In review

didshereallysaythat

Well-known member
11,536
3,712
75
This could not be further from the truth. In a one and done scenario luck plays a huge roll. A team can pull out a close win and then blow out someone the next week. So us struggling against he Eagles proves nothing about how we would have played the Saints.

I mean in the other thread you saying how QBs in their playoff debut struggle so don't you honestly believe that Mitch would be better in playoff games going forward after the first game was out of the way? So why you all of a sudden saying there was no chance he played better this week? These are just coping mechanism to excuse us fucking up a good chance at a Super Bowl.
I think he would play better. I also think the Rams and Saints would play better than the Eagles.

It’s my opinion. You can disagree. Don’t put words in my mouth though.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
31,358
8,835
135
I think he would play better. I also think the Rams and Saints would play better than the Eagles.

It’s my opinion. You can disagree. Don’t put words in my mouth though.
What words did I put in your mouth? You talking glass half empty about me but then claiming that there was no way we could win 3 straight simply because we lost to the Eagles.

How we played against the Eagles has absolutely nothing to do with how we would have played against anyone else. So your claim that the Eagles loss proves we weren't really SB contenders is simply off base but sure you are free to have that opinion.
 

Rory Sparrow

Well-known member
3,653
2,444
70
This could not be further from the truth. In a one and done scenario luck plays a huge roll. A team can pull out a close win and then blow out someone the next week. So us struggling against he Eagles proves nothing about how we would have played the Saints.

I mean in the other thread you saying how QBs in their playoff debut struggle so don't you honestly believe that Mitch would be better in playoff games going forward after the first game was out of the way?
Makes sense. Bears lose at home to a mediocre Eagles team that made so many errors themselves that they were practically giving the game to Chicago, but lets ignore this and assume a road victory over the Rams so we can then claim a hypothetical road win over the Saints.

Meanwhile, even though Trubisky has been below average on the road and will be facing better competition than Crevon LeBlanc, lets assume that Trubisky would be getting 'better' with each game.

Sounds like it would be fair to say that this thread exceeded expectations that I had after reading the OP, but as the thread went on I expected more.
 

Rory Sparrow

Well-known member
3,653
2,444
70
We lost because Burton pussed out, Nagy likely had to adjust things big time in less than 2 days.
Kind of funny that Pace invested so much money in Dion Sims and a high draft pick on Shaheen, yet we had Braunecker taking postseason shovel passes and people blaming Burton for the loss. Reminds me of how the Bears would pour money into alleged pass-rushers, and everything was still dependent on Willie Young getting "QB pressures".
 

didshereallysaythat

Well-known member
11,536
3,712
75
What words did I put in your mouth? You talking glass half empty about me but then claiming that there was no way we could win 3 straight simply because we lost to the Eagles.

How we played against the Eagles has absolutely nothing to do with how we would have played against anyone else. So your claim that the Eagles loss proves we weren't really SB contenders is simply off base but sure you are free to have that opinion.
You put words in my mouth by saying that I said that there was no way we could win it all. I merely said it was unlikely.

Also, how we play vs the Eagles DOES matter how we would play vs other teams. You are living in a fantasy land.
 

PrideisBears

cursed
Donator
24,873
11,379
105
What I mean is that if you play bad enough to lose at home to the Eagles, you are not good enough to win 3 more straight without home field advantage against vastly better teams than the Eagles.

Yes, the Bears "A" game could get it done. We have not seen that enough constantly this year for me to believe they were gonna play it 3 straight games. If they would have played like they did vs the Eagles against almost any other team while being on the road, they would have lost by double figures.

You are what you are. We lost to the Eagles.
I can't see it that way. If you remember we had two stars on our squad who were expected to play but couldn't in Jackson and Burton. Who knows how the outcome could have been if they were there or how we would be on the road. Eagles got lucky,honestly
 

didshereallysaythat

Well-known member
11,536
3,712
75
I can't see it that way. If you remember we had two stars on our squad who were expected to play but couldn't in Jackson and Burton. Who knows how the outcome could have been if they were there or how we would be on the road. Eagles got lucky,honestly
They got lucky in the end with the missed kick. I will give you that much.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
31,358
8,835
135
Makes sense. Bears lose at home to a mediocre Eagles team that made so many errors themselves that they were practically giving the game to Chicago, but lets ignore this and assume a road victory over the Rams so we can then claim a hypothetical road win over the Saints.

