The Dreaded Marco Wrote:
Yeah, the comparison of Seattle's weak schedule vs. the Bears far more intimidating one (Detroit x 2, Green Bay x 2, Minnesota x 2, New Orleans, Cleveland, Baltimore, San Francisco) seems ridiculous. Clearly there is no convincing you of their similarly weak schedules. I'll just wait until they play each other. If the Bears win that game, fine. I'll be the first to congratulate you Bears fans.
Otherwise, please stop with the "wake me up when the Seahawks blah blah blah". So much for making the rest of us look like "knowledgeless tools" You're making meaningless statements like that, while some of us are actually analyzing some stats and drawing conclusions from that information based on this year's teams.
It seems odd to me that you can't at least acknowledge that Seattle has had a decent season and could possibly pose a problem for the Bears. The fact that Seattle hasn't won a playoff game in 73 years seems irrelevent, given that this is this year---with that argument, your beloved WhiteSox shouldn't have been given any hope this past season, yet I seem to remember a lot of gloating coming from you folks--and rightfully so. They were playing well and had turned the corner from their previous seasons of inneptitude.
I think we're just going to have to wait for January 22, and hope we have a Bears-Seahawks matchup.
Look, I'm not even talking Title game as far as the
Bears are concerned because I don't have any confidence in them necesasarily getting past the Giants. Hopefully it'll somehow shake out that Carolina or Tampa will come to Chicago, because I like our chances against both of those teams.
As for the Seahawks, they have had a nice little regular season against poor competition. The difference is that the Bears have played 4 of the top 8 teams in the NFC (Carolina, Tampa, Atlanta, Washington) and they have a 3-1 record against. Of those three wins, two were fairly decisive, by ten or more points. The Seahawks have played three of the top 8 NFC teams (Atlanta, Washington and NYG) and they are 2-1 with all games decided by three points or less. And really, they did everything in their power to lose that Giants game and somehow lucked out. Common opponents? Both teams are 2-1. Bears lost at Washington by 2, Seattle lost at Wash by 3. Seattle barely beat Atlanta at home by 3, Bears decisively beat Atlanta at home by 13. Bears beat SF by just 8, Seattle creamed them at home by 38, but barely won a squeaker on the road by 2. So how am I supposed to be intimidated by the Seahawks? They obviously aren't decidedly better than the competition in the NFC and it seems like they have had about the same season that the Bears have. Yes, Alexander's numbers are gaudy. Put any other top 10 RB against that competition and behind that line and I think you get similarly gaudy numbers. Really, that division is worst than the North and some of the creampuffs they were playing out of division (additionally, catching some teams at the right time competitively - philadelphia and indy) gave them a pretty bloated record.
I will grant you the "White Sox" argument, but getting hot like that in football is much harder to bottle....
Wow, you actually conceded something to me---I'm not a complete "knowledgeless tool".
And where did I say you should be intimidated by Seattle? I was just suggesting that you maybe shouldn't be so condescendingly dismissive of them ("nice little regular season"). Hell, I can admit that I'm worried about the Bears, Giants
the Skins. Maybe you're truly not worried a bit about Seattle, and think Chicago goes into Quest Field and beats them easily---if so, I'd say you're wrong, but like KOCF said, they'll hopefully settle this argument on the field.
