Keeping Things in Perspective

by bmbrock on Oct 25, 2009 11:22 PM CDT

Ill start off by saying that was probably the sorriest display of football my relatively young eyes have had displeasure of seeing. I nearly punched our tv and threw my packer fan roomate through a wall. That being said, I'm still trying to be optimistic. Here is one reason why.

http://www.patriots.com/games/index.cfm?ac=gamereportdetail&pid=35836&pcid=41

Teams have bad days.

The same Arizona Cardinals that were destroyed 47-7 by the Cassel-lead Patriots last year ended up not only in the playoffs, but in the Superbowl. I'm well aware that this is a relatively rare occurrence, but it is an occurrence. A lot of what happens in the NFL is based on which team is hot at the current time and how each team's players/schemes match up head to head.

Does anyone actually believe that the Cardinals were the 2nd best team in the NFL last year? They went on a hot streak when it mattered and beat teams that weren't playing as well at the time. The Bears do not have a top tier team right now, but the previous 5 games have shown that they are not as bad a team as they appeared to be today.

If we can come out swinging against a Browns team that scored 6 points in their only win of the season, gain some momentum, and get a little confidence back, they have a chance to get hot themselves and win a few more games this year.

So please, step away from the cliff and just sleep on it. Hope you all are ulcer free after this afternoon's showing. Have a good night, and you stay classy windy city.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Read More: Chicago Bears, Arizona Cardinals

Comments

The Cardinals had already clinched

their division before the Pats game. They essentially had nothing to play for and basically took the day off.

Not saying it’s right, but that’s what happened.

Yes, teams have bad days.

The Cards weren’t the second best team in the regular season last year. They were the second best team in last years playoffs.

The Cards beat Atlanta (who had won 9 out of 12), the Panthers (who had won 8 out of 10) and the Eagles (who had won 6 out of 7) to get to the SB.

Saying that they beat teams who weren’t playing well at the time makes no sense.

The Cardinals had the luxury last season of playing in a weak division with two teams making a coaching change and the other with a ’lame-duck ’coach. The Bears have no such luxury in the NFC North.

Unfortunately for the Bears, unless they go on a prolonged winning streak, their odds of making the playoffs after today’s debacle are slim.

by GeoMak on Oct 25, 2009 11:45 PM CDT reply actions

Thats what im saying

They were not the second best team in the regular season last year, but they were playing really well exactly when they needed to. I think we will all agree that they would not have even made the playoffs if they were in any other division. Nonetheless, they beat 3 playoff teams in a row to make it to the super bowl.
I’m not saying that I’m real optimistic about our playoff chances after today’s game, but we are only 3-3 and the season isnt over. We could still go on that win streak. There are a lot of winnable games left to be played. Just trying to stay positive.

by bmbrock on Oct 26, 2009 12:28 AM CDT up reply actions

Respectfully

you miss the point. The Cards weren’t ‘destroyed’ by the Pats (as you said). They didn’t really care.

They were already thinking about the playoffs. You said that the same Cards that were destroyed by NE (still recovered to make the playoffs). You were wrong. They were already in when that game was played.

The Bears today WERE destroyed. It’s one thing to lose, quite another to be humiliated like they were today.

by GeoMak on Oct 26, 2009 12:37 AM CDT up reply actions

i understand what youre saying

im not completely buying it. admittedly, it was later in the year than i remembered it being. They were still playing all of their starters and even beat the seahawks the next week. Besides, no team in the NFL will just sit back and take a beating like that. The pats scored on 9 of their first 10 possessions. They themselves said they were humiliated after that game.

by bmbrock on Oct 26, 2009 1:19 AM CDT up reply actions

I live in Phoenix. I know.

They clinched after beating the Rams (their 13th game).
They then lost at home to the Vikings (35-14) and in NE (47-7).

In large part, they lost those two games because the fan base here and the players were still celebrating the fact they had just won their division, something they hadn’t done in decades.

