balta1701-A

It'd be nice if they gave the special teams a chance when they're down by 1 and on the goal line. You almost have to go for it on this 4th down. Punting away gives the Lions time to run it out.

That was some of the stupidest...wow...

It's the 4th quarter and you're down by 1 bloody point! take the points and be happy! My word.

AUGH!

KICK THE FIELD GOAL!!!

This whole day of football has been so dominated by turnovers...

I'm not sure I'd say the majority goes either way. I look at that list and I think it basically looks like a cloud with zero correlation, and so I'm being difficult until someone can establish more firmly that I should believe there is one. I look at the bottom of the list and I don't automatically see losing teams or teams that I think give up an unusual large number of sacks with no running game, and I look at the top of that list and I don't automatically see the top lines in the league. I'll agree with y'all that the Bears have overly neglected the O-line, I don't see how you can disagree with that after the performance the last few years...I'm just not convinced this stat gives me any legitimate information on that.

And the reason they've dumped so many picks into their O-line is that those picks keep failing.

Am I wrong in having the impression that at least 2 of those 3 teams had very solid O-lines last year, and the 3rd wasn't bad either?

Whether I personally think it is a mistake doesn't mean that the data here shows it. Can anyone give me a metric related to offensive line quality/performance that suggests there is a strong correlation between # of picks spent on the O-line and their performance? I went with my general impression of how those lines have performed. Tampa has been a disaster for years now, Seattle is plugging O-line holes all the time, yet they've spent a lot of picks on those positions.

Unless anyone strenuously objects, I'll pin these at the top of the page.

Do you folks want game threads pinned at the top of the screen or in the main list at the bottom this year?

Here's the problem with that logic...when I look at that list...there are good O-Lines and bad O-lines up and down it. The Giants had an excellent O-line in 2008 after not drafting O-line. Atlanta and Minnesota have put together solid line units. Tampa Bay and Seattle have had major O-line issues and have drafted guys a lot. If drafting more O-linemen doesn't correlate with performance, then why should this stat interest me? It actually argues to me that there might be more to Angelo's line of thinking (that you might be better off trying to fix the O-line through FA/cuts than through the draft) than I would have thought before seeing this list.

Here it is folks, your first game thread of the 2010 season. Like it or hate it, it's here!

Like I said in the other thread in more detail...I understand that people have a deserved lack of confidence in this team...but when you go through both the positions and the coaching staff, I can't see how the Bears have downgraded from a 7-9 team last year.

So, there's something I'm wondering and I think it fits in this thread. The Bears were a 7-9 team last year right? Somehow the Bears won 7 games? When I look at last year's Bears team versus this year's Bears team...I have trouble naming an position that the Bears are worse at, other than perhaps the secondary, which was weak anyway. Offensive line...worst hole...but can you tell me that it is significantly worse than last year? Williams is going to be worse than Pace was? That's hard to do. There looks to be some promise in Louis, it looks to be potentially coached better, Kreutz could be more healthy. Receivers? Still young, but guys are significantly more experienced now. Cutler? Same guy, new coach, hopefully upgrade on the coach. Forte; admittedly hurt and out of shape last year. Worse case scenario; repeating last year. And if that happens, the depth has improved. Tight ends: Olson is still there, Clark is still there, and the blocking guy is there now. Defensive line; Alex Brown and O-Gun are gone, but they've been replaced by Peppers. I struggle to see how that line could be worse than last year with that replacement. Yes, Anderson could be a downgrade, but you've at worst got balance. Linebackers; Bears are adding in Urlacher and Pisa. Worst case scenario, that's an upgrade. Defensive backfield; still the same melange. Up and down the list...I know people don't like this team...but this team won 7 games last year, and I can't see where they got worse. Did everyone else in the NFL get that much better?

Few burgers will taste as good as a freshly ground one. You still want to try to balance the fat ratio, which will take some skill, which I currently don't possess myself. Being creative on meats is also probably advisable. Chicken, Lamb, even things like fish can make an interesting ground experience if you add some flavoring and some bread crumbs/egg for binding.

In terms of Martz only getting the chance to coach bottom-of-the barrel offenses...isn't it also true that Detroit and S.F. were bottom of the league before Martz came in, and both of those offenses moved briefly up to somewhere near average with him?

First round.

And the Jets.

I still don't think WR is one of the Bears's problems. They may not have the depth chart where it should be, but the players are actually there.

In this world, those are one and the same. We long ago made that choice as a society.

Really, it comes down to this question. Let's say everything you worry about happens. There's more injuries, more hot weather, people's careers are shorter. In response to this, will you: 1. Watch fewer games? 2. Go to fewer games? 3. Buy less merchandise? 4. Watch less other NFL coverage? Alternatively, will you instead: 1. Watch all 18 games instead of 16 games 2. Go to at least the same number of games 3. Buy the same amount of Bears gear 4. Watch the same amount of other NFL coverage If you're going to wind up watching those extra 2 games, and most teams are going to wind up selling out those extra 2 games...and the season ticket holders are already paying for those 2 games anyway...then even if the quality of the game does go down...the NFL comes out ahead.

(don't believe the link was there when I first asked. Thanks for editing, it's appreciated!)

Is this from a published source somewhere or your own info? If it's from a published source, can you please include a link?