NFL Playoffs 2010 Are Here!

Okay, I get where you're coming from, Andy, in that Ws and Ls aren't the whole story. That said, it's a HUGE part of the story and unless there's compelling evidence otherwise, it's how you judge a team's performance.

You really think the 6-10 Lions are better than the 11-5 Bears? I can't imagine that if I polled 100 objective football fans that I'd find more than 3 who'd agree with you who aren't inebriated. Don't get me wrong: I'm not sold on the Bears as a great team. I would even argue that they are the weakest of the bye-seeds this year. But 5 games separate the two squads in the division standings. If you want to say the Lions were better at the end of the season than the Bears, maybe that's more palatable. But we can't ignore the 16 games on the schedule just because we'd like to. Trust me, I'm a Bengals fan...I'm trying to figure out how to do this! :tongue3:

 

11-5 vs. 6-10 is nothing in today's parity-driven NFL - it's a matter of just a few plays over the course of a season. With that in mind, this whole argument is probably pointless. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 7-9 Seahawks make the Super Bowl - that's how much parity we have right now.

 

But using your logic, 0-16 is just one bad play per game.....16 of em....over the course of a season. It's not very sound logic, nor does it flesh out me as a former athlete (you are as well, as I recall).

This year has indeed been a year of great parity. A 10-6 team didn't make the dance while a 7-9 team did. Yet, you had a dominant team in the AFC in the Patriots. And some are debating whether parity mediocrity. Paritiy would argue that multiple teams are capable of winning the Super Bowl. I don't know that this is the case. I think there is one team that's Super Bowl caliber and 3 or 4 teams capable of an upset. That said, it would not surprise me at all to see the Seabirds play for the NFC title. They're that streaky, and the Bears are that vulnerable.

 

Not all 6-10 teams are alike. The Lions were a very good 6-10 team. In fact, just a few plays here and there, and they are easily 9-7 or 10-6. Now if you look at a team like the Carolina Panthers - they were many, many plays away from being even an average team.

My point is, there is not much difference between the Bears and Lions this year, and that's pretty sad for the Bears since the Lions were without its starting QB most of the year.

Like I said, wait till next year! Lions will be in the playoffs. Bears won't.

 

One thing all 6-10 teams have in common: someone beat them.....ten times.:tongue3:

The Lions might be a "good" 6-10 team, but they were 6-10. I can't think of a handful of plays you assert would give them an extra four wins. I could easily make that argument for the Bengals being a few plays from being 8-8. But they didn't make those plays. Neither did the Lions. So they ended up 6-10.

They might very well make the playoffs next year. But we'll have to wait until next year. Until then, they'll have a great pick in the draft again due to their poor record, and should fill a need.

When are we talking about the HOF selections this year? Start a thread, man!

 

Who said the Bears are a great team?

You are what your record says you are. Am I the only one that believes this? 6-10 teams are bad. A team that loses 60% of its games is a bad team.

Every team in the NFL, except maybe the Patriots, can say, "just a few plays here and there and we would have a better record." The fact is that the Liedowns didn't make those plays because the team wasn't good enough to make those plays.

Why are you bringing up the Panthers? The Panthers finished 2-14. They were hideous. The Liedowns were a better team.

The Bears won 11 games and the Liedowns won 6 games. For those scoring at home, that's a difference of 5 games. 5 games isn't much difference? I sincerely hope that both the Liedowns GM and Head Coach subscribes to your idea of reality.

Chicago Cubs fan nodding his head in agreement.

Maybe, maybe not. Before the season started, most Bears fans didn't think the Bears would win 11 games and make the playoffs.

 

I would say 6-10 is mediocre, especially when you consider the Lions lost 6 games by less than a touchdown (i.e., 1 or 2 plays away from winning those games). If a 6-10 team lost all of their games by more than 10 points or so, then that team would be considered "bad."

Meanwhile, the Bears won 7 of their games by a TD or less, which is why I also classify them as "mediocre." FWIW, I think most teams in the NFL are mediocre - thus all the parity.

Or it could be plain old bad luck. Luck plays into sports more than we care to admit. Theologically speaking, I don't believe in luck. However, in sports "luck" is a factor all the time.

I brought them up, because only 2 of their losses were less than a TD. Thus, they really had no chance of bettering their lot - best they maybe could've mustered was 4-12. Whereas, the Lions could've possibly been 12-4, or more realistically something like 9-7 or 10-6. The Panthers would've never gotten close to even 8-8. Panthers can rightfully be called "bad." Lions are not.

As I pointed out above, many of the Bears wins were close and many of the Lions losses were close. Some of the difference can be accounted for good luck/bad luck.

