- Joined:
- Sep 7, 2014
- Posts:
- 16,087
- Liked Posts:
- 12,655
We've all heard this one, probably way more than once.
"Da Baers are a cold weather team. They get off the bus running and they hit hard. They never have a QuArTeRbAcK so we grind out games and win in the COLD like real men."
But how accurate is that statement? Do the Bears actually perform better in cold weather games, or is this just another in a long list of Bears fans fallacies they tell themselves (usually because they only follow the Bears and not the rest of the NFL)?
Lets take a look at the stats. Since "cold weather" is very loosely defined, if defined at all, this is the criteria I'm using:
1) Post-Merger, so 1970 on. Lets be honest, no one cares what happened prior to 1970.
2) Game had to be played outdoors, obviously. No retractable roofs, those are for pussies.
3) Finally, I made the cutoff at 40 degrees Fahrenheit or below. Should it be lower? What qualifies as "cold"? I think 40 is fair. If you've ever played the sport, you know getting hit when its 40 degrees out does not feel great.
Here's the results:
15th with a 48.4% win %.... yikes.
No one even competes with the Steelers. One thing I thought was interesting was Dallas' success in the cold. Maybe we should start considering them a cold weather powerhouse? Green Bay actually destroys Chicago when it comes to cold weather performances.
Lets change up the criteria to 2010 and on, just to take a look at where the Bears rank in recent history. Here's the results: http://pfref.com/tiny/mYCn9
Holy poop - the Bears are actually trending down in cold weather games.
I guess we can put this fallacy to bed once and for all, the Bears are in fact NOT a "cold weather team".
Maybe time to build a roof? Thoughts?
"Da Baers are a cold weather team. They get off the bus running and they hit hard. They never have a QuArTeRbAcK so we grind out games and win in the COLD like real men."
But how accurate is that statement? Do the Bears actually perform better in cold weather games, or is this just another in a long list of Bears fans fallacies they tell themselves (usually because they only follow the Bears and not the rest of the NFL)?
Lets take a look at the stats. Since "cold weather" is very loosely defined, if defined at all, this is the criteria I'm using:
1) Post-Merger, so 1970 on. Lets be honest, no one cares what happened prior to 1970.
2) Game had to be played outdoors, obviously. No retractable roofs, those are for pussies.
3) Finally, I made the cutoff at 40 degrees Fahrenheit or below. Should it be lower? What qualifies as "cold"? I think 40 is fair. If you've ever played the sport, you know getting hit when its 40 degrees out does not feel great.
Here's the results:
Team Game Stats Finder - Pro Football | Stathead.com
Find teams with most passing yards in home games in single season, combined seasons and many more filter criteria on Stathead.com.
pfref.com
15th with a 48.4% win %.... yikes.
No one even competes with the Steelers. One thing I thought was interesting was Dallas' success in the cold. Maybe we should start considering them a cold weather powerhouse? Green Bay actually destroys Chicago when it comes to cold weather performances.
Lets change up the criteria to 2010 and on, just to take a look at where the Bears rank in recent history. Here's the results: http://pfref.com/tiny/mYCn9
Holy poop - the Bears are actually trending down in cold weather games.
I guess we can put this fallacy to bed once and for all, the Bears are in fact NOT a "cold weather team".
Maybe time to build a roof? Thoughts?