Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

lastcat3 wrote:

sheajets wrote:A lot of people are going to dump on this game...I didn't hate it. Yes there is going to be some issues with chemistry when you have such toned down training camps and super careful pre seasons (with some players being held out completely). But credit both defenses for playing very well.

No matter how good the Bears defense is they are never going to go very far in the playoffs with that quarterback.

You see a performance like this and just wonder what they ever saw in this guy to make them sprint to the podium. Just a lot of poor throws, a bunch that could've been picked and were dropped. Arm strength is average

lastcat3 wrote: No matter how good the Bears defense is they are never going to go very far in the playoffs with that quarterback.

Kind of reminded me of another Bears QB who wore number 10 and couldn't throw so well.
Of course, that guy ran a little better...

1st and 40... wow, that takes some effort...

No, the Packers will not go on to win the Super Bowl...or even the NFC, but in the first game of the 1963 season, the Bears came into GB and won 10-3.

sheajets wrote:A lot of people are going to dump on this game...I didn't hate it. Yes there is going to be some issues with chemistry when you have such toned down training camps and super careful pre seasons (with some players being held out completely). But credit both defenses for playing very well.

At least it wasn't a 45-41 game. Of all the things I want to see in 2020, the thing I most want to see is for those high offensive numbers to be curtailed somehow and see defense make a comeback in the NFL. A 10-3 game is at least a good start.

Some interesting discussion about the Bears' Mt. Rushmore. I don’t recall exactly what Collingsworth said or maybe I didn’t quite catch it, but I thought he was a bit dismissive about either Luckman or when Michaels mentioned Nagurski - he wanted Ditka. No one mentioned Grange.

Rupert, I was also glad it wasn't 45-41 - I kind of half expect that every game I turn on these days. I'm thinking the toned down preseason may give the D an advantage early since offense requires more timing - we'll see how the rest of the games play out though.

TanksAndSpartans wrote:Some interesting discussion about the Bears Mt. Rushmore. I don’t recall exactly what Collingsworth said or maybe I didn’t quite catch it, but I thought he was a bit dismissive about either Luckman or when Michaels mentioned Nagurski - he wanted Ditka. No one mentioned Grange.

I wouldn't take that stuff very seriously. They just brought up Ditka because he is still the Bears coach that the audiences connect most with. As far as the 10-3 score we will have to see how the rest of week 1 goes but I think the low score can largely be attributed to an extremely good Bears defense and a poor Bears qb playing a good Packers defense.

Last year I had the final four correct and I was very confident about it. I don't have anywhere near that same confidence this year.

Order of finish with playoff seeding in parentheses-

NFC East
Cowboys (3)
Eagles
Giants
Redskins

NFC North
Vikings (4)
Packers
Bears
Lions

NFC South
Saints (1)
Buccaneers (5)
Falcons
Panthers

NFC West
Rams (2)
49ers (6)
Seahawks
Cardinals

AFC East
Patriots (2)
Jets
Bills
Dolphins

AFC North
Steelers (3)
Browns (6)
Ravens
Bengals

AFC South
Jaguars (4)
Titans
Texans
Colts

AFC West
Chiefs (1)
Chargers (5)
Broncos
Raiders

Wild Card Playoffs
Cowboys over 49ers
Buccaneers over Vikings
Jaguars over Chargers
Steelers over Browns

Divisional Playoffs
Cowboys over Rams
Saints over Buccaneers
Chiefs over Jaguars
Patriots over Steelers

Championship Games
Saints over Cowboys
Chiefs over Patriots

Super Bowl
Saints over Chiefs

JWL wrote:Super Bowl
Saints over Chiefs

Ironically, the Chiefs' only win in the Super Bowl came in New Orleans and the Saints only SB appearance came in the same stadium in MIami (whatever the hell it's now named) where this year's game will be held.

BD Sullivan wrote:No, the Packers will not go on to win the Super Bowl...or even the NFC, but in the first game of the 1963 season, the Bears came into GB and won 10-3.

BD, I also thought of that toward the end of the game. It's really sick when you don't have to look something that trivial up.

BD Sullivan wrote:No, the Packers will not go on to win the Super Bowl...or even the NFC, but in the first game of the 1963 season, the Bears came into GB and won 10-3.

A lot of Packer fans are pointing out that the Packers beat the Bears 9-7 in the first regular-season game that Lombardi coached. However, I don't see much Lombardi in LaFleur