I think that is the bottom line why you protesting so much - you know that you soon can no longer derisively call them the "Liedowns" because it is clear that this organization is improving and will soon be better than your Bears. To sum up, you are sad that you soon will no longer use your cute little nickname for them. They are breathing down your neck and you don't like it.

 

CCROB wrote:

Did you not read what I wrote?

A TD is more than just one or two plays.

I'm in a place I never thought I'd be in. I'm trying to convice someone that 6-10 is a bad record, and I'm defending the Bears :tongue3:

 

If you think I'm going to stop calling them the Liedowns anytime soon, you don't me know very well.

 

Rarely. Many times just 1 or 2 plays is a difference between a TD or no TD.

3-13 is a "bad" record. 6-10 or even 5-11 can be considered mediocre in context (i.e., how bad were the losses).

 

As I said before, I hope the Liedowns GM and Head Coach embraces your version of reality. I think the Liedowns are on the way up, but unless they see the reality of the situation, which is that the 2010 team was a bad team, they're not going to get better.

Fortunately, my team didn't look at their season last year and say that they would have been better than 7-9 if Urlacher hadn't been injured. Jerry Angelo and Lovie Smith saw the reality that they were a bad team and they did what they had to do to turn it into a good team.

I realize how blinded you are by homerism, so it doesn't bother me that you won't acknowledge that the Bears are good, or that your team is bad.

 

No homerism - just my view on the NFL. This year I think there were about 5 good teams, 5 bad teams and the rest were mediocre to varying degrees.

 

BTW, this is kind of silly retort, because even if the Lions see themselves among the 20 or so mediocre teams like I do, that's not going to keep them from wanting to get better. There's always room for improvement, so even if the Lions GM and coaches do not see themselves as "bad," that does not mean they won't work to get better. Silly.

 

Think that if you will. It just isn't true on balance.

See above

Again...why are we chasing this tail? Let's talk about the HOF!

 

I watched a decent amount of Detroit this year and they were a mediocre team IMO. If they played in the west I think they could've won the division with a 9-7 record. But it is what it is. I do think however their is a big difference in a 6-10 team vs. a 11-5 team. There's parity but not to the point where a 6-10 team is on par with playoff teams.

 

Jets-Steelers

Packers-Bears

Who ya got?

I'm predicting Packers and Steelers SB with the Packers winning.

 

I dont hear anything on your perditions for the Jets though.....and you a Met's fan. Have you been to the old Shea stadium?

 

I went to Shea but I haven't yet been to Citi Field. The Mets are the only New York area team of which I'm a fan. When it comes to football I'm a Panthers fan, so I didn't have much to cheer for this year other then my fantasy football team, which lost in the first round of the playoffs. :tear:

 

Championship Game picks

Chicago over Green Bay
New York over Pittsburgh


The Bears pick is not just because they're my team. It's also because they have a very good defense that limited the Packers to 10 points in week 17 in a game the Packers absolutely had to have. It's also because the Bears have the "Nobody Believes in Us" thing going for them. Even after getting to the NFC Championship Game, they're still getting no respect as being a good team. And I can see that. They were given a gift in week 1 against the Liedowns and they gave up 47 sacks to the Giants on national TV and everybody knows that football teams don't improve over the course of a season. I wish they would have beat the Packers in week 17, because they were the only NFC Team that I feared.

New York over Pittsburgh is because the Steelers offensive line is just that, offensive. Rex Ryan knows what he's doing as a coach and I think he and his coaches will create another brilliant defensive game plan to beat the Steelers.

As far as those who dislike Rex Ryan and all his talk, I've heard several callers on the Nashville sports radio show atrocities complain about Rex Ryan and how much they want him to lose. And, I mean that these callers are taking an inordinate amount of glee about wanting the Jets to lose. And I have to ask why. If you're a Titans fan, and your team isn't playing the Jets, why does it matter if the Jets lose? Why would their trash talk matter?

I'd like to the Jets win, if only because Rex Ryan will talk for the following 2 weeks and maybe we'll have some fun in the No Fun League.

 

cc, I'll go oppo from you (to keep in line with our badgering) and pick the Packers and Steelers.

I too would like to see the Jets win, because I don't want the Steelers to win yet again. And yes, it would be fun to have the Jets in there, although I can see why some people get annoyed with the Jets - they aren't very likable. But for some reason, I like them better than the Steelers. However, I think the Jets' nice run ends this week - I think the Steelers defense will be too good. I see a score of like 14-10, Steelers.

Packers-Bears will also be close because both defenses are good. Packers win 17-13. If the Bears win, they will be one of the worst teams to ever make the Super Bowl. In fact, I can't think of a worse team in S.B. history. Maybe the '85 Pats.