Sports Illustrated predicts Bears record....ouch

[bearmick]

No.

The Rams' NFC West opponents combined for a 23-25 record.

The Bears' NFC North opponents combined for a 29-19 record. With a broken Aaron Rodgers...

The Rams faced the 12th toughest strength of schedule. The Bears faced the 4th toughest strength of schedule.

I mean, at least try making sense.

LOL you think that's the difference between the Rams and Bears last year? They were night and day. The Bears still would have sucked in the NFCW.

Fact is, they had a rookie coach, 2nd year QB, and a bunch of new additions, and they nailed it. Will Trubisky and the Bears? We'll see.

 

[Porkchop]

Ludicrous prediction and even worse reasoning to back it up.

I understand that not every team that makes drastic changes and upgrades their roster yields a worst-to-first turnaround, but last year, the Bears had just about every single thing go wrong for them, and that yielded a 5-11 season. They had the most starts lost to injury, they had the brain trust of Fox and Loggains calling one of the single worst offensive schemes I have witnessed at the highest level of the sport. In addition, the Bears also played arguably the toughest schedule in the league last season.

You replace said incompetent offensive coaches and predictable scheme, with a group that actually knows how to run a modern and effective offense. You retain the same defensive coach that has steadily improved your defense year by year, then make said roster improvements at several question positions. And yet, after all this, the Bears are expected to finish WORSE than last year?

Again, the Bears played what has been discussed as the toughest schedule in the league last year, so it being tougher in 2018 is pretty unlikely. The number of teams that have made this many improvements to their roster and staff is slim, very slim. Have to also bear in mind that 6 of the Bears losses were within a possession. That's where having even slightly better coaching or being even a bit healthier plays a major factor in those games becoming wins instead of losses.

 

[Tostada]

Ludicrous prediction and even worse reasoning to back it up.

I understand that not every team that makes drastic changes and upgrades their roster yields a worst-to-first turnaround, but last year, the Bears had just about every single thing go wrong for them, and that yielded a 5-11 season. They had the most starts lost to injury, they had the brain trust of Fox and Loggains calling one of the single worst offensive schemes I have witnessed at the highest level of the sport. In addition, the Bears also played arguably the toughest schedule in the league last season.

You replace said incompetent offensive coaches and predictable scheme, with a group that actually knows how to run a modern and effective offense. You retain the same defensive coach that has steadily improved your defense year by year, then make said roster improvements at several question positions. And yet, after all this, the Bears are expected to finish WORSE than last year?

Again, the Bears played what has been discussed as the toughest schedule in the league last year, so it being tougher in 2018 is pretty unlikely. The number of teams that have made this many improvements to their roster and staff is slim, very slim. Have to also bear in mind that 6 of the Bears losses were within a possession. That's where having even slightly better coaching or being even a bit healthier plays a major factor in those games becoming wins instead of losses.

The Bears had a very good defense in 2017 and are arguably better with Smith and a healthy Lynch.

 

[nc0gnet0]

Ludicrous prediction and even worse reasoning to back it up.

I understand that not every team that makes drastic changes and upgrades their roster yields a worst-to-first turnaround, but last year, the Bears had just about every single thing go wrong for them, and that yielded a 5-11 season. They had the most starts lost to injury, they had the brain trust of Fox and Loggains calling one of the single worst offensive schemes I have witnessed at the highest level of the sport. In addition, the Bears also played arguably the toughest schedule in the league last season.

You replace said incompetent offensive coaches and predictable scheme, with a group that actually knows how to run a modern and effective offense. You retain the same defensive coach that has steadily improved your defense year by year, then make said roster improvements at several question positions. And yet, after all this, the Bears are expected to finish WORSE than last year?

Again, the Bears played what has been discussed as the toughest schedule in the league last year, so it being tougher in 2018 is pretty unlikely. The number of teams that have made this many improvements to their roster and staff is slim, very slim. Have to also bear in mind that 6 of the Bears losses were within a possession. That's where having even slightly better coaching or being even a bit healthier plays a major factor in those games becoming wins instead of losses.

That's a tired old trope that just needs to die, the bulk of most teams loss's are within a possession. Lions alone had 5, so they must be really close to being a 14-2 team by your reasoning. Loss is a loss.

