ESPN.com writer Gene Wojciechowski (I triple checked that, it's spelled correctly) was kind enough to offer me an alley-oop. I was planning on addressing all of the excuses that have been made as to why the Bears have been successful this season, and Wojciechowski provided a nice, quick reason/excuse for each Chicago victory this year (minus the Packers, for whatever reason). I believe that his views match up almost perfectly with what I've heard about the Bears all season, so I decided to use his article as a reference point.
On the Lions win: "[The Bears] beat the Detroit Lions in the season opener, but needed a Matthew Stafford injury and a bizarre, last-second nullified touchdown to do it."
When healthy, Stafford is a much better quarterback than back up Shaun Hill, no one is disputing that. However, let's not pretend that Hill hasn't stepped in and played well. In his six starts this season, Hill has thrown for 1544 yards, 10 TDs to 7 INTs, and completed 62 percent of his passes. Not bad numbers at all, especially for a back up quarterback. The Lions were 1-5 in those games, not because of Hill, but because they gave up an average of 28 points per game in those five losses and couldn't run the ball. Hill played the entire second half of the Bears game and the Bears defense held him to his worst half of football this season.
Johnson's nullified touchdown is a tough call. There is a portions of the NFL rulebook that could have interpreted that as a catch, and another part, the part the referee's used, interpreted it as a drop. I'm convinced that Johnson could have came down with the ball in both hands, he chose to swing it to his right hand and payed for it. It's really no different than a receiver making a spectacular catch and coming down with his toe out of bounds.
On the Cowboys win: "[The Bears] beat the spectacularly underachieving Dallas Cowboys on the road for their second win."
I hate this argument. This was the second game of the NFL season. The Cowboys were 0-1, had they underachieved then, after one game? To suggest that the underachieving 1-8 Cowboys are the same team that took the field in the second game of the season is ludicrous. The football season does not remain static, some teams get better as the season goes on, and some get worse.
In Week 2 of the NFL season, the Dallas Cowboys were a Super Bowl favorite playing their first home game of the season. Dallas' D-Line came close to killing Cutler the entire first half, Romo threw for almost 400 yards, and Miles Austin caught 10 passes for 142 yards. The Bears won because they were plus three in the turnover battle, not because the Cowboys were an underachieving team one week into the season, they actually played very good that game.
On the Panthers win: "On the week [the Bears] lost Cutler to a concussion, the schedule gods gave them the Carolina Panthers -- and a win. Carolina is 1-8 this season."
I don't care what the opposing team's record is, if your quarterback (Todd Collins, the worst quarterback to start a NFL game this season) goes 6-16 for 32 yards and 4 INTs, you have no business winning that game. The Bears did because they created three turnovers of their own and held the dynamic Williams-Stewart combo to a combined 81 yards rushing.
The Bears also made a commitment to the run against the Panthers' pitiful rushing defense. Matt Forte scored two touchdowns and ran for 166 yards. When teams like the Patriots exploit other team's weaknesses, they're called smart. When the Bears do, they're lucky to be playing a weak team. It's all part of the double standard.
Sure, let's just ignore that after their Week 6 bye, the Bills weren't playing great football. They took the Ravens and Chiefs (both 4-2 when the Bills faced them) to overtime in back to back weeks. Bills QB Ryan Fitzpatrick threw for 605 yards and 5 touchdowns in both games. The Bills lost to the Bears and then went on to beat the Lions on the road. They're playing much much much better in the last four weeks than they were in the previous five.
I'm not sure what Wojciechowski was getting at about playing in Toronto. He is aware that Buffalo and Toronto practically border each other, right? If he's suggesting that this was a home game that didn't have the feel of a home game it's because the Bears fans travel well, not because Bills fans couldn't make it to the game.
On the Vikings win: "[The Bears] got win number six against a Minnesota Vikings team that can't stand its coach and is without its best wide receiver."
Am I missing something? Haven't the Vikings hated Chilly for years? Weren't they going to win despite him? And not going to lay down like the Dallas Cowboys? Hasn't Sidney Rice been injured all season? These excuses could have been but weren't used when the Saints, Jets, Packers, and Patriots defeated the Vikings. Double standard, anyone?
Adrian Peterson and Brett Favre have made careers out of beating up on the Bears defense. In this game, they held Peterson to 51 yards, and Favre to 170 passing yards and 3 interceptions the week after his career high 446 yard passing effort against Arizona. If that's not impressive, especially for a team that has struggled historically against both players, I don't know what is.
On the Dolphins win: "And then [the Bears] threw a shutout against the Dolphins, who converted just one third down, had the ball nearly 16 fewer minutes than the Bears and saw Ronnie Brown and Ricky Williams rush for a combined 11 yards."
I'm confused, these all seem like compliments to me. So the Dolphins a) couldn't convert on third down, b) lost the time of possession battle, c) had a reshuffled offensive line and couldn't run the ball, and d) started a back up quarterback. And that's why it was OK for Miami to lose? By my calculations, the Bears could have circled A, B, C, D, or E (All of the Above) for every game this season, yet they're 7-3, and being criticized for winning games that the Dolphins are getting a pass for.
The Bears are a flawed team, just like any other in the NFC. I believe they will make the playoffs, and after that, who knows what will happen. The last six games, especially next week at home against Philadelphia, and the three division games on the road will be hugely instrumental in shaping their playoff chances. Luck doesn't last for ten games and it sure doesn't last for sixteen. If the Bears make the playoffs it won't be because they were lucky, but because they deserved it.
For the record, Wojciechowski's summarized argument was, "I don't think the Bears are very good, but they've been so lucky this year, that I wouldn't be surprised if they made it to the Super Bowl." That seems to be everyone's view of the Bears in a nutshell. They're no good but they keep on winning, so I'm not going to be the one to wrongfully pick against them.
Just remember that there's more than one way to win a football game. The 2010 Bears are anything but conventional, but they're getting it done.
No comments:
Post a Comment