jason Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 It is ridiculous having to come on this board to defend the Bears against so-called Bears fans who are now nothing but shills for Packers fans. To simply side with Packers fans that they are better and offer only a critique of our team yet do ZERO analysis of their last ranked defense and other issues can only mean one thing...that's where your heart lies. 32 Green Bay Packers 16 22.4 359 1,049 411.6 6.3 22.4 83 195 43 4 16 25 122 948 29:31 19 7 Even if we had the worst record in the NFL I'd still want to kick the tar out of GB and I'd never ever bow down before one of their fans like that. Ridiculous? Nobody sided with the Packers. Nobody mentioned their offense or defense in the original post. To say someone on this board is a "so-called Bears fan" - and the implication is that you're referring to me - is ridiculous. And to be quite frank, you shove it. I'm one of the most die-hard Bears fans you'll ever meet. My house is littered with Bears' gear. I got my entire family cheering for them. I turned relatives from Packer fans. My sister bought a Farv jersey and I made her return it. I taught non-football friends the Bears fight song. I sing the same song to my newborn. I travel every year from the southeast for at least one game. I went bare-chested and painted up to the coldest game in Bears history. What's ridiculous is your reading comprehension. If you don't realize from my linked post that the list from the packer's fan is nothing more than a bunch of worst-case scenario situations that have been commented on and agreed with by nearly this entire board, then you haven't been paying attention. One doesn't have to be a 100% optimist and team-defender to be a loyal fan. The team is not above being questioned. Every item on the list is a true statement. IF one of those items doesn't come true, the Bears will have a difficult time this year. BrianBear did a quick-and-dirty version of what it would like for a Bears fan to make a similar list for the Packers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 I'm not seeing this list as anything other than completely accurate. 1. The OL has sucked for multiple years. Cutler has been pounded more than a girl on the bang bus. ---To be fair, Rodgers hasn't exactly been standing up straight for most of the past 2 years. Yes, his OL is better than the Bears' is, but it's not like it's better by light years. The packers OL was not mentioned in the original post. Hence, I did not address a comparison. The fact remains, the Bears OL has probably been the worst OL in the NFL over the past few years. 2. Marshall has a personality disorder, a DUI, suspicions of domestic abuse, more than one battery charge, and was stabbed by his wife. Not to mention other random run-ins with the law. ---Obviously, you're correct, but I guarantee no Bears player who will at a strip club on the South Side of the city after a loss. I have no proof, but I truly believe Marshall's violent days are by him. He has his best friend as his QB and he's already done more interviews than his whole career. On top of it, he's been very forthcoming on his negative image. Exactly. And I share the hope that he has put it all behind him. 3. Cutler is a sour-puss. I don't know if this really matters on the field, and I think it's been played up, but some on this board have even said his demeanor affects the team. ---I don't even know what this means anymore. A "sour puss." He wasn't a sour puss when they were a top 5 offense from weeks 4-8 last year. Watch the mic'd Cutler game vs Carolina. He and Urlacher are joking all game together. He hangs out with Moore and Bennett off the field. Does he make a mean face when he throws a pick? Yeah, and that's good. I'd much rather that than him throwing his teammates under the bus like Peyton Manning does every week. Does he call his OC out at times (Martz)? Yeah, and we all loved it because Martz was a dips***. Cutler is an intelligent guy. His moves are calculated. I don't think he's a sour puss. I think he's an ultra competitive guy who wants to lead a boring life off the field (which got 10x more difficult when he got Cavallari pregnant). Just because he doesn't open Jimmy John's all across North America like Brees or model Uggs and Under Armour like Brady doesn't make him a sour puss. The original post made no reference to the affect Cutler's pouty face has on his playing. I think it's been completely blown out of proportion. However, it has been a major media issue, and only someone who has missed all the Bears games would say Cutler is affable on the sideline. Quite often he looks like he's pouting. It could just be his facial structure. Ultimately, it means nothing, but it doesn't change the fact that he often looks sullen. 4. The defense is getting old. The window is closing. ---The defense is getting old? All 32 team's defenses got old this past year. They all added a year to their lives. Yes, their window is closing, as are many team's. If they hit on McClellin, Jeffery, and Hardin, it's not closing. Obviously everyone is getting chronologically older. The post was in reference to the "NFL-age" of the Bears defense. If you sort their roster by age, it's readily apparent the majority of the defensive stars are the oldest people on the team. 5. Until I see otherwise, I don't know for sure if the safeties can play. The Bears have been looking for a safety since Mike Brown left. ---Conte was pretty good last year. I believe SportingNews had him on their All-Rookie team. Don't forget, Green Bay might have the worst safeties in football outside of Minnesota. Yes, Conte was pretty good. But we've been relatively pleased with a rookie safety one or two times in the past. I want to see continued success before I go all-in. For now I'm cautiously optimistic. 