NFL updates/news

[Robbyjawz]

That Brian dude!?!?!? Wow.... One of the best MLBs in the NFL and he is that Brian dude...

Also The Jets have been tame this week, due to them likely seeing what happened after halftime in the Ravens Steelers game.... /shudder

No comment anymore on the "lol refs lol" crap.

[AdrianCC100]

He is far from one of the best MLB in the game. Is he good, sure, but no where near the best.

The Jets are not trash talking because they are scared to get hit. Colts and Patriots defense are no where near as hard hitting as the Steelers.

[Sharpopiev2]

He is far from one of the best MLB in the game. Is he good, sure, but no where near the best.

The Jets are not trash talking because they are scared to get hit. Colts and Patriots defense are no where near as hard hitting as the Steelers.

I dunno, maybe they feel that if they say something they'll be flagged for it before the game even starts. If you really think that all the refs want to do is have "favored" calls towards the Steelers, go right ahead. But I reserve the right to call you mean things and then have some cake while doing so.

[Badpaladin]

He is far from one of the best MLB in the game. Is he good, sure, but no where near the best.

Riiiiiigggghhhhttttttttt.

Although I think Ray Lewis is a better overall team player, Urlacher is just a force that you have to always account for on the run or the pass. He most definitely is on the best in the game, and pretty much always has been.

[Craz]

Packers at Chi-town:[/B]

This took a little time to figure out who's going to win. I mean, if I thought "if it snows in Soldier, they're gonna win." Then I remembered the Pats going into Soldier - when it was snowing - and absolutely bending them over.

I looked at stats, injuries and playoff history and came down with this conclusion:

Chicago wins.

A lot of people may call this an upset, but it's not. They're at home - with the better offense (not qb, but overall imo) and a better special teams. The Packers have an outrageous defense, but I think Cutler is going to be hooking up with Hester & Davis quite a bit, even for short little gains.

The flaw I see with the Packers D, if you are able to contain and manage Clay - they're not as good as they seem. The same logic applies to the Pats - contain Tom and you've won. I know it's easier said than done as that guy is an absolute monster, but they have a serious chance at winning this thing if they're able to stop Clay from making big plays at the right times.

Chicago 24 - Packers 20.

What? On offense Packers are #9 @ 358.1 yds a game, and Bears are #30 @ 289.4 yds a game. How is that a better overall offense? Bears have never had an offense. On the other side of the football packers also allow less yards and packers allow less pts. Bears only edge is the special teams. The run game is even with only .6 yards a game difference.

[Robbyjawz]

Riiiiiigggghhhhttttttttt.

Although I think Ray Lewis is a better overall team player, Urlacher is just a force that you have to always account for on the run or the pass. He most definitely is on the best in the game, and pretty much always has been.

I said one of! I would take Ray Ray and Willis over him, possibly Farrior. But he is one of those guys who you can typically count on and is another emotional leader like Ray Ray.
The Bears Cornerbacks are nowhere near as impressive as other teams, actually, I am hard pressed to name even one of them. Thus with Rogers at the helm throwing to Jennings and company - I see da Bears as partially screwed.

[Bamboozles]

What? On offense Packers are #9 @ 358.1 yds a game, and Bears are #30 @ 289.4 yds a game. How is that a better overall offense? Bears have never had an offense. On the other side of the football packers also allow less yards, however bears allow less points. Bears only edge is the special teams and pts allowed. The run game is even with only .6 yards a game difference.

If you look at the teams that he had his highest ypg / throwing, their defense is absolutely horrible.

Washington, Miami, Minnesota, Dallas, 49'ers, etc. They had somewhat of a light schedule.

I meant, the Bears have a better offensive threat. Hester and Davis are going to be the game changers on Sunday.

[Craz]

If you look at the teams that he had his highest ypg / throwing, their defense is absolutely horrible.

Washington, Miami, Minnesota, Dallas, 49'ers, etc. They had somewhat of a light schedule.

I meant, the Bears have a better offensive threat. Hester and Davis are going to be the game changers on Sunday.

Well packers are #5 passing yards, #9 total offense by yards, #10 pts, with #2 pts allowed defense (my bad bears don't have a better defense pts allowed)

So your first sentence is completely void.

Easy schedule are we talking for the packers? Yeah missing our #1 RB from week 1, with oh I lost count like 15 players on IR, ya man very light schedule.

