Why is everyone kissing Chicago's butt?

[BillsCelticsAngelsBama]

IMO the truth is we just don't know how good the Bills are going to be. They are playing 4/5 rookies on defense and have a QB who, although not making many mistakes out there, doesn't yet inspire a lot of confidence in the future. He may pan out and I hope he does 'cuz he is a very good athlete. At times, he still reminds me of R.J.,( with a set of balls). I hope these guys all pan out but there is much uncertainty right now. Further, their two wins were against Miami (horrible) and Minnesota (impressive performance but one dropped pass from being 1-3).

So, if thinking that the Bills are going to have a bad time with the Bears and a real bad time with the Colts makes me a bad fan, then whatever Dude! I don't see the correlation.

I would love a victory Sunday but will be satisfied if they aren't embarrassed and Losman comes out alive !

[Fan in Chicago]

What?

 

No, the Bears right now are the better team.

 

I'm hopeful that the Bills will win on Sunday, I'll root for them to win and I think that they can, but I'll kiss Chicago's butt because currently they ARE the better team.

 

Whats not to understand there?

795968[/snapback]

 

To me, I don't understand the abusive nature of your posts in this thread. Just because daquixer's stating his opinion doesn't mean you need to use words like dipsh--. Argue his point and he has an opinion as do you - both are entitled to each without disparaging each other.

Pretty much everyone is convinced that Bears are the better team. But that does not mean we write this off as a loss. I for one am not convinced that Grossman is the next coming of {insert name of your favorite passer}. He looked specatacular against Seattle but he has to prove it on a consistent basis. He has progressed and is showing poise, of that there is no doubt. We will most likely lose but winning is possible also. To use a cliche, that is why the game is played.

[Dennis]

Look at my original post. Without a huge game against the pitiful Lions, his stats are kinda just agh ... nothing special. Yet if you look at other QB's and you take out their best game then their stats are still good.

 

Listen. Im not saying that Grossman is bad. I think he is very talented. But 3 of his 4 games are decent games. He had 1 great game against a bad team.

 

Also. You played 2 bad teams, 1 decent team, and 1 good team without the league MVP.

795744[/snapback]

I'm not saying Rex is a lock for the HOF either. In fact, I am still a huge supporter of Kyle Orton (the rookie QB we won with last year). But Grossman's stats are nothing special?

 

For this season he's 78 of 125 (62.4%) for 1061 yards. If he keeps up this pace, he'll throw for over 4,000 yards this season. He's got 8 TDs and only 3 INTs. That gives him a QB rating so far this season of 136.9. He's #5 in the NFL for both passer rating and yards passing.

 

His per game stats are:

• Green Bay: 18 of 26 (69.2%) for 262 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT, Passer rating = 98.6
  
• Detroit: 20 of 27 (74.1%) for 289 yds, 4 TDs, 0 INT, Passer rating = 148.0
  
• Minnesota: 23 of 41 (56.1%) for 278 yds, 1 TD, 2 INTs, Passer rating = 64.9
  
• Seattle: 17 of 31 (54.8%) for 232 yds, 2 TDs, 0 INT, Passer rating = 136.9
  

Truth is, Grossman had 1 so-so game against a pretty-good team (Minnesota), 2 great games against bad teams (Green Bay & Detroit) and a great game against a very good team (Seattle). Grossman's beating out a lot of respected QBs performance-wise so far this season.

 

I don't understand why everyone is qualifying Chicago's decisive victory over Seattle by saying that they played without Alexander. The final score was 37-6. Alexander doesn't play Defense, so he's not an excuse for Grossman getting a passer rating of 136.9 in that game and the Chicago Offense scoring 37 points.

 

Besides, Shaun Alexander has only averaged 62.3 yds rushing in the first 3 games this season. He's had 2 TDs in three games (0.67 TDs per game). Against the Giants the week before Seattle had 5 passing TDs and 1 rushing TD. This season they're using the pass to score. So at most, he would have been good for 1 TD if he'd played against da Bears, making the score 37-13. Still an ass-kicking of the defending NFC Champs.

[East Brady]

Seattle is missing what 5 starters from last season, they are not the same team that went to the superbowl.........The Bears on the otherhand are 1-6 in their last 7 games against AFC teams scoring about 10 points per game........the way we're playing in all phase's of the game, I'll take those chance's BILLS 12 BEARS 10.........Lindell hits 2- 50 yarders in a battle of field position........no long balls for the Bears this week, rookie safeties play HUGE in their first visit to the Midway .........GO BILLS !!