6. I don't know if intelligence is the issue - and I certainly don't think the Randy Ratio is a bad idea (giving the ball to the most talented player in the league as much as possible is bad?) - but we have yet to see him call an offensive gameplan. And judging from his personnel decisions on the OL, I can't say I'm very confident he will be able to produce a product much better than before. ---Tice will still be the OL coach for the most part. He has the "OC" title, but he'll be primarily with the OL while Bates is the OC. Book it If you're right, then the OC hire/promotion/sham was a bad move by the Bears organization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 The world is made of visionaries, prognosticators, naysayers, zealots and fools. This board is a dichotomy. Why do we get so miffed when one of our own pisses in the kool-aid a little? Did any of you have the balls to refute this article on a Packer site? Yet we want to flame our guy for having a very valid opinion. Save it for the Cheeseheads! I think some of the reason some of us get "miffed" is for the same reason the Bears and Packers have a rivalry. If you love your team and hear (read) someone within take to task the negatives of the team, you're going to challenge those points. And if that person regularly challenges by throwing up the "what it's" and appears to be negative they are either a devils advocate (not bad), pessimistic (meh), or a plant. As far as "pissing in the Koop aid", I'm personally someone who enjoys my meals deficate free. With regards to challenging the Packer fans on their home turf, let me tell you I'm a Democrat with MANY Republican friends. To try and go into "enemy territory" and stir the pot isnt smart or brave, it's foolhardy...and pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 beat you to that punch... http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...rt=#entry107652 See? Every team has "if's" going into 2012. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 Trying to be as objective as possible...which for me is a very difficult thing!...and I have been a huge nay-sayer about many elements of this team in the past. What I gather is that there is some huge positive momentum. Even folks like myself that are usually very harsh on the team, are seeing real positives going on. So, when it looks like the tide is turning in the right direction, I think some folks get a bit more miffed at the negativity. Also, nothing being said now, as pointed out by a few, hasn't been said before. It's the off-season. I get it. It's time to flog the dead horse because there isn't much else going on. It just seems like not only is the horse dead, it's turned to ash and has blown away in the wind. We all get the following as basic pro football 101: 1. A suspect line makes people nervous 2. Any star player going down will have an adverse impact on the team. 3. poor performance due to age, scheme or anything else is a downer. Those 3 elements are all that I got the Packer dolt saying. Nothing new. Just the obvious. As Brian pointed out, we can easily say the same about their team. Or the Colts who lost Manning last year, etc... I just think the overall vibe has been very positive, and when the negative winds come in off the lake, some people just aren't digging it. I don't really mind. I've spewed my fair share of pi$$ n' vinegar. I like the back the forth. I love the passion. I don't believe I've ever questioned anyone's loyalty, because I know if I got questioned I'd be pi$$ed off. It's not the amount of gear you own or anything else. Not everyone can afford gear. But it's in your heart. And I think all of us have that in large amounts here. I say cheers to the negativity. Cheers to the positivity. And a big f*&%in' cheers to us winning the Super Bowl this year! The world is made of visionaries, prognosticators, naysayers, zealots and fools. This board is a dichotomy. Why do we get so miffed when one of our own pisses in the kool-aid a little? Did any of you have the balls to refute this article on a Packer site? Yet we want to flame our guy for having a very valid opinion. Save it for the Cheeseheads! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 PS - Why would I ever visit a Packer site? I'd rather watch crap float in a toilet on a infinite loop than expose myself to the sheer volume of idiocy and grotesqueness. Did any of you have the balls to refute this article on a Packer site? Yet we want to flame our guy for having a very valid opinion. Save it for the Cheeseheads! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 The world is made of visionaries, prognosticators, naysayers, zealots and fools. This board is a dichotomy. Why do we get so miffed when one of our own pisses in the kool-aid a little? Did any of you have the balls to refute this article on a Packer site? Yet we want to flame our guy for having a very valid opinion. Save it for the Cheeseheads! Being critical of the Bears is fine, we do a great job of it and it's our job as fans and it is why I like this board. Siding with a Packers fan who will only criticize our team while ignoring their own weaknesses is not what a Bears fan does. I'm not visiting a Packers site because I'm not a Packers fan. Besides, what intelligent discussion will there be? How their DBs are going to cover Marshall? Or how Marshall is headed to jail? Cutler's pouty face or how Cutler was on pace to throw for well over 4000 yards last year despite playing in Martz' bad offense? Who will their LT be? You would think with all of criticism leveled at our Oline he'd be quick to point out this one glaring issue for GB: THEIR LT RANKED LOWER THAN WEBB ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/cam...