The team they completely dominated in the NFC Championship 3 years ago are now Super Bowl Champions. And the chief architect of the Bears' decline, Lovie Smith, is still in charge of the team.
Now, I hope these new position coaches and coordinators help, but I just don't believe that Lovie Smith's football intelligence is nearly high enough to turn the team into champions. The fact that he refuses to believe that HIS version of the Cover 2 is obsolete. He promotes Marinelli because he will basically be his defensive hand puppet.
Anyway, congrats to the Saints. You've shown that a team doesn't have to decline after playoff disappointment.
After we beat the Saints, they had a perfectly mediocre 7-9 season, followed by dead last in their division last year at another mediocre 8-8.
Sure, they are the champs this yer, and earned what they have, but knock off the pity party and stop pretending the Bears are the only team to perform mediocre the past few years.
__________________
The Following 3 Users gave a High Five to Jimmors For This Useful Post:
After we beat the Saints, they had a perfectly mediocre 7-9 season, followed by dead last in their division last year at another mediocre 8-8.
Sure, they are the champs this yer, and earned what they have, but knock off the pity party and stop pretending the Bears are the only team to perform mediocre the past few years.
Get over myself? What does the Bears sucking since reaching the Super Bowl have to do with me? Enlighten us.
Or you can continue to be a douche. Either way is cool.
And being that this is a forum for Chicago Bears discussion, I find other teams being mediocre the past few years irrelevant. Unless you can explain why it isn't. I'm all ears.
The Following 2 Users gave a High Five to StarkyLuv For This Useful Post:
Get over myself? What does the Bears sucking since reaching the Super Bowl have to do with me? Enlighten us.
Or you can continue to be a douche. Either way is cool.
And being that this is a forum for Chicago Bears discussion, I find other teams being mediocre the past few years irrelevant. Unless you can explain why it isn't. I'm all ears.
Allow me to take a stab at it.
You are using the Saints winning the Super Bowl three years after we dominate them as a sign of how far we have fallen. So if you can use the Saints to show how far the Bears have fallen, then why can he not use the same Saints team as an example in what he thinks or feels
He is using the same Saints team to show that they have been mediocre the past few years and have rebuilt to be Champions.
Point being, the Saints have been mediocre the past few years (up until this year) just like the Bears have been mediocre. It is a valid argument.
And if you are saying he cant use the Saints being "mediocre the past few years" because you find it to be "irrelevant" then it is also irrelevant that we dominated them three years ago.
Get over myself? What does the Bears sucking since reaching the Super Bowl have to do with me? Enlighten us.
Or you can continue to be a douche. Either way is cool.
And being that this is a forum for Chicago Bears discussion, I find other teams being mediocre the past few years irrelevant. Unless you can explain why it isn't. I'm all ears.
I didnt resort to calling you names, so id appreciate the same in return.
Nothing personal, i fully expected to come here after the Saints won and see someone use that as another "example" of the Bears fall from grace as it were. You just happen to be the person to do it.
But ill ask you a question in return...what does the Saints winning the Superbowl have to do with the Bears? You claim that another team being mediocre is irrelevant, well then i can just as easily claim that another team winning the Superbowl is just as irrelevant when it concerns the Bears. But you seem to use it for the basis of your "Bears fall is complete" argument.
So, you cant have it both ways, if the Saints past 2 seasons are irrelevant to this discussion, then so is their SB victory. If its not, then i stated that to point out that the Saints havent been that great either the past couple years.
You are using the Saints winning the Super Bowl three years after we dominate them as a sign of how far we have fallen. So if you can use the Saints to show how far the Bears have fallen, then why can he not use the same Saints team as an example in what he thinks or feels
He is using the same Saints team to show that they have been mediocre the past few years and have rebuilt to be Champions.
Point being, the Saints have been mediocre the past few years (up until this year) just like the Bears have been mediocre. It is a valid argument.
And if you are saying he cant use the Saints being "mediocre the past few years" because you find it to be "irrelevant" then it is also irrelevant that we dominated them three years ago.
One year has nothing to do with the next.
Hahah, you beat me to it Benji, but yeah, spot on.
I dont mean to take it out on Starky, but i just came back from watching the game, and i checked the forum for this exact reason..because i knew someone was going to try and make some off base connection between the Saints and the Bears.
I agree Starky, my interest in other teams success is limited to those that have shown an ability to win SB's, or at least find themselves maintaining high levels of play year in year out. And I was thinking the same thing. One team, Indy remains to be one of the best teams in the league, and they beat us in our SB, the other couldn't beat us that year or the year after, and are now far better then us.
Another thing was the lack of big plays, both qb's were willing to just drop back and get rid of the ball to avoid the rush. Not a ton of bombs being dropped, and both are capable of them. Seems you can win w/out stretching the ball vertically w/long bombs. The Bears OL would have been helped greatly if RT and JC could have found a way to 3 step drop and release more often.
Linear Mode
