Thread: Urlacher: Veteran teams to have edge

Originally Posted by The Benjamin

Some people do tend to use records over a period of time to show how good or bad a team is. I do agree though that stats do not tell the whole story, wins do not either (going back to an older discussion about with dags of titles verse wins).

The two teams are close, but I have to give the edge to the packers as being the better team, even if only slightly. However, the better team does not always win, so that could be an argument for those who say the Bears are better than the packers (as you seem to be doing)

Not better Benji but I currently see them as being equals. The problem with using records, even head to head, is that it deals with the past and not the here and now. If head to head records were the only basis for comparison we'd be better because we won more games than the Packers have over the history of our meetings but worse than the Vikings because they beaten us more times then we've beaten them.

I'm just going by how I see us matching up with them right now. Both teams have very good defenses and while I'll give the Packers an edge on offense due to their passing game we get a considerable edge for our ST's and the Hester factor. He does quite well against them. It's just to me that stats can be deceiving as I've pointed out in several other threads. I can use financial statistics to prove or dispprove almost anything I care to because there are so many variables and it's up to the statistician to decide what to include and what to ignore. I pay some attention to them but I'd rather eyeball things at times and use that to come to a reasonable conclusion.

I admit that others may see it differently but this is my way and I'm content with it. To me when it comes to the Bears and Packers when they're this close about all you can judge is who was better in any given game because the final score is the judge of that at least until the next contest between them.

Originally Posted by soulman

Not better Benji but I currently see them as being equals. The problem with using records, even head to head, is that it deals with the past and not the here and now. If head to head records were the only basis for comparison we'd be better because we won more games than the Packers have over the history of our meetings but worse than the Vikings because they beaten us more times then we've beaten them.

I'm just going by how I see us matching up with them right now. Both teams have very good defenses and while I'll give the Packers an edge on offense due to their passing game we get a considerable edge for our ST's and the Hester factor. He does quite well against them. It's just to me that stats can be deceiving as I've pointed out in several other threads. I can use financial statistics to prove or dispprove almost anything I care to because there are so many variables and it's up to the statistician to decide what to include and what to ignore. I pay some attention to them but I'd rather eyeball things at times and use that to come to a reasonable conclusion.

I admit that others may see it differently but this is my way and I'm content with it. To me when it comes to the Bears and Packers when they're this close about all you can judge is who was better in any given game because the final score is the judge of that at least until the next contest between them.

The problem with looking at the here and now is, you are using guess work. We do not know what the future hold or how well either team will do. I agree that you can not really use past results, as they can be misleading. But I think that you can use the previous years results when judging and comparing two teams. Just looking at the two (packers and Bears) they are very close (even when looking at expanded history of the eight year span you suggested) two games either way. That is very damn close, and may be too close to call even.

So head to head, they went 1-1 (not counting the playoffs which records and stats don't get brought up as far as career numbers). So taking that into account the Bears and packers are basically deadlocked.

Only reason I give the packers the edge, is because they beat us in the NFCC and won the title (even though I did say post season stats dont usually get added into career records)

Originally Posted by The Benjamin

The problem with looking at the here and now is, you are using guess work. We do not know what the future hold or how well either team will do. I agree that you can not really use past results, as they can be misleading. But I think that you can use the previous years results when judging and comparing two teams. Just looking at the two (packers and Bears) they are very close (even when looking at expanded history of the eight year span you suggested) two games either way. That is very damn close, and may be too close to call even.

So head to head, they went 1-1 (not counting the playoffs which records and stats don't get brought up as far as career numbers). So taking that into account the Bears and packers are basically deadlocked.

Only reason I give the packers the edge, is because they beat us in the NFCC and won the title (even though I did say post season stats dont usually get added into career records)

That was my main point in declaring them equals and you have to ask yourself would they have won that NFCC game had Cutler not been injured or had Hanie played the entire second half instead of replacing Cutler with Collins. We were not at full strength offensively for half that game.

Seriously, Cutler didn't show any signs of getting us back into that game, even if he'd stayed healthy. GB went to a rival's house and defeated them in the Conference Championship, and then went on to win the SB. I'd love to pretend the Bears are equals, but we're still missing pieces.