 

Also, I've noticed that the line on the game has dropped from -11 to -10 , guess I'm not the only one who thinks the Bears are over rated.....Take the points!!

[BILLSBACKERINLA]

For goodness sakes. Yes they look very good, and yes we are a huge underdog, but for goodness sakes ... we are FANS ... were suppose to be talking about our team winning. I dont think anyone thought (including Las Vegas odssmakers) that the Jets could beat Indi and by goodness if they didnt leave Peyton 2:00  minutes to drive then they would have beaten Indi. The Chicago Bears are playing inspired football. They are also starting a QB who has only started 5 games in the past two years. They are good and they are 4-0 ... but lets face it. We should be ATLEAST 3-1 and possibly 4-0 if we could just score against the Jets when we should have (3 attempts from the 2 yard line - bootleg), fake field goal ...etc

 

Now instead of kissing their butt for the stuff they are good at lets look at a few things:

 

They have played Greenbay, Detroit, Minnesota (who nearly won it), and Seattle* A combined record of 6-10 ...

** Seattle was playing without their MVP

 

Note: Minnesota gave them a wild game and was leading with about a minute left if I remember right.

 

They are ranked 21st in rushing offense (thats good considering our run defense usually is not good)

 

The next coming of Jim Kelly, AKA, Rex Grossman actually has 4 TD's and 3 INT's, for 772 yards when taking away a cake walk of a game against Detroit at the Bears home opener. Looks like Losman numbers dont they?

 

NOTE: He has yet to throw for over 300 yards even though he has faced Detroit, Greenbay, and Minnesota. Oh yeah - Losman also has a better completion percentage.

 

Chicago is 4th in the league in penalty yards giving up 260 yards of Penalties. An everage of 65 a game.

 

Anyway ... I just figured I would give a positive post out of all the negativity floating around. 

795648[/snapback]

 

 

Good points!! thanks for pumping me up more than i'm already!! I smell a upset!!

[BUFFALOTONE]

Yeah, that was because Grossman kept getting hurt.  Unfortunate accidents kept him from playing consistently and developing.  But this season he is developing.  He may not be Tom Brady or Ben Roethlisberger or either one of the Mannings, but he is the best QB that the Bears have seen in at least a decade.  He raises our Offense to #8 in the NFL. 

 

Last year with a #29 Offense and #1 Defense we went 11-5 (including 8 straight wins - with a complete sweep of the NFC South) and #2 seed in the NFC.  We have the same #1 Defense (in fewest points allowed) and a #4 Offense (in points scored) to complement it now.

I don't think that we'll be going unbeaten or are a lock for the Super Bowl, but I do think that we're good for at least 13-3, maybe #1 seed in the NFC with a 1st round bye and definitely going deep into the playoffs this time.

 

But I do believe that the Bills will give us a much closer Vikings-type game this Sunday.  But Home Field Advantage will definitely tip it to da Bears...

 

BEARS 21

Bills 13

795733[/snapback]

 

And you still screwed the pooch at home. Stop living in stats and the past. You guys are a good team, but W's count. Your guys may fold again like a cheap tent on the post season.

[Chilly]

To me, I don't understand the abusive nature of your posts in this thread. Just because daquixer's stating his opinion doesn't mean you need to use words like dipsh--. Argue his point and he has an opinion as do you - both are entitled to each without disparaging each other.

Pretty much everyone is convinced that Bears are the better team. But that does not mean we write this off as a loss. I for one am not convinced that Grossman is the next coming of {insert name of your favorite passer}. He looked specatacular against Seattle but he has to prove it on a consistent basis. He has progressed and is showing poise, of that there is no doubt. We will most likely lose but winning is possible also. To use a cliche, that is why the game is played.

796071[/snapback]

 

Thin-skinned eh?

 

Its fun to pull an erynthered sometimes.

[daquixers_is_back]

To me, I don't understand the abusive nature of your posts in this thread. Just because daquixer's stating his opinion doesn't mean you need to use words like dipsh--. Argue his point and he has an opinion as do you - both are entitled to each without disparaging each other.

Pretty much everyone is convinced that Bears are the better team. But that does not mean we write this off as a loss. I for one am not convinced that Grossman is the next coming of {insert name of your favorite passer}. He looked specatacular against Seattle but he has to prove it on a consistent basis. He has progressed and is showing poise, of that there is no doubt. We will most likely lose but winning is possible also. To use a cliche, that is why the game is played.

