Hi friends, Ricky here once again. Stu is out doing his thing, so I'll be in all week. Keep it clean, please.
Lovie Smith likes to talk about how he views football seasons in quarters and the Bears just finished their first. It wasn't always pretty but it was certainly a success: a 3-1 start is probably all we could have hoped for, even if the games weren't as aesthetically pleasing as we might have liked.
This was far from an easy 3-1. For all the talk of the Bears heading into the 2009 season with the league's easiest schedule, Sunday's home bout against the Lions was the only cupcake the Bears had in their first four games. The other three games were close, hard fought contests. There is little shame in losing by six at Lambeau to a Packers team that could win 10 games this year. Playing in Seattle - Seneca Wallace or no Seneca Wallace - is never an easy task, either. And I don't think I need to defend the merits of a close victory at home against the defending champs.
If I were in the business of giving out grades, the Bears would earn an A- from me in quarter number one. It was good, sure, but there is still plenty of room for improvement. These Bears have a long way to climb before they reach their ceiling.
By dropping 48 on the Lions on Sunday, the Bears did seemingly everything everyone said they needed to do.
We told the Bears they needed to start running the ball better, and they did. Matt Forte used two huge runs to help him break the century mark for the first time all season. He averaged over 10 yards per carry.
We told the defense they needed to pressure the quarterback and cause more turnovers. Done and done. The Bears had Matt Stafford (and then Daunte Culpepper) under duress for much of the second half and finished with five sacks. An interception by Tommie Harris and a recovered fumble by a recently invigorated (and cash-driven) Adewale Ogunleye filled the turnover quota, as well.
We told the special teams to remind us that they are indeed one of the league's best units, and, yep, that happened, too.
It's all good, right?
Well, not totally. It seems like the general opinion is that Sunday's win was fun, yet not fully satisfying. The game was never really in doubt after Johnny Knox took the opening kickoff of the second half to the house, but the win still felt too close for comfort.
This game wasn't in Seattle, or at Lambeau, or against the world champion Steelers. This was a home game against the Lions. While the final score reads like an easy Bears win, it still seems like it should have been easier.
It's hard to get a read on this 3-1 Bears team right now. How good are they? I'm not sure anyone knows. They have played well, but they've never played great. The offense does some marvelous things, but too many drives come to a stall. The defense gives up very few touchdowns, but would it kill them to get a three-and-out once in a while? They have won 75 percent of their games, but they've hardly done it in a dominating fashion.
This is a team that should be good, at least that's what Chicago seems to think. Maybe they are good. Maybe they are as good as many team in the division, any team in the conference. But, after four weeks, are you comfortable saying that yet? Probably not.
That doesn't mean they won't get there in 2009. It's certainly possible that this team becomes an NFC powerhouse. Hell, it may even be likely. It just hasn't happened yet. Still, there is no denying that a 3-1 start means that the Bears are sitting pretty. We'll find out shortly whether this first quarter was a prelude to bigger things, or just a big tease.
Ricky O'Donnell is the designated pinch-hitter at Full Court Press. Reach him at richardpodonnell@gmail.com.
Bears are for real this year.
The remaining schedule is favorable and the team is starting to come together.
Bears offense is solid up and down. Defensively they are rushing the passer well, but if they have an Achilles it's their pass coverage. Other then Tillman, its suspect. The good news is that I believe last night proved that the North will be a two team race. The Packers have major issues. Defensively, their change to the 3-4 is hurting their ability to rush the passer. Conversely, their offensive line is hurting, and compound that with the fact Rodgers holds on to the ball waaaay too long, it's going to be a long season for the cheese-heads.
Bears may have to beat the Vikings twice just to win the division. Weather they win the division or not, they still will probably go 11-5, and head into the playoffs right in time for Favre to have his old-man relapse.
I would give the Bears a B. Only because they have won, and winning is the prime directive. Ricky you pointed out two glaring weaknesses of the team that MUST improve:
Defense inability to get off the field on 3rd downs. This is a carry over from last year. Its extremely important to fix this one because its obviously taxing the players, but also giving hope to the opposition and making good QBs look great. But the main danger here is the injuries that it causes. It also keeps our offense off the field.