Hester would only be a 5th WR on packers squad (jennings driver jones nelson are all better). Rashied Davis who has only had 119 yards in his last 2 years, and 1032 yards 5td in his 6 year career?

And you do realize packers have 2 pro bowl corners that will be on knox and hester? Not to mention a pro bowl FS in collins to help defend the pass.

I can't tell do you not watch football or are you joking or something?

[Bamboozles]

Well packers are #5 passing yards, #9 total offense by yards, #10 pts, with #2 pts allowed defense (my bad bears don't have a better defense pts allowed)

So your first sentence is completely void.

No, it's still valid. Look at the defenses that they had the best days of passing on. It's not really void if you bring it numbers? I don't understand your logic.

Easy schedule are we talking for the packers? Yeah missing our #1 RB from week 1, with oh I lost count like 15 players on IR, ya man very light schedule.

I'm not talking about injuries, strictly teams.

Hester would only be a 5th WR on packers squad (jennings driver jones nelson are all better). Rashied Davis who has only had 119 yards in his last 2 years, and 1032 yards 5td in his 6 year career?

They're going to be using him. They've said they're going to be using him. It's not like Chicago hasn't found a way to exploit your secondary, as good as it is. The first time you guys played Cutler, he rushed for 37 yards against you on 3 attempts. Knox was close to 100 yards at 94 with 4 receptions. Olsen at a mere 64 with 5 catches. They were finding a way to spread the ball around. Cutler passed for 221 yards. He clearly found a way to around your god like corners.

Granted, you guys shut him down the second time but it's not like you guys lit it up either.

And you do realize packers have 2 pro bowl corners that will be on knox and hester? Not to mention a pro bowl FS in collins to help defend the pass.

Why then, did they have trouble week 3 against Chicago's underwhelming receivers? It's not like Hester was being used all that often, but Knox with 4 catches for 94 yards? It's not impressive, but I would have thought they would have him not only shadowed the entire game, but double covered?

I can't tell do you not watch football or are you joking or something?

Look at the Packers offense. They're not a strong offensive team. DC Jennings and he's forced to throw to other receivers, who aren't the best. I'm not taking shots at the Packers, but I do think they're slightly overrated. Beating the Falcons wasn't a huge deal to me, because the Falcons looked downright awful and still won games. Chicago's WR's are the more impressive threat, and they won't be gunning it down the middle for large gains, but small 10 - 15 yard slants that pick up first downs which takes out Woodson for really being a threat.

[GreatOak]

I hope you're trolling Bamboozles....I'm a Bears fan and even live less than a mile away from Soldier Field and the Packers are a better team overall. I'm not a homer so it's easy for me to say this. They have a better QB, OL, WR corps., and the running game is about even. The bears have much better Special Teams, but the Packers also have a better D. Nick Collins, Woodson, Williams, and shields will have no trouble covering the Bears Wideouts. If anyone on the bears has a good game it will be Olsen. He will be able to exploit the secondary if the Packers decide to cover him with linebackers. How can you say they arent a strong offensive team when they dropped 48 on the Falcons at home?

[Bamboozles]

I hope you're trolling Bamboozles....I'm a Bears fan and even live less than a mile away from Soldier Field and the Packers are a better team overall. I'm not a homer so it's easy for me to say this. They have a better QB, OL, WR corps., and the running game is about even. The bears have much better Special Teams, but the Packers also have a better D. Nick Collins, Woodson, Williams, and shields will have no trouble covering the Bears Wideouts. If anyone on the bears has a good game it will be Olsen. He will be able to exploit the secondary if the Packers decide to cover him with linebackers. How can you say they arent a strong offensive team when they dropped 48 on the Falcons at home?

You realize that everything in bolded, I said right? The only part that's in italic isn't necessarily true, because the Packers are a defense first team. Their WR's aren't the best, the stats of prior games will back that statement. I said the Bears have a better threat of an offense because of their Wideouts, who are remarkably underwhelming.

As for the Falcons - they were overrated all year long. Not only did they have a light schedule, all their games were close. All playoff teams gave them a run for their money. Granted, they were never down by more than a TD all year which is impressive, but when you win games by under a TD every game, there's a problem there. Everyone praised this team and the Ravens as if they were the next coming of Christ, but only played 6 playoff teams and barely won the other 10 they had to play. I've said it once and I'll say it again - The Falcons overall aren't that great.

