-

Originally Posted by
The Benjamin
at times?
Yes, Benji. At times. Down toward the end, with the exception of the Patriots game, the offense got pretty good.
-
-

Originally Posted by
GeorgiaJeff
dabears54, you may disagree, but the benchmark for yards is probably 1200. Don't get me wrong, I hope Knox gets 1000+ receiving yards and 1000 yards is still impressive, but the benchmark is 1200 (I read this in a John Mullin article, the benchmark that is).
Consider that back when there were still 12 game seasons 1000 yards was the benchmark. It only stands to reason that the benchmark goes up playing 25% more games.
Oh agree the "benchmark" should ahve gone up with the games.. but the media hasn't caught on, and while agree with you personally, its still the "goal" the media hypes and talks about..
-

Originally Posted by
The Benjamin
at times?
bears have scored 31,24, 7, 40 and 38 the last 5 weeks by ANY standard that is an "O" cooking and moving the ball and doing well.
-

Originally Posted by
dabears54
bears have scored 31,24, 7, 40 and 38 the last 5 weeks by ANY standard that is an "O" cooking and moving the ball and doing well.
I will agree the offense is doing better. Could you imagine how much better they would do with better linemen?
Without weaponz it's just another airline!
I am here to chew bubble gum and kick butt and I am all out of bubble gum!
-

Originally Posted by
go4bears
I will agree the offense is doing better. Could you imagine how much better they would do with better linemen?
That and when everyone finally digests Martz entire playbook.
Arguing on the internet is like winning the special olympics, even if you win your still messed up.
Restore the roar!
-

Originally Posted by
short faced bear
That and when everyone finally digests Martz entire playbook.
Rams
45 total offensive tds
31 TO's
2059 rushing yards
Bears
33 total offensive tds
25 TO's
1506 yards rushing
Obviously the rams got it better right away, but i think given that they had a better turf to work their speed on and our guys are younger across the board, i'd say things are looking up for this team. Now if we can just play on a better surface..
-

Originally Posted by
Henry Burris
Rams
45 total offensive tds
31 TO's
2059 rushing yards
Bears
33 total offensive tds
25 TO's
1506 yards rushing
Obviously the rams got it better right away, but i think given that they had a better turf to work their speed on and our guys are younger across the board, i'd say things are looking up for this team. Now if we can just play on a better surface..
I wonder if the city of Chicago will ever put down artificial turf? After all, if the players are coming out in force against the current grassy surface, than they need to address it. It appears as if the city and the Bears' front office aren't in any hurry to do anything, though. They keep citing the lesser severity of injuries on the grass than on the artificial turf, which I don't understand since people are losing their footing on the turf we have now.
-
High Fives / Like - 1 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-
I'm hoping Forte and Knox break 1k. Would be big for both of them.
-

Originally Posted by
gammabears
I'm hoping Forte and Knox break 1k. Would be big for both of them.
They're the reasons, outside of Jay Cutler, that our offense has been able to go this season. I say break 1,000 yards rushing and receiving, then go on and win a World Championship!
-

Originally Posted by
Dagan81
I wonder if the city of Chicago will ever put down artificial turf? After all, if the players are coming out in force against the current grassy surface, than they need to address it. It appears as if the city and the Bears' front office aren't in any hurry to do anything, though. They keep citing the lesser severity of injuries on the grass than on the artificial turf, which I don't understand since people are losing their footing on the turf we have now.
Falling on your ass doesn't = injury, what else is there to understand? How many Bears players have been injured because of the grass? (I don't care about the visiting team) Players haven't come out "in force", there have been a couple guys that made comments...not exactly torches and pitchforks. Instead of pissing an moaning about the sod, piss and moan about the groundskeepers.
The only consistent victim of SF grass I've seen is Peanut. Most everyone else seems to manage their footing better than the visiting team, and that's a home field advantage. Parity being what it is, why would any team want to willingly give up that advantage, and possibly risk more injuries? Now if the turf proponents can show a more compelling reason to risk the injuries, and give up an advantage, I'd love to hear it.
``If a contest had 97 prizes, the 98th would be a trip to Green Bay.'' John McKay