Stalled drives. Bears are one dimensional on offense. And for the first time in a long time its the passing that works and the running that doesn't???? However, I have confidence that this one will get better because Cutty-6 is a very good QB and he is gelling with the receivers. Knox is having a Hester-like experience. A star is born. Thank goodness for Culter. Our playcalling is shifty.
Everything else is good enough IMHO. Special Teams is better and the coaching is better. 48 points is a good number! Good sign, because the Vikings are for real.
Enjoy this...season is about to be over...smoke and mirrors has never won anything...well...Cubs fans...so I guess it's only natural it spills over...same lot of people...'eyes wide shut'
example: Culzie after Lions game..."It's so nice to have a franchise blah blah blah,; so tired of going 3 and out blah blah blah"....
2 for 10 on third down against the Lions soothes you buddy?....I'm Larry Holmes and you're Tex Cobb.....just keep walking into the jab...you can't stop it...might as well take it like a man
this team should be 1-3 right now...but...lmao...to quote "the fanboys"..."A win is a win"....lol...you don't even realize you're admitting you know this is a bunch of luck...like I said...every fruit has his day...oh girl, have you had 'em, and more of your share, mind you....As you spill back towards Wrigleyville
well, to repeat myself from my first predictions...this is a 6-10 team or 7-9 at best...
you have about 10 more days to enjoy this...
I hope AP is ok, tho
oh, I'm sorry...I need to give out a grade...I give the Bears an A...why?...well, I've cheated my way to an A and I've earned one as well...and A is an A...right?
Rashard Mendenhall....oh I cannot wait to cram him down your Chris Williams-Forte throats....what a freaking mistake
Congratulations, Kid...
I'd give them a B...
Ogunleye is playing like he's in a contract year (oh yeah, he is) and Tillman looks decent considering he had no training camp. Briggs is their best OLB since wilbur marshall..other than that our D is bad. Was at the game Sunday and Roach got punished by the TE - same will happen when hillenmeyer gets back.
O line is also bad which is why we're seeing all these quick drops by cutler. Good news is the receivers are not as bad as I thought. With no running game, cutler won't be as effective.
Looking like 9-7...possibly 10-6 with an outside shot at playoffs.
Minnesota looks awfully good on both sides of ball. Favre has something left in that arm which I didn't expect.
hey dude! the bears scored 48 points. The bears will never win in style points. They will win period. If you want fashion go to Minnesota. For da bears will never win in style. they just win.
So the Bears are going to go 3-9 the rest of the way Hitman?
"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
And how are the Raiders doing this year?
You did predict them to be a playoff team so they must be lighting up the league by now right?
Don't worry man..... everyone here already knows that you really don't know anything about football and are one of those guys that make people roll their eyes and say "Oh great... look who is coming this way" with the with the never ending "You just wait! Failure is right around the corner!”
I guess for some people that is true and they insist on trying to wish it upon the rest of the world.
The Bears are still too much like Notre Dame -- they are beating people, but they certainly don't dominate or even command the field for significant portions of the game.
If their ability to have the other team make bonehead plays continues (e.g., Jeff Reed missing chip shot field goals), they will do fine, but that's living on the edge.
I would like to see them beat a few tough teams -- and those are coming. Atlanta and San Fran on the road could be very tough games. Minnesota looks like a load (at least at home and indoors), but they always look good in the first half of the season and usually fade the second half. Green Bay should improve on defense as the season goes along, but they sure looked lost last night. And their offensive line is porous.
Overall, I'm happy for the team, but it's a long season and the Bears lack consistency on offense and defense. I had them going 2-2 to open the season. Since they are one game better, I'll give them a "B."
This is the way I now see the rest of the schedule shaking out:
I know that I am already off by one game, but the Bears beat the Defending Champs. Bears have to find a way to beat Minnesota once and they could steal the division. I hope I am wrong about Atlanta.