In summary: The Bears have a more imminent offensive threat, but the Packers have a much stronger defense.

As for trolling - yeah, I'm trolling my own thread.

---------- Post added 2011-01-22 at 03:05 AM ----------

I actually have a question for you. No, I'm not being a dick.

@Robby: I don't watch Ravens games, only when they play the Steelers.

Does Ray Lewis make an impact in other games? It seems like when these two teams meet, it's Suggs that is making more of an impact than anyone on the field. Hell, even Ngata is more of a threat than Ray. Is it just because we have game plans built around shutting him down, or is it that he's there for moral support now than anything. I'll admit, that dude can get his team fired up better than anyone I've ever seen.

[Babyshaq]

I fail to see how the Bears recievers are better than the packers.
Without Jennings- the WRs for the Packers had a total of 152 receptions, 1898 Yards, and 11 TDs
The Bears WRs- 155 Receptions, 2229 Yards, and 13 TDs
Now those stats tell me that even without Jennings the reciever group of the Packers and the Bears are essentially the same. Now if you really want to go into the schedule lets point out that the Bears played a significantly easier schedule than the Packers

[Craz]

Their WR's aren't the best

What are you talking about, the Packers have had the best WR corp for a few years now. The only team that comes remotely close is the saints. Do you not see how often the packers put up 40-50 pts in a game, even vs good teams with they have so many injures and no RB at all? You say the packers are a defense first team. That is wrong, the defense is very good now since getting dom capers yes, however they are still an offense team first. The thing packers take pride in most is their QB + WR combos. The only reason you don't see packers as high ranked in the league as their defense is simple, ryan grant has been gone since week 1, packers used a full back for a running back most of the season. Do you have any idea how impressive it is to use a full back and still be within .6 yards a game of the bears on run stats?

And sorry but the falcons are quite a good team. Matt Ryan was 20-2 at home. Last time packers played falcons week 12, Matt Ryan went 24/28 with no picks, that's as close to a perfect game as you get. Also arod ran the ball for 2x as many yards as our RBs did combined. Just because the packers won the rematch 48-21, doesn't make the falcons a bad team.

Oh and if you want to talk about "light schedules". The bears get a bye which they didn't deserve, lions beat the bears clearly but the refs were bad. Then the bears get to play the only team with a losing record in post season in the history of football. If you want to talk about playing bad teams, talk about seahawks not the falcons.

It seems as if all you are here to do is de-rate other teams, and talk about how good the bears are (but the areas you say the are good in, they are in fact one of the worst in the league at). You talk about their "amazing offense" which is ranked 30th out of #32. There's nothing more that needs to be said, the stats tell the true story.

It's funny when other bears fans talk about how you are wrong too, because they know the truth. If you think the bears are an offensive team, then you sir do not watch football.

[Bamboozles]

What are you talking about, the Packers have had the best WR corp for a few years now. The only team that comes remotely close is the saints. Do you not see how often the packers put up 40-50 pts in a game, even vs good teams with they have so many injures and no RB at all? You say the packers are a defense first team. That is wrong, the defense is very good now since getting dom capers yes, however they are still an offense team first. The thing packers take pride in most is their QB + WR combos. The only reason you don't see packers as high ranked in the league as their defense is simple, ryan grant has been gone since week 1, packers used a full back for a running back most of the season. Do you have any idea how impressive it is to use a full back and still be within .6 yards a game of the bears on run stats?

They put up 40+ points 3 times, 2/3 were teams that didn't even make the playoffs. The other time was in the post season. If you want to talk about WR combo's, the Saints aren't the team to go to first. They had success against the Seahawks, yeah, but what team didn't have success against the Seahawks? I'm not even a Chicago fan, I bleed Black and Gold, but I'm telling you the game is going to be a lot closer than people are saying it's going to be. They pride themselves on QB + WR combos? Why have they struggled against easy teams that really, should have been a "bye week" during the season. As good as Rodgers is - he's inconsistent.

I understand you're a Packers fan, but you can't sit there and tell me that your WR's are better than guys like Wallace, Ward, Welker, Branch, Moss, Owens. Most of, if not all of them, are going to the Hall of Fame.

