NFL: Week 4 general discussion thread...
#42
Originally Posted by wndrlst
Hey, Yummy...you getting a load of Romo today?
He's better than Rex...I know.
But, if he can't beat a good AFC team. I have one word for you: MEH.
#47
Originally Posted by wndrlst
True dat, friend. He still looked good.
Sorry.
But...like I said (in case Kumar and revvy e-jump me), Romo is indeed wayyyy better than Rex. No doubt.
But, compared to Anderson? Pffft.
#52
Originally Posted by NetEditor
And apparently, no defense.
You're kidding, right?
The Bears were chasing Kitna all over the field today. They had 6 sacks on the guy. The Bears are losing because of Griese's turnovers and all the fumbles.
#54
Originally Posted by Yumchah
You're kidding, right?
The Bears were chasing Kitna all over the field today. They had 6 sacks on the guy. The Bears are losing because of Griese's turnovers and all the fumbles.
I hope the Bears don't scare all the opposing QBs like that.
#55
Originally Posted by NetEditor
Yeah, they scared him so bad that he went 20 for 24 for 247 yards, 2 TDs and zero INTs.
I hope the Bears don't scare all the opposing QBs like that.
I hope the Bears don't scare all the opposing QBs like that.
You can trash the Bears if you wish. But, don't trash them in areas where it's not applicable, mkay...?
#56
Originally Posted by Yumchah
You're not watching the game just quoting the box score, dude.
You can trash the Bears if you wish. But, don't trash them in areas where it's not applicable, mkay...?
You can trash the Bears if you wish. But, don't trash them in areas where it's not applicable, mkay...?
If that's the Bears defense on a good day, I'd hate to see them on a bad day.
#57
Originally Posted by NetEditor
Yeah, OK. That Bears defense was FANtastic today.
If that's the Bears defense on a good day, I'd hate to see them on a bad day.
If that's the Bears defense on a good day, I'd hate to see them on a bad day.
Well, put it this way, tell me of any team (all-star defense and all) that can recover from the 4 fumbles and 3 INTs the offense coughed up.
Heck, even Belicheat's Pats would not win in a game like that.
#58
Originally Posted by Yumchah
Well, put it this way, tell me of any team (all-star defense and all) that can recover from the 4 fumbles and 3 INTs the offense coughed up.
Heck, even Belicheat's Pats would not win in a game like that.
#60
Originally Posted by NetEditor
But I thought the Bears were "chasing Kitna all over the field."
So, like I said...not about the D playing poorly. It was the offense for the Bears that failed again.
#61
Originally Posted by Yumchah
6 sacks sounds pretty good to me.
The Lions got six sacks, too, but they DID succeed in disrupting Griese. There's the difference.
#62
Originally Posted by Yumchah
And since you're reading the box score, howabout you just reinforce my point about the points Kitna and the Lions O got off of turnovers against Chicago...?
So, like I said...not about the D playing poorly. It was the offense for the Bears that failed again.
So, like I said...not about the D playing poorly. It was the offense for the Bears that failed again.
And you'd think the Bears D would be used to all the turnovers playing with Grossman.
#63
Originally Posted by NetEditor
Six sacks is pretty good, but it didn't translate into disrupting Kitna all that much.
The Lions got six sacks, too, but they DID succeed in disrupting Griese. There's the difference.
The Lions got six sacks, too, but they DID succeed in disrupting Griese. There's the difference.
Okay...so, WHERE does this state that the Bears D sucked today then...? Did you watch the game? Seriously. Did you? If you did, you'll also note what Dick Stockton and the commentating crew was saying all game...the Bears O is in serious need of repairs. The D got so tired from repeated coming onto the field from fumbles on kick returns and short offensive series.
And oh, considering they were without a couple of Pro Bowlers on D, I think Chicago did quite nicely defending...
#64
Originally Posted by NetEditor
Whoa, whoa, hold on. I'm not blaming the defense for losing the game. There's a difference between saying the defense didn't really play that well and saying they are to blame for losing the game. Yes, overcoming all those turnovers is nearly impossible, but you have to admit that the Bears defense is more middle-of-the-pack now, especially compared to last year.
And you'd think the Bears D would be used to all the turnovers playing with Grossman.
And you'd think the Bears D would be used to all the turnovers playing with Grossman.
#65
Originally Posted by NetEditor
Whoa, whoa, hold on. I'm not blaming the defense for losing the game. There's a difference between saying the defense didn't really play that well and saying they are to blame for losing the game. Yes, overcoming all those turnovers is nearly impossible, but you have to admit that the Bears defense is more middle-of-the-pack now, especially compared to last year.
