I think they are overhyped way to much. The two best teams they have played are the Seahawks (without MVP Alexander) and the Vikings, who are OK this year (And only beat them by 3). Besides that they have played the 49ers, the Cardinals (Should have lost this game), the Packers, the Lions and Buffalo. None of these wins are impresive to me at all. Next week they play miami, another easy win. Then they have to go into Giants stadium and play the Giants Sunday night football. I want to see how they do against a very good team on the road.
Theyve completely dominated all oppenents, except for the Arizona game where Rex Grossman had a nightmare of a game. They're for real. They have the best D in the NFL, and their also scoring the most points in the NFL. They're for real, and they should easily take care of the Giants.
Colts over Bears in the Super Bowl is my hope.The Bears have the best D in the league, I've been saying that since forever ago. As long as their offense clicks, they win games.
They have the third highest point margin after week seven in NFL history. Even considering they haven't played a lot of great teams, that's pretty impressive. The truly overrated team is Philly, but they've been exposed the past few weeks. They hadn't beaten anyone decent except for Dallas, yet people were still predicting Donowahn to be MVP. Hahaha, please.
anybody who can score 41 points in a quarter isn't overrated..they're amazing...doesn't matter who they're playing..thats amazing
I think they're a good team, great defense, but not a whole lot of playoff experience on this team when it comes down to it. They have been really impressive this year but c'mon guys, they haven't had any real competition yet. We'll see how they fair out when they play New England, NY Giants, teams with some good records and solid wins under their belt.
So bascily that they are killing bad teams, thats impressive to all you guys? Thats what you all are saying to me. I really dont think they are as dominate as people say they are. Right now they are loosing to the Dolphins, who are 1-6, at home. I know what you all are going to say, They will come back and all that. The fact is if they are dominate as everyone says, they should not be in these close games with the Vikings, Dolphins and Cardnials.
Are the Seahawks a bad team? I dont think so, and the Bears beat them by freaking 37-6. If beating a defending Super Bowl team by 31 points doesn't show you're good, I dont know what does. And they've obliterated every oppenent except for the Cardinals, and Vikings. And Rex Grossman just sucked ass vs. the Cardinals, or else they would have won by atleast 14 points. I bet you that they'll come back and win vs. the Dolphins. They're just that type of team.
If you read my first post and watched football you would know that Alexander didnt play in that game, which is the MVP of the league. So yeah I dont see that as a good victory at all.
I can't believe it, but yes we're beating the Bears AT Chicago. I'm still rubbing my eyes. We're up 21-13 in the 4rth quarter with 12 minutes left. If we win, this will easily be the biggest upset of the season. Bears were favored to win by 2 TDs! Unbelievable...
Yeah, so Alexander there would have made them socre 30 more points? I dont think so. Matt Hasselbeck and the defense are both other very good components of the team. It's not just Alexander. Alexander probably wouldnt have done very great vs. the Bears D anyway. He started off the year struggling.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jkidd51524 @ Nov 5 2006, 04:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If you read my first post and watched football you would know that Alexander didnt play in that game, which is the MVP of the league. So yeah I dont see that as a good victory at all.</div>Beating the Seahawks by 30 is a good victory. I dont care what you say.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Nov 5 2006, 03:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah, so Alexander there would have made them socre 30 more points? I dont think so. Matt Hasselbeck and the defense are both other very good components of the team. It's not just Alexander. Alexander probably wouldnt have done very great vs. the Bears D anyway. He started off the year struggling.Beating the Seahawks by 30 is a good victory. I dont care what you say.