And sorry but the falcons are quite a good team. Matt Ryan was 20-2 at home. Last time packers played falcons week 12, Matt Ryan went 24/28 with no picks, that's as close to a perfect game as you get. Also arod ran the ball for 2x as many yards as our RBs did combined. Just because the packers won the rematch 48-21, doesn't make the falcons a bad team.

The Falcons are severely overrated. I stand by my comment. You're right, one blow out doesn't make them a bad team - having to come back in the 4th quarter almost every game makes them a bad team. Matt Ryan is very successful at home, but so are most QB's in the league. Home is where the heart is, yes?

The fact that people put Ryan in the same category as Brady and Manning but not Roethlisberger, is absolutely laughable. It doesn't matter how good you are at home if you get blown out when it matters. Ask the Ravens about losing games when it matters.

Oh and if you want to talk about "light schedules". The bears get a bye which they didn't deserve, lions beat the bears clearly but the refs were bad. Then the bears get to play the only team with a losing record in post season in the history of football. If you want to talk about playing bad teams, talk about seahawks not the falcons.

It seems to be a consistent theme in this thread now about bashing refs. It doesn't matter, because that losing team knocked off the precious Saints. The Falcons aren't as bad as Seattle, no one is arguing that, but they're not nearly as good as Pittsburgh, New England, Baltimore, etc.

It seems as if all you are here to do is de-rate other teams, and talk about how good the bears are (but the areas you say the are good in, they are in fact one of the worst in the league at). You talk about their "amazing offense" which is ranked 30th out of #32. There's nothing more that needs to be said, the stats tell the true story.

The Bears aren't even a good team. The Packers are good, but they're not great. It doesn't matter who wins this game anyway, as the winner of the Baltimore - Pitt game was going to win the Super Bowl. You want to talk about good offenses? Let's talk Steelers, not Bears, and compare those numbers.

Quote me where I said amazing offense. Your inability to grasp what I'm saying is magical. Let me bold it and underline it for you:

The. Bears. Have. A. Better. Threat. With. Their. Current. WR. Comp.

The Packers offense is not that great. They may be ranked high, but again, I'll bring out the light schedule for you.

Don't talk about injuries. The Steelers had to deal with all of their O-line missing for a chunk of the season, and we lost arguably the best DE in the league to a Triceps injury. You lost one player, fantastic. Super Bowl winning teams are able to overcome adversity - not bitch about injuries.

It's funny when other bears fans talk about how you are wrong too, because they know the truth. If you think the bears are an offensive team, then you sir do not watch football.

Not even a Bears fan. I'm going by what the WR's put up this year in comparison to what Packers' did. You can think your corners are going to be able to shut down Hester, Davis and Knox, but the Ravens thought they'd have Wallace, Sanders and Ward accounted for. The Ravens defense is arguably the second best behind our Steel Curtain. Shit happens - especially when you have the talent that those three bring to the table. I realize how good the Packers' corners are, I'm not an idiot, but you can't sit there and say "they have no chance" because we've seen the biggest upset in playoff history this year.

Once again, I never said the Bears were an offensive team. Neither are the Packers, though. Putting up 40+ points against Dallas and Minnesota isn't some kind of feat, both those teams had serious issues this year in the entire organization. On top of that, they both didn't make the playoffs. I'm not proud the Steelers bent the Raiders over, because it's Oakland.

You want to talk possible Super Bowl combinations? Great. Packers - Steelers would be a good game and I'd love love love to hear explain to me how that situation would pan out.

[Craz]

The Bears aren't even a good team. The Packers are good, but they're not great. It doesn't matter who wins this game anyway, as the winner of the Baltimore - Pitt game was going to win the Super Bowl. You want to talk about good offenses? Let's talk Steelers, not Bears, and compare those numbers.

The. Bears. Have. A. Better. Threat. With. Their. Current. WR. Comp.

The Packers offense is not that great. They may be ranked high, but again, I'll bring out the light schedule for you.

You lost one player, fantastic. Super Bowl winning teams are able to overcome adversity - not bitch about injuries.

Not even a Bears fan. I'm going by what the WR's put up this year in comparison to what Packers' did. You can think your corners are going to be able to shut down Hester, Davis and Knox, but the Ravens thought they'd have Wallace, Sanders and Ward accounted for.