796071[/snapback]

 

Ridicule is the only way some posters know how to respond with something they dont agree with on this board.

[daquixers_is_back]

I'm not saying Rex is a lock for the HOF either.  In fact, I am still a huge supporter of Kyle Orton (the rookie QB we won with last year).  But Grossman's stats are nothing special?

 

For this season he's 78 of 125 (62.4%) for 1061 yards.  If he keeps up this pace, he'll throw for over 4,000 yards this season.  He's got 8 TDs and only 3 INTs.  That gives him a QB rating so far this season of 136.9.  He's #5 in the NFL for both passer rating and yards passing.

 

His per game stats are:

• 
   
   
  
• Green Bay: 18 of 26 (69.2%) for 262 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT, Passer rating = 98.6
   
   
  
• Detroit: 20 of 27 (74.1%) for 289 yds, 4 TDs, 0 INT, Passer rating = 148.0
   
   
  
• Minnesota: 23 of 41 (56.1%) for 278 yds, 1 TD, 2 INTs, Passer rating = 64.9
   
   
  
• Seattle: 17 of 31 (54.8%) for 232 yds, 2 TDs, 0 INT, Passer rating = 136.9
   
   
  

Truth is, Grossman had 1 so-so game against a pretty-good team (Minnesota), 2 great games against bad teams (Green Bay & Detroit) and a great game against a very good team (Seattle).  Grossman's beating out a lot of respected QBs performance-wise so far this season.

 

I don't understand why everyone is qualifying Chicago's decisive victory over Seattle by saying that they played without Alexander.  The final score was 37-6.  Alexander doesn't play Defense, so he's not an excuse for Grossman getting a passer rating of 136.9 in that game and the Chicago Offense scoring 37 points. 

 

Besides, Shaun Alexander has only averaged 62.3 yds rushing in the first 3 games this season.  He's had 2 TDs in three games (0.67 TDs per game).  Against the Giants the week before Seattle had 5 passing TDs and 1 rushing TD.  This season they're using the pass to score.  So at most, he would have been good for 1 TD if he'd played against da Bears, making the score 37-13.  Still an ass-kicking of the defending NFC Champs.

796072[/snapback]

 

You think 262 yards, 1 TD, and 1 INT against GREENBAY is a "great" game? Im a little speachless. If this is a great game then JP Losman has had great games every game this season.

 

Maybe I didnt word it right ...what I was saying is that if you take away Rex Grossmans only amazing game then his starts are average at post ... a little over 750 yards, 4 TD's and 3 INT's .... while other good QB's you take their best game away and there stats are still darn good. I think Grossman will be a good QB some day but right now he is taking advantage of 2 bad teams, 1 decent team (a team the Bills beat), and a team without their best player. Thats all im saying.

 

I mean if were gonna be kissing teams butts for how good they do in regular games, then I cant wait until we play the Colts. We could go into the game 6-2 and posters here will still say the Colts kill us 34-0. Yet the Colts are more understandable. The Bears are 4-0 against average teams ... yet the Colts are 42-10 in the past 3 years. Thats insane.

[Dennis]

You think 262 yards, 1 TD, and 1 INT against GREENBAY is a "great" game? Im a little speachless. If this is a great game then JP Losman has had great games every game this season.

796333[/snapback]

At Lambeau Field? Against our fiercest rival? Against Brett Farve who has made a career out of making Chicago look stupid?

 

Yeah, for a Chicago QB that is a great game.

Maybe I didnt word it right ...what I was saying is that if you take away Rex Grossmans only amazing game then his starts are average at post ... a little over 750 yards, 4 TD's and 3 INT's .... while other good QB's you take their best game away and there stats are still darn good. I think Grossman will be a good QB some day but right now he is taking advantage of 2 bad teams, 1 decent team (a team the Bills beat), and a team without their best player. Thats all im saying.

796333[/snapback]

Really not enough data, statistically speaking, to truly determine that. Besides, if you toss out a QB's "best" game then you should also toss out his "worst" game, since both are anomolies. But I get your point. So you don't consider passer ratings around 100 or better to be indicative of a QB having a "great" game? What is your criteria then?

I mean if were gonna be kissing teams butts for how good they do in regular games, then I cant wait until we play the Colts. We could go into the game 6-2 and posters here will still say the Colts kill us 34-0. Yet the Colts are more understandable. The Bears are 4-0 against average teams ... yet the Colts are 42-10 in the past 3 years. Thats insane.