</div>Your retarted. Just having Alexander would have changed the whole game. Because Alexander would have made the Bears worry about the run, not just the pass like they did because it was all on Hasselback to win the game. Dont give me that bullsh** that he would havnt made up 30 points, because the game would have been totally different. And by the way what happened to the Bear's comeback tooday?Dolphins: 31Bears:13Only 2 teams they have faced have a winning record to this point. Vikings and Seahawks (without mvp alexander)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jkidd51524 @ Nov 5 2006, 05:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Your retarted. Just having Alexander would have changed the whole game. Because Alexander would have made the Bears worry about the run, not just the pass like they did because it was all on Hasselback to win the game. Dont give me that bullsh** that he would havnt made up 30 points, because the game would have been totally different. And by the way what happened to the Bear's comeback tooday?Dolphins: 31Bears:13Only 2 teams they have faced have a winning record to this point. Vikings and Seahawks (without mvp alexander)</div>Youre calling me retarded? You think having Alexander instead of Morris would have made them score 30 more points! That's ridiculous. Okay, so the Bears having to worry about the run would have made their offense suddenly suck, and their defense giving up 30 more points? I dont think so. That's ridiculous. So what? Youre blaming Shaun Alexander being injured for Matt Hasselbeck sucking? No sir. That was Tommy Harris and the Bearts defense. You know nothing about football. One player playing doesn't put 30+ points on the board. You are saying that he would have done that much better then Maurice Morris? No. Shaun getting the carries rather than Morris wouldnt have put 30 more points on the scoreboard. The Bears lose once, so they are suddenly not a great team? Give me a break.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Nov 5 2006, 04:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Youre calling me retarded? You think having Alexander instead of Morris would have made them score 30 more points! That's ridiculous. Okay, so the Bears having to worry about the run would have made their offense suddenly suck, and their defense giving up 30 more points? I dont think so. That's ridiculous. So what? Youre blaming Shaun Alexander being injured for Matt Hasselbeck sucking? No sir. That was Tommy Harris and the Bearts defense. You know nothing about football. One player playing doesn't put 30+ points on the board. You are saying that he would have done that much better then Maurice Morris? No. Shaun getting the carries rather than Morris wouldnt have put 30 more points on the scoreboard. The Bears lose once, so they are suddenly not a great team? Give me a break.</div>You know nothing about football obviously. Say you were playing on a little league basketball team, if you best player goes down and he cant play, is the team giong to be up for the game at all? No. Hasselback sucked because the bears focused in on him knowing that he would have to throw the ball without Alexander. He wouldnt have made up those 30 points, because there would be no 30 point blowout. Alexander is the MVP. How could you say he would not have a effect on how the Bears defense planned for that game. Get real man. Plus they are not getting anywhere in the playoffs because Grossman sucks when the game gets close or the pressure is on him to make a play. Should I go back to that 4 interception game vs. the Cardinals? I dont think so because the Cardnials are a horrible team with a ROOKIE QB starting and they should have beat the bears. Then the Vikings game was ok, only beating them by 3? When the Vikings are a OK team at best. Then the rest of the teams they have played all have losing records. Let me say it again, OVERRATED.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jkidd51524 @ Nov 5 2006, 05:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You know nothing about football obviously. Say you were playing on a little league basketball team, if you best player goes down and he cant play, is the team giong to be up for the game at all? No. Hasselback sucked because the bears focused in on him knowing that he would have to throw the ball without Alexander. He wouldnt have made up those 30 points, because there would be no 30 point blowout. Alexander is the MVP. How could you say he would not have a effect on how the Bears defense planned for that game. Get real man. Plus they are not getting anywhere in the playoffs because Grossman sucks when the game gets close or the pressure is on him to make a play. Should I go back to that 4 interception game vs. the Cardinals? I dont think so because the Cardnials are a horrible team with a ROOKIE QB starting and they should have beat the bears. Then the Vikings game was ok, only beating them by 3? When the Vikings are a OK team at best. Then the rest of the teams they have played all have losing records. Let me say it again, OVERRATED.