Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Story from Chicago

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I remember the "tough" Lions going 3-13 and considered an improving squad under Rod Marinelli and look how that turned out. I'm not saying they arent an up and comer, but I wouldn't annoint them a contender just yet. Staffords injury problems are a huge concern.

    Comment


    • #32
      I agree that the Bears were a bit of an aberration this year. They were a solid team this year that stayed healthy, had a favorable schedule, and got some breaks (the Lions games come to mind). The clock might have struck midnight when Shields intercepted that ball, but I'm not convinced it did either. The only thing I really feel strongly about is that the author of this article is clearly overreacting.

      He makes reference more than once to the fact that the Packers were so bitten by the injury bug and the Bears still couldn't manage to beat them. He is referring to the Super Bowl Champs! More than a few teams couldn't manage to beat them down the stretch. That same injury riddled team spanked the Giants and Falcons, went toe-to-toe with the Patriots on the road without their quarterback, and beat an experienced Steelers team to win the Super Bowl. It could be argued that the toughest part of the last 7 games were the two Bears games.

      I think I could agree with the article more if it was pointed more towards how difficult it would be for the Bears to get past the Packers next year, not how terrible the #2 seed in the playoffs were.

      BTW, I hope he is right. I hate the Bears. We should just try to imagine how we would react to this article if the roles were reversed.
      Last edited by Packman_26; 02-14-2011, 10:46 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Packman_26 View Post
        I agree that the Bears were a bit of an aberration this year. They were a solid team this year that stayed healthy, had a favorable schedule, and got some breaks (the Lions games come to mind). The clock might have struck midnight when Shields intercepted that ball, but I'm not convinced it did either. The only thing I really feel strongly about is that the author of this article is clearly overreacting.

        He makes reference more than once to the fact that the Packers were so bitten by the injury bug and the Bears still couldn't manage to beat them. He is referring to the Super Bowl Champs! More than a few teams couldn't manage to beat them down the stretch. That same injury riddled team spanked the Giants and Falcons, went toe-to-toe with the Patriots on the road without their quarterback, and beat an experienced Steelers team to win the Super Bowl. It could be argued that the toughest part of the last 7 games were the two Bears games.

        I think I could agree with the article more if it was pointed more towards how difficult it would be for the Bears to get past the Packers next year, not how terrible the #2 seed in the playoffs were.

        BTW, I hope he is right. I hate the Bears. We should just try to imagine how we would react to this article if the roles were reversed.
        Excellent post.

        Keep up the good commentary. It is in the packerrats tradition of challenging the professional media and coming out ahead.
        [QUOTE=George Cumby] ...every draft (Ted) would pick a solid, dependable, smart, athletically limited linebacker...the guy who isn't doing drugs, going to strip bars, knocking around his girlfriend or making any plays of game changing significance.

        Comment

        Working...
        X