Meanwhile, even though Trubisky has been below average on the road and will be facing better competition than Crevon LeBlanc, lets assume that Trubisky would be getting 'better' with each game.

Sounds like it would be fair to say that this thread exceeded expectations that I had after reading the OP, but as the thread went on I expected more.
Not assuming victory at all. I am saying you can't assume defeat as didshe appeared to be assuming. Every game is different. Us struggling against the Eagles proves nothing going forward.

Didshe in the other thread was suggesting that Trubs would play better after his first playoff game because of all that playoff debut nonsense so was just saying his argument here seemed inconsistent with the one he made in the other thread.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
31,358
8,835
135
You put words in my mouth by saying that I said that there was no way we could win it all. I merely said it was unlikely.

Also, how we play vs the Eagles DOES matter how we would play vs other teams. You are living in a fantasy land.
No you said we would mostly like have to play a Rams team better than us and mostly likely then play the Saints. You did not actually say defeating them was unlikely. In fact, you're "I just never bought into us being good enough to win it all this year," suggests we didn't have a chance hence why I responded. If you actually said "unlikely" then I probably don't respond. However, can chalk that up to miscommunication.

If the Eagles game was the Superbowl and we lost like we did when we were the better team, then I would be as disappointed as you.

Looking at it realistically though, we had a very young QB who still needs to grow. Had we won, we most likely would have been playing a Rams team that is better than us who had the experience of losing in the playoffs last year, and if we somehow made it out of that game, most likely a Saints team who is outstanding in that dome. I just never bought into us being good enough to win it all this year.
 

modo

Yippie Ki-Yay
Donator
18,262
11,542
85
The best indicator of future performance is near past performance....while every NFL game is different, making taking the position that the Bears probably would not get by the Rams let alone the Saints is well within reason based on how the Bears played this year.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
31,358
8,835
135
The best indicator of future performance is near past performance....while every NFL game is different, making taking the position that the Bears probably would not get by the Rams let alone the Saints is well within reason based on how the Bears played this year.
We beat the Rams a few weeks ago and totally dominated them. Yes at home but odd to assume a team so thoroughly dominated magically scores a ton of points the next time around. Our margin for error is pretty great as while I don't think we hold them to 6 again, I also don't think Trubs looks as atrocious as he did that night either.

That clearly to me means we would be unlikely to win the Superbowl yet it would still be possible. Anything is possible ofcourse.
Again I found it strange a team that scored 6 points is somehow better than us. Could they be better than us at their home? Maybe. But we didn't merely win a close match. Our best (D) destroyed their best (O) despite how horrid Trubs was. The dude couldn't play any worse and yet the Rams still really had zero shot of winning the game.
 

FirstTimer

v. 2.0: Fully Modded
Staff member
Donator
27,019
15,032
105
This felt more like 2005 with the exception that the offense was bouyed by the passing game and not the rushing attack. This didn't have the horseshoe up their ass luck" feeling of the 2001 season.

Playoff loss felt similar too. Leaning too much on a passing game when I think the game could have been won with a more concentrated effort on the ground.
 

bamainatlanta

Well-known member
11,463
4,868
75
This felt more like 2005 with the exception that the offense was bouyed by the passing game and not the rushing attack. This didn't have the horseshoe up their ass luck" feeling of the 2001 season.

Playoff loss felt similar too. Leaning too much on a passing game when I think the game could have been won with a more concentrated effort on the ground.
The biggest similarity to me is the health of the team. 2001 had very few injuries just like this team. I believe the Bears lead the league in 2002 in injuries.
 

Diehardfan

Well-known member
6,275
3,498
70
My favorite teams
Chicago Cubs Chicago Bulls Chicago Bears Chicago Blackhawks
This felt more like 2005 with the exception that the offense was bouyed by the passing game and not the rushing attack. This didn't have the horseshoe up their ass luck" feeling of the 2001 season.

Playoff loss felt similar too. Leaning too much on a passing game when I think the game could have been won with a more concentrated effort on the ground.
Nagy's choices of when he ran and personal that he used in the running game was odd all season.
 

onebud34

Packer Fan
Donator
17,172
8,654
85
The biggest similarity to me is the health of the team. 2001 had very few injuries just like this team. I believe the Bears lead the league in 2002 in injuries.
The Bears were relatively healthy in 2005, sans the injury to Glassman.
 
Top