Lucky Bears

[pbmax]

Here we go again:

from Football Outsiders: http://footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ra...1-dvoa-ratings

It's also interesting to note that Atlanta, even without any opponent adjustments to consider, has a rating above 0% and is only slightly lower than Chicago. The Bears recovered all five of the fumbles in the game, one for a touchdown, but the Falcons actually had more net yardage (386 to 377).

[Tony Oday]

I hate the Bears. That being said they demolished the Falcons.

[hoosier]

Last year the Bears' good fortune was merely a vehicle for putting them in the delightful position of losing the NFCCG on their home field to their arch rival. I wish them all of the best for 2011!

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I wouldn't say lucky for the Falcons game, they killed them.

[mraynrand]

The turnovers were killer, but they happened for a reason. Bear's pressure really got to ATL - "Matty Ice" () didn't handle it well. Still, Atlanta was able to move the ball, so the score looks worse than it was. That 'run to set up the pass' mentality of ATL looks really outdated, especially against a run stopping D like Chicago.

[channtheman]

As soon as you stop ATL's running game, you've pretty much won the game. "Matty Ice" is a game manager.

[hoosier]

The turnovers were killer, but they happened for a reason. Bear's pressure really got to ATL - "Matty Ice" () didn't handle it well. Still, Atlanta was able to move the ball, so the score looks worse than it was. That 'run to set up the pass' mentality of ATL looks really outdated, especially against a run stopping D like Chicago.

If anything I thought Atlanta tried to stretch the field too much early in the game, as if they were the Chargers or something. Unless you have speed at TE the Bears's two-deep is a tough nut to crack. I would have tested them up the middle (and run right at Urlacher instead of allowing him to make athletic plays on the perimter) with that bowling ball they have in their backfield, and then when Lovey adjusts then let Matty start slinging it downfield.

[Bossman641]

Week 1 - atl was missing 2 starting ol.
Week 2 - saints missing smith and colston.

Hard for me not to get the feeling of here we go again with the bears. That being said, bears played well in week 1.

[mraynrand]

If anything I thought Atlanta tried to stretch the field too much early in the game, as if they were the Chargers or something. Unless you have speed at TE the Bears's two-deep is a tough nut to crack. I would have tested them up the middle (and run right at Urlacher instead of allowing him to make athletic plays on the perimter) with that bowling ball they have in their backfield, and then when Lovey adjusts then let Matty start slinging it downfield.

They still threw a lot to Gonzales, but they also ran a lot on first down. They weren't having much luck getting to that second level against Urlacher - probably the poor line play...

[pbmax]

Week 1 - atl was missing 2 starting ol.
Week 2 - saints missing smith and colston.

Hard for me not to get the feeling of here we go again with the bears. That being said, bears played well in week 1.

Also could still be without (or have limited) Lance Moore.

[smuggler]

Part of the reason why the Bears are so lucky is because Lovie is a good coach. They consistently outperform their talent level. Lovie's the reason.

[pbmax]

Part of the reason why the Bears are so lucky is because Lovie is a good coach. They consistently outperform their talent level. Lovie's the reason.

I am sorry, but you will need to rephrase this in the form of criticism if I am to understand your comment about the Bears.

[mraynrand]

Very true: Lovie is an outstanding coach. That's really annoying.

[Bossman641]

You guys must not watch the same bears I do. Great defensive coach, clueless on o and hiring o coordinators for the most part, awful clock management.

[mraynrand]

You guys must not watch the same bears I do. Great defensive coach, clueless on o and hiring o coordinators for the most part, awful clock management.

I didn't say he was Lombardi or anything. Re-read your statement - you could say the same thing about Stubby, if you exchange 'offensive' for 'defensive.'