ST_CONROY wrote:Yes, Edge Hill University but i see what your trying to do there.
I haven't shown a lack of grace, class or given no credit simply because i haven't discussed the Bears, i was looking at my own team.
The Bears are doing well at 3-0. Cutler is far improved from last year and the defence has some steel back. Even when they've looked average the Bears have done well to come out with the wins.
I do think we are the best team in the division. The Vikes are lost without a number 1 reciever, the Lions are competative but still irrelevant in terms of winning the division and the Bears are doing well. However if you look at the wins: Detroit. Calvin Johnson definately scored that TD its just a weird rule. Dallas. Nothing to say it was an excellent win. Us, we shot ourselves in the foot numerous times (losing INT's etc) take away even one of those penalties and we win. We beat ourselves.
Credit to the Bears for being there to win the games but i still feel we are the better team in the division and overall.
What about the Packers then? You beat a Vickless 1st half eagles in first game and a terrible team in the bills second and then got beat by the bears? How does that put you as the best team in the division by some distance?
Joined: Jan 04 2006 Posts: 7069 Location: Green Bay
Yankee wrote:What about the Packers then? You beat a Vickless 1st half eagles in first game and a terrible team in the bills second and then got beat by the bears? How does that put you as the best team in the division by some distance?
We destroyed the Eagles (i think it was 24-3 or similar) until Vick came in. We had not gameplanned for Vick and had very few QB Spy sets therefore whenever Clay got near him he broke free and rushed. Despite that it was a convincing win. The Bills we battered, sure they are poor but we hammered them. The Bears game was disappointing but still it was our own fault. Without numerous penalties we would have had far more points or taken away Bears points (eg the FG on the last drive). Credit to the Bears for taking advantage of our mistakes but even after a poor performance we only lost by a game ending FG. I'm very confident we'll come out on top.
ST_CONROY wrote:We destroyed the Eagles (i think it was 24-3 or similar) until Vick came in. We had not gameplanned for Vick and had very few QB Spy sets therefore whenever Clay got near him he broke free and rushed. Despite that it was a convincing win. The Bills we battered, sure they are poor but we hammered them. The Bears game was disappointing but still it was our own fault. Without numerous penalties we would have had far more points or taken away Bears points (eg the FG on the last drive). Credit to the Bears for taking advantage of our mistakes but even after a poor performance we only lost by a game ending FG. I'm very confident we'll come out on top.
So if they had Vick for the entire game them "may" have beaten you. You can't us if's and but's cause it suits you for the bears but then refute the same argument against the Packers. Got to be fair. They'll be 3-1 sunday anyway after their visit to Giants stadium.
Joined: Jan 04 2006 Posts: 7069 Location: Green Bay
Yankee wrote:So if they had Vick for the entire game them "may" have beaten you. You can't us if's and but's cause it suits you for the bears but then refute the same argument against the Packers. Got to be fair. They'll be 3-1 sunday anyway after their visit to Giants stadium.
Of coure they "may" have but we knocked out their starting QB. If we had Grant for the whole game we "may" have won by more. My point was Vick is a completely different style of QB to Kolb and requires dealing with another way. We had no idea he would be playing (presumably if as you said he played the entire game we'd have known) and therefore had no gameplan to stop him and he led a mini resurgence as a result.
No ifs and buts for the Bears. They beat us fair and squre however it was entirely of our own making and we were still in a position to win until the death. You can look at it two ways. Its terrible that we blew a game we could have won especially against a division rival but at the same time it is a positive that we were able to remain in the game despite no running game and terrible penalties.
I actually think they will be 4-0, after the beat the Giants.
ST_CONROY wrote:Yes, Edge Hill University but i see what your trying to do there.
I haven't shown a lack of grace, class or given no credit simply because i haven't discussed the Bears, i was looking at my own team.
The Bears are doing well at 3-0. Cutler is far improved from last year and the defence has some steel back. Even when they've looked average the Bears have done well to come out with the wins.
