Every week we'll peek in around the interwebs to see where the Chicago Bears are ranked in the eyes of the various Power Rankers out there.
Yesterday in my Snap Count/Stats article I talked about there being no such thing as a moral victory. You are what your record says you are and the Chicago Bears are a 4-6 team. That's not to say you can't judge the trajectory of a franchise amidst the losses and the Bears seem to be trending upwards.
Even when losing, the Bears are building a never-say-die attitude that hopefully will start to show in more wins than loses. Head coach John Fox and his staff are designing gameplans that keep the Bears competitive. Chicago has a very tough game on Thursday against the Packers, but after than there are some winnable games on the schedule.
Let's start our trip around the Power Rankings...
The Bears lost a close one to the Broncos but definitely made it close to the end. Chicago's offense has improved dramatically over the past few weeks, but don't overlook its defense, which has given up just 18.0 points per game over the last month.
SB Nation's Bleeding Green Nation has the Bears ranked thusly;
19) Chicago Bears (LW: 16) - The Bears weren't able to beat Brock Osweiler but at least they look like a competent team. Wait, that sounds weird.
I does sound a little weird after the Trestman/Tucker era.
The Irish Assassin of Canal Street Chronicles moves the Bears up 2 spots.
17. Chicago Bears (4-6, Previously #19) - They started the year looking like one of the worst teams in the league through three games, since then they have gone 4-3 with all their losses coming by 3 points or less. This Thursday's game against the Green Bay Packers will go along way in deciding whether or not this team can make a run to make the playoffs.
ESPN has the Bears down a smidge, from 16 to 19.
Six of the Bears' past seven games have been decided by a field goal or less, the most such games this season. The Bears are 3-3 in those games.
NFL.com is keeping the Bears at 19. Here's what they had to say.
Who hoped for a different play call on the failed two-point conversion late in Sunday's loss? Speaking directly to Bears fans, who of course are pumped up about Jeremy Langford's play in Year 1. But wasn't that a low-percentage call versus a stout Broncos defense? Langford had been held to just 25 yards on 13 carries by that ferocious front seven, so running up the gut out of the shotgun seemed ... curious. What would you have liked to see there? (@HarrisonNFL) I say roll Jay Cutler out on a run-pass option.
I agree with @HarrisonNFL.
Yahoo Sports has the Bears like this,
15. Chicago Bears (4-6, LW: 17)
Jeremy Langford watch: 78 carries, 3.2-yard average
Langford came up against a really good Denver defense. The rookie will learn from his poor day.
Over at FOX Sports, they have Chicago dropping 4 spots to 22nd.
Without Alshon Jeffery, Matt Forte and with a banged-up Martellus Bennett, the Bears are short of playmakers on the offensive side of the ball.
The Bears do hope to have Jeffery and Forte back this Thursday night against the Packers, but how much they'll help in Green Bay remains to be seen.
USA Today really dropped the Bears after losing to Denver, all the way down to 26 from 16.
If the Lions can finally scratch out a win at Lambeau Field, so can you Smokin' Jay Cutler.
Ugh, the Smokin' Jay Cutler thing... funny at first, but now DUMB.
Pete Prisco of CBS Sports has the Bears down 3 to 21.
They just don't have the talent yet, and injuries have crippled the offense. But they are competing against good teams, which is a good sign.
And we'll finish things off with the number crunchers over at Number Fire. They base everything of analytics and they have the Bears at 27.
Projected Record: 6.63 - 9.37 (Change: -0.35 wins)
Playoffs: 2.28% (Change: -1.54%)
1st Pick: 0.4% (Change: 0%)
Division: 0.22% (Change: -0.38%)
Conference Championship: 0% (Change: -0.04%)
Super Bowl: 0% (Change: 0%)
Power Rankings: 27 (Last Week: 28)
Those sure are lot of minuscule percentages.
What are your thoughts on the Power Rankings this week?