No Love from the "Experts", Preseason Power Rankings Options

[nfoligno]

Personally, I just want to win. If we win the SB 42-34, I'll take that.

The game has changed. The defenses we once had would be awful today because they would draw a flag on every freaking down. Sure, you can stil have a D that smack the other team in the mouth, and I miss that, but I can't say I would rather a great defense on a 6 win team over an average D on a 10 win team.

As for the offense, times have changed. Not many teams win anymore if they can't score, and score a lot.

St louis is made for scoring, San Francisco was always known for their offense. BEARS TRADITION IS DEFENSE DEFENSE DEFENSE and being able to run the ball. Lovie's D. will never win in Chicago. We need singltary or cower or someone similar to be our coach. I loved Bears football more when we were winning 6-8 games a year in the 70's, 80's, and some of the 90's when we were hurting people on offense, more than winning 8-10 games and giving up 24- 40 points a game. "I want my Bears back"

[MadLithuanian]

Cop out answer!

We all want to just win! I'd have Brett Favre coach us if it meant winning a Super Bowl and being great for years... (But I reserve the right to reverse that just becasue I hate him so much....) But you get the point.

The key is trying to play the game of fantasy ower with some realism. We fans will never run the circus, but the key is to try to find a realistic option that gets us to the desired goal. I think Cowher is one of a few that could. I'd have loved Singletary. Especially over the current regime. And as you mentioned before, we're probably stuck with this (lack of) brain trust through next year unless something miraculous happens with the CBA before season's end...or we Marinelli it to a winless season.

I would honestly love an oeeensive minded HC. A line guy. I'd really like Russ Grimm. I likve his playing and coaching experience. But, if we had to go D, I like the other Ryan brother, or Rivera if that bridge hasn't been burned. Heck, I'd even consider McGinnis if that were a possibility. But the McCaskey circle seems to have burned those bridges w/o knowing more.

...and I still think we need a real GM.

Now I'm just rambling! Sorry!

Personally, I just want to win. If we win the SB 42-34, I'll take that.

The game has changed. The defenses we once had would be awful today because they would draw a flag on every freaking down. Sure, you can stil have a D that smack the other team in the mouth, and I miss that, but I can't say I would rather a great defense on a 6 win team over an average D on a 10 win team.

As for the offense, times have changed. Not many teams win anymore if they can't score, and score a lot.

[nfoligno]

Not a copout at all. I was replying to the following statement,

I loved Bears football more when we were winning 6-8 games a year in the 70's, 80's, and some of the 90's when we were hurting people on offense, more than winning 8-10 games and giving up 24- 40 points a game.

He flat said he liked it better when we were losing due to the teams identity at that time rather than when we were winning with a different identity. My point is, regardless of identity, winning is what matters the most to me.

I do agree with you about the OL coach to HC. I too always liked Grimm, and frankly, he was one I wanted over Lovie back in the day.

Back to identity, sure, I would love to bring back some of the old school mentality, but to an extent, there are aspects of it I do not necessarily want back. Many talk about the good old days of running the football, but lets be honest for a moment. Go back to even the 80s teams and look at the offense. Payton was awesome to watch, but that offense was far from great. If we didn't have the defense we did, how great would that team have been.

Today, how many teams win with that smash mouth running game? Indy, NE, NO and most other winning programs I can think of in recent seasons have been able to attack through the air and score. That doesn't mean you don't run the ball, but I just question if that old bear offense is really what we should be wanting.

Cop out answer!

We all want to just win! I'd have Brett Favre coach us if it meant winning a Super Bowl and being great for years... (But I reserve the right to reverse that just becasue I hate him so much....) But you get the point.

The key is trying to play the game of fantasy ower with some realism. We fans will never run the circus, but the key is to try to find a realistic option that gets us to the desired goal. I think Cowher is one of a few that could. I'd have loved Singletary. Especially over the current regime. And as you mentioned before, we're probably stuck with this (lack of) brain trust through next year unless something miraculous happens with the CBA before season's end...or we Marinelli it to a winless season.

I would honestly love an oeeensive minded HC. A line guy. I'd really like Russ Grimm. I likve his playing and coaching experience. But, if we had to go D, I like the other Ryan brother, or Rivera if that bridge hasn't been burned. Heck, I'd even consider McGinnis if that were a possibility. But the McCaskey circle seems to have burned those bridges w/o knowing more.

...and I still think we need a real GM.

Now I'm just rambling! Sorry!

[MadLithuanian]

I follow....

