|
Bears do look like a good candidate but their schedule looks to have too many teams that are capable of playing even worse than they do. If they get it, they will have certainly earned it.
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:15 |
|
|
TubeStank posted:
No way--they could beat Oakland, Minnesota, SF, Washington, or Tampa. Also don't underestimate Detroit's ability to piss away games late in the season so i'd put them on it too.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
TubeStank posted:oakland is good now, as is minnesota. sf is a question mark, but the bears run defense is so bad that they could theoretically never pass the ball. "Good" is meaningless. Teams poo poo the bed. We're three games in. And sometimes bad teams play better for a week. Also plenty of 2-1 teams have turned out to be frauds. All of the teams I mentioned are within reach of the bears, maybe more.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
TubeStank posted:the bears arent' making GBS threads the bed. the bears are playing pretty much as advertised. their defense is a tire fire converting from a 4-3 to a 3-4 with nobody in the secondary. their offense currently is comprised of matt forte running into other players while wishing to be on literally any other team in the nfl. they have no special teams and have given up two (2) kick returns for touchdowns so far this year. the bears are literally the worst team in the league. the bucs have, somehow, a slightly stronger roster. I'm not talking about the bears making GBS threads the bed I'm talking about the other teams. Teams don't just play the same week in and week out. As bad as the bears look there are plenty of teams capable of losing to them. They might be the worst but worst doesn't mean "cannot win against x team because x team is better". This Bears team is absolutely a candidate for 0-16, I am just saying they will have to earn it because all of these teams I mentioned are capable of playing bad enough to lose to them. In 1999 the eventual AFC champion Tennessee Titans, a 13-3 team, was blown out by the eventual 8-8 Ravens by a score of 41-14. The final scores of games don't always reflect how "good" a team is.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Also, as far as I know Cutler isn't done for the year. He might not be a great QB but he is good for a few wins. If he plays a decent number of games this year they will probably win at least one.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
axeil posted:Is Joe Flacco the qb of a future 0-16 team? Even if we lose tonight AND to Cleveland next week, in a few weeks we will get the Chargers, Jaguars, and Rams in three consecutive home games. I highly doubt we would lose them all.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
It's more neutral than sunshine. If we lost those three games and hadn't got a win yet then we definitely have a chance. But then we would still have KC at home. This team just isn't bad enough. I don't have to be a homer or use weird loopy logic like if I don't praise the Ravens in every single post that somehow equals criticism. Or if Flacco has a really bad game I don't have to say stuff like "the greatest QB in the history of the NFL is lulling his competition to sleep by throwing the previous contest". That's what Im holding myself to. But I can't be super negative in the game thread or constantly "doomsay". I might get negative thoughts but I will hold my tongue.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:15 |
|
|
For the undefeated watch I just mentioned this in another thread: We have a really good chance at getting the Patriots being undefeated going into their game against the Giants this year. How cool would that be to see??
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 00:30
|
|