Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by JustAnotherBearsFan99, Jan 28, 2014.
Well at least he got it right and said it's in Jersey and not New York like everyone and their mother has been saying. The weather is gonna be fine. It won't be warm, about 35 degrees...but other than that no issues. Everyone is over blowing this thing.
I agree with Ditka. The last time our beloved played in the Superbowl, it was a disaster; is was a monsoon. Does anyone remember that game? There was 8 freakin turnovers in that game, it was a mess. Regular season games are fine, but the Superbowl is a Championship game and it should be played in conditions that allow the strengths of each team, as they were built and executed over the season to get them there, to be on display.
If the weather had not been an issue in SB XLI, I'm not saying we would have won, but I think our chances would have been better. Frankly, I would prefer to play in the cold as opposed to that tropical down poor we had to play in at Miami. That was pathetic, and that should not be the case for such a huge event.
But you contradict yourself. If anything bad weather would have hurt the Colts and helped us. They actually played better once it started raining and we played worse. Listen, if you can play the game to get into the Superbowl in bad weather, you can play the Superbowl in bad weather. It's football! The better team SHOULD be prepared and play well in any weather, and they should deserve to win. I mean why not just make the Superbowl the best 2 out of 3 while we're at it...because you know that saying...any given Sunday...and a game of that importance is just to great to risk to a chance victory.
I think all this whining in the media about the possibility of bad weather is just stupid. I'm so sick of hearing how "its not fair to manning" It's football, and playing in a warm weather climate or dome each year benefits any dome or warm weather team that makes it. Part of being a good team and coaching staff is the ability to adapt and I think every other SB should be played in the north.
"But you contradict yourself. If anything bad weather would have hurt the Colts and helped us."
On the contrary, we got there with a superior Defense, a solid but not great offense with a mediocre QB, and a Special teams unit that stared the Amazing new talent by the name of Devin Hester.
A great QB can overcome the elements, which the Colts obviously had; an average QB cannot, which is what we had and it DID effect HIM. Slippery footing almost ALWAYS is an advantage for the offense, thus, if a great offensive team is going up against a great defensive team, guess which one is going to get the short end of the stick. Since WE got there primarily BECAUSE of our DEFENSE, then the elements took away our primary advantage and the part of our team that got us there.
"They actually played better once it started raining and we played worse."
Just proved my point above.
"Listen, if you can play the game to get into the Superbowl in bad weather, you can play the Superbowl in bad weather. It's football!"
That's fine brother, and for ALL OTHER games, I agree with you. I guess it just depends on how seriously you take this game (the Super Bowl). All other playoff games SHOULD have an advantage based on home field and home weather because the better team theoretically earned that advantage over the course of the season. However, once you get to the Super Bowl, it's supposed to be even.
"The better team SHOULD be prepared and play well in any weather, and they should deserve to win."
Of course that is the case, but regardless of how much you prepare, if the elements give or take an advantage to one team or the other, then the better team MAY NOT win. That's the point of it all. Heavy snow or heavy rain will ALWAYS put the Defense at a disadvantage because of footing. Heavy wind will always but the Offense at a disadvantage because it takes away the passing game. No amount of preparation will change that for either team, and the more severe the weather the more the dreaded "Luck" becomes more of a variable than "Talent".
"I mean why not just make the Superbowl the best 2 out of 3 while we're at it...because you know that saying...any given Sunday...and a game of that importance is just to great to risk to a chance victory."
Oh come on, now your just getting snotty when all we're doing is talking about where the Super Bowl should be played. Do we really want to do that? Our team isn't even playing.
So tired of Ditka and his waxing idiodic.
HATER! I'M CALLING HATER...DITKA HATER IN DA HOUSE!!!
I have to warn you Ric, this is the second time in as many days that I have borne witness to your sacrilege, and as the Past Grand Pooba of the Greater Downstate Illinois Chapter of the Mike Ditka Man Love and Meatball Society I still carry a lotta weight witt some very powerful and scary people. I'm not sayin...I'm just sayin...you been warned.