Atl - L
Cin - W
Clev - W
Ariz - W
San - L
Phil - W
Min - L
Stl - W
GB - W
Bal - W
Min - L
Dt - W
Well, I guess we'll start off by giving the Bears a big fat B-. They've played decent ball and have won the better percentage of close games. The one game they lost, the QB and receivers were still in a learning curve, otherwise we could very well be 4-0 against a fairly tough schedule.
With the exception of Baltimore and Minny (and by no means are these giveaways), the Bears should be in every other game this year. Cutler has shown that the first week INTs were a phase, and even the 5th was a fluke pass. That bodes well for TURNOVERS, because Forte doesn't fork it over too often, the special teams play has been solid and our defense looks like it may reel in a few TO's themselves this year. I see us in the black with the turnover ratio, and that alone speaks volumes in the N.F.L.
SPECIAL TEAMS is our next big positive. It seems to be improving week after week, and that can easily get you over the hump in a couple games. Gotta love it!
QB!!! We have one, and the guys another McMahon, if not better.
Our TIGHT ENDS could match any group of three in the last millenium. Davis needs more time on the field. What a beast!
The DEFENSIVE ENDS and LANCE BRIGGS are the bright spots on the 'D'. They are playing as well as any in the league.
The jury is still out on the defense as a whole, but the scheme and adjustments are worlds apart from last year.
The offensive line still hasn't shown enough, new group or not. You don't have to be playing together for 5 years to know you have to push a man off the line on a running play. That's brute force, and we don't have it; nor do we have a Bronco scheme. Oh well, so we pass the stuffings out of the ball. Andy Reid's cool with it, so am I!
The prospects look bright, but we all know you gotta get some breaks in any sport. We don't have the overall strength to make them ourselves, so we just need to stay healthy and hope the ball bounces our way, right into Miami.
P.S. If anybody out there knows Tillman, could you please ask the guy to change his cleats to, at least, a 1/4 inch longer!!! Thanx.
I had the Bears going 3-1 into the break, but penciled them in for a win at Green Bay, and a loss at home to the Steelers.
Have to give Lovie his due, because he's called good, although not always well executed, defensive games.
My original, archived prediction has them losing two more games to the Eagles, and the Ravens. If I could amend it now, I'd probably also throw in a loss to the Vikings, based upon what I saw last night.
Here's hoping that we don't have to beat those purple puking bastids both games in order to win the division.
Go Bears
"QB!!! We have one, and the guys another McMahon, if not better."
WOW...maybe my opinion is jaded a bit because McMahon is the biggest a-h@le on the face of the earth, but mcmahon was a better than average QB who handed off to the best RB of all time, and played behind the best D of all time. If I'm not mistaken, Mike Tomzak's record as Bears QB was only slightly below mcmahon's.
Based on chicago fans view of mcmahon, he was probably the 2nd most over-rated QB of all time after joe namath.
I agree about McMahon.
He was all image and very little production.
His best stats for yards (2392) and TDs (15) are not even as good as Rex Grosman's and Grossman was booed out of town.
The Bears having the best defense and the best running game in the league is why they won and McMahon was just serviceable at best and that was when they had him on the field.
He only played in 56 games in 7 seasons for the Bears.
That is an average of 8 games a year and is nothing to brag about.
15 years in the league and he only throws for 18,148 yards and 100 TDs?
That is an average of 1209 yards and 6 TDs a year for his career and that does not even put him close to being an average QB in the NFL.
If he were not so injury prone then the Bears don't start Doug Flutie in the playoffs against Washington and probably win another Super Bowl instead of a one and done so I really don’t have this warm and fuzzy feeling for Jim McMahon.
He was far from the big time QB that some people seem to believe he was.
I would love to comment....especially to those who have actually mentioned me by name...
but i dont want to run the risk of
"acting like this is my personal forum"
unlike the rest of you who "realise" and especially those who can actually spell realize...
that unlike you who can just read this blog and go about your business...
i dont want to stay up all night plotting and planning my next comments.
sorry hitman...maybe we can meet over at DMX's crib and talk about it over some beers.