796333[/snapback]

And the past 2 years under Lovie Smith da Bears are 19-5 in the regular season. That works out to a winning percentage of 79.2%. And that is knocking on the door of the Colts with their 80.8% winning percentage over the past 3 years...

[Alaska Darin]

At Lambeau Field?  Against our fiercest rival?  Against Brett Farve who has made a career out of making Chicago look stupid? 

He's made a career out of making them looking stupid when surrounded by superior talent.

 

Yeah, for a Chicago QB that is a great game. 

 

Really not enough data, statistically speaking, to truly determine that.  Besides, if you toss out a QB's "best" game then you should also toss out his "worst" game, since both are anomolies.  But I get your point.  So you don't consider passer ratings around 100 or better to be indicative of a QB having a "great" game?  What is your criteria then?

Grossman isn't alot different than Losman, he's just as likely to play a terrible game as he is to play a good one.

And the past 2 years under Lovie Smith da Bears are 19-5 in the regular season.  That works out to a winning percentage of 79.2%.  And that is knocking on the door of the Colts with their 80.8% winning percentage over the past 3 years... 

796379[/snapback]

Not all that meaningful, given the division/conference you guys play in.

 

Sep 11 - at Washington L (7-9)

Sep 18 - Detroit - W (38-6)

Sep 25 - Cincinnati - L (7-24)

Week 4 BYE

Oct 9 - at Cleveland - L (10-20)

Oct 16 - Minnesota - W (28-3)

Oct 23 - Baltimore - W (10-6)

Oct 30 - at Detroit - W (19-13)

Nov 6 - at New Orleans - W (20-17)

Nov 13 - San Francisco - W (17-9)

Nov 20 - Carolina - W (13-3)

Nov 27 - at Tampa Bay - W (13-10)

Dec 4 - Green Bay - W (19-7)

Dec 11 - at Pittsburgh - L (9-21)

Dec 18 - Atlanta - W (16-3)

Dec 25 - at Green Bay - W (24-17)

Jan 1 - at Minnesota - L (10-34)

 

1 win, 3 losses against the AFC last season. Caught Carolina at a bad time for them and a bunch of wins over the dregs of the NFC. You'll pardon me for not quaking at this point.

 

Once again, it's far more likely that the Bears will win this weekend but it's because we don't matchup well and the game is in your house. At the end of the day your team is very good on defense, pretty good on special teams, and average at best on offense.

 

Could they win the Super Bowl? Sure, but I wouldn't bet anything of substance on it.

[daquixers_is_back]

At Lambeau Field?  Against our fiercest rival?  Against Brett Farve who has made a career out of making Chicago look stupid? 

 

Yeah, for a Chicago QB that is a great game. 

 

Really not enough data, statistically speaking, to truly determine that.  Besides, if you toss out a QB's "best" game then you should also toss out his "worst" game, since both are anomolies.  But I get your point.  So you don't consider passer ratings around 100 or better to be indicative of a QB having a "great" game?  What is your criteria then?

 

And the past 2 years under Lovie Smith da Bears are 19-5 in the regular season.  That works out to a winning percentage of 79.2%.  And that is knocking on the door of the Colts with their 80.8% winning percentage over the past 3 years... 

796379[/snapback]

 

So if Dan Marino at his age plays for the Dolphins again and JP Losman throws 2 Touchdowns, then that means he had a great game just because the Dolphins are a fierce rival and Marino is good? Come on man. Favre is getting old and the Packers are not very good.

 

And passer ratings are pooey ... most people dont consider them anything really important. Its just an interesting little mathematical equation. Sure their fun to mess with but thats about it. I dont know if you remember how bad Rob Johnson was but he had 3 straight seasons of 102.0 + passer ratings. As I said - passer ratings are pooey.

 

And a record after 2 years is different than 3 years ... because 1 year can change you from a winning record to a losing record.

[Chilly]

Ridicule is the only way some posters know how to respond with something they dont agree with on this board. 

796326[/snapback]

 

Yeah, thats it!

[apuszczalowski]

And the past 2 years under Lovie Smith da Bears are 19-5 in the regular season.  That works out to a winning percentage of 79.2%.  And that is knocking on the door of the Colts with their 80.8% winning percentage over the past 3 years... 

796379[/snapback]

 

19-5 after 2 seasons? Isn't there 16 games a year? And wasn't Lovie hired at the before the season started, not during a season. So how does that record work out again?

