"The Bears are the NFL's winningest franchise with a 655-477-42 record in 84 seasons. The franchise in second place is Green Bay, which has 624 victories". I wanted to post this for my buddy KC since he seems to diss my BEARS record all the time. I found stats which he can't deny now on the BEARS web site and thought that I would post them for anyone who cares, so there you go, I hope you enjoy KC as I will give you a hard time now for this! GO BEARS!!!!!!!!
I like Lovie and I think he'll get you guys going in a winning direction. Not sure how far he can take you but I think he'll at least suceed in putting together a solid team and then from there it all about the breaks.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pats37)</div><div class='quotemain'>It will get better soon 4th. you won't have to reach for such stats for too much longer.</div> LOL. It was easier for both teams to win in the early days when they only had each other to play. That winning percentage works out to 9-7 at best....which is only slightly above "average" 8-8. Although it would be interesting to check and see how much better any other teams fared.
Me and KC tried to figure out winning percentages at work for the CHIEFS and BEARS but couldn't really figure out exactly. It was all close to the other though, I think the CHIEFS were around 51% and the BEARS we don't know because of the years where they only had 14 games a season rather than the 16 now. With the 16 we were at about 41% so it is actually probably a little better then that and I would guess maybe 45 or 46% which is pretty close. I think the DOLPHINS actually have the best winning percentage of all with a 61%. Sorry to bore you guy's with stats. I agree 71 it would be interesting to know.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cowboy71)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pats37)</div><div class='quotemain'>It will get better soon 4th. you won't have to reach for such stats for too much longer.</div> LOL. It was easier for both teams to win in the early days when they only had each other to play. That winning percentage works out to 9-7 at best....which is only slightly above "average" 8-8. Although it would be interesting to check and see how much better any other teams fared.</div> Yeah, pro football is so much different now than it was then. I highly doubt that they even had the best, available athletes back then. Those guys were playing baseball. America's pastime has since shifted to football. My oh my how times have changed. It's all about the Raiders.
As any good Viking fan knows...you can't look to victories in the past (in our case that's easy since there are few to remember), you need to look a the present situation of your team.
When counting victories, it helps that the Bears have been around forever. Even Send Em Back Al can't remember when they were an expansion team. Take away all the victories pre-Chip and where do they stand?
With a new season upon us, hopefully we will start a new winning record for the NFL this year and many more in the future. A guy can dream can't he?
i think it ridiculous to hold it against the bears franchise that it was run better than others when the league formed so it had more oppertunities. that would be like saying dan marino had more attempts so his extra yards shouldnt count
No one is saying that BF1. It's just that one would hope than in an 84 year history your team could have more wins than a team with a 30-something year history. You could theoretically win 3 games per season, while the younger team finished above .500 every year and you would still have more victories. That just doesn't necessarily make you the better team. This isn't meant as a slam, just an observation that one can't compare apples and oranges.
bears have the 5th or 6th best winning percentage all time, so that is also a ridiculous point, other people passed for more yards per attempt than marino, but they finished with less attempts and less yards, should they be considered greatest? base all accomplishments on a per attempt ratio? this is a dumb argument the bears have over a 500 winning percentage. they are without a doubt greatest team in NFL history and without halas there is no league. the fact that the lombardi trophy is not the halas trophy is an insult to this franchise.
First, I may soon get tired of being the cut-off for what is old and what is young. Second. The only fair way to compare records is winning percentage. To take it a step further, winning percentage over a fixed period of time would also work, but that is just a toy for cooking the books.
that is not the only fair way. the best way to determine which team has one the most game is to total the wins of every team and list them in descending order. This leaves bears at top of list as winningest team ever.
OK BF1. How is it fair to have Chicagos 84-year history and compare it to ...let's say Carolina. Carolina could have won every game they ever played and still not come close to the Bears in # of victories sheerly because of how many more chances the Bears have had to acquire "wins". We are not attacking your beloved Bears (At least in this thread), we are just trying to make you see that the comparison is unfair.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'>that is not the only fair way. the best way to determine which team has one the most game is to total the wins of every team and list them in descending order. This leaves bears at top of list as winningest team ever.</div> How about we just take wins since you were born. That seem as fair as any solution to the problem. Better yet, let's take wins since I was born... Considering my advanced age, that must seem fair to everyone.