12/21/24
January 16, 2011
Bears romp to NFC title game : With farsighted visions of hosting the Green Bay Packers at Soldier Field in an epic NFC Championship Game, the Bears built a big early lead and beat the Seattle Seahawks 35-24 at Soldier Field. The Bears marched to a 21-0 halftime lead and never looked back as Jay Cutler hooked up with tight end Greg Olsen on a 58-yard TD pass on the opening drive. Cutler also scored two touchdowns, becoming the first Bears quarterback to run for a postseason score since Jim McMahon did so in Super Bowl XX. The Bears and Packers will meet in the postseason Sunday for the first time since Dec. 14, 1941, a game the Bears won 33-14. This season, the Bears and Packers split the two regular-season games.
posted by tommytrump to football at 06:46 PM - 17 comments
Personally I think the Chicago saga ends next week. It is amazing to me that a team which has gotten this close to the Super Bowl has done so by simply beating a 7-9 team that should not have even made the Playoffs. Chicago has gotten very lucky this year and to have a first round bye, then get the Seahawks in a snowy and windy game in soldier field, is about as lucky as a team can be. Of course a healthy Green Bay should expose the Bears for the mediocre team that they actually are.
It really does seem like they way things worked out this season, the NFC is more of a survivors club where the only decent teams drew each other in the playoffs. So Atlanta and Philadelphia who unfortunately had to go against the Packers, who have gotten healthy and are clearly the best in the conference, have been eliminated by the best team. The Bears wind up making it to the Conference Championship game by getting the worst team in the playoffs at home in a blizzard.
posted by Atheist at 11:52 AM on January 17, 2011
Bears earned their bye with a lot of regular season wins, I don't see how you can write them off so easily. Packers may win Sunday but I don't think it'll be the cakewalk you seem to expect.
posted by billsaysthis at 03:50 PM on January 17, 2011
Someone after Seattle's win over New Orleans (I can't remember who) said that their victory proved that you could throw out win/loss records in the post season, that anything could happen once you're in the playoffs.
I disagree (baseball sure, football, not so much), and I think that was on full display in this game. Seattle caught a New Orleans on the road that never fully clicked, with a shoddy defense, and a running game decimated by injuries.
I doubted even then that Seattle was much better than their record, and they certainly looked (other than the late comeback) every bit of a 7-9 team.
"They are who we thought they were" - Dennis Green
posted by justgary at 04:40 PM on January 17, 2011
The Bears are who we think they are. Saying they romp into the NFC title game is a little misleading.
Of the Bears 12 victories this season (including their one playoff game), only 3 came against teams with a winning record. They also lost against the 7-9 Seahawks and the 6-10 Redskins. So what they are is a team who managed to only beat three winning teams all year and they are in the NFC titile game. Hardly the powerhouse they would like us to believe
posted by Atheist at 05:45 PM on January 17, 2011
If this is rightfully ruled a catch the Bears don't even make the playoffs.
That said, if the officials don't completely blow this call in the Buccaneers/Lions game (this mistake was so blatant that the league actually apologized to the Bucs) the Packers aren't in the playoffs either.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 06:45 PM on January 17, 2011
Someone after Seattle's win over New Orleans (I can't remember who) said that their victory proved that you could throw out win/loss records in the post season, that anything could happen once you're in the playoffs.
I said it and I stand by it.
Seattle made it to the playoffs, so at that point their regular season record truly didn't matter. They were in. Then they defeated the New Orleans Saints in the Wild Card game, further proving the point that the regular season record had no bearing on the playoffs.
As further proof, I offer up the New England Patriots. They had a better record than the New York Jets and still they lost.
As for the Bears, they were a much improved team than the Seahawks were on Sunday and that is why they won. They weren't better during the regular season when they both first played each other, so that didn't have a bearing on the game's outcome.
