ESPN Comments On Bears

[JJ-28]

Here is how the caption reads under the Bears picture on ESPN web page.

"No team has won more often than Chicago. And, as the saying goes, it's better to be lucky than good"

So I take it that ESPN still and forever thinks any wins we have are luck and not the play of a good team.

Now I wonder since the Dolphins were #14 in the Power Ratings and the Bears were #17, when next weeks ratings comes out will we move up or will it just be that other teams will drop below us.

 

[payton 34ever]

Here is how the caption reads under the Bears picture on ESPN web page.

"No team has won more often than Chicago. And, as the saying goes, it's better to be lucky than good"

So I take it that ESPN still and forever thinks any wins we have are luck and not the play of a good team.

Now I wonder since the Dolphins were #14 in the Power Ratings and the Bears were #17, when next weeks ratings comes out will we move up or will it just be that other teams will drop below us.

If that's the exact wording of the caption, it just makes them look stupid. They're making it sound like the Bears have won 700 games, but it was mostly luck. If they wanted to say this year's team is lucky (you don't win 70% of your games by being lucky), they should have broken up the two thoughts.

 

[Cover3]

poor professionalism from whatever dumbass writer wrote this.. though I had come to expect that kind of fuck ups from espn.

 

[Lefty]

To be fair, though, this team has looked astonishingly bad at times, other times just about average, maybe a little bit above, and never well above average. So if you were told after awhile that the same high-amplitude, up-and-down team is 7-3, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to say that somewhere along the line, that team was lucky. And really, how can you find fault at all with anyone insinuating that this team is where it is in part due to things completely out of their control? Have you people been watching this season?

Does ESPN have a bias against teams not from certain regions/locales throughout the country? Of course. But that doesn't mean that every little thing that could possibly be perceived as a biased slight is in fact a biased slight, especially when looking at this Bears team which has been pretty God-awful for a good portion of the season.

 

[zack54attack]

Stupid headline.

They act like our tradition has been lucky. Look at the 40's and our previous history. Winning tradition.

 

[Lefty]

Stupid headline.

They act like our tradition has been lucky. Look at the 40's and our previous history. Winning tradition.

Yeah, and then there's the late 80's, all of the 90's and much of the 2000's that say the team blows. :dunno:

The only tradition regarding the Bears is celebrating said tradition.

 

[Capt. Serious]

ESPN has tards like Trent Dilfer & Tim Hasselbeck.

Nuff said.

 

[TopekaRoy]

It's not just ESPN. Local media is singing the same tune about the Bears to a large extent. Her is just a sampling.

From The Chicago Reader:

Nobody Trusts the Bears

A friend wrote me last night during the Bears game: "when an NFL team is 6-3 and all the fans & media can say about them is that they suck, something complex has gone wrong."

From The Sun Times:

A successful fishing trip
Dolphins hurting, but Bears not apologizing

The Bears would prefer not to talk about the L word.

You know, luck.

So let's just say they had a few things going for them Thursday night.

...And this:

Time for naysayers to take note

Alead in the division and a huge road victory in Miami, and the Bears couldn't be viewed more suspiciously if they opened snake-oil stands at Soldier Field or started floating bonds for Wrigley Field renovations

And from the Daily Herald:

7-3, huh? OK, now beat the Eagles and we'll talk

So far the sense has been that the Bears are the luckiest 7-3 team in football. Maybe that will continue if the Giants might disable Vick on Sunday.

I think the Bears are better than people are giving them credit for, but the only good team they have beat this year are the Packers ...a huge rival ... at home ... and the Packers committed a ton of penalties and basically shot themselves in the foot.

If they beat the Eagles next week, maybe people will start taking them seriously.

... unless Vick doesn't start because he is knocked out with a broken rib by the Giants today. Then it's still gonna be "The Bears are lucky."

 

[ClydeLee]

Yes they get no credit but to a large extent it's true... and to a lot of playoff teams and sometimes super bowl appearing teams it is true they got there a lot because of being lucky of a few bounces or calls made and relatively healthy.

Not to compare them, but in 06 There was plenty of people saying all the same things how the Bears were not beating any legit contending quality teams.

 

[Scoot26]

Yeah, and then there's the late 80's, all of the 90's and much of the 2000's that say the team blows. :dunno:

The only tradition regarding the Bears is celebrating said tradition.

uhh..The Bears were good minus one year in 1989 in the late 80's.

 

[dabynsky]

uhh..The Bears were good minus one year in 1989 in the late 80's.

I agree with your assertion that it is a bit of exageration about how long the Bears sucked. There have definitely been some doldrums for the franchise from the mid 90s to the early 2000s when the team had one winning season. However, between 84-91 the Bears won less than 10 games just once, '89 as you mentioned. And while the 2000s have had some low points with 2 seasons of 5 wins and one of 4 wins, the team has a winning record for the decade, 3 division titles and a Super Bowl appearance. There are teams that certainly performed better than the Bears during the decade, but there are far more that have played worse.

 

[Cover3]

Anyways, I think i'd rather have everyone doubt this team just to see them change their opinion suddenly when/if the bears win something later down the road.

 

[Lefty]

uhh..The Bears were good minus one year in 1989 in the late 80's.

Ok, so it's only almost two decades of laughably shitty football. What a tradition.

 

[Pre]

Sooner or later people will finally figure out that our success thus far hasn't been about luck - it's been about great defense and solid special teams. When you have that, offense is optional.

 

[Crystallas]

I don't see how it's luck. The mass media falls in love with quarterbacks. Only so many quarterbacks get special respect in each generation, so at what point does a franchise built around linebackers, running backs and a few key defensive and special teams players get any recognition? The only Bears QBs that have really shined in my lifetime have been Eric Kramer for a season, Jim McMahon for 2 1/2 seasons, Jim Harbaugh for 1/3rd of a season, and Rex Grosman for a 5 game stretch. LOL Put all of that together, and that's less than 5 seasons in 30 years of championship caliber quarterbacking! LOL

But that doesn't mean the rest was LUCK.

 

[Rush]

Grossman was the NFC Player of the Month at one point. Man were we excited lol.

 

[Pre]

And I still think Cutler can be an elite quarterback for us. But Jerry Angelo is going to have to step up and give him some better talent to work with. I like the young receivers, but there's no denying that a true number one would help the offense. (Not to mention if Martz would play Aromashodu more.) There's no excuse for the offensive line to be as bad as it is.

That's not to say that Cutler doesn't need to step up his game - his decision making is still suspect and he throws off his back foot too often. But at his best he's as good as anyone in the league not named Manning the Elder, and you can't expect him to perform at that level consistently without any help.

 

[Scoot26]

Grossman was the NFC Player of the Month at one point. Man were we excited lol.

Everyone except me. I kinda predicted that Arizona performance. At the time one of my friends was idolizing Grossman like a god and kept saying MVP! MVP! and the night of that game I said..he's a Bears QB..something wrong will happen soon. Little did I know it would be that night.