Matt Hasselbeck on Bears

Aquineas

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
7,022
Liked Posts:
6,113
Location:
Montgomery, TX
I've always wondered what that game would have looked like if Cooper C. was healthy. When he went down it took a major dimension away from their O.
Well presumably we will find out this year. And this time the game is in LA.
 

NCChiFan

Bald, fat, toothless
Donator
Joined:
Mar 29, 2012
Posts:
10,736
Liked Posts:
4,981
I would not want to play this Defence.
 

r1terrell23

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
3,009
Liked Posts:
1,622
Everyone did until about mid season.
I thought we were favored publicly against Seattle, Arizona, and Miami. TB had Fitzmagic but no defense, and I think after his game against Pitt, people were jumping off his bandwagon even. The only games I remember being public underdogs in early was the Packers and Pat's games.
 

Midwaymonster75

Well-known member
Joined:
Sep 3, 2013
Posts:
2,602
Liked Posts:
2,357
Honestly I think that Rams game woke up the last of the haters. That high-flying Rams team that had been racking up points all season got their shit *shut down* when they came to Soldier Field. I think the entire NFC was happy that the Eagles knocked the Bears out of the playoffs, because no-one wanted to play them.
And the Eagles got out by the skin of their teeth. The Eagles should have absolutely lost that game. We had them beat and well, we all know what happened.:obama:
 

Chicago Staleys

Realist
Joined:
Sep 24, 2012
Posts:
12,838
Liked Posts:
8,582
Last year, we were good enough to win our division and get into the playoffs. HHCD says he was excited to join our team because we were a healthy Jackson away from playing in the big game. And you don't have to look very hard to see why; with Jackson our game vs the eagles is a totally different ballgame. We'd play the Rams and the saints take on Dallas, and we already defeated the Rams in the regular season.

There is the question of Dallas @ NO, but I think we would have matched up well against both teams last year, and we were a yard away from going into overtime against New England. It's hard not to say that we could have challenged to play in the Superbowl last year, and even look like we belonged instead of some fluke team.

Then the question becomes, if we were a team that had a realistic chance at the Superbowl last year, did we get better relative to the other teams, to contend again this year? I believe we improved more than our division rivals (returning most of the same team, becoming a more aggressive defense, achieving a more complimentary backfield, more growth for 10). So we're a playoff team, and in the playoffs anything can happen. We belong there just as much as any other contender.

So yeah, we have a chance to win it this year. It's not an embarrassingly low chance like Miami or Cinci, it's a real shot at a title. I don't know if I take this roster over 2006 (because with a better called game and better luck with injuries, we did have a shot there too), but damn if this isn't a team to be excited for!
So this this team is a 1 defensive player away from losing? God I hope you are wrong.
 

Chicago Staleys

Realist
Joined:
Sep 24, 2012
Posts:
12,838
Liked Posts:
8,582
Best part is week 1 the pack won't know what to expect defensively since they haven't seen chuck coach this pack of studs.

We legit have all pro talent loaded all over the field on D. Thats scary.
Can’t you say the same about the Packer offense? They are completely unpredictable with a new coach calling the plays.
 

gallagher

Nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile
Donator
Joined:
Sep 27, 2010
Posts:
6,329
Liked Posts:
5,591
Location:
Semi-Nomadic
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Michigan Wolverines
  2. Ohio Bobcats
So this this team is a 1 defensive player away from losing? God I hope you are wrong.
How is that what you took away from what I posted? We didn't lose because Jackson didn't play, that's needlessly reductive (and absolves Parkey). What I said was that our team could have been playing in the Superbowl had we not been missing a star player (or, HHCD said that and it mirrors my excitement, but that's a distinction without a difference). We lost a game, we weren't a losing team, that's a big difference.
 

SlickWilly

Team Ignore Member #2
Donator
Joined:
Apr 26, 2013
Posts:
5,053
Liked Posts:
4,494
Location:
Dakotaland
My favorite teams
  1. New York Mets
  1. Detroit Pistons
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. North Carolina Tar Heels
How is that what you took away from what I posted? We didn't lose because Jackson didn't play, that's needlessly reductive (and absolves Parkey). What I said was that our team could have been playing in the Superbowl had we not been missing a star player (or, HHCD said that and it mirrors my excitement, but that's a distinction without a difference). We lost a game, we weren't a losing team, that's a big difference.

You have to realize this is the same guy that thinks it's Chase Daniel and only Chase Daniel that cost the Bears a first round bye last season.
 

BearFanJohn

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 22, 2012
Posts:
10,260
Liked Posts:
6,780
Location:
Indiana
I thought we were favored publicly against Seattle, Arizona, and Miami. TB had Fitzmagic but no defense, and I think after his game against Pitt, people were jumping off his bandwagon even. The only games I remember being public underdogs in early was the Packers and Pat's games.


They started 3-3 though and no one knew what was coming.
 

gallagher

Nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile
Donator
Joined:
Sep 27, 2010
Posts:
6,329
Liked Posts:
5,591
Location:
Semi-Nomadic
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Michigan Wolverines
  2. Ohio Bobcats
You have to realize this is the same guy that thinks it's Chase Daniel and only Chase Daniel that cost the Bears a first round bye last season.
Then my accusation of being needlessly reductive stands.
 

Top