I do think we are the best team in the division. The Vikes are lost without a number 1 reciever, the Lions are competative but still irrelevant in terms of winning the division and the Bears are doing well. However if you look at the wins: Detroit. Calvin Johnson definately scored that TD its just a weird rule. Dallas. Nothing to say it was an excellent win. Us, we shot ourselves in the foot numerous times (losing INT's etc) take away even one of those penalties and we win. We beat ourselves.
Credit to the Bears for being there to win the games but i still feel we are the better team in the division and overall.
See, that wasn't so difficult, was it? I agree with you - I think the Packers are the better team, however to suggest that they are somehow miles away is stretching it to say the least.
As for the Detroit game, well it wasn't a TD. The call was absoultely correct. However, the rule is stupid and it should be changed.
Me: I'm still reeling from the news that someone is considering watching the 1st and 3rd game on Saturday and NOT watching Warrington play. It's like being in Shea Stadium when the Beatles came to town and deciding to nip out for a fag.
knockersbumpMKII: Is it FOOK, you're good but you're not THAT good, jesus you wanky fans need to get over yourselves, Beatles at the Shea in '65 was a once in a lifetime opportunity for some (despite the following years performance), you can watch a very good team in primrose & yellow play every week if you really wanted to but comparing it to one of the very best music groups of all time in an iconic stadia such as the shea is overegging your importance, you're not even the best team in SL atm
ST_CONROY wrote:Of coure they "may" have but we knocked out their starting QB. If we had Grant for the whole game we "may" have won by more. My point was Vick is a completely different style of QB to Kolb and requires dealing with another way. We had no idea he would be playing (presumably if as you said he played the entire game we'd have known) and therefore had no gameplan to stop him and he led a mini resurgence as a result.
No ifs and buts for the Bears. They beat us fair and squre however it was entirely of our own making and we were still in a position to win until the death. You can look at it two ways. Its terrible that we blew a game we could have won especially against a division rival but at the same time it is a positive that we were able to remain in the game despite no running game and terrible penalties.
I actually think they will be 4-0, after the beat the Giants.
Do you think McCarthy should have let the bears score around the minute mark giving Rodgers time for the tie? That's whats was being questioned on PTI last night.
Joined: Jan 04 2006 Posts: 7069 Location: Green Bay
Yankee wrote:Do you think McCarthy should have let the bears score around the minute mark giving Rodgers time for the tie? That's whats was being questioned on PTI last night.
Personally yes i'd have let them. I'd have faith that Rodgers could lead us downfield for the tie or a decent shot of getting it.
Joined: Nov 05 2006 Posts: 3383 Location: On t'internet in Lancs.
El Pac Carnegie wrote:Apologies, I quoted the wrong person
I think you were probably supposed to quote me I still think the Packers are a better overall team than the Bears but we've now played 2 out of the 3 pre season favourites in the NFC and beat them both.That is the reason i'm a bit more upbeat about the Bears prospects this season than I was at the start of the month.
DAR130 wrote:I think you were probably supposed to quote me I still think the Packers are a better overall team than the Bears but we've now played 2 out of the 3 pre season favourites in the NFC and beat them both.That is the reason i'm a bit more upbeat about the Bears prospects this season than I was at the start of the month.
You're a fan, you're supposed to get giddy, that's what fans do! I have been convinced the Chargers were going to win the Superbowl for the last 3 years!!
Joined: Nov 05 2006 Posts: 3383 Location: On t'internet in Lancs.
RedTez wrote:You're a fan, you're supposed to get giddy, that's what fans do! I have been convinced the Chargers were going to win the Superbowl for the last 3 years!!
I think if you had a better HC you might have won it in one of those years.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
I still think the Packers are a better overall team than the Bears but we've now played 2 out of the 3 pre season favourites in the NFC and beat them both.That is the reason i'm a bit more upbeat about the Bears prospects this season than I was at the start of the month.
