jason Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 I think 10-6. Even better...11-5. Granted it was 10-5 without Brady, but I'd say that's pretty good with Matt Cassell. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/2008.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 I wonder why he would want to go to that mess. I know he is bro's with Lovie, but that team is a mess. Dallas on the other hand was a few plays from being in the conference championship. Because they are very good friends. It's really that simple. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 I wonder why he would want to go to that mess. I know he is bro's with Lovie, but that team is a mess. Dallas on the other hand was a few plays from being in the conference championship. That team shouldn't have been they mess they are. I was shocked at how bad they were when there really is a lot of talent on that team. If they don't start winning some games next year then I can see Lovie getting the boot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackerDog Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 He was 71-55 (56.3%) with Urlacher and 2-10 (16.6%) without Urlacher. Your source shows Urlacher only started one game in 2009 and the Bears went 7-9 that season. I can't recall the exact details of 2009 but just thought I'd point out that your 2-10 without Urlacher may not be completely accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 Your source shows Urlacher only started one game in 2009 and the Bears went 7-9 that season. I can't recall the exact details of 2009 but just thought I'd point out that your 2-10 without Urlacher may not be completely accurate. Good catch. That 2009 season makes the data I put there completely wrong. IDK how in the hell I got what I did. I must have had too many windows open, or got one game log breakdown confused for another. 0-7 without Urlacher in 2004. 7-8 without Urlacher in 2009. 7-15 total, 46.6%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackerDog Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 Good catch. No problem. By the way, there's still no way to know for sure but I've come a long way toward your opinion that the Bears would've been a better football team had they signed him for an extra year. Hell, for that matter, even though I completely understand why they let Hester go, it would've at least been something interesting to watch on Sunday while the Bears stumbled along this season. In hindsight I wish we'd have treated those greats better than we did at the ends of their careers here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'TD' Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 Good catch. That 2009 season makes the data I put there completely wrong. IDK how in the hell I got what I did. I must have had too many windows open, or got one game log breakdown confused for another. 0-7 without Urlacher in 2004. 7-8 without Urlacher in 2009. 7-15 total, 46.6%. Wouldn't that be 7 wins divided by 22 total games, or 32%? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 Wouldn't that be 7 wins divided by 22 total games, or 32%? Yeah it is 32%, but either way that is a surprising stat that Lovie only won 1/3 of his games without Urlacher. If you count his 2-14 in TB without Urlacher, he is only 9-29 (23.6%). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.