Let's bring ourselves back down to earth
by thecoolest on Sep 8, 2008 6:38 PM CDT
36 comments
Look, I know we just played a great game and beat a perennial power house, but we really need to think and calm down right now. Sure we looked great right now, but we still have a ton of question marks on this team, and I don't think many of them have changed after just one game.
QB: Orton looked good, basically what we expected (medium passes, not taking too many big risks). I still don't fully trust him to be a starting QB, but he convinced me to give him time.
RB: Forte looked great this game and has potential.
O-line: Looked pretty strong in the running game, but struggled badly in the passing game. Still needs a lot of work.
Defense: Much better than I thought, but I'm not fully convinced that they can still be a dominant defense.
Bottom Line:
We need to chill out and still remember that is still a team that was expected to finish last in our division. It was a nice win, but our expectations shouldn't change too much after this game; 9-7 imo, should be our goal.
0 recs |
36 comments
Email
Print
Comments
might as well enjoy it
for this week.
one thing i noticed today was outside of the 50 yard run, forte was only hitting at a 3.3 clip. not that impressive.
by mike b on Sep 8, 2008 7:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
nice way of cherry picking
if you took out all of barry sanders long runs, his per carry average would be bad too.
You can’t fault the guy for succeeding. If you are going to look at yards per carry (which is a good stat, but not the end all be all) you have to take them all in.
by tempchad on Sep 8, 2008 7:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
not faulting him
faulting the line that gave him 3.3 yards a carry, except for his one big run. you don’t think that matters?
i know numbers are scary but before we give the line all these compliments its important to know they gave benson era holes to a better runner. we’ll see if that’s enough to have a good running game.
by mike b on Sep 8, 2008 8:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is silly
look at AP tonight 103 yards on 19 carries. That’s a gaudy +5/ypc average right there. But if you take out his 34 yarder, 3.8/ypc.
You must take it in its entirety or not at all.
by tempchad on Sep 9, 2008 12:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
don't have to do anything
hope the line blocks better or forte rips off at least one big run a game.
by mike b on Sep 9, 2008 9:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
To give the OL a small break on this.
They were probably stacking the box quite a bit which makes it very tough to run with any line, good or bad. Add in that this team was a top 5 defense last year. Maybe 3.3 wasn’t terribly bad.
I will say that Forte really pushed for lots of extra yards. I was very impressed. They were yards a lot of guys couldn’t get. He also found the holes fairly quickly.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on Sep 9, 2008 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No one is arguing whether the Minnesota Vikings have a better line than the Bears.
Heck, 4 days ago we thought 31 teams had better lines than the Bears. Yes, you are right the Vikes have a better line. I think the Colts have a better defense then the Packers, personally.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on Sep 9, 2008 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vikes...
… have a better line, AND a better running back.
visit the mindful mission
by big_lowitzki on Sep 9, 2008 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where did I say the Vikings have a better line?
by tyger1147 on Sep 9, 2008 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You said that 3.8 is better than 3.3.
Yeah, we know. And if we had the Vikings line is much better than ours as well. That’s part of the reason their average is higher. Of course they have 2 better RB’s as well.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on Sep 9, 2008 10:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That wasn't the point at all.
Follow the thread. mikeb’s original point was that Forte had a bad average minus his long run. This implies that if he doesn’t do better on his runs-other-than-50-yds, it will be a long season. chad eventually countered w/ Peterson’s 3.8 avg on runs-minus-the-long-one.
I stated below that I’d rather have someone get (considering the Bears mindset) 4.0 ypc and mix in 3 or 4 10-15 yd runs that someone who avgs. 3.3 ypc and gets a 50-yarder.
My “3.8 > 3.3” was simply pointing out that 3.8 is closer to 4.0. Peterson’s numbers were less dependent on one run (read: consistent) than Forte’s. As you said, no one, including me, is comparing the Bears line, or RB’s to the Vikings.
by tyger1147 on Sep 10, 2008 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, I think honestly I miss understand you a lot because you don't explain things very much.
That makes much more sense and I’m with you. Not everything on a board like this is obvious to all who read because of the way it is written. I apologize for misunderstanding.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on Sep 10, 2008 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, when Forte does it as often as Barry Sanders has, maybe that analogy will be relevant.
Or perhaps even half as often. Or a fifth as often. Or… more than once.
Long runs happen, obviously. They count. But even for good backs, runs over 40 yards don’t happen more than 2 or 3 times a season. Even for the great ones, it doesn’t happen more than 5 or 6 times a year.
It matters in that it points to a boom or bust running game. It probably isn’t, but that what it was in this game. Personally, for this type of team anyway, I’d rather have the 4.0 ypc w/ a two or three 10-15 yd runs than what the Bears had this past week.
by tyger1147 on Sep 9, 2008 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but this is only one game.
There are no other games to compare to yet. We could be worse in Caroline, we could be better. This line is going to have to be judged over 3-4 games minimum to see if they are consistently good, bad, average, up, down, whatever.