I'm no so worried about the running game. Honestly, until a Payton or Sayers drops on our laps, we do what we can with what we've got. I'm really speaking in sense that Bears football is defense. We own the hall of fame with defenders. We have our fare share of O guys, but the Bears are about D. And when we play as poorly as we have the past 3 years, it just breaks my heart. You pretty much mention the same if I read your post correctly...

Not a copout at all. I was replying to the following statement,

I loved Bears football more when we were winning 6-8 games a year in the 70's, 80's, and some of the 90's when we were hurting people on offense, more than winning 8-10 games and giving up 24- 40 points a game.

He flat said he liked it better when we were losing due to the teams identity at that time rather than when we were winning with a different identity. My point is, regardless of identity, winning is what matters the most to me.

I do agree with you about the OL coach to HC. I too always liked Grimm, and frankly, he was one I wanted over Lovie back in the day.

Back to identity, sure, I would love to bring back some of the old school mentality, but to an extent, there are aspects of it I do not necessarily want back. Many talk about the good old days of running the football, but lets be honest for a moment. Go back to even the 80s teams and look at the offense. Payton was awesome to watch, but that offense was far from great. If we didn't have the defense we did, how great would that team have been.

Today, how many teams win with that smash mouth running game? Indy, NE, NO and most other winning programs I can think of in recent seasons have been able to attack through the air and score. That doesn't mean you don't run the ball, but I just question if that old bear offense is really what we should be wanting.

[nfoligno]

No argument.

I have always said, go back and look at Lovie when he was the DC in Stl. He earned a reputation for having Ds that could create a ton of turnovers, but at the same time, they also gave up a lot of points and were really not that good. Much of his success was due to having an offense that forced teams to be one dimensional. In Chicago, I thought we were better with Rivera, but even then, felt Lovie held the team back.

I will always go back to the Az game some years ago as my example. In the first half, a rookie QB was tearing us apart as we ran a very Lovie style scheme. We were not aggressive, played off WRs and pretty much gave until we broke. In the 2nd half, from everything I read, Rivera simply took over, and the difference in the team was very obvious. Our CBs were playing on top of the LOS. We were blitzing from just about every angle. We had that "Remember the Titans" mentality of "if they gain a yard, everyone will be benched" and the result was Az being totally stopped.

Unfortunately, that was only a 1/2 of one game where I saw the potential of our defense. After that, it was back to bend - pray you don't break.

I follow....

I'm no so worried about the running game. Honestly, until a Payton or Sayers drops on our laps, we do what we can with what we've got. I'm really speaking in sense that Bears football is defense. We own the hall of fame with defenders. We have our fare share of O guys, but the Bears are about D. And when we play as poorly as we have the past 3 years, it just breaks my heart. You pretty much mention the same if I read your post correctly...

[NAMEDSONPAYTON2]

Not a copout at all. I was replying to the following statement,

I loved Bears football more when we were winning 6-8 games a year in the 70's, 80's, and some of the 90's when we were hurting people on offense, more than winning 8-10 games and giving up 24- 40 points a game.

He flat said he liked it better when we were losing due to the teams identity at that time rather than when we were winning with a different identity. My point is, regardless of identity, winning is what matters the most to me.

I do agree with you about the OL coach to HC. I too always liked Grimm, and frankly, he was one I wanted over Lovie back in the day.

Back to identity, sure, I would love to bring back some of the old school mentality, but to an extent, there are aspects of it I do not necessarily want back. Many talk about the good old days of running the football, but lets be honest for a moment. Go back to even the 80s teams and look at the offense. Payton was awesome to watch, but that offense was far from great. If we didn't have the defense we did, how great would that team have been.

Today, how many teams win with that smash mouth running game? Indy, NE, NO and most other winning programs I can think of in recent seasons have been able to attack through the air and score. That doesn't mean you don't run the ball, but I just question if that old bear offense is really what we should be wanting.

I would rather loose the nfc championship game, than going to the superbowl and loose.

[bradjock]

I would rather loose the nfc championship game, than going to the superbowl and loose.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Seriously. The 2006 team making it to the Super Bowl was fantastic. God that was fun. All the hype leading up to the big game and having the country focused on our team.

Not to mention getting there. Beating Seattle in overtime. Thumping New Orleans in the NFC championship at Soldier Field. Watching the Halas Trophy presented to Virginia and Urlacher as the snow was coming down. Amazing.

Yes, losing the Super Bowl sucked. But you'd rather have just lost to New Orleans? That's retarded.

