adam Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I remember during the Vikings game Aikman mentioning that if the Bears had a few less turnovers (mainly INTs) in the close losses the Bears could've had 3 more wins than they currently have. I understand the what-ifs are BS, but....... Looking back at the games, Cutler had 4 INTs vs GB and we lost by 6. Against ATL, we had 2 INTs and a fumble and lost by 7. Against SF Cutler had 5 INTs and we lost by 4. I just wonder what the state of the team (mentality-wise) would be right now if we were sitting at 7-4 in the WC hunt. Regardless, it is amazing how a season can change so drastically from 2-3 plays in a few games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I remember during the Vikings game Aikman mentioning that if the Bears had a few less turnovers (mainly INTs) in the close losses the Bears could've had 3 more wins than they currently have. I understand the what-ifs are BS, but....... Looking back at the games, Cutler had 4 INTs vs GB and we lost by 6. Against ATL, we had 2 INTs and a fumble and lost by 7. Against SF Cutler had 5 INTs and we lost by 4. I just wonder what the state of the team (mentality-wise) would be right now if we were sitting at 7-4 in the WC hunt. Regardless, it is amazing how a season can change so drastically from 2-3 plays in a few games. You could also go back and do the same thing with the defense though as well. Although Cutler had 4 INT's in the GB we still had the lead late in that game. Against Philly we had the lead twice in the 2nd half and both times the Defense surrenders TD's. The defense allowed 300 yards and 24 pts to the Vikings in the 1st half. Also surrended 31 pts to both the Bengals and the Cardinals. The defense ranks as one of the worst on 3rd down conversions. The defense also ranks as one of the worst in the red zone. Generally speaking this year the only time the Defense can get off the field is when they allow the opponent to score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Back to the offense, I have also made this argument. No one wants the picks, but picks are part of what you get when you are aggresive and try to make something out of nothing. It could be argued that the only reason we were in some of those games was due to such an aggressive style of play. If we went back to a system where we don't play aggressive, we may have fewer turnovers, but I think we would also see far more 3 and outs and a worse TOP ratio. If we don't take chances and continuasly go 3 and out, how much more would our defense get beaten? If we go 3 and out and lose the field position battle, is our defense good enough to compensate? Not from what I have seen. So we could ask whether we would be better off w/o the picks, but that really puts a simplistic spin on this. To avoid the picks, you have to be less aggressive. We do not have a defense capable of compensating for a conservative offense, and thus, I think we still lose games at the end of the day. You could also go back and do the same thing with the defense though as well. Although Cutler had 4 INT's in the GB we still had the lead late in that game. Against Philly we had the lead twice in the 2nd half and both times the Defense surrenders TD's. The defense allowed 300 yards and 24 pts to the Vikings in the 1st half. Also surrended 31 pts to both the Bengals and the Cardinals. The defense ranks as one of the worst on 3rd down conversions. The defense also ranks as one of the worst in the red zone. Generally speaking this year the only time the Defense can get off the field is when they allow the opponent to score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted December 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Just crazy to think we are on the verge of records for rushing futility. The Bears are on a pace for the fewest rushing attempts in a season for 16 games with only 232 attempts. The current low mark is 383. They’re averaging just below 4 yards a carry and could break the ’07 team record of fewest rushing yards (1,330) in a season. In Sunday’s game, they had no rushing first downs for only the fifth time in franchise history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Without even looking at the breakdown of games or stats, the obvious answer to this is yes. Anyone who says otherwise didn't watch the games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBearSox Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 This is like Dan Hawkins saying that it was a matter of 7 to 10 plays this season and CU could have been a bowl team.... We know what we see on the field, we know we are horrible....don't break it down to specific plays...its the whole team that loses a game...not just one pick, or one non defensive stop... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Quickly... 1: Should have been a win 2: W 3: W 4: W Bye 5: Should have been a win 6: Got killed 7: W 8: W 9: Got killed 10: Should have been a win 11: Should have been a win 12: Got killed That's 8-3 right there. Very easily could have been 7-4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearFan2000 Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 we could also be 2-9 two of our 4 wins were close ones as well. IMO Coulda, whoulda, shoulda... Reality is inescapable we are 4-7 and are fortunate to be that. If we had decent coaching and the players played like the gave a crap sure we could have a better record could be a better team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TerraTor Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 we could be 11-0 if we werent pathetic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 we could be 11-0 if we werent pathetic No, we'd be 11-0 if we were great. Even without turnovers and a somewhat good OL, we'd be a 7-8 win team. This is not a Colts or Saints type team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selection7 Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 It's not profound to say that without our turnovers in our close games we'd have won them. That's the way the NFL works. Win the turnover battle by 2 or more and you've pretty much got a win...have less serious injuries than 80% of the league and you've pretty much made the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 we could be 11-0 if we werent pathetic Yeah, that is a tad ridiculous. There are three games in which the Bears got completely housed. Those are in no way going to be wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 Yeah, but the Steelers and Seahawks should have been losses... So at best, that's 6-5, and closer to the 5-6 mark... Quickly... 1: Should have been a win 2: W 3: W 4: W Bye 5: Should have been a win 6: Got killed 7: W 8: W 9: Got killed 10: Should have been a win 11: Should have been a win 12: Got killed That's 8-3 right there. Very easily could have been 7-4. 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.