As far as Forte is concerned, man this is only his first game. Give him a break. No one is saying he is Barry Sanders or will be. This is Matt Forte and a not very good line. He did fine. And yes, large averages come from the big play more often than not. Though I agree it would be nice to be closer to 3.8 on the regular plays.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on Sep 9, 2008 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My GOD!!! That was the point!!!!!!!1
And I didn’t say he was Barry Sanders either. Someone else made the comparison. I was refuting it. Get your reading cap on, son!
by tyger1147 on Sep 9, 2008 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess my problem is you compare every aspect of our team to some great person.
Barry Sanders, Vikings offensive line, Peyton Manning and Brady in old posts. No team will have the best players ever at all positions on the field at the same time. It never happens that way. I would be happy this season with an average OL, average QB, average WR, above average running game, and a great defense and special teams.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on Sep 9, 2008 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
When I make those comparisons...
…it’s said in response to others.
They say “The bears are great. They did such and such this one game, and they are great. If they can do that every game.”
I counter with, “Only Brady or Manning or blah blah blah does such and such every game. The Bears aren’t that good, so don’t expect them to do that.”
So when did I compare anyone to Sanders or the Vikings line?
by tyger1147 on Sep 9, 2008 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know man, it just seems like I keep reading stuff like:
Grossman isn’t as good as Brady or Peyton, our line isn’t as good as the Vikings, Orton couldn’t start on any team in the league, Hanie isn’t as good as so and so, Forte isn’t as good as Sanders, and I’m like of course not. It seems like you are one of the people who want us to have a Peyton Manning a Vikings line and a Barry Sanders running back.
We spent our money and pick on defense and that is why our defense tends to be good. We have obviously screwed up this offense, but let’s not try to compare these guys to the best in the league or ever because they aren’t. I do think the line did decent Sunday, Forte did very well, and Orton did his job and did it very well. No he did not have a good statistical game.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on Sep 9, 2008 11:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've stated time and again....
…while I’m not a fan of it, w/ the Bears mindset, I’d be entirely happy with an average to above-average QB (Top 10-15) or passing game. However, if they are team that “comes off the bus running” and are going to rely on the running game and defense, then, yes, I don’t think it’s too much to ask that they aspire to having a line the caliber of Minnesota’s.
by tyger1147 on Sep 10, 2008 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They better aspire, but they can only do so much at a time to get us there.
When you figure in current salaries on the books, they have left themselves with little room to make a big move to improve. I think they blew it this offseason on addressing the line, but I have to believe that is the number thing to address moving forward and that they’ll work on it. As for this season, we’re just going to have to deal with this predicament, because they aren’t going to trade for anyone unless we have an injury.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on Sep 10, 2008 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Meant to say "number one thing to address"
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on Sep 10, 2008 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
By the way I enjoy debating with you because your opinionated.
I feel like we disagree on lots of stuff but both love our team. I enjoy hearing your opinions.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on Sep 9, 2008 11:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No thanks
We beat the Colts, I’ll stay happy this week.
I'M A MAN! I'M 22!
by ChiFan13 on Sep 8, 2008 9:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
regardless
he still got the 50 yarder and thats what good running backs do, so Im gonna enjoy it and Ill wait for the weekend to relax myself…remember, EVERY team has a superbowl hangover the following year…even the Pats
by DaNate23 on Sep 8, 2008 10:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Super Bowl hang over?
Does that explain the Bear’s bad 07 season?
by tempchad on Sep 9, 2008 12:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
and its not some BS stat, its proven, every team that loses in the superbowl struggles the next year and Ive been saying this since last year about how everyone needs to relax and just look forward to a good year for us. Im not saying I called this victory, but I def never counted them out like those dumbasses at ESPN
by DaNate23 on Sep 9, 2008 3:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll stay excited
Why not be excited after a good all-around win. Isn’t that the point? I also must have missed the memo that just because we were expected to be bad that we will be bad.
by Ando on Sep 9, 2008 8:11 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm excited! Not thinking Super Bowl, but now I think we can contend in our division.
Next week I may think Super Bowl, but lets take it one week at a time.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on Sep 9, 2008 9:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
Why not get excited? I should have to only hope for 9-7. Why would I only hope for that? I hope for all my teams to go all the way every year in every sport. That’s the goal for my teams every year. Obviously that usually isn’t the case, but so what? I think if you need to lower your hopes in order to not get hurt too much by a lesser result you are taking what your team does way too seriously. I know the Bears don’t really have a shot at the super bowl, but that’s still what I’m always going to hope for.
by BoxingHideout on Sep 9, 2008 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know its one game
but they’ve already won a game I didn’t expect them too… why NOT be excited?
Now, where'd I put that button....
by halfblindcubbiegirl on Sep 10, 2008 3:45 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm holding off one more week.
Any team in the NFL can beat any other team on “Any Given Sunday”. However, to do it consistently is obviously what matters. I’m now thinking they are at least even w/ Carolina. If they win that, I’ll start to get excited because they should then be favored to beat Tampa. And if they win that, Philly at home… well, yeah.
Still, though, if they lose this week…
by tyger1147 on Sep 10, 2008 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
hard to win on the road
allegedly. if they do it should turn some heads.
by mike b on Sep 10, 2008 12:42 PM CDT up 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.