Ricky responds: If there is one thing FCP needs, it's more references to 90's rap music.
Phil - profootballreference.com has a "similar to" feature that compares like stats at positions...here are mcmahon's "Similar to" with QBs who played 15 years:
Ed Brown, Bill Kenney, Babe Parilli, Trent Dilfer, Jack Kemp, Neil O'Donnell, Gus Frerotte, Rodney Peete, Billy Wade, Billy Kilmer
I think that says it all...
I have never seen that feature Tommy.
I will have to look that up because it sounds interesting.
Thanks.
Time for the red pill, Brian.
An idiot who can't spell idiocy. Why am I not surprised, brah? Oh that frat boy word. Come again. You still over there in the Olympic blog with your hissy going on, Brian. I think you better double up on the blue pills tonight. And break out the old helmet it's going to be a bumpy ride. And in regard to Mcmahon, I have never really been a big fan. Even during 85 when Fuller was beating the Cowboys in our most impressive game, the Mac was idle. He really had everyone singing his praises after he came out and beat the Vikes on Monday night. I liked him until he had the team turn on little Flutie. Lost me with that crap. Or is it cr@p?
Yo Phil
You're right about McMahon; he was mostly a myth. And the hype really began when he came off the bench and threw four TDs to slay the Vikings in a Monday night game.
He never had another game like that again, but his phony reputation as a gunslinger was cemented nevertheless.
But I'll give him this ... he was a gutsy player. And he played a good game in the Super Bowl when all the marbles were on the line, even if it was the defense that deserved most of the credit. When it mattered the most, he wasn't out there putting up points for the other team.
Yea, you guys are right, McMahon didn't rewrite the record books, and the dude drank so much he didn't know when he got hurt until he got hurt some more, but the guy was as tough as nails, won a very good percentage of the games he started, played like a QB in a linebackers body (my initial thought when I compared Cutler to him), wasn't a fumbler, and won the Super Bowl.
Image, toughness and being a winner are my base comparisons to Jay and Jim, but thats' cool, I'd still take either or.
Mac was an idle?
you mean Idol?
BWAHAHAHAHAAH
lets both drop the were good at spelling pretenses...obviously you "realise" you spell worse than me.
Brian, you are making really no sense. IDLE is when someone isn't in use or active. Mac was not active for the Cowboy's game. Hence the use of the word, idle. You are really making a bigger jerk of yourself than usual. The 90s group, Snap had a song that I think is appropriate for what I have over you. When you sleep at night do you awake calling my name? I shudder to think that a name without a face on a blog would get you so riled up. And no one spell worse that you do. You probably put letters backwards on paper like the Little Rascals. Grow up. 6'6"..? I never knew that they could stack stupid so tall.
I actually see now that I got that one wrong. Im not above admitting my mistakes. I realise now, what you meant. ooops ahh snap!
Calling me stupid is very classy though...and also was your reference to fat women. Very Classy.
also, its creepy that you keep using my first name, when i never really use it, are you stalking me?
Who said fat? I said that she would be a big big woman. You brought fat into the equation. God, I'm bored with you and this back and forth. I'm going bye bye and you can diddle with yourself, Brian. I'm sure you are used to that.
Mark Villano goes by just Villano and you insist on calling him Mark. There you go again. Trying to make assumptions when you do it yourself. Brian, you are really off-kiltered and I'm really sorry that I had my part in you going off your meds. I will apologize to the citizens of Arizona when some deranged fella is caught running down the street in his granny drawers. Again, I'm sorry that you ran out of tin foil and won't be able to make you hat repelling the nambi-pambi rays of Augusto of the Mortex quadrant. You are not winning any wars my friend. You are coming off as petty and unrelenting and a bit touched but I have nothing but pity for you. I grew up playing the dozens and remember I've seen a picture of you that provide a wealth of material. I can say for instance about that suit jacket you had on: Tattoo wants his sports coat back or how many pop bottles did they have to use to provide you with eye glasses. Or how about Slingblade wants his hairstyle back. All day Culzie.
