Printable View
Bears have the second best record in the NFC (6-1), but some people are calling them over rated because they have only beaten one team that currently has a record over .500
want to know what other teams have only beaten one team with a record over .500?
Falcons (7-0)
49ers (6-2)
Giants (5-2)
Ravens (5-2)
Anyone hear any of those teams being called over rated?
If the Bears are "over rated" what the hell are the rest of these teams? Maybe the NFL as a whole is over rates then
Honestly, I don't know and don't care. I'm not making any determinations until I see them play the Texans and the 49ers. All of the reporters have to find something to say every day. So let them talk. I'll make my decisions after I see them match up with some top talent. Maybe they are over rated and maybe not. The talk will stop after those two games and then we'll know.
The way the team has been constituted, psychologically (at least how the leaks of what goes on behind the scenes tells us), there's always a game that is a turning point, at which the way the offense is being run is held up to a mirror. I think this last game was that one, as the team knew it would win, Cutler saying so in the huddle, and immediately afterwards admitting how horribly they played. There's more to how it goes, than that, but I feel Carolina was this year's "Okay, cut the ****" game. As far as overrated, um, this defense is on pace to shatter the points scored record, one that has been around for over 50 years; Marshall is on pace to have the best year a Chicago Bear has ever had, and outside of the TE spot, we're talented everywhere. Bring on Atlanta, Houston and San Fran, those who think we're gonna get destroyed are sadly mistaken. We might lose one of those two back to back games, but I would put money we don't lose both.
Benji pay no attention to he men behind that curtain who write that crap. Did any of them ever take out their calculators and figure out the collectively those teams, including the Bears, have contributed 29 losses to their opponents records?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Benjamin
Collectively these teams are averaging just under six wins so somebody else out there has to be averaging six losses. Who handed them those losses? They have to play somebody. They can't all be playing one another every week can they?
That's the most useless statistic anyone has ever used to measure a teams "rating".
Want to know why our wins were against teams with losing records? We beat them.
Dallas and Detroit are 3-4, but would be 4-3 had we lost to them. Indy is 4-3, but would be 5-2 had we lost to them.
St. Louis is 3-5, so we can't be the sole claim of their losing record, but they've lost to quality opponents.
Jax and Car have crappy records, but we don't control who is put on our schedule.
Totally agree. I don't think we know how good we are until we bump up against some talent, which will happen in 2 weeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by bearsinhouston
I will say this though, if you take the team apart and look at it its breaks down like this:
The defense is outstanding, best in the league or at least top three, so they aren't over rated. Offense is no good (business as usual in Chicago) and they are getting trashed in the media, so they aren't over rated. Special teams is solid.
So when you take the phases apart they are rated accurately but when you put them all together then Bears are over rated? I don't get it. Maybe someone smart needs to explain this to me.
Over rated = folks bet against them and lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by XxMidwayMonstersxX
I don't care for the over-rated talk either, but regardless of what anyone says, they have not proven anything yet. However, neither have the other teams, so I agree, if the Bears are over-rated, then so are the 49ers.
It is simply the sample size. To suggest that team "A" is a better team with a 6-1 record, when they have only played inferior teams, than Team "B" which is, say, 5-3, but have played mostly playoff caliber teams, is simply unfair. The problem is, Team "A" hasn't had the chance to prove themselves against the league's better competition and Team "B" hasn't had the benefit of playing the weaker part of their schedule yet. The point is, it is neither right or wrong to suggest Team "A" or Team "B" is better yet, it's simply incomplete.
Illinois has 102 Counties. Right now, the Presidential election polls suggest Obama will win Illinois handily, and he will, but he will do so while winning only about 8 of those 102 Counties. If the Poll was taken of only the remaining 94 Counties, Romney would easily beat Obama...because the poll is incomplete.
The over-rated talk is just as silly as someone saying the Bears are the second best team in the league simply because of their record. Either statement could be right or wrong at this point, but we just don't know yet.
Tim Tebow is overrated.
People saying Bears are overrated are most likely Packers fan. They can't stand the fact we're 6-1 while they're 5-3
LOL, I don't think we can even stand the fact that we're 6-1 Zif. They way that offense is being run I'm finding it hard to believe myself. Unless we beat the Packers twice and go undefeated I'll always think we left something on the table.:18_1_205:Quote:
Originally Posted by ZifanQ