14

2005 Chicago 20 Saints 17

Is this seriously your argument? Worst. Rebuttal. Ever.

Ever? If you can give me a reason as to how the Bears can't matchup well versus the Saints I would love to hear it. The Bears have shut down and played well versus every offense so far this season. Then add in that scheme wise the Bears have beaten the Saints the last 3 times they played. I can't think of one good reason why they don't matchup well.

Also note that the Bears have knocked the Saints out of the playoffs or a chance to make the playoffs in critical games in 2006, 2007, 2008. They didn't play them in 2009 and they won the Super Bowl. Interesting.

 

[Novice2]

THE Chicago Bears!Sitting at 8-3 with what some can argue is the best defense in the NFL, and an offense that has become one of the most balanced in the NFL.I do not believe there is a team they would not have an advantage against, right now, in the NFC.

No no no silly bear this is the Falcons week to be talked up as the besets in the NFC. Maybe next week it will be you Bears if Cutler doesn't come down with interceptionitis again.

 

[PizzaDeliveryGuy]

Hey look, a bunch of homers claiming their team is the best. Imagine that.

 

[Jagerbomber]

My non-homer observation is that the Falcons are the best team right now.

The Bears offense needs to be more consistent IMO, even if their defense is pretty sick.

 

[cvnpoka]

Atlanta has the best record by virtue of the gift given to them by Garrett Hartley. I still say the defending Champion Saints are the team to beat when all their players are healthy. They are just starting to roll on offense, while the defense has been pretty good all along. Seems weird to say that but its true.

also nate clements.anyway, lol at the bears being the best team in the nfc. heres teams that would be favored on a neutral field and have a better shot at the sb: atl gb no nyg phi

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

My non-homer observation is that the Falcons are the best team right now.The Bears offense needs to be more consistent IMO, even if their defense is pretty sick.

This is my line of thinking currently.

 

[flapgreen]

Not many Bears fans think this, including myself

 

[flapgreen]

THE Chicago Bears!an offense that has become one of the most balanced in the NFL.

:(I think two or three teams have less rushing TDs, and they're in the bottom have of most meaningful rushing stats (YPC, ypg, et al).

huh

 

[sho nuff]

Settle down...geeez people jump to conclusions.This was in reference to the "and definitely will not matchup well against the Saints" comment made.Considering the Bears have beat them with close to the same schemes the last 3 times they played...I don't know how someone can deem them DEFINITELY WILL NOT MATCHUP WELL AGAINST THE SAINTS comment when they are one of the best defenses in the NFL and not one offense has been a problem thus far in 2010.

No need to settle down...nothing you say here will ever get me worked up chief.And Im not jumping to conclusions...your use of 2005 data to show they are a good matchup against the Saints is foolish.I think the Saints play quite different the past several years as they did in 05, 06, 07...and so on.