 

[Porkchop]

That's a tired old trope that just needs to die, the bulk of most teams loss's are within a possession. Lions alone had 5, so they must be really close to being a 14-2 team by your reasoning. Loss is a loss.

The Lions weren't one of the most injury-plagued squads and weren't playing a rookie QB.

Scenarios aren't the same. Poor comparison on your part.

 

[nc0gnet0]

The Lions weren't one of the most injury-plagued squads and weren't playing a rookie QB.

Scenarios aren't the same. Poor comparison on your part.

Lions had more than their share of injuries, and the Bears started a veteran QB in the beginning of the year. Granted, the Bears were decimated at the WR position, but Pace should have seen that coming. White, Long and Miller's injury alone accounted for a good deal of their lost time, and everybody seen those coming (except Pace). Meredith was the only one that wasn't predictable. And besides, your just making excuses, none of what you posted changes the point I was making about one possession loss's.

 

[bamainatlanta]

The Lions weren't one of the most injury-plagued squads and weren't playing a rookie QB.

Scenarios aren't the same. Poor comparison on your part.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/2017-adjusted-games-lost

Bears are due for some good luck on the injury front; lead the league with one of the most injury plagued years in 2016 and then 2nd in 2017.

 

[nc0gnet0]

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/2017-adjusted-games-lost

Bears are due for some good luck on the injury front; lead the league with one of the most injury plagued years in 2016 and then 2nd in 2017.

Are they? Not being sarcastic, but they do seem to have more than their share of Injury prone players on the team. You don't think that is part of the problem?

 

[SugarWalls]

Mainly on offense. Their last years starting line played a sum total of 15 snaps together, most significant was Taylor Decker, their starting LT who missed 8 game and was replaced by the gawd awful Greg Robinson. Both 2017 FA additions Lang and Wagner were in and out of the lineup, and Swanson missed significant time with concussion issues. All the injuries had 10 different line combinations in 16 games, the most in the NFL. Swanson was replaced by Ragnow, the Lions first round draft pick and shoe in starter. They then added Blount, and drafted Kerryon Johnson in the second round, and already have one of the best 3rd down backs in the NFL in Riddick. This means their 2017 starting RB Abdullah is in danger of even making the team. They have a nice young WR in Kenny Galloday, now in his second year that is having an eye popping OTA's, and should give the Lions the best overall WR group in the North, and top five in the league.

Defense is still suspect, no one knows what to expect, or how Patricia will deploy them, but he does have a history of making players better. Anybody that can get serviceable play out of Shea McClellin or Kyle Van Noy has to be doing something right. Lions do have a solid secondary with anchors Slay and Quinn, defensively keys to success will be the growth of 2nd year player Jarrod Davis, and contract year Ziggy Ansah. They get back Zettle who was out all of 2017, and anything out of second year Cb Tabor will be a bonus.

I expect a top 8, maybe even 5 offense, with a slightly improved defense (coaching). Much of the improvements might be nullified by SOS, so I expect and 8-8 9-7 season, possibly 10-6.

Bears will be greatly improved too, but I expect much more growing pains, with a second year QB on his second offensive system. Bears are getting the pieces, but pass rush is suspect, and this is a division where you need to pressure the QB. They will show flashes of what they can be, but I don't see it coming together until 2019. And all this hinges on MT, who despite all the cute nicknames, is still very raw and unproven. I see anywhere from 6-10 to 8-8 for the Bears, but they will be much more entertaining to watch than the Fox bears, that is for sure.

At any rate, at this point, almost every team in the league can claim improvement, not just the Bears.

I'm curious to see how the idea of strengthening what was already solid will pay off for them. I like the Ragnow pick for the Lions, and obviously having a healthy O line is critical. I really don't care much for the Kerryon Johnson pick, but we shall see how that pans out. The addition of Blount scares me as a Bears fan just because that dude is nasty. Overall I like the additions but am underwhelmed. Granted the Lions offense was already solid, so it is not as if they needed to add a lot to that offense aside from grabbing a center and just hoping they can gel and play healthy.

I'm curious about the defensive side of the ball though, which will largely depend on how proficient Matt Patricia is. I don't really give a shit about him yelling at players or making them run, but I am really underwhelmed by how the defense performed under Patricia in NE.

