If it is any consolation......

JJP41

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
934
Reaction score
214
Location
Indiana
The Bears looked REALLY terrible against the NINERS.

Now we're talking the NINERS. The no QB, no WR and very little left on defense San Francisco 49ers.

And this team won the division a year ago if memory serves correctly.

So the Pack got off to a rough start.........better now than in the regular season.

At least they have time to fix the problems.
 

tromadz

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
999
Reaction score
3
Location
Chicago
no, it was preseason week 1. The bears threw basic everything out there, especially defense.

are people gonna say the bears defense isnt gonna be good this year cuz they 'struggled' in week 1 preseason?


(can we see how stupid this is, guys)
 

JJP41

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
934
Reaction score
214
Location
Indiana
Since most of the concern focused on the Packers on offense, I was speaking more in terms of how bad the Bears starting offense looked.

Now you may call me insane, but I still say Brett Favre has a lot more left in him than Rex Grossman ever will down in Chicago.

So like I said, the rookies need some time to mature but better they suffer the growing pains now than in Week One of the regular season.
 

tromadz

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
999
Reaction score
3
Location
Chicago
oh grossman? the jury is still out on him, but i think he will be ok. nothing special though.
 

JJP41

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
934
Reaction score
214
Location
Indiana
I am not all that high on him. Plus, the Bears are weak at receiver and don't use their tight end at all.
 

cyoung

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
1,276
Reaction score
2
Location
Iowa
they have Muhsin Muhammed

but its just preseason the bears can beat the niners any day in the regular season
 

JJP41

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
934
Reaction score
214
Location
Indiana
Muhammad is a possession receiver and disappears at times.

The Bears have no proven deep threat to stretch the field and haven't for some time.

My point of this thread was that is the Bears could look that pathetic against a team as bad as the NINERS.......then Pack fans shouldn't be freaking over how the Packers fared against the Bolts.

I never said the Niners could take the Bears......then I would be insane.
 

pyledriver80

Cheesehead
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
0
The big Difference is the Bears moved the ball and scored 14 points. The Bears also didn't give up 4 sacks.

Playing basic football and losing with backups is COMPLETELY different than not being able to protect your QB with your starters
 

tromadz

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
999
Reaction score
3
Location
Chicago
i agree, pyle. the starting line should have been in midseason form, not preseason form. there wasnt any excuse for it, except lack of talent, caused primarilly by the GM who brought them in.
 

JJP41

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
934
Reaction score
214
Location
Indiana
pyledriver80 said:
The big Difference is the Bears moved the ball and scored 14 points. The Bears also didn't give up 4 sacks.

Playing basic football and losing with backups is COMPLETELY different than not being able to protect your QB with your starters

With all due respect.........I was talking about what the Chicago starting offense and defense did.......not what Brian Griese did against the San Fran.

The Niners were up 17-0 before the Bears even did anything. And that big, bad starting Bear defense made Alex Smith look like the next Joe Montana.

As I said, my point was that it was a preseason game.....and the Bears, who won the division. really looked no better than the Packers.
 

PackerSacker54

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
JJP41 said:
The Bears looked REALLY terrible against the NINERS.

Now we're talking the NINERS. The no QB, no WR and very little left on defense San Francisco 49ers.

And this team won the division a year ago if memory serves correctly.

So the Pack got off to a rough start.........better now than in the regular season.

At least they have time to fix the problems.

:roll: It's sad really when you try to justify the $hitty play of your first string team with a garbage thread like this, but hey whatever you need to tell yourself to get some sleep at night I guess. The Bears were playing without their starting RBs and Pro bowl center which might explain the fumbled snap by Grossman and lack of running attack. Even without Kreutz the o-line looked way better than GB's. The Bears first string defense was moved on but still only gave up a field goal(typical). The first td that the 49queers got was off Grossman's fumbled snap. It's only preseason and the Bears play them this year in regular season so the offense really didn't show much out their to the opposing team( quite vanilla).

In short, GB has alot bigger problems to worry about than the Bears do. :wink:
 

pyledriver80

Cheesehead
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
0
PackerSacker54 said:
JJP41 said:
The Bears looked REALLY terrible against the NINERS.

Now we're talking the NINERS. The no QB, no WR and very little left on defense San Francisco 49ers.

And this team won the division a year ago if memory serves correctly.

So the Pack got off to a rough start.........better now than in the regular season.

At least they have time to fix the problems.

:roll: It's sad really when you try to justify the $hitty play of your first string team with a garbage thread like this, but hey whatever you need to tell yourself to get some sleep at night I guess. The Bears were playing without their starting RBs and Pro bowl center which might explain the fumbled snap by Grossman and lack of running attack. Even without Kreutz the o-line looked way better than GB's. The Bears first string defense was moved on but still only gave up a field goal(typical). The first td that the 49queers got was off Grossman's fumbled snap. It's only preseason and the Bears play them this year in regular season so the offense really didn't show much out their to the opposing team( quite vanilla).

In short, GB has alot bigger problems to worry about than the Bears do. :wink:


Completely true. The Bears have no reason to panic. They really didn't look that bad. The Packers, on the other hand, looked awful. This will be the only time I credit the Bears.........Ever.......By the way, Grossman still sucks!
 

PackerSacker54

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
JJP41 said:
I am not all that high on him. Plus, the Bears are weak at receiver and don't use their tight end at all.

:roll: I know it's only preseason but......


Bears receiving

Davis 4/91yds, 1 td
Reid 2/38yds, 1 td
Pope 2/25yds
Muhammed 1/22yds
Bradley 1/16yds


Packers receiving

Jennings 4/68yds
Gardner 2/31yds
Ferguson 1/28yds
Boerigter 1/19yds
Alcorn 1/18yds
 

JJP41

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
934
Reaction score
214
Location
Indiana
Well thank you for the insult.

But my point, which was very simple but obviously escaped you, was that it was a preseason game.

Rookies, as anyone who remotely knows the game at all, need time to marture.

Obviously, you feel you have to justify your point of the rookies looking so terrible by comparing that to Chicago being minus their center.

It doesn't change the fact the Chicago offense faced one of the worst teams in the NFL and played terribly until they sat down their starting QB and the NINERS put their scrubs in on defense.

At any rate..........its preseason and neither team was impressive.
 

PackerSacker54

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
JJP41 said:
pyledriver80 said:
The big Difference is the Bears moved the ball and scored 14 points. The Bears also didn't give up 4 sacks.

Playing basic football and losing with backups is COMPLETELY different than not being able to protect your QB with your starters

With all due respect.........I was talking about what the Chicago starting offense and defense did.......not what Brian Griese did against the San Fran.

The Niners were up 17-0 before the Bears even did anything. And that big, bad starting Bear defense made Alex Smith look like the next Joe Montana.

As I said, my point was that it was a preseason game.....and the Bears, who won the division. really looked no better than the Packers.


Their starting defense only gave up 3 points,terrible? I think not., Yards don't mean anything if you can't score. 7 of those 17 you are referring to were against the offense due to a fumbled snap, only 3 were against the first string defense and 7 were against the second string defense.
The Bears looked better than the Packers, hands down.
 

JJP41

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
934
Reaction score
214
Location
Indiana
PackerSacker54 said:
JJP41 said:
I am not all that high on him. Plus, the Bears are weak at receiver and don't use their tight end at all.

:roll: I know it's only preseason but......


Bears receiving

Davis 4/91yds, 1 td
Reid 2/38yds, 1 td
Pope 2/25yds
Muhammed 1/22yds
Bradley 1/16yds


Packers receiving

Jennings 4/68yds
Gardner 2/31yds
Ferguson 1/28yds
Boerigter 1/19yds
Alcorn 1/18yds

First of all......it is the PRESEASON.

Second of all.......WHO did the Bears play??

Preseason game against one of the worst teams in the NFL....

I rest my case.
 

JJP41

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
934
Reaction score
214
Location
Indiana
PackerSacker54 said:
JJP41 said:
pyledriver80 said:
The big Difference is the Bears moved the ball and scored 14 points. The Bears also didn't give up 4 sacks.

Playing basic football and losing with backups is COMPLETELY different than not being able to protect your QB with your starters

With all due respect.........I was talking about what the Chicago starting offense and defense did.......not what Brian Griese did against the San Fran.

The Niners were up 17-0 before the Bears even did anything. And that big, bad starting Bear defense made Alex Smith look like the next Joe Montana.

As I said, my point was that it was a preseason game.....and the Bears, who won the division. really looked no better than the Packers.


Their starting defense only gave up 3 points,terrible? I think not., Yards don't mean anything if you can't score. 7 of those 17 you are referring to were against the offense due to a fumbled snap, only 3 were against the first string defense and 7 were against the second string defense.
The Bears looked better than the Packers, hands down.

It doesn't mean anything if a defense lets one of the lowest rated QBs in the NFL move the ball at will??

On what planet would that be?

Maybe you should check on that with Lovie Smith or Ron Rivera.....they were not happy at all with the defensive effort of their first stringers against the Niners.
 

PackerSacker54

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
JJP41 said:
Well thank you for the insult.

But my point, which was very simple but obviously escaped you, was that it was a preseason game.

Rookies, as anyone who remotely knows the game at all, need time to marture.

Obviously, you feel you have to justify your point of the rookies looking so terrible by comparing that to Chicago being minus their center.

It doesn't change the fact the Chicago offense faced one of the worst teams in the NFL and played terribly until they sat down their starting QB and the NINERS put their scrubs in on defense.

At any rate..........its preseason and neither team was impressive.


Your point was Chicago did as bad as Green Bay, so obviously preseason means a little more to you if your using it as comparison of the two teams in week 1.
And how do the 49ers of 2005 relate to the 49ers of now? Enlighten me please? Grossman didn't look good(obviously), but to say that the first string defense was terrible is just plain ignorant. Isn't the main factor of a good defense to keep the other team from scoring or scoring as little as possible? 3 points, that is all that they allowed. I'm sorry but my point is simple, the Bears first string defense wasn't as bad as you have skewed it to be and at least their offense scored a few tds even if they were back-ups. If Grossman doesn't pan out, Griese is a more than capable replacement.
 

PackerSacker54

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
JJP41 said:
PackerSacker54 said:
JJP41 said:
pyledriver80 said:
The big Difference is the Bears moved the ball and scored 14 points. The Bears also didn't give up 4 sacks.

Playing basic football and losing with backups is COMPLETELY different than not being able to protect your QB with your starters

With all due respect.........I was talking about what the Chicago starting offense and defense did.......not what Brian Griese did against the San Fran.

The Niners were up 17-0 before the Bears even did anything. And that big, bad starting Bear defense made Alex Smith look like the next Joe Montana.

As I said, my point was that it was a preseason game.....and the Bears, who won the division. really looked no better than the Packers.


Their starting defense only gave up 3 points,terrible? I think not., Yards don't mean anything if you can't score. 7 of those 17 you are referring to were against the offense due to a fumbled snap, only 3 were against the first string defense and 7 were against the second string defense.
The Bears looked better than the Packers, hands down.

It doesn't mean anything if a defense lets one of the lowest rated QBs in the NFL move the ball at will??

On what planet would that be?

Maybe you should check on that with Lovie Smith or Ron Rivera.....they were not happy at all with the defensive effort of their first stringers against the Niners.


:roll: Did you even watch that game? the 2006 Alex Smith looked light years ahead of the the 2005 version, no matter what you think. I'm fairly sure the Bears will trounce them in the regular season though, just a hunch. :wink:
 

JJP41

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
934
Reaction score
214
Location
Indiana
Preseaon is about getting things in sync. Getting your new starters experience.

Please enlighten me and tell me how many rookies the Bears started or for that matter, how many new starters they are projecting to start?

Never mind. Chicago has all their starters returning so no need to try and make that point.

And since the coaches in Chicago had issues with how the defense played, I suppose that makes them ignorant too.

As far as how they Niners of 2005 relate to the Niners of this year?

Do your homework. They will likely be even weaker. They are weaker at receiver and lost both Julian Peterson and Andre Carter.

Save the insults
 

PackerSacker54

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
JJP41 said:
Preseaon is about getting things in sync. Getting your new starters experience.

Please enlighten me and tell me how many rookies the Bears started or for that matter, how many new starters they are projecting to start?

Never mind. Chicago has all their starters returning so no need to try and make that point.

And since the coaches in Chicago had issues with how the defense played, I suppose that makes them ignorant too.

As far as how they Niners of 2005 relate to the Niners of this year?

Do your homework. They will likely be even weaker. They are weaker at receiver and lost both Julian Peterson and Andre Carter.

Save the insults


Just a few questions for you.

#1. Are Lovie and Ron neighbors of yours or relatives?

#2. What FF magazine do you work for?


P.S. Please stop the speculation, you're embarrasing yourself. :wink:
 

JJP41

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
934
Reaction score
214
Location
Indiana
Lets see.......do your homework and then you would know what Smith and Rivera thought of the defense.

Embarrassing?.....seems all you have in insults instead of real knowledge since you didn't have a clue why the Niners are weaker this year or how many starters Chcago has coming back. I don't speculate.....you might....but I don't.

I don't write any fantasy stuff, but I could give you a list of those who I have contributed for over the last 10 years.

Then again, I see no need since you are such the expert why would you need to read anything that does not support your opinion.
 

Members online

Top