Thats exactly my point. The bears focused in on the passing game because there was no running game. In that game, Hasselbeck had to pass a total of 35 times, only completing 16 of them with 2 INTs. They only had a total of 58 yards rushing without a run by Hasselbeck. You really expect him to carry that team to a victory without a running game at all. Just look at the dolphins, without a good running game they were 1-6 before today. You need a good running game to win in the NFL today. So what if Alexander didnt have a good season before that, do you know that he wouldnt have had a breakout season that game? Yes, a win is a win, but that is not impressive to me when you beat a team without its best player, who turns out to be a MVP.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yankshater213 @ Nov 5 2006, 06:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>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.</div>I dont care if the Bears wouldnt have known that Hasselbeck would pass it every time. The Bears always give hell to the opposing QB. Hasselbeck still would have had a bad game. It doesn't mean anything to me.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Thats exactly my point. The bears focused in on the passing game because there was no running game. In that game, Hasselbeck had to pass a total of 35 times, only completing 16 of them with 2 INTs. They only had a total of 58 yards rushing without a run by Hasselbeck. You really expect him to carry that team to a victory without a running game at all. Just look at the dolphins, without a good running game they were 1-6 before today. You need a good running game to win in the NFL today. So what if Alexander didnt have a good season before that, do you know that he wouldnt have had a breakout season that game? Yes, a win is a win, but that is not impressive to me when you beat a team without its best player, who turns out to be a MVP.</div>Throwing alot of the time should actually equal success in the air, but it didnt. The Seahawks werent able to score one TD, and Hasselbeck had a sh*tty game. I dont care if the Bears saw the pass coming or not, their defense did a great job on Hasselbeck, and I doubt Matt would have been that much better. The Eagles have no running game, and they had the most yards in the NFL until last week. It doesn't really matter as long as you are effective one way or another. Do you think defenders expect the Eagles to run the ball? No. But McNabb still gets it done, and he is a top 3 QB in the League. Want more examples? The Colts, Panthers, Vikings, and Seattle. I have doubt that eh would have had a sudden breakout game against the Leagues best defense, yes. The Seahawks beat the Rams, and we're a TD away from beating the white-hot KC Chiefs without Hasselbeck and Alexander. So that shows you that they can win without Alexander, and they can come very close to it without both Alexander and Hasselbeck. So it is a very impressive win whether you want to face it or not. Beating ANY team by 31 is very impressive. And it is very, very impressive against a very capable Seahawks team. Youre making it seem like they are incapable of playing football without Shaun Alexander.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Nov 5 2006, 06:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I dont care if the Bears wouldnt have known that Hasselbeck would pass it every time. The Bears always give hell to the opposing QB. Hasselbeck still would have had a bad game. It doesn't mean anything to me.</div>Seeing as how I never indicated if Hasslebeck would have done well or not..Just sticking words in my mouth. I just said it would have been a different game.
The reasons why the Colts, Eagles and Panthers are good and have no running game is because of the QB, Mannin McNabb and Delhome are all elite QBs. I would not put hasselbeck in that league just yet. And the Panthers havnt had a good season so you cant put them in that catergory. And so what if they beat the Rams and almost beat the cheifts, they are better then the bears arnt they? I dont get you point with that one.
What are you talking about? Hasselbeck is a better QB than Delhomme, and probably a top 6 QB in the League. Hasselbeck is a very good QB in this league. The Panthes won 5 straight before losing to the Cowboys last week. They have had a good season, and they are playoff bound imo.You have to be a 7 year old to not get that point. You made it out nto be that they couldnt win because Shaun wasnt there. Well, they beat a good team in the Rams without Shaun, and came very close to beating an elite team like the Cheifs without Shaun, and Hasselbeck. So it proves that they can win without their MVP running back, and that the Bears just beat a really good team, by a lot.