Last year that defense was bad. Just flat out not good. NE's passing defense was ranked 30th in the NFL. This is a team that has some premier corner talent in Malcom Butler and Stephon Gilmore. This is a team that plays Buffalo, NYJ, and the Jay Cutler lead Dolphins for a combined 6 games last year. How the fuck can they be ranked that poorly in pass defense? I have to think it doesn't bode well for the Lions considering they will be playing Aaron rodgers and Kirk Cousins who are undoubtedly better than whatever trash buffalo and NYJ was trotting out there last year. Not to mention Nagy is going to be running a similar system to the one that shredded Patricia's defense for a whopping 40+ points in the superbowl.

Now if Patricia pans out to be competent then that powerhouse offense with a healthy O Line is definitely going to carry the Lions to a ton of wins. However, if I were a Lions fan I would be a little cautious of the hire. Not to mention Jim Bob Cooter very well may be the best coach on that team and if he has another year out of Matt Stafford like he did last year he could very well be the head coach of a different team moving forward.

Edit: how about a matt patricia defense that allowed 42 points against the Chiefs in week 1.

 

[Porkchop]

Lions had more than their share of injuries, and the Bears started a veteran QB in the beginning of the year. Granted, the Bears were decimated at the WR position, but Pace should have seen that coming. White, Long and Miller's injury alone accounted for a good deal of their lost time, and everybody seen those coming (except Pace). Meredith was the only one that wasn't predictable. And besides, your just making excuses, none of what you posted changes the point I was making about one possession loss's.

Actually, yes it does.

You stated the Lions had their share of injuries. That's true, but they weren't as hobbled as the Bears. It went far beyond just the few you mentioned.

In addition, even with Glennon, it was blatantly obvious the product that year at QB was not going to be on par with an in-prime Stafford, especially when he had something resembling weapons at receiver/TE.

I never excused the Bears for those losses, and they happened, but the fact is that the Bears were far more plagued by injury than practically every one of their opponents and when you are in 1-possession games, those missing personnel matter. The Lions had injuries, but again, not on par with the Bears, and they still had most of their key players for most of the season, unlike the Bears, which had several key players missing for large stretches of the season.

 

[xer0h0ur]

LOL you think that's the difference between the Rams and Bears last year? They were night and day. The Bears still would have sucked in the NFCW.

Fact is, they had a rookie coach, 2nd year QB, and a bunch of new additions, and they nailed it. Will Trubisky and the Bears? We'll see.

Did you even bother following the conversation or just jumped on me with a hot take? Try at least following the conversation to understand why I pointed out those glaringly obvious facts. I sure as hell didn't start that comparison but you best believe I am going to point out the fallacy in it.

 

[nc0gnet0]

I'm curious to see how the idea of strengthening what was already solid will pay off for them. I like the Ragnow pick for the Lions, and obviously having a healthy O line is critical. I really don't care much for the Kerryon Johnson pick, but we shall see how that pans out. The addition of Blount scares me as a Bears fan just because that dude is nasty. Overall I like the additions but am underwhelmed. Granted the Lions offense was already solid, so it is not as if they needed to add a lot to that offense aside from grabbing a center and just hoping they can gel and play healthy.

Underwhelmed? You have to understand, not every team in the league is picking top ten in the draft and has a boat load of cash to spend in FA, so of course their additions won't be as significant as the Bears, at least not at this stage.

I'm curious about the defensive side of the ball though, which will largely depend on how proficient Matt Patricia is. I don't really give a shit about him yelling at players or making them run, but I am really underwhelmed by how the defense performed under Patricia in NE.

Last year that defense was bad. Just flat out not good. NE's passing defense was ranked 30th in the NFL. This is a team that has some premier corner talent in Malcom Butler and Stephon Gilmore. This is a team that plays Buffalo, NYJ, and the Jay Cutler lead Dolphins for a combined 6 games last year. How the fuck can they be ranked that poorly in pass defense? I have to think it doesn't bode well for the Lions considering they will be playing Aaron rodgers and Kirk Cousins who are undoubtedly better than whatever trash buffalo and NYJ was trotting out there last year. Not to mention Nagy is going to be running a similar system to the one that shredded Patricia's defense for a whopping 40+ points in the superbowl.

Again, Patricia's defenses have been top ten in points allowed every year he has been DC. I could care less about all the other crap. NE plays alot of games when they are significantly ahead in the 4th quarter, so maybe some of that is attributable to Garbage time, I don't know. Can't say as I watched a lot of NE games TBH. Last year his defense started out completely terrible (averaged 22+ points allowed), he adjusted and bam they were back on track(less than 14 points a game to opponents after forth game). Pul-lease on the similar system crapola, nagy ran a system that crapped out in the first round of the playoffs, just like the Lions do.