-162815456.html 3. Is Marshall Newhouse the answer at left tackle? In relief of Chad Clifton, he was good enough for the Packers to score the second-most points ever last season. That can't be underestimated, but Newhouse's baptism at left tackle was anything but smooth. He didn't fare well against Jason Pierre-Paul, Jared Allen and Tamba Hali - the league's premier ends. On Pro Football Focus' grading scale, Newhouse ranked last overall among offensive tackles. The job is his to lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 Ok, the point of my posts wasn't to poke fun at jason or anything. Jason might just be the most knowledgable poster on this board. The point was that every team might be good this year. However, by week 3, half of those teams don't have those "ifs" come true, and are 1-2 and 0-3 to start tne year. The Packers' fans DO have a right to say potential weaknesses in this Bears' team, just as Ravens' fans can do the same for the Steelers or the Patriots' fans can do the same with the Jets. That Packers fan is right. There are question marks. Bringing a post like this to a Bears board is asking for trouble. Packers' fans, from my experiences, hate the Vikings more than the Bears. They also couldn't care less about the Bears because the Bears haven't necessarily been a huge threat to them over the past decade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 I thought exactly that about your post. And similarly about jason's. I get where everyone is coming from. I have experienced differently with Packers fans. The one's I've known and have come across hate the Bears far more the the Vikings. Yes, more recently, they hated the Vikes due to the Favre thing, but overall, the rivalry is with the Bears. Most are older, so it could be a generational thing. I vehemently despise the Packers and just hate the Vikes and Lions. One team is a winner and a threat. The others are just pesky gnats who haven't won jack ever. Ok, the point of my posts wasn't to poke fun at jason or anything. Jason might just be the most knowledgable poster on this board. The point was that every team might be good this year. However, by week 3, half of those teams don't have those "ifs" come true, and are 1-2 and 0-3 to start tne year. The Packers' fans DO have a right to say potential weaknesses in this Bears' team, just as Ravens' fans can do the same for the Steelers or the Patriots' fans can do the same with the Jets. That Packers fan is right. There are question marks. Bringing a post like this to a Bears board is asking for trouble. Packers' fans, from my experiences, hate the Vikings more than the Bears. They also couldn't care less about the Bears because the Bears haven't necessarily been a huge threat to them over the past decade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flea Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 So legitimate concerns (except the ridiculous sourpuss) but brought up by packer fan = riled up Bears fans hurry up camp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 Being critical of the Bears is fine, we do a great job of it and it's our job as fans and it is why I like this board. Siding with a Packers fan who will only criticize our team while ignoring their own weaknesses is not what a Bears fan does. I'm not visiting a Packers site because I'm not a Packers fan. Besides, what intelligent discussion will there be? How their DBs are going to cover Marshall? Or how Marshall is headed to jail? Cutler's pouty face or how Cutler was on pace to throw for well over 4000 yards last year despite playing in Martz' bad offense? Who will their LT be? You would think with all of criticism leveled at our Oline he'd be quick to point out this one glaring issue for GB: THEIR LT RANKED LOWER THAN WEBB ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/cam...-162815456.html 3. Is Marshall Newhouse the answer at left tackle? In relief of Chad Clifton, he was good enough for the Packers to score the second-most points ever last season. That can't be underestimated, but Newhouse's baptism at left tackle was anything but smooth. He didn't fare well against Jason Pierre-Paul, Jared Allen and Tamba Hali - the league's premier ends. On Pro Football Focus' grading scale, Newhouse ranked last overall among offensive tackles. The job is his to lose. Again. The original post was filled of "what ifs" about the Bears. It was not a collection of "what ifs" about the Packers. If it were the latter, I likely wouldn't have spent much time in the thread unless people were posting photoshopped images of Farv, Rodgers, and Madden in a polygamous marriage ceremony. Because then the humor would have made the thread worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 With regards to challenging the Packer fans on their home turf, let me tell you I'm a Democrat with MANY Republican friends. To try and go into "enemy territory" and stir the pot isnt smart or brave, it's foolhardy...and pointless. Never done it myself. That was kind of my point. Why would we waste our time refuting what they say about us? It would make more sense to make a stand against them, than against our own. (Even a Dem should understand that ) Even more pointless is challenging a fan, on this boards', loyalty to the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 Again. The original post was filled of "what ifs" about the Bears. It was not a collection of "what ifs" about the Packers. If it were the latter, I likely wouldn't have spent much time in the thread unless people were posting photoshopped images of Farv, Rodgers, and Madden in a polygamous marriage ceremony. Because then the humor would have made the thread worth it. It's the reading comprehension thing I guess I missed on in grade school but these words were in the original post which you agreed with: ----------------------------- "They’ll compete for a wildcard this year if all these things go well for them, but they are NOT a threat to the Packers in the NFCN. GB wins the division this year by 3 games. At the very least." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All things weren't going well for us last year and we competed very well for the division title until week 10. In week 1 we started Webb at LT. Then we lost Carimi for the season. Then we put Omiyale at RTurnstyle which then forced us to put our still learning RG at RT. In week 2 we lost our best WR Bennett for something like 6 games. In week 5 Peppers almost blew out his knee and was never the same the rest of the season. Clearly it all went downhill once Cutler went down but until that point we were competing despite some very significant losses on a roster with no depth at many positions. We still have holes at starting positions and spots with little depth but we have improved in many areas. I think we can tolerate losing Cutler for a few games much better than last year. We can lose Earl Bennett for a few games much better than last year. With Alshon Jeffrey we could probably survive losing Marshall for a few games too. I don't see Tice having to be a perfect play caller to be better than Martz was. As if that's such a high threshold. Packer fan says we are ZERO threat to their team and I disagree. They are the better team but 3 games better? I haven't even gone into their weaknesses and in typical Packer see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil style neither did he/she. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 All things weren't going well for us last year and we competed very well for the division title until week 10. In week 1 we started Webb at LT. Then we lost Carimi for the season. Then we put Omiyale at RTurnstyle which then forced us to put our still learning RG at RT. In week 2 we lost our best WR Bennett for something like 6 games. In week 5 Peppers almost blew out his knee and was never the same the rest of the season. Clearly it all went downhill once Cutler went down but until that point we were competing despite some very significant losses on a roster with no depth at many positions. We still have holes at starting positions and spots with little depth but we have improved in many areas. I think we can tolerate losing Cutler for a few games much better than last year. We can lose Earl Bennett for a few games much better than last year. With Alshon Jeffrey we could probably survive losing Marshall for a few games too. I don't see Tice having to be a perfect play caller to be better than Martz was. As if that's such a high threshold. Packer fan says we are ZERO threat to their team and I disagree. They are the better team but 3 games better? I haven't even gone into their weaknesses and in typical Packer see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil style neither did he/she. You were right that the team did suffer some significant losses (or near losses) and still managed to play pretty well. Despite themselves in regards to Martz being the play caller and Tice slowly and progressively putting together a decent OL. I think the team will vastly improve, partly due to the points you made, but also by "addition by subtraction". In this case, with Martz gone, Tice has it "easier" as Cutler is a pretty capable QB and has been given the reigns (if you will) to run the offense more to his liking. Add to that he has gotten Marshall and Bates on the staff to help him improve. Someone on the board (sorry can't remember who exactly) did a comparitive listing of the Bears players to the Packers players (QB-QB, WR-WR etc) and just in that comparison it is simple to see that the Bears actually do add up to the Packers. Historically the Bears have done better against the Packers. They don't always win but the Packers don't usually score a load of points like they do against other teams. What that tells me is the Bear defense is able to hold it's own and the Offense struggled. After this year I think those struggles will be a thing of the past. And I too disagree with the Packers doing better than the Bears by three games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesson44 Posted July 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 You were right that the team did suffer some significant losses (or near losses) and still managed to play pretty well. Despite themselves in regards to Martz being the play caller and Tice slowly and progressively putting together a decent OL. I think the team will vastly improve, partly due to the points you made, but also by "addition by subtraction". In this case, with Martz gone, Tice has it "easier" as Cutler is a pretty capable QB and has been given the reigns (if you will) to run the offense more to his liking. Add to that he has gotten Marshall and Bates on the staff to help him improve. Someone on the board (sorry can't remember who exactly) did a comparitive listing of the Bears players to the Packers players (QB-QB, WR-WR etc) and just in that comparison it is simple to see that the Bears actually do add up to the Packers. Historically the Bears have done better against the Packers. They don't always win but the Packers don't usually score a load of points like they do against other teams. What that tells me is the Bear defense is able to hold it's own and the Offense struggled. After this year I think those struggles will be a thing of the past. And I too disagree with the Packers doing better than the Bears by three games. That was me that did the comparitive listing of the Bears players to the Packers players, but IMHO its like you said the Bears play well against the Packers and they don't score a lot of points against us....its like the last four games I think the closest margin of winning was 20-17 we won and they won 35-21 as the biggest margin. So 14 points is the mark. and in the games we lost....if we had a little more firepower at WR(like we do now) then we would maybe even won two of those games. The Chiefs beat them with a strong running game and using the TE in the midle of the field. They had a strong pass rush also. The Giants beat them with a strong pass rush and using the 4 WR set that the Packers use. 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.