Stop calling me a 7 year old and sh*t ok man. I said Delhome dosnt even count because the Panthers are not doing good this season. And come on man be real the Bears are a lot better then the Rams. How could you compare them beating the rams without alexander to them losing to the bears without alexander. Plus im tired of arguing with you because we keep saying the same thing over. We just have to let the Bears prover our points.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jkidd51524 @ Nov 5 2006, 08:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Stop calling me a 7 year old and sh*t ok man. I said Delhome dosnt even count because the Panthers are not doing good this season. And come on man be real the Bears are a lot better then the Rams. How could you compare them beating the rams without alexander to them losing to the bears without alexander. Plus im tired of arguing with you because we keep saying the same thing over. We just have to let the Bears prover our points.</div>Delhomme led the Panthers to the SuperBowl without a running game, he led them to the NFC Championship game last year with no running game, and he led a 5-1 run this year without a running game. How does that not count? The Panthers are 5-3, and have been on a 5-1 run. I definately see them making the playoffs, and they could go pretty far too.So what? The Seahawks beat an above .500 team without their star running back, so that means that they are still a good team without Shaun. Therefor, when they lose by 30+ points to the Bears, it's because the Bears are a great team, not because the Sehawks are a bad team and incapable of winning.You done now, man?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Nov 5 2006, 07:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Delhomme led the Panthers to the SuperBowl without a running game, he led them to the NFC Championship game last year with no running game, and he led a 5-1 run this year without a running game. How does that not count? The Panthers are 5-3, and have been on a 5-1 run. I definately see them making the playoffs, and they could go pretty far too.So what? The Seahawks beat an above .500 team without their star running back, so that means that they are still a good team without Shaun. Therefor, when they lose by 30+ points to the Bears, it's because the Bears are a great team, not because the Sehawks are a bad team and incapable of winning.You done now, man?</div>Yeah im done arguing with you because I know im right and the Pats will show you when they beat the bears 3 weeks from now and prob the giants 2 next week. Im not saying the Giants will but they have a chance.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Nov 5 2006, 08:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Delhomme led the Panthers to the SuperBowl without a running game, he led them to the NFC Championship game last year with no running game, and he led a 5-1 run this year without a running game. How does that not count? The Panthers are 5-3, and have been on a 5-1 run. I definately see them making the playoffs, and they could go pretty far too.So what? The Seahawks beat an above .500 team without their star running back, so that means that they are still a good team without Shaun. Therefor, when they lose by 30+ points to the Bears, it's because the Bears are a great team, not because the Sehawks are a bad team and incapable of winning.You done now, man?</div> In 2003 the Panthers had Stephen Davis who I believe ran for almost 1,500 yards...and a solid backup in DeShaun Foster...and in 2005 they still had Stephen Davis who was solid and DeShaun Foster and Nick Goings had good seasons. They had a very solid runninggame.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Nov 5 2006, 08:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>In 2003 the Panthers had Stephen Davis who I believe ran for almost 1,500 yards...and a solid backup in DeShaun Foster...and in 2005 they still had Stephen Davis who was solid and DeShaun Foster and Nick Goings had good seasons. They had a very solid runninggame.</div>I was just looking up the running stats for the panthers during the superbowl, thanks for the stats. CB4 everyone knows without a good running game, your not going to win a superbowl. Delhome had plenty of help, but I still think delhome is a very good QB. I dont know what this has to do with the Bear argument, but w.e lol
2 of the first 3 Superbowls for the Pats they actually had no running game to speak of. Literally, it was nonexistant.
Hey what do you know CB4 check ESPN online and the network, everyone is talking how the Bears might be overrated. What do you know, I said this what two weeks ago, and now everyone listens.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jkidd51524 @ Nov 5 2006, 09:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I was just looking up the running stats for the panthers during the superbowl, thanks for the stats. CB4 everyone knows without a good running game, your not going to win a superbowl. Delhome had plenty of help, but I still think delhome is a very good QB. I dont know what this has to do with the Bear argument, but w.e lol</div>When did I say anything about winning the SuperBowl? Im just trying to prove that a team can win without having a grea trunning game, and that the Seahawks are still a force, even with Alexander out.
The seahawks like to run the ball alot, the eagles are diffferent. Andy Reid loves to pass the ball. You cant compare the two. When a team relies on their run game more then their pass , like seattle, you cant be expected to beat a good team like the bears with your runner out. Thats all im saying and now the whole world is finally figuring out too.
1. Rex Grossman proved all those f*cking knuckleheads in the media wrong. This kid can f*cking play. Everyone's been bashing this guy all year but you know what? It was his first full year as a starter, what did everyone expect? He played real smart today and threw the ball away, something he didn't do earlier this season. He can move and has a rocket arm. As he gets more experienced his mistakes will go down, hell, this kids going to the Superbowl... 2. Mark Anderson is a beast at DE. Wow. The kid can fricken fly. 3. Cedric Benson is a beast. This guy just doesn't go down, he doesn't run to the outside and run around people. He goes right through them and it often 2 or more people to bring him down. He's an amazing compliment to Thomas Jones. Way to go Chicago.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ Jan 21 2007, 10:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Hey Jkidd, what's up?</div><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Jan 21 2007, 10:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah, how bout those Giants? I hear they are better than the Bears.</div>Wow, you guys are cool. Like you never had off predictions before. Im sorry im not fucken perfect like u CB4. Should I go find all the threads you were wrong with?
I guess somebody can't take a joke? You gave a wrong prediction which you got called out for. I would just laugh it off and admit to my mistake.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jkidd51524 @ Oct 30 2006, 03:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>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.</div> :wtf1:<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Jan 21 2007, 10:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>1. Rex Grossman proved all those f*cking knuckleheads in the media wrong. This kid can f*cking play. Everyone's been bashing this guy all year but you know what? It was his first full year as a starter, what did everyone expect? He played real smart today and threw the ball away, something he didn't do earlier this season. He can move and has a rocket arm. As he gets more experienced his mistakes will go down, hell, this kids going to the Superbowl... 2. Mark Anderson is a beast at DE. Wow. The kid can fricken fly. 3. Cedric Benson is a beast. This guy just doesn't go down, he doesn't run to the outside and run around people. He goes right through them and it often 2 or more people to bring him down. He's an amazing compliment to Thomas Jones. Way to go Chicago.</div>BCB FOR MVP