The NFL playoffs are a "play-in" tournament as far as I am concerned; something like March Madness. If you win the right games to get in, that's really all that matters. How you do in the tournament is up to you.
posted by THX-1138 at 04:34 PM on January 18, 2011
Of the Bears 12 victories this season (including their one playoff game), only 3 came against teams with a winning record. They also lost against the 7-9 Seahawks and the 6-10 Redskins. So what they are is a team who managed to only beat three winning teams all year and they are in the NFC titile game. Hardly the powerhouse they would like us to believe
I don't think anyone is arguing the Bears are a powerhouse. The fact that they are laying points at home is a testament to that fact, and I am not seeing a lot in the Chicago media (I live here) to suggest otherwise. The Bears are playing decently enough at the right time and are inarguably a better team now than they were for some of their early season losses, as the offensive approach has been fairly substantially reworked to overcome a shaky O-line and to play to Cutler's strengths while putting him in fewer positions to make mistakes.
With respect to their record, at the end of the day, the Bears can only win the games on their schedule. Yes, they only beat 3 teams with winning records, but they only played 6 games against teams with winning records (NE, GBx2, NYJ, NYG, PHI). And while they did lose to two pretty bad teams (WAS and SEA), they were 8-2 against the 10 teams they played with losing records, and both of those losses came before they retooled things on offense.
(Also, for what it's worth, the Falcons (like the rest of the NFC South) feasted on a pretty crappy out-of-division schedule -- particularly the entirety of the NFC West -- and got lucky in having some of their tougher out-of-division games at home. I would argue that they were more like an 11-5 or 10-6 team in true talent level than the 13-3 team they were.)
I think it's clear that the Packers are a better team right now (and I expect them to win), but the Bears could easily win on Sunday and it would not be that big of a surprise. ("On any given Sunday," etc. etc.) They also match up decently with either of the remaining AFC teams, either of whom I would guess would be no more than a 4 point favorite in the Super Bowl.
posted by holden at 05:46 PM on January 18, 2011
I said it and I stand by it.
Looking back it wasn't you. But yes, I disagree with you.
Seattle made it to the playoffs, so at that point their regular season record truly didn't matter. They were in. Then they defeated the New Orleans Saints in the Wild Card game, further proving the point that the regular season record had no bearing on the playoffs.
Of course the regular season has no bearing on the playoffs. I'm saying that a 7-9 regular season team is just that, a 7-9 team. They weren't good in the regular season, and they're not going anywhere in the playoffs. They caught the Saints at the perfect time in the perfect situation. But all the talk after about them being dangerous, or better than their record, is nonsense. They were a bad team in the regular season that had one good game in the playoffs, before returning to being a bad team. They were never a threat to get anywhere in the playoffs. One victory was success.
As further proof, I offer up the New England Patriots. They had a better record than the New York Jets and still they lost.
Doesn't prove anything except that a good team with a lot of talent can beat another good team. I'm never claimed that the best record will always win. I claimed that 7-9 is a bad team. 7-9 is not in anyway comparable to 11-5.
The NFL playoffs are a "play-in" tournament as far as I am concerned; something like March Madness. If you win the right games to get in, that's really all that matters. How you do in the tournament is up to you.
Looking back at super bowl winners from 95 until now the 2007 giants were 10-6. A few teams won 11 games. The majority won 12-14 games.
Looking at the super bowl losers during those same years every team won at least 11 games except for the 2008 Cardinals who were 9-7.
So there's no precedent in recent years to support the theory that once in the playoffs any team can reach the super bowl, at least a 7-9 team. No super bowl winner had less than double digit wins, and only one less than 11. Only one losing team had less than double digit wins, and they were 9-7, which is at least a winning record.
It was a nice victory. But all the talk about them being better than their record, that way were dangerous, that we could throw out their record? Not really.
posted by justgary at 06:34 PM on January 18, 2011
But all the talk after about them being dangerous, or better than their record, is nonsense.
I don't see how you can say that, given the way the Packers are playing. Having a great record all season long matters, but so does getting healthy and hot at the right time.
The premise isn't that the 7-9 Seahawks were going to go all the way. It's that once you're in the post-season tournament, past performance is not necessarily indicative of future success.
To put it another way, would anybody be surprised if the two six seeds reached the Super Bowl? This is the wrong year to make the argument that the regular season matters in the playoffs.
posted by rcade at 08:02 PM on January 18, 2011
I don't see how you can say that, given the way the Packers are playing.
The packers were 10-6 with a 148 point differential during the regular season. The seahawks were 7-9 with a - 97 point differential. The packers ranked 9th in total offense and 5th in total defense. The seahawks ranked