[Alaska Darin]

19-5 after 2 seasons? Isn't there 16 games a year? And wasn't Lovie hired at the before the season started, not during a season. So how does that record work out again?

796484[/snapback]

I think he's talking about last season (12-4 regular season, 0-1 in the playoffs, plus the 4 wins this year).

[ganesh]

And the past 2 years under Lovie Smith da Bears are 19-5 in the regular season.  That works out to a winning percentage of 79.2%.  And that is knocking on the door of the Colts with their 80.8% winning percentage over the past 3 years... 

796379[/snapback]

How convinient to leave out the 5-11 record of Lovie Smith the previous year....If it was not ok for the previous poster to ignore Grossmans one game against Detroit (where he scored 1/2 his total TDs), how is it ok for you to leave out

the worst season record for Smith from your argument.......Lovie SMith is 24-16 in his tenure with the Bears.....It is a pretty good winning percentage, but you cannot compare it to the 80% of the Colts for THREE years....Your winning % for the

same THREE years is 60% not 79%.....

[John from Riverside]

This just in....

 

The best team doesnt automatically win the game.....

 

Just thought I would throw that out there.....

 

Also....while the bears are playing pretty darn good football....the bills have NOT played their best game yet...but have shown signs of dominance against good teams like the patriots

 

This is a danger game for the bears not because the bills are a better team....but because the bears might they THEY are a great team....

[daquixers_is_back]

How convinient to leave out the 5-11 record of Lovie Smith the previous year....If it was not ok for the previous poster to ignore Grossmans one game against Detroit (where he scored 1/2 his total TDs), how is it ok for you to leave out

the worst season record for Smith from your argument.......Lovie SMith is 24-16 in his tenure with the Bears.....It is a pretty good winning percentage, but you cannot compare it to the 80% of the Colts for THREE years....Your winning % for the

same THREE years is 60% not 79%.....

796500[/snapback]

 

yup ....

[Dennis]

Not all that meaningful, given the division/conference you guys play in.

 

Sep 11 - at Washington L (7-9)

Sep 18 - Detroit - W (38-6)

Sep 25 - Cincinnati - L (7-24)

Week 4 BYE

Oct 9 - at Cleveland - L (10-20)

Oct 16 - Minnesota - W (28-3)

Oct 23 - Baltimore - W (10-6)

Oct 30 - at Detroit - W (19-13)

Nov 6 - at New Orleans - W (20-17)

Nov 13 - San Francisco - W (17-9)

Nov 20 - Carolina - W (13-3)

Nov 27 - at Tampa Bay - W (13-10)

Dec 4 - Green Bay - W (19-7)

Dec 11 - at Pittsburgh - L (9-21)

Dec 18 - Atlanta - W (16-3)

Dec 25 - at Green Bay - W (24-17)

Jan 1 - at Minnesota - L (10-34)

 

1 win, 3 losses against the AFC last season.  Caught Carolina at a bad time for them and a bunch of wins over the dregs of the NFC.  You'll pardon me for not quaking at this point.

796391[/snapback]

That record was with a raw unprepared rookie QB (Kyle Orton) under center. So it was basically all done with Defense. This season we have an Offense that is at least adequate - big improvement over last season. So with that same Defense we become much more competitive.

 

The one win against the AFC was Baltimore, who are 4-0 this year and the pride of the AFC.

 

We "caught Carolina at a bad time?" What about Tampa? Or Atlanta? The NFC South was tough last season and we swept them.

 

But it doesn't really matter does it. No matter what I bring up, it'll be that da Bears only look good because they play in the weak NFC North or they're in the weaker conference or yaddayaddayadda...

 

But we're scheduled to play the entire AFC East this season. I suppose if we wind up sweeping your division, it'll be because the Bills are rebuilding, Miami and the Jets are just no good anyway and we caught New England when Brady was having a bad hair day...

 

And you guys B word about the Bills not getting any respect...

[crackur]

How convinient to leave out the 5-11 record of Lovie Smith the previous year....If it was not ok for the previous poster to ignore Grossmans one game against Detroit (where he scored 1/2 his total TDs), how is it ok for you to leave out

the worst season record for Smith from your argument.......Lovie SMith is 24-16 in his tenure with the Bears.....It is a pretty good winning percentage, but you cannot compare it to the 80% of the Colts for THREE years....Your winning % for the

same THREE years is 60% not 79%.....

796500[/snapback]