I realize how good the Packers' corners are, I'm not an idiot, but you can't sit there and say "they have no chance" because we've seen the biggest upset in playoff history this year.

Once again, I never said the Bears were an offensive team. Neither are the Packers, though. Putting up 40+ points against Dallas and Minnesota

You want to talk possible Super Bowl combinations? Great. Packers - Steelers would be a good game and I'd love love love to hear explain to me how that situation would pan out.

Ok well clearly I can see why you have no idea why packers WRs are better than bears, because you don't watch either team. Now you are saying Steelers have a good offense, could you explain where? They are #12 pts scored, and #14 yards gained, that to me puts them just slightly above average. I never said bears have no chance, in fact you are the one saying bears / packers have no chance against steelers in superbowl. The fact that you say packers lost "1 player" also points to the sign that you don't watch football, the packers lost the most players in the league, I lost count around 15 on IR, it's literally insane how many they lost, and to still be competitive ... hats off to them. Oh and packers put up 45 against giants, you act like its easy to put up 40+, it's not for any team (steelers did it once this year). You say bears WR's are better because they put up better #'s this year? You haven't even looked at the stats, the bears #2 WR this year would only rank #5 on the packers... it's a fact.

#1 Greg Jennings 1265yd 12td
#2 James Jones 679yd 5td
#3 Jordy Nelson 582yd 2td
#4 Donald Driver 565yd 4td
#5 Brett Swain 72yd 0td
3163yd 23td to WRs

#1 Johnny 960yd 5td
#2 Earl Bennett 561yd 3td
#3 Devin Hester 475yd 4td
#4 Devin Aromashodu 149yd 0td
#5 Rashied Davis 84yd 1td
2229yd 13td to WRs

As you can see Packers #1 clearly ahead of Bears #1, and Packers #2, #3, #4 all have better stats than Bears #2. Packer WR's have 934 more yards, and 10 TDs. But for some reason you think bears have the better WRs... very interesting. I assume you'll just ignore the stats once again, because you totally ignored it when Babyshaq said when he didn't even include jennings, the bottom 4 WRs on the packers still put up near the same stats the top 5 WR for bears do.

[Badpaladin]

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201101...rs#tab:analyze

Hi, I'm a broncos fan and I'm rooting for the Packers because I don't like the bears. At all.

When he's on fire, Cutler is a better QB than rogers. Based on these stats, it seems like their defenses are fairly evenly matched, with the Bears looking slightly better. Packers more yards, but they don't score a whole lot more than the Bears. Nevertheless, the Packers have the advantage on offense. The Packers also had an easier schedule than the Bears, so I also believe their numbers are a little inflated.

Interpret any way you want, but the teams are pretty damn even in terms of a matchup. I think this game is going to boil down to Cutler's arm. We know the bears can run and score, we know the packers can throw and score, and we know that both defenses are capable of making big stops when needed. However, Cutler is far more dangerous than Rodgers when he's on a hot streak.

[Deleted]

Nerdalert! Nerdalert!
:O

[fooliuscaesar13]

Stats are cute. Yes, I called them cute. They mean nothing while the game is going on (except the score, of course). Nothing at all. You can have the best team ever. #1 Offense, #1 Defense, not lose a game all season and BAM. Plexico Burress catches a TD in the final few minutes of the SB and that glorious season your team had...all those stats...all of those precious numbers...mean shit. Your team couldn't seal the deal. So while I understand why you all are trying to prove who has the better receiving corp...it doesn't matter if they can't win on Sunday.
And Jay Cutler is nowhere near as good as Aaron Rogers. Just my $.02.

Go Steelers!!!!

[Deleted]

Go alabama ku$h!

[Robbyjawz]

I actually have a question for you. No, I'm not being a dick.

@Robby: I don't watch Ravens games, only when they play the Steelers.

Does Ray Lewis make an impact in other games? It seems like when these two teams meet, it's Suggs that is making more of an impact than anyone on the field. Hell, even Ngata is more of a threat than Ray. Is it just because we have game plans built around shutting him down, or is it that he's there for moral support now than anything. I'll admit, that dude can get his team fired up better than anyone I've ever seen.

He has several moments. He comes up big for a short run on Third and short quite often, has saved us several times this season. He is definitely there, he makes his presence known either way though.