[Mongo3451]

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Seriously. The 2006 team making it to the Super Bowl was fantastic. God that was fun. All the hype leading up to the big game and having the country focused on our team.

Not to mention getting there. Beating Seattle in overtime. Thumping New Orleans in the NFC championship at Soldier Field. Watching the Halas Trophy presented to Virginia and Urlacher as the snow was coming down. Amazing.

Yes, losing the Super Bowl sucked. But you'd rather have just lost to New Orleans? That's retarded.

Agreed. Damn.

[MadLithuanian]

nfo, you hit the nail square on the head!

No argument.

I have always said, go back and look at Lovie when he was the DC in Stl. He earned a reputation for having Ds that could create a ton of turnovers, but at the same time, they also gave up a lot of points and were really not that good. Much of his success was due to having an offense that forced teams to be one dimensional. In Chicago, I thought we were better with Rivera, but even then, felt Lovie held the team back.

I will always go back to the Az game some years ago as my example. In the first half, a rookie QB was tearing us apart as we ran a very Lovie style scheme. We were not aggressive, played off WRs and pretty much gave until we broke. In the 2nd half, from everything I read, Rivera simply took over, and the difference in the team was very obvious. Our CBs were playing on top of the LOS. We were blitzing from just about every angle. We had that "Remember the Titans" mentality of "if they gain a yard, everyone will be benched" and the result was Az being totally stopped.

Unfortunately, that was only a 1/2 of one game where I saw the potential of our defense. After that, it was back to bend - pray you don't break.

[NAMEDSONPAYTON2]

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Seriously. The 2006 team making it to the Super Bowl was fantastic. God that was fun. All the hype leading up to the big game and having the country focused on our team.

Not to mention getting there. Beating Seattle in overtime. Thumping New Orleans in the NFC championship at Soldier Field. Watching the Halas Trophy presented to Virginia and Urlacher as the snow was coming down. Amazing.

Yes, losing the Super Bowl sucked. But you'd rather have just lost to New Orleans? That's retarded.

Yes, I, me, would rather loose the NFC champ game, than loose in the super bowl. That's why I wrote what you read. I've heard so many players, not fans say that they would rather win ONE Super Bowl over 1,000,000 conference wins, 1,000,000 pro bowls, 1,000,000 records, etc. Are you old enough to know what it feels like to win a super bowl? Are you saying winning the NFC Championship was a higher high than loosing the super bowl was a lower low? You should like the Vikings and Bills, they've won 8 championships and ZERO Superbowls. What a retarted response by you.

[balta1701-A]

Folks...disagreement is OK, but calling each other stupid and retarded pushes the line of the site's rules and is just going to lead to more sniping.

[MadLithuanian]

C'mon guys...I think we can argue this w/o the name-calling.

Yes, I, me, would rather loose the NFC champ game, than loose in the super bowl. That's why I wrote what you read. I've heard so many players, not fans say that they would rather win ONE Super Bowl over 1,000,000 conference wins, 1,000,000 pro bowls, 1,000,000 records, etc. Are you old enough to know what it feels like to win a super bowl? Are you saying winning the NFC Championship was a higher high than loosing the super bowl was a lower low? You should like the Vikings and Bills, they've won 8 championships and ZERO Superbowls. What a retarted response by you.

[MadLithuanian]

Oops, I just respnded the same...I didn't see your comment. Well said...

Folks...disagreement is OK, but calling each other stupid and retarded pushes the line of the site's rules and is just going to lead to more sniping.

[NAMEDSONPAYTON2]

Folks...disagreement is OK, but calling each other stupid and retarded pushes the line of the site's rules and is just going to lead to more sniping.

I know, I was just stating what I would rather have. It's like saying I would rather beat the vikings twice rather than beating the packers twice and being told that's retarded???????????????????????????????? But I do want to know if they were old enough to feel the feeling when the Bears won the Super Bowl.

[MadLithuanian]

It's honestly a silly argument all around because we have no capability of knowing the future, etc.

I do agree with you in a sense though. I'd rather have not gone than lost. But, you don't know if you'll lose without going. It's a catch 22 to me. Logically, if I have choice A or B. A being that we go to the SB and lose no matter what. B being we don't go, I'd take B. I'd rather hunger for it and actually win it later. But, that's given that we know in absolute certainty we will lose. But that's me, I don't like the anguish of losing, Going isn't good enough. Only winning is. Anything else is still losing.