I was going to ask Ricky not to post that last one because it was a bit harsh. I was wrong about you having pop bottle glasses. Too late he already put it up. And I take it back about Slingblade too. He wouldn't want that hair style and HE was.... different. Honestly, this is my last post responding to anything you have to say. My ex-wife worked with detached people at the VA hospital and she always said to call mentally ill people by their first name to soothe them. I tried it..it didn't work. Now feel free to comment until your fingers bleed. I bet you the wrinkle shirt that doesn't match those pants in your picture that I won't respond. You're gonna have to do bad all by yourself from now on. Later, hater.
Schizo alert! You say in one breath you are done with me, and then two seconds later say..you can go all day. No wonder you are at odds with everyone, you are at odds with your own self.
but, seriously..Im bored with you WRD or as I will now refer to you as...
WEAPON of REASONLESS DEDUCTION!
WRD - 9:40 post. Too personal. You both are headed to the place where others are going to soon join in, and you will both avoid posting. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You know what Keith, I acknowledge that I went too far but if you look at my posts I have been trying to talk about the topic at hand but this guy keeps bringing up references to what was sound over and over again. I don't come here to get in arguments. I come here to share my feelings on sports and to read what my fellow bloggers are saying. Go back and read his stuff and you can see for yourself that he was baiting until he got bit. He takes words and twist them into something bad. I say Beyonce is going to be a big big woman and he turns around and say I said fat. There's a difference when you say something like that. One is an insult and the other is tactful. Some of us have tact. Some of us don't. Some people don't understand what they are reading and instead of taking time to re-read it or read it in it's entirety they attack.But that's what he has done forever and I'm tired of taking offense at this. I veered away from it and he kept going on and on. I'm honest to admit that I'm not willing to take no mess from anyone because of my background in the military and from being a south sider. I will hit below the belt any chance I get once it becomes personal. I did. I got tired of being baited. Everyone knew this was coming. But I'm done with it. I only came back with that grand insult because this guy had the nerve to say I was STALKING him. I'm trying to talk shop and he's bringing up what was said back at the olympic blog on every other blog. That is the definition of stalking. I know I have had differences with others but where do I keep up the differences. I've had differences with Tommy, Mark and Edgar most recently but when do I insult them about what was said or attack them for whatever they are saying right now? I've moved on and it appears that they have too. He can not and his history is that he will keep dropping references to what was said. That's his method. All of this grew out of bringing Valerie Jarret's race into thesubject. He should've said just her name and left it up to us to know who he was speaking of. All along he was trying to get a rize out of you. His words. How was that? By bringing up her race. But honestly I'm done. I'd rather give Richie Daley half my salary for two months than respond any longer. Let's talk sports or I can go back in that other blog and tell you what I think of Halle Berry... Mark Grace,hum.
Bringing up Race is not racist in itself.
I remember when I was an AAU coach....and I would go and scout players at the HS level.
I remember I would come back to my head coach and I would try to describe how good a guy was, the question everyone would ask was...
Black or White?
I distinctly remember trying to avoid saying which race they were...because i didnt think it should matter....but every single time i would, someone would always ask back...what color? as if to imply that if they were a white kid, they werent as good.
Anyways...I thought long and hard about those days, and I think things have changed to some degree...since that was the early 90's..
now they probably ask, American or European or something like that...
but still....i really used to have issues with just mentioning someones race as a describer.
Now that I am older and understand things better...i realize, that its not an inuslt to bring up someones race. who cares. its a matter of fact.
anyways...i was just trying to blow up Keiths stereotype of a "daley cronie" as an old fat white guy in a 3 piece suit (which WRD you threw at me, as if wearing a suit was an insult)...and I probably couldve still had the same effect if I had not mentioned she was an African American...but...me bringing up her race, was in no way shape or form racist. I think you were just looking to pick a fight with me, and that was your percieved edge to bash me on.
Well..you failed miserably.
but, enough. i still love you like an older brother who i cant stand.
lol