And you'd think the Bears D would be used to all the turnovers playing with Grossman.
And you'd think the Bears D would be used to all the turnovers playing with Grossman.
Originally Posted by NetEditor
And apparently, no defense.
#66
Originally Posted by Yumchah
My head hurts trying to discuss with you about this, dude. And I'm getting NEAR annoyed to negrep you too.
Okay...so, WHERE does this state that the Bears D sucked today then...? Did you watch the game? Seriously. Did you? If you did, you'll also note what Dick Stockton and the commentating crew was saying all game...the Bears O is in serious need of repairs. The D got so tired from repeated coming onto the field from fumbles on kick returns and short offensive series.
And oh, considering they were without a couple of Pro Bowlers on D, I think Chicago did quite nicely defending...
Okay...so, WHERE does this state that the Bears D sucked today then...? Did you watch the game? Seriously. Did you? If you did, you'll also note what Dick Stockton and the commentating crew was saying all game...the Bears O is in serious need of repairs. The D got so tired from repeated coming onto the field from fumbles on kick returns and short offensive series.
And oh, considering they were without a couple of Pro Bowlers on D, I think Chicago did quite nicely defending...
And as far as the defense getting tired, yes, you're right. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Bears defense performed well last year partly because they could control the ball with Thomas Jones. A defense, any defense, is not going to perform well if the offense sucks. That's a given.
But whether it's injuries, turnovers, being tired or having a horrible offense, the defense caved. It doesn't matter why. I didn't qualify my statement. I didn't say the Bears defense played poorly because their personnel sucked.
And if the defense played so well, why are you coming up with all these excuses?
Are they playing well under the circumstances? Yes.
#70
Originally Posted by NetEditor
What backpedaling? Sounds to me like you're overreacting. Don't take it out on me because your Bears are a mess.
You're totalling backpedalling, bud. You just said way earlier that the Bears had NO DEFENSE in this game. I just countered that. And you continued to heckle and laugh at what I said in regards to that.
So, now...you've changed your statement to oh-they-played-alright. That is not the same as saying NO DEFENSE.
#71
Originally Posted by Yumchah
You're totalling backpedalling, bud. You just said way earlier that the Bears had NO DEFENSE in this game. I just countered that. And you continued to heckle and laugh at what I said in regards to that.
So, now...you've changed your statement to oh-they-played-alright. That is not the same as saying NO DEFENSE.
#72
Originally Posted by NetEditor
OK, if you believe I literally meant NO DEFENSE, you're definitely taking this TOO seriously.
Why would you make fun and then attempt to defend an aspect of a team that's actually not tidicule-worthy (as compared to the incompetence on offense) and then say that I took your comments too seriously...?
#75
Originally Posted by Yumchah
Why would you make fun and then attempt to defend an aspect of a team that's actually not tidicule-worthy (as compared to the incompetence on offense) and then say that I took your comments too seriously...?
#76
Originally Posted by Yumchah
NetEditor: Like I said, discussing this with you makes my head hurt.
Stick to cheering for the Raiders, mkay?
Stick to cheering for the Raiders, mkay?
And I will continue to cheer for my Raiders. They have twice as many wins as your Bears.
#77
Originally Posted by NetEditor
Whatever. Sounds to me like you can't look at your own team objectively.
I have always criticized the running game and recently the QB play esp. after the Dallas debacle. WTF are you talking about...?
Really...please do keep making up phantom stuff about what I say. Keep going!
#79
Originally Posted by Yumchah
WTF. So, defending their defense is not looking at the team objectively...?!?
I have always criticized the running game and recently the QB play esp. after the Dallas debacle. WTF are you talking about...?
Really...please do keep making up phantom stuff about what I say. Keep going!
I have always criticized the running game and recently the QB play esp. after the Dallas debacle. WTF are you talking about...?
Really...please do keep making up phantom stuff about what I say. Keep going!
I'm saying they're not playing well. You're saying they're not playing well because of injuries, turnovers and a bad offense. Either way, they're not playing well. I understand WHY they're not playing well, but that doesn't deflect from the point that they're not playing well. It just so happens that they have valid excuses for not playing well.
Anyway, chalk up another victim to the Super Bowl runner-up hangover.
Last edited by NetEditor; 09-30-2007 at 05:41 PM.
#80
And I'm slightly confused by the points of the Bears defense being tired and overcoming turnovers. The Bears had the ball longer than the Lions (barely), ran more offense plays (80 vs. 55) and had only one more turnover (3 picks vs. 2 fumbles).