I know, I was just stating what I would rather have. It's like saying I would rather beat the vikings twice rather than beating the packers twice and being told that's retarded???????????????????????????????? But I do want to know if they were old enough to feel the feeling when the Bears won the Super Bowl.

[nfoligno]

Excuse me, but what does a SB win have to do with what you said?

I believe you said you would rather lose in the conf championship game then win that one, go to the SB, but lose in the SB.

Where in this does it mention winning a SB. Sure, we all would take a SB win over "fill in the blank." But that wasn't part of your comment.

So you would rather lose in the conf championship game rather than win that one and lose in the SB.

By that logic, would you not rather lose the division game so you then would not have to worry about losing the conf game?

Further, if you are not going to win the SB, would you rather simply not make the playoffs at all so as to not get your hopes up?

No one is saying they want to win a bunch of conf game w/o ever winning the SB, but the shocking aspect of what you seemed to be saying was that you would rather never even make it to the SB rather than get there and lose. Sometimes you lose a few before you win.

Yes, I, me, would rather loose the NFC champ game, than loose in the super bowl. That's why I wrote what you read. I've heard so many players, not fans say that they would rather win ONE Super Bowl over 1,000,000 conference wins, 1,000,000 pro bowls, 1,000,000 records, etc. Are you old enough to know what it feels like to win a super bowl? Are you saying winning the NFC Championship was a higher high than loosing the super bowl was a lower low? You should like the Vikings and Bills, they've won 8 championships and ZERO Superbowls. What a retarted response by you.

[nfoligno]

As asked in the other post, what does winning the SB have to do with what you said? From what I can tell, nothing in your either/or involves winning. You simply said you would rather not make it to the SB at all rather than lose.

We all want to win, but last I checked, you can't win if you don't show up.

By your logic, would you rather simply not make it to the playoffs at all if you are not going to win the SB?

And yes, for the record, I am old enough to remember when the Bears won the SB.

I know, I was just stating what I would rather have. It's like saying I would rather beat the vikings twice rather than beating the packers twice and being told that's retarded???????????????????????????????? But I do want to know if they were old enough to feel the feeling when the Bears won the Super Bowl.

[nfoligno]

Better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all.

I just don't understand this argument. Winning the SB is the ultimate. No question. At the same time, it is one hell of an accomplishment to get there.

If you asked the players from that 2006 team if they wish they never beat NO and didn't even reach the SB (hindsight 20/20) I bet you every one of them would say as sick as they were to have lost, they would never prefer to not make it to that level at all.

The logic just doesn't hold because if you follow it, would you rather simply not even make the playoffs if you are not going to win the SB?

It's honestly a silly argument all around because we have no capability of knowing the future, etc.

I do agree with you in a sense though. I'd rather have not gone than lost. But, you don't know if you'll lose without going. It's a catch 22 to me. Logically, if I have choice A or B. A being that we go to the SB and lose no matter what. B being we don't go, I'd take B. I'd rather hunger for it and actually win it later. But, that's given that we know in absolute certainty we will lose. But that's me, I don't like the anguish of losing, Going isn't good enough. Only winning is. Anything else is still losing.

[Mongo3451]

Better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all.

I just don't understand this argument. Winning the SB is the ultimate. No question. At the same time, it is one hell of an accomplishment to get there.

If you asked the players from that 2006 team if they wish they never beat NO and didn't even reach the SB (hindsight 20/20) I bet you every one of them would say as sick as they were to have lost, they would never prefer to not make it to that level at all.

The logic just doesn't hold because if you follow it, would you rather simply not even make the playoffs if you are not going to win the SB?

And you gotta get there to win it! Ask a player if they would rather go home than lose the game? They would look at us like we were crazy.

[NAMEDSONPAYTON2]

And you gotta get there to win it! Ask a player if they would rather go home than lose the game? They would look at us like we were crazy.

I would rather loose the championship game, than win it and loose in the super Bowl, that's all I was posting. Whats so bad about that, or hard to understand. I would rather be 1-0 in Super Bowls over 1-1 or 1-45. Like we did when we lost to S.F. in 1985, and came back the next year when we were ready to win. 2nd place TO ME is like 3rd or 4th, or 32nd. Now I am not telling people to think the same, I WAS JUST POSTING SOMETHING I WAS FEELING. I want to go to the super Bowl and win, but if i had a crystal ball and knew if we won the Championship game and would loose the super bowl, I DO NOT WANT TO GO. What do the vikings and bills have over us? NOTHING, because they never won it in 8 tries.