</div>LMAO, I know a ton more about football then you do obviously. Youre comparing football to basketball dude. That doesn't work at all. In basketball, there are only 5 players on the court, playing at all times. Whereas there are so many other positions in football, and other aspects to help you win. Youre not going to suddenly score 30 more points if you get your star running back in there. Exactly. The Bears didnt let him get anything going, and totally took him down. How does this relate to Alexander? Hasselbeck still would have struggled if Alexander was in. The Bears have the best defence in the NFL. One player cant single handedly make his team score 30 more points. The passing game still would have struggled anyway, so the offense wouldnt have been that much better. The Bears have the best D in the NFL, and would have been able to contain Alexander anyway. Alexander didnt have one 100+ yard game before that.It's not the pressure, it's that Grossman is just alot better in some games, then others. You think they will not win one round in the NFC? You have to be joking me. Grossman COULDNT DO ANYTHING against the Cardinals, and the Bears still won. He wont have a terrible game in the playoffs anyway. He will be pumped up, and he will atleast get something done IF HE IS having a bad game. You just contradicted yourself. First you said that the Bears would not win in the playoffs because of Grossman, but then you go to a game where Grossman struggled, BUT THE BEARS STILL WON. That made no sense. They have totally punked all the teams with losing record except for the Dolphins, and the Cardinals, two games where Grossman played night-marish games. It doesn't matter if theyve played bad teams because theyve killed almost all of them. Let me say it again, you know nothing about the NFL!
CB4 I must say you are wrong in this case. Alexander is a tier one running back, and a running back with his skill, running and catching passes out of the backfield would more than change a game. He is a game changer.. Hasslebeck wouldve had less pressure on him to do well and could have relied on Alexander. Now I'm not saying that would have changed the result of the game one way or another, but rather just changed the game. Seattle would have been able to depend upon the run more because Hasslebeck wasnt playing well. But since you can't go back in time and reverse this sh*t it's all a moot point. That being said, Chicago did truly dominate them, with or without Alexander, a win is a win. Chicago was expected to win, they went in there and took care of business. Oh yeah, and both of you guys look like idiots with this I KNOW MORE FOOTBALL THEN YOU LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Seriously, grow up, that isn't even helping you're case by adding that in.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yankshater213 @ Nov 5 2006, 06:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>CB4 I must say you are wrong in this case. Alexander is a tier one running back, and a running back with his skill, running and catching passes out of the backfield would more than change a game. He is a game changer.. Hasslebeck wouldve had less pressure on him to do well and could have relied on Alexander. Now I'm not saying that would have changed the result of the game one way or another, but rather just changed the game. Seattle would have been able to depend upon the run more because Hasslebeck wasnt playing well. But since you can't go back in time and reverse this sh*t it's all a moot point. That being said, Chicago did truly dominate them, with or without Alexander, a win is a win. Chicago was expected to win, they went in there and took care of business. Oh yeah, and both of you guys look like idiots with this I KNOW MORE FOOTBALL THEN YOU LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Seriously, grow up, that isn't even helping you're case by adding that in.</div>Why does it matter if Hasselbeck wouldnt have had to throw the ball as much as he did? That means their passing game would be even less effective. The Bears defense would have been just as good if Hasselbeck didnt throw as much as he did, so I dont see your point. Seattle would not have won the game if they had Shaun Alexander instead of Maurice Morris. Thats ridiculous. They lost by 31 points.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Nov 5 2006, 05:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why does it matter if Hasselbeck wouldnt have had to throw the ball as much as he did? That means their passing game would be even less effective. The Bears defense would have been just as good if Hasselbeck didnt throw as much as he did, so I dont see your point. Seattle would not have won the game if they had Shaun Alexander instead of Maurice Morris. Thats ridiculous. They lost by 31 points.</div>You still dont see his point, haha. His point is that Seattle would have been able to keep Chicago more off balance instead of them basically looking for the pass. If I remember right, Chicago was routinely keeping 5-6 guys in the box, so it defintiely would have opened that back up a bit. But like you said, 31 points is a shitload, and all that would have made a big difference, but the Bears played a hell of a game, and IMO the Bears would have still won anyways.