Their plane was delayed coming back from New England which gave Whisenhunt extra time to seethe after their debacle against the Patriots. Back in Phoenix he went somewhat out-of-character and ripped into his team, telling them that anyone who didn’t play well against Seattle would be sitting on the bench for the playoffs.

He was PISSED!

They then beat Seattle for a clean sweep (6-0) of the division.

They then got a gift from God for the playoffs: Cris Collingsworth said that the Cardinals were maybe the worst playoff team in history. They were underdogs for all three games and came out on fire against them all.

Saying that they were maybe ‘the worst playoff team in history’ went far beyond the usual ‘trash talking’ and disrespect. Virtually every Cardinal player on local radio shows and interviews kept mentioning it.

In fact, after their first playoff victory against Atlanta, Darnell Dockett was walking off the field and had a microphone stuck in his mouth as a reporter was trying to interview him.

All he did was keep repeating this line: “Worst playoff team in NFL history. Worst p[layoff team in NFL history.”

And that, my friend, is the late season story of the 2008 Arizona Cardinals.

by GeoMak on Oct 26, 2009 1:36 AM CDT up reply actions

oh,

and your use of parentheses doesn’t make any sense

by bmbrock on Oct 26, 2009 1:30 AM CDT up reply actions

Too many fundamental issues

with the defensive unit and the entire O Line to think that there is salvation. We can win another 5 games easily because we have some easy games on the schedule but this is not a playoff team. Sorry.

by The Kaiser on Oct 25, 2009 11:47 PM CDT reply actions

if 5 more easily,

why not 7 more difficultly?
to quote the classic cinematic gem, Angels in the Outfield, “Hey, it could happen.”

by bmbrock on Oct 26, 2009 12:32 AM CDT up reply actions

Sorry Pal

but the Bears are not the Cardinals. The Cardinals have one of the most explosive offenses in the league. The Bears have explosive diarrhea. How can you even talk about playoffs with this team after the last 2 weeks? It should be clear to anybody with 2 working eyes that the Bears suck. This franchise is in trouble. Would a new HC even want to come here? That’s a pretty shitty situation to be in. No first day draft picks to start a rebuilding process. Let’s face it, that’s what the Bears should be doing. There is no youth on the Defense to build around. The offensive line needs at least 2 years to fix. This team is a mess.

by McRipper on Oct 26, 2009 8:38 AM CDT reply actions

I agree they're not very good

but they do have some youth on defense. D. Manning, AA, DJ Moore, Gilbert, Gaines, Melton, Harrison, Bowman, and Roach. Whether they’re good or not might be up for debate though.

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Oct 27, 2009 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions

Isn’t everyone happy we have Gaines Adams now? wth

by brands735 on Oct 26, 2009 9:35 AM CDT reply actions

i am

gets an injection of youth to the line and a lot of upside. plus, if anyone can get him to perform up to draft status, it’s gonna be marinelli.

by Nih1lus on Oct 26, 2009 9:39 AM CDT up reply actions

The more I think about it, the more I don’t like it. We are basically giving up on Mark Anderson. Who knows if Rod will even be here if Lovie gets the ax. I would have rather used the 2nd round pick on offensive line. We invest SO much in defensive line that our offensive line is in BAD shape with no solution in the near future. No solution at all.

by brands735 on Oct 26, 2009 10:14 AM CDT up reply actions

mark anderson

is never going to be good for us. most of the sacks he got his rookie year were as the nickel rusher, coming off as an unblocked defender. When he’s actually in one of the two DE spots, he doesn’t do jack squat. He’s too small. Anderson was an experimental project when he came in, and unfortunately it didn’t work out long term. We got good production overall from him for being a 5th round pick.

they’ve begun using him in the nickel rush again this year, but he doesn’t get clear shots to the QB anymore. The line during the SB run required double teams on tommie harris and tank johnson, leaving mark anderson free to rush. Now he’s getting blocked.

by Nih1lus on Oct 26, 2009 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions