Packers vs Bears: S103,E1

[pacmaniac]

Most of the Bears' wins have come against teams with 2-4 wins, and most of those wins were by less than a TD. I do think they're the worst 9-3 team in history.

 

[Magooch]

I think the Bears are probably better than a lot of people would give them credit for, but I also think they're probably not quite as good as their record would suggest, either. It kind of reminds me of the Vikings last year and their record in one-score games. That is generally not something that is super sustainable. We saw Minnesota do it over the regular season last year (even better than Chicago this year) and as soon as they got to the playoffs they were clobbered.

They are a really weird team to watch. They definitely do a lot of things really well. There's no way to get around the fact that they just absolutely manhandled and ran all over Philly. At the same time, in other games, it feels like they do practically nothing right...but the other team also trips over their own feet and Chicago has consistently made the one or two deciding plays late in those games. But there's a lot of games where they've looked downright BAD for 50+ minutes and somehow come away with a win. I guess the simplest way to put it is like...if you watched a compilation tape of their season thus far but couldn't see the scores and didn't know their record, you wouldn't come away thinking "Yeah, that looks like a 9-3 football team". But here they are.

I would also add one small quibble: I don't think that we "also played the slumping Eagles". I think most would argue that the Eagles "slump" (if you can call it as much) was not so much an extended slump or downturn as it was them utterly collapsing vs Dallas and having a big hangover from that. They'd just thumped the Giants by 3 scores the week before they played us.

 

[Magooch]

Overall, we are #1 in the league right now in total EPA per play on offense. Chicago is #9.
We are #3 in EPA-success rate (plays with a positive EPA). Chicago #13
We are #1 in passing EPA; Chicago is #14
We are #4 in passing success rate; Chicago is #21
Chicago is #4 in rush EPA while we are #16
They are also #3 in rush success rate; we are closer but still behind at #7
In terms of total expected points contribution by the offense, we are #5 while Chicago is #10.

On the other side, we are #13 in defensive EPA per play while Chicago is #19
We are #9 in overall defensive EPA-success rate, Chicago is #25
Very close in defensive passing EPA. We are #17 and Chicago is #18
Similar to the overall, we are #9 in pass defense success rate and Chicago is #23
We are #6 in rush EPA; Chicago is #21
Our defense is #10 in expected points at roughly -21. Chicago's is #23 at -60. (That is indeed with all turnovers accounted for)
And finally, we are #12 in rush defense success rate while Chicago is #28.

When it comes to quarterbacks there's no contest. Love is THE #1 QB in the league in EPA per play. Caleb is 23rd.
Love is 5th in total QB success rate. Caleb is #27.
Love is #3 in CPOE... Caleb is #31.
Both QBs have an identical depth of target/attempted air yards.

Like just about every game we've had this year, this is one that we SHOULD be able to win. Whether or not that actually happens, who knows....

To make it ultra-simple...
If we play at our best and Chicago plays at their best... IMO, we win
If we play at our best and Chicago plays at their worst... we win, of course
If we play at our worst and Chicago plays at their worst... I don't know. That one's kind of a toss-up to me. Based on our worst performances this year, I would still give us the edge, Chicago has shown a lower "floor".
If we play at our worst and Chicago plays at their best... they win.

 

[El Guapo]

Appreciate the call out but nope. Despite beating a Philly team that looked hungover by 9 points they still suck.

Most of the Bears' wins have come against teams with 2-4 wins, and most of those wins were by less than a TD. I do think they're the worst 9-3 team in history.

Say what you want about the Eagles offense, but their defense has remained stout and dominating even in all of their losses. The Bears rushed for 281 yards against that extremely talented Georgia/Philadelphia defense.

 

[tynimiller]

Overall, we are #1 in the league right now in total EPA per play on offense. Chicago is #9.
We are #3 in EPA-success rate (plays with a positive EPA). Chicago #13
We are #1 in passing EPA; Chicago is #14
We are #4 in passing success rate; Chicago is #21
Chicago is #4 in rush EPA while we are #16
They are also #3 in rush success rate; we are closer but still behind at #7
In terms of total expected points contribution by the offense, we are #5 while Chicago is #10.

On the other side, we are #13 in defensive EPA per play while Chicago is #19
We are #9 in overall defensive EPA-success rate, Chicago is #25
Very close in defensive passing EPA. We are #17 and Chicago is #18
Similar to the overall, we are #9 in pass defense success rate and Chicago is #23
We are #6 in rush EPA; Chicago is #21
Our defense is #10 in expected points at roughly -21. Chicago's is #23 at -60. (That is indeed with all turnovers accounted for)
And finally, we are #12 in rush defense success rate while Chicago is #28.

When it comes to quarterbacks there's no contest. Love is THE #1 QB in the league in EPA per play. Caleb is 23rd.
Love is 5th in total QB success rate. Caleb is #27.
Love is #3 in CPOE... Caleb is #31.
Both QBs have an identical depth of target/attempted air yards.

Like just about every game we've had this year, this is one that we SHOULD be able to win. Whether or not that actually happens, who knows....

To make it ultra-simple...
If we play at our best and Chicago plays at their best... IMO, we win
If we play at our best and Chicago plays at their worst... we win, of course
If we play at our worst and Chicago plays at their worst... I don't know. That one's kind of a toss-up to me. Based on our worst performances this year, I would still give us the edge, Chicago has shown a lower "floor".
If we play at our worst and Chicago plays at their best... they win.

Excellent breakdown!

Bears fan friend of mine from Church feels the same about this game as I do - Packers can beat the Bears playing 8 out of 10 and Bears playing 10 out of 10 - he just doesn't see their ceiling the same as ours (he's an honest Bears fan). He agrees that their hope lies in getting those turnover bounces which has been their saving grace.

 

[milani]

Say what you want about the Eagles offense, but their defense has remained stout and dominating even in all of their losses. The Bears rushed for 281 yards against that extremely talented Georgia/Philadelphia defense.

Yes, they did. That is frightening. And no one cares if they are the worst 9-3 team in history because they ARE 9-3. And with that logic they could become the worst Super Bowl Champ in history, too.

 

[El Guapo]

Yes, they did. That is frightening. And no one cares if they are the worst 9-3 team in history because they ARE 9-3. And with that logic they could become the worst Super Bowl Champ in history, too.

I agree, but I wouldn't go so far as to crown them yet.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[RRyder]

Say what you want about the Eagles offense, but their defense has remained stout and dominating even in all of their losses. The Bears rushed for 281 yards against that extremely talented Georgia/Philadelphia defense.

I agree that it was impressive. But im not going to change my opinion of a team off one game in week 13 when I was unimpressed the first 12

 

[RRyder]

Yes, they did. That is frightening. And no one cares if they are the worst 9-3 team in history because they ARE 9-3. And with that logic they could become the worst Super Bowl Champ in history, too.

Just so im clear on your stance on these types of conversations in the future do you think its out of pocket to ever say "That teams better then their record" or "That team isnt as good as their record" when discussing how good teams are?

 

[rmontro]

I agree that it was impressive. But im not going to change my opinion of a team off one game in week 13 when I was unimpressed the first 12

What about the Bears takeaway advantage? It's +17, the next closest team has 8. They lead the league in INTs with 17. Next closest has 13. That doesn't impress you at all? That said, I'll still take our defense over theirs. The offense is more of a wash, unless we go into another funk.

 

[BrokenArrow]

The Bears have been winning with their starting linebackers and corners injured. They are just now starting to get healthy. Johnson is probably the best coach in the league.
The Pack will be fortunate to win, have to stop the run.

Stop the run, you say? Well, we're one of the very best at doing that. Just ask Jahmir Gibbs and Aaron Jones. You really don't follow football very well, do you?

 

[BrokenArrow]

What about the Bears takeaway advantage? It's +17, the next closest team has 8. They lead the league in INTs with 17. Next closest has 13. That doesn't impress you at all? That said, I'll still take our defense over theirs. The offense is more of a wash, unless we go into another funk.

They're also playing a last place schedule. They only have two wins against decent teams and most of their wins are by a FG. You'll forgive me if I'm not impressed.

 

[BrokenArrow]

To make it ultra-simple...
If we play at our best and Chicago plays at their best... IMO, we win
If we play at our best and Chicago plays at their worst... we win, of course
If we play at our worst and Chicago plays at their worst... I don't know. That one's kind of a toss-up to me. Based on our worst performances this year, I would still give us the edge, Chicago has shown a lower "floor".
If we play at our worst and Chicago plays at their best... they win.

I think that about sums it up for any two teams. Every single team in the NFL is capable of beating every other team on the right day.

 

[OldSchool101]

Teams are turning the ball over on 19.8% of their possessions. One of every five possessions this year has resulted in Bears getting a takeaway. That is a clip which is incredible and like GB has experienced in the past can greatly cover up a defenses' true identity.

Exactly. I’m going to try to temper any criticism of the Bears until after we play them because like MANY teams this season, we each have our deserved criticism. I watched plenty of football this week and the bulk of favorites played very substandard.

The Bears have a Philly game to hang their hat on. That said Philly has been struggling also. They are NOT the 2025 version. The Packers played them but had just lost several key components to Offensive production and were reeling a bit.

If GB shows up like they have most games this season, I still feel like we are the favorite. Particularly at home. This is a HUGE opportunity for GB to statistically lock down a Postseason spot. We’d be #1 in the North and 9.5 Wins with plenty of football left. Also we’d be 4-0 in our Division.

 

[Sanguine camper]

The Bears will try to follow the Panthers game plan. Run the ball, control the LOS and dominate the time of possession. If they can keep the Packets offense on the sidelines like they did with Philly, the result will be similar.

Love is a better QB than Williams but the game is still won in the trenches. If the Packers stymy the Bears run attack and jump out to a lead, they'll win. I don't like the Packers chances at all if they're behind at half time. The deciding match up will be the Bears O line vs the Packers D line

 

[RRyder]

What about the Bears takeaway advantage? It's +17, the next closest team has 8. They lead the league in INTs with 17. Next closest has 13. That doesn't impress you at all? That said, I'll still take our defense over theirs. The offense is more of a wash, unless we go into another funk.

Its extremely impressive. But at the same time I view turnovers as extremely high variance even for top units. Its why teams that NEED turnovers to win normally dont go all that far come PO time

I dont even think its particularly close between our two defenses which is better.

 

[milani]

Excellent breakdown!

Bears fan friend of mine from Church feels the same about this game as I do - Packers can beat the Bears playing 8 out of 10 and Bears playing 10 out of 10 - he just doesn't see their ceiling the same as ours (he's an honest Bears fan). He agrees that their hope lies in getting those turnover bounces which has been their saving grace.

Turnovers are huge. A lot of the successful teams get them even if their core parts are not the best in the league.

Just so im clear on your stance on these types of conversations in the future do you think its out of pocket to ever say "That teams better then their record" or "That team isnt as good as their record" when discussing how good teams are?

It matters if you are the next opponent. How you view that opponent has a lot to do with how you may perform. Taking an opponent lightly can bite any team. But just like the final score, the win loss tie records are what matter and put you in the big dance. So we can evaluate all we want. In the playoffs the records are what gives you the seeding. But once you are there the record does not matter. You still have to win.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Good points as usual. I forgot about LVN likely being back as well. That should help too.

Can we all admit that we miss Jay Cutler. Where would we be without him giving us a two game boost each season!

Just heard LVN is in a walking boot today. And says he isn't quite there yet.

 

[milani]

Exactly. I’m going to try to temper any criticism of the Bears until after we play them because like MANY teams this season, we each have our deserved criticism. I watched plenty of football this week and the bulk of favorites played very substandard.

The Bears have a Philly game to hang their hat on. That said Philly has been struggling also. They are NOT the 2025 version. The Packers played them but had just lost several key components to Offensive production and were reeling a bit.

If GB shows up like they have most games this season, I still feel like we are the favorite. Particularly at home. This is a HUGE opportunity for GB to statistically lock down a Postseason spot. We’d be #1 in the North and 9.5 Wins with plenty of football left. Also we’d be 4-0 in our Division.

I cannot criticize any 9-3 team in the NFL. I may look at their strengths and weaknesses. But it is what it is. For all practical purposes the Packers could be 12-0 at this point. Our 3 losses and one tie were determined on the final play of each of those. But we did not win them.
In 2011 we were 13-0 at one point. No one said we were not as good as we were yet there were coaches that knew we had defensive weaknesses and Coughlin was one of them. But even those opponents knew there was a reason we were 15-1.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

What about the Bears takeaway advantage? It's +17, the next closest team has 8. They lead the league in INTs with 17. Next closest has 13. That doesn't impress you at all? That said, I'll still take our defense over theirs. The offense is more of a wash, unless we go into another funk.

Wow that is impressive. +17?! Dang.

Caleb protecting the ball.

 

[RRyder]

Turnovers are huge. A lot of the successful teams get them even if their core parts are not the best in the league.

It matters if you are the next opponent. How you view that opponent has a lot to do with how you may perform. Taking an opponent lightly can bite any team. But just like the final score, the win loss tie records are what matter and put you in the big dance. So we can evaluate all we want. In the playoffs the records are what gives you the seeding. But once you are there the record does not matter. You still have to win.[

Im pretty sure how I or anyone here discussing it view a team doesnt actually matter on how a team is going to perform

And you didnt actually answer my question. It seems like you think its out of pocket to say a team isnt as good as their record. Just trying to hammer this down for future reference

 

[Magooch]

Its extremely impressive. But at the same time I view turnovers as extremely high variance even for top units. Its why teams that NEED turnovers to win normally dont go all that far come PO time

I dont even think its particularly close between our two defenses which is better.

That’s exactly how I’d put it. Turnover heavy defenses, while certainly welcome, are rarely a particularly “reliable” thing to stake your defense on. And as I mentioned above even accounting for all those turnovers our defense has a considerably higher expected points contribution. They have a lot of turnovers but have not been a particularly “good” defense overall

 

[rmontro]

Turnovers are huge. A lot of the successful teams get them even if their core parts are not the best in the league.

Our last Super Bowl team was pretty adept at creating turnovers, especially INTs. Of course we had Charles Woodson, that helps. We intercepted Roethlisberger twice.

In 2011 we were 13-0 at one point. No one said we were not as good as we were yet there were coaches that knew we had defensive weaknesses and Coughlin was one of them. But even those opponents knew there was a reason we were 15-1.

I like to think we were the best team in football during that stretch, which encompassed all of 2011 and parts of two seasons. From the point that we got hot in 2010 up until the loss to the Giants in the playoffs in January of 2012. We won 19 straight games during that period.

 

[AKCheese]

Arent they insane on turnovers right now? And squeaking out wins? Props to both. But how long can you dance on the edge of that blade? If GB can take care of the ball and play a decent game I think we handle them pretty comfortably… which unfortunately may mean needing a stop at the end up 4

 

[milani]

Im pretty sure how I or anyone here discussing it view a team doesnt actually matter on how a team is going to perform

And you didnt actually answer my question. It seems like you think its out of pocket to say a team isnt as good as their record. Just trying to hammer this down for future reference

Or as bad as their record. It can be discussed. And comparisons to other teams can be made. In the NCAA we have seen 12-0 or 13-0 teams meet. And when they do one will emerge as the winner. So when we say not as good or not as bad it is only relative to other teams that have the same record or a different record. So when saying not as good as their record indicates it is better to say that team is not as good as another team or teams with the same record. Now that is objective.