I loved Ditka as much as the next fanboy; but the reality is he's parity of a parity of what he once was and I've grown tired of it. Just let him retire to his riches and take naps all day and no one will have to know about it.
me or most the meatball fanbase that loves the 85 Bears and think that the team needs to play like that?
The word is "parody" but I agree. Ticket prices are dropping because oh boy it might be cold! Gimme a break. I was at the tornado game in Soldier Field vs Baltimore and the deep-freeze game vs Dallas. Suck it up or stay home! No big deal and its part of the rugged tradition that makes pro football great.
Football is an outdoor game and if you've ever been to one indoors (in "ideal" conditions) like I have here in Arizona you know it's not the same, even if the climate control system made it more "fan comfortable". I applaud the NFL's decision to host a SB in an outdoor non-southern stadium and hope they do more of it even if this years SB becomes a snow-fest. It's football for crying out loud! If you want to be comforted in artificially perfect climate conditions, go to the opera or the symphony. Or just watch the SB at a home like 99% of people do. I like the variable that potential bad weather adds to the game.
So you mean to tell me a dome team and QB had an advantage over an outdoor team used to playing in elements? Really? Secondly...we gave up nearly 200 yards rushing in that game, I think that was the bigger issue. I just think the whole thing is overblown and silly! It's a game that was meant to be played in the elements.
And I'm not being snotty...seriously...I mean if weather is such a big deal...best 2 out of 3 should determine the champ! Why take it to chance?
Man...good thing the Super Bowl isn't in Atlanta this year! Hah! 3 inches of snow and they have kids sleeping in schools!
They will be playing soccer, outside, in shorts and t-shirts in Munich on Sunday...predicted to have the same or worse weather conditions then New Jersey/NY....just sayin'....
You're right, it is kind of silly to argue this point. I agree with many of your posts Butkus and I'm not trying to get into a pissing match with you, especially on a topic that doesn't really matter. However, since it's slow and for the sake of argument, I'll share a bit more. When you suggest that the biggest issue was that we gave up 200 yards rushing, aren't you kind of making my point for me? I think so. I indicated that in slick conditions like rain or snow the OFFENSE will ALWAYS have the advantage over DEFENSE, regardless of how well prepared the Defense is. In 2006, 200 yards (actually it was 191) was the most the Bears Defense gave up all year. It was also the most rushing yards the COLTS had accumulated all year. Doesn't THAT kind of support my theory.
I also tend to think there was one GLARING stat that was FAR more important than 191 yards rushing against us and that was the 8 turnovers in this game. 5 of those were made by the Bears, but the game total shows how the elements effected the outcome of the game and thus "luck" had more to do with the outcome than it should have.
Furthermore, yes, I do mean to tell you a dome team had an advantage over an outdoor team because I think that excuse is a bunch of bull, similar to calling -5 wind chill at Soldier Field "Bear Weather". These players have been playing in all kinds of conditions and environments since their Freshman year in college. Even if they are a dome team, they only play 1/2 their games in those domes. Outdoor teams often play in warm weather or in domes when playing away. So some may play in bad weather more often than others, but they ALL play in bad weather occasionally. Even in Chicago, the conditions are usually pretty good until you get into that last 3 or 4 games or the playoffs. I'm not saying that players in northern climates are not more acclimated to the cold than southern teams, and teams in warm climates are more acclimated to severe heat for games early in the season. Obviously, visiting teams are at a disadvantage in Denver due to the altitude, but when it comes to physical, tangible elements (rain, snow, sleet, ice, wind) that actually have a direct effect on your movement, the whole dome/no dome team has less to do with the advantage and more to do with the difference between Offense and Defense. The offense knows the play and the Defense has to react.
Yeah...it's real slow...kind of driving me crazy! LOL, and yeah...this is very silly...but kind of helps pass the time no? You see, I don't remember our defense slipping all over the place trying to make tackles though. I do remember Daniel Manning blowing coverage after coverage. Further, Dome teams sometimes play their away games in other domes, so they don't necessarily play half their games outside. We should have had the advantage in that game. We played on grass, they didn't. We were more used to elements, they weren't. What we did was get away from running the ball...which I didn't understand because we were running well if I remember correctly.
Separate names with a comma.