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

 

 

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

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.

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.

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%.

 

 

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.

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%?

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%).