Now if Patricia pans out to be competent then that powerhouse offense with a healthy O Line is definitely going to carry the Lions to a ton of wins. However, if I were a Lions fan I would be a little cautious of the hire. Not to mention Jim Bob Cooter very well may be the best coach on that team and if he has another year out of Matt Stafford like he did last year he could very well be the head coach of a different team moving forward.

Edit: how about a matt patricia defense that allowed 42 points against the Chiefs in week 1.

I honestly don't know how Patricia will pan out, just like you or any other Bears fan knows how Nagy will pan out, to be honest. I haven't been on the board crowing over MP, but join in on the discussion when brought up by others. I do like the fact that the current Lions GM and head coach are products of the same system, perhaps that will pay off dividends, maybe not.

 

[nc0gnet0]

Actually, yes it does.

You stated the Lions had their share of injuries. That's true, but they weren't as hobbled as the Bears. It went far beyond just the few you mentioned.

I never stated that the Bears didn't have more injuries, rather the Bears tend to over exaggerate the significance compared to some other teams. Yes, the Bears WR core was decimated, but lets face it, it was nothing to write home about to begin with (2017). Kevin white suffered a season ending injury, who say that coming? Same with Miller (although Millers loss was certainly more significant). White was hot garbage before his injury, and miller is a middling TE. Meredith was at best a #2 or #3 WR on any other team. Lions actually had a top rated D last year until ngata went down and a few other injuries came up. Losing their starting LT was huge as well.

In addition, even with Glennon, it was blatantly obvious the product that year at QB was not going to be on par with an in-prime Stafford, especially when he had something resembling weapons at receiver/TE.

I never excused the Bears for those losses, and they happened, but the fact is that the Bears were far more plagued by injury than practically every one of their opponents and when you are in 1-possession games, those missing personnel matter. The Lions had injuries, but again, not on par with the Bears, and they still had most of their key players for most of the season, unlike the Bears, which had several key players missing for large stretches of the season.

So a starting LT, center, a WR, and two starting DT's are not key players? I have no issue with stating the Bears had more injuries, it's the multipliers you place in front of that I take issue with like "far more".

 

[Porkchop]

I never stated that the Bears didn't have more injuries, rather the Bears tend to over exaggerate the significance compared to some other teams. Yes, the Bears WR core was decimated, but lets face it, it was nothing to write home about to begin with (2017). Kevin white suffered a season ending injury, who say that coming? Same with Miller (although Millers loss was certainly more significant). White was hot garbage before his injury, and miller is a middling TE. Meredith was at best a #2 or #3 WR on any other team. Lions actually had a top rated D last year until ngata went down and a few other injuries came up. Losing their starting LT was huge as well.

In addition, even with Glennon, it was blatantly obvious the product that year at QB was not going to be on par with an in-prime Stafford, especially when he had something resembling weapons at receiver/TE.



So a starting LT, center, a WR, and two starting DT's are not key players? I have no issue with stating the Bears had more injuries, it's the multipliers you place in front of that I take issue with like "far more".

Robinson played every game, so they weren't missing both starting DT's. They lost Ngata, who was 33 years old. If you're going to play the Kevin White game, then a 33-year old DT going down should be predictable and thus on the Lions for not predicting it; Not that it really mattered, as he was hardly productive even when he played.

Losing Decker and Swanson hurt and I'd say that's comparable to the Bears losing Long and Sitton, considering the time lost was about equal.

Then you consider the losses of Leonard Floyd, Jerrell Freeman, *insert pretty much every other OLB here*, and then practically every starting WR, you see now that the comparison warrants the "far more".

In addition, the Bears' receiving corp was surely not going to be something to right home about, but that unit would be at least somewhere around average, and not a collection of players who should be running with the practice squad.

 

[nc0gnet0]

Robinson played every game, so they weren't missing both starting DT's. They lost Ngata, who was 33 years old. If you're going to play the Kevin White game, then a 33-year old DT going down should be predictable and thus on the Lions for not predicting it; Not that it really mattered, as he was hardly productive even when he played.

Lions play a 4-3 (or did) and rotated pieces. My bad, I left out Hyder, I confused him with Zettle. Not sure what your saying about Ngata not being productive, unless you were referring to White. Lions had a top 6 defense at the begining of the year, until Ngata was lost for the season.

Losing Decker and Swanson hurt and I'd say that's comparable to the Bears losing Long and Sitton, considering the time lost was about equal.

Both T.J. Lang (3) and Wagner(3) missed time as well, and were hobbled much of the year.

Then you consider the losses of Leonard Floyd, Jerrell Freeman, *insert pretty much every other OLB here*, and then practically every starting WR, you see now that the comparison warrants the "far more".

Freeman was going to be lost regardless of the injury for PED's. Lions had similar problems at LB as well.
http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2017/10/every_starting_linebacker_on_l.html

In addition, the Bears' receiving corp was surely not going to be something to right home about, but that unit would be at least somewhere around average, and not a collection of players who should be running with the practice squad.

Well, we disagree there, and I am not sure KW's replacement was any worse than KW.

Look, I am not making excuses for the Lions, I am rebutting some of your excuses for the Bears. Injuries happen. It's part of the game. Depth is every bit as important as your starters. Bears had injuries yes, so did everyone else. Bears had a little more than most, but the disparity is not as large as people on here wish to make it out to be.

 

[Porkchop]

Appears you are "making excuses" because your claims are no different than mine, but you call mine "excuses". So what exactly is the difference?

I'll tell you. Injuries happen and teams need to be ready to adjust to said injuries, but you only have 53 players on roster to compensate. Having to replace 25-33% of your roster, especially when it's mainly starters or guys in the 2-deep is unreasonable, especially when they're all out for extended periods of time. Lions were one of the more injured teams last year, but the Bears were much more hobbled. No should can or should be expected to replace their entire receiving corp and just be business as usual. That's just not realistic unless you have a Tom Brady-like talent at QB.

 

[nc0gnet0]

Appears you are "making excuses" because your claims are no different than mine, but you call mine "excuses". So what exactly is the difference?

I'll tell you. Injuries happen and teams need to be ready to adjust to said injuries, but you only have 53 players on roster to compensate. Having to replace 25-33% of your roster, especially when it's mainly starters or guys in the 2-deep is unreasonable, especially when they're all out for extended periods of time. Lions were one of the more injured teams last year, but the Bears were much more hobbled. No should can or should be expected to replace their entire receiving corp and just be business as usual. That's just not realistic unless you have a Tom Brady-like talent at QB.

No, I am not making excuses, I am saying yours are overexagerated. I am arguing the fact of your claims "Bears were much more injured". Only really one injury that should matter, and those are to your starting QB. It's not just the number of injuries, but the quality of players that sustained the injuries that matters. Bears lost Long, yes (no surprise as he had a previous injury history), lost Miller, again no surprise, and Kevin White, same thing. yes I know that there were other injuries as well, but when a significant portion of your starting roster is injury prone, you should expect to be high on the list.

 

[Tostada]

I cannot see this team finishing worse than last year because of Trubisky's development and the new WRs that defenses have to at least respect. Worst case scenario, the WRs make it so defenders cannot stack the box and Jordan Howard has a monster year. There's no reason we cannot be .500.

What I think might happen is that Matt Nagy, his system, and our WRs are being overrated by a portion of the fan base, and if we fail to break .500, we'll have to listen to the "it takes time to gel" excuses for another calendar year. I believe if our team is going to be playoff bound, we'll finish .500 or above this year. If not, we are going to be in for a lot of mediocre seasons with plenty of fan excuses until everyone finally falls off the wagon and Pace is fired.

Mierda and nonsense...on our WRs being overrated. Only injuries or Trubs super sucking will prevent the O from at least adding 10 points a game.

 

[Speed]

Mierda and nonsense...on our WRs being overrated. Only injuries or Trubs super sucking will prevent the O from at least adding 10 points a game.

Careful, you're talking to the guy that's running around comparing Anthony Miller to Earl Bennett based on pure measurables while admitting he hasn't watched any film on Miller... Mierda

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

Careful, you're talking to the guy that's running around comparing Anthony Miller to Earl Bennett based on pure measurables while admitting he hasn't watched any film on Miller... Mierda

The Earl Bennett reference he made would no doubt make the CCS all time top 10 meatball post list and that is saying something.