Chicago Bears, Overacheivers?
by Adam T on Dec 18, 2008 1:24 PM CST
11 comments
So the Chicago Bears are closing in on getting shut out of the playoffs and that is a disappointment. As fans of the team we always want to see our teams succeed and win despite the obvious flaws in the system. We want to go deep in the playoffs and win the Super Bowl, but was that a realistic goal? We knew going in that we had erratic QB play, we knew we have a rookie running back, we knew our offensive line was not solid, we knew that there was not a #2 receiver in the bunch that we were going to field. Did us as fans and some in the 'know', just build our hopes up with early play and then we were left trying to pick up what was left when the Bears played like most thought they would?
Not trying to be negative, but this article says that the Bears had a successful season even if they don't make the playoffs. Go back and look at the records that people were projecting. It was not uncommon to see 5-6 win totals. Yet, here they are with 8 wins and still fighting for a playoff spot.
The Bears did nearly nothing to improve their offense last off-season other than draft the right running back. They gambled that aging players on defense could get at least one more year out of their bodies. They largely stuck with the status quo on a coaching staff as responsible for the 7-9 slide of 2007 as any aspect of the operation.
Training camp was a disaster, fromDevin Hester's holdout to rookie first-rounder Chris Williams' back surgery to a coin flip affecting the joke of a quarterback competition.
As late as late August, the Bears didn't remotely resemble a team capable of winning 10 games, the carrot still dangling in front of this unpredictable bunch.
So if the Bears accomplish that by beating the Packers on Monday night and the Texans on the road to end the season, they can consider this 10-6 season successful whether they make the playoffs or not.
0 recs |
11 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Overachieving is relative to talent
Not to perception of talent. The fact that everyone thought they would be bad is irrelevant. they were wrong.
They didn’t realize that Forte would be this good, that Orton was okay, that pass-protection would hold up. But even with those things going for us, we managed to consistently blow leads at the end of games, give games away on stupid plays and stupid playcalling, and not show up at all in games that really mean something.
by mac30 on Dec 18, 2008 1:55 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
That is a good point
Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!
by Adam T on Dec 18, 2008 2:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think this is going to be a pretty contested subject
But thanks for getting it started, because it’s an important discussion to have. The way I look at it, this team for all its faults nearly knocked off three teams – Carolina, Tampa Bay, and Atlanta – that are all contending for the playoffs. Granted, as others have pointed out, we maybe were lucky to win other games (such as the Eagles and the first Vikings game), but losing those three effing games in that manner was just demoralizing but also indicates that we were a solid team at least at one point.
Makes me think we were actually a bit better than we all thought when making our pre-season predictions, for as Mac just pointed out Forte turned out to be a very good back and Orton, for a while, didn’t suck. And the Defense has actually turned out to be surprisingly resilient. The special teams have been absolutely God awful on balance throughout the year, though.
That said, I’m overall very disappointed to come so close to (most likely) still lose out.
I'm not so mean. I wouldn't ever go out to hurt anybody deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something. - Dick Butkus
by iowaBear on Dec 18, 2008 3:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
As long as they get in the playoffs and keep winning, NO.
Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Dec 18, 2008 4:13 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Yes we have overachieved
on offense. We have zero starpower on Offense but have found one in Matt Forte. We are weak at wr and are average at QB and the Oline. We basically for next year have a brand new left tackle and maybe st clair slides over to guard. Need a new right tackle as well. On defense we have definitely underachieved as our scheme has sunk us in games we should have won. Overall we are not that far away from doing some damage in the playoffs with some key moves (Boldin??). Unfortunately, you can probably say that about 10 other teams..
by tfrabotta on Dec 18, 2008 4:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
they did exceed expectations, so yes
after the god awful season they had last year, and the rewarding of that team with big contracts afterwards, they certainly deserved to suck. But some how they found a way to stay hot on the heels of the favored Vikings who have WAY BETTER TALENT at many positions than the Bears. Their resiliency, especially on defense, sais alot about their character because even leading into the preseason career graveyards were being dug for many Bears players by the media. Their record says 8 – 6, but really with Orton, and injured one at that, they are 8-5. No way would anyone have predicted that, no way.
by Oso Monstar of Midway on Dec 18, 2008 5:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...
They over achieved in my mind because I doubted they would win more than a few games. But I am glad to eat crow, although our hit and miss style of play is really depressing (what I mean is sometimes we look like a Super Bowl team, others we can’t even score an effin TD)
by GoCubbies34 on Dec 18, 2008 6:00 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
my take
this team has just enough talent to tease you into believing they’re a good team. but in the end you realize that they’re record is about where they should be or slightly worse.
you can say we shouldve won this game or that one, but the reality is we didnt. I mean this so called veteran filled team has yet to prove they can even be dominant in their own division. I dont believe this team will be able to slow down Adrian Peterson over the next couple years, so without some wholesale changes this team will be in a similiar predicament for a few years ahead.
8-6 is pretty comendable with a backup qb, 3rd string recievers, and an overvalued defensive core….. can anyone rationalize how 180 million bucks was spent in a summer coming off a 7-9 season? I wonder what the outcome of this season wouldve been if some of these guys were playing for cash this season?
by rahulsriram on Dec 18, 2008 6:32 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of Peterson
This Defense is not set up to stop Adrian Peterson.undersized D lineman set up to rush the passer. Which usually means Offensive Linemen getting in Urlacher’s face. We will never slow him down unless we start using bigger run stuffing D lineman. I think we’re seeing glimses of that with Anthony Adams. Big giant dude taking heat off of Urlacher so he can and the other linebackers can fly around.
by Subotai on Dec 18, 2008 6:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
If they just tackle the guy instead of three guys missing him he has under 100 yards in both games..
by tfrabotta on Dec 19, 2008 9:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I would say no
Because if we win 9 or 10 games that is only 2 to 3 better than last year and last year we had a couple close ones that got away too. A two game improvement over last year is not a huge improvement and despite a lot of people thinking we got worse in the offseason we ended up getting a lot better. We lost a lot of baggage and bad players (Ced Ben, Moose, Fred Miller, Rueben Brown, Archuleta) and despite not getting any playmakers we have two good TEs and a group of solidly mediocre WRs. I would say that would make us about 2-3 games better than we were last year. It also helps we nailed the RB selection.
Fire Ron Turner!!!
Fire Angelo!!
by GallopingGhost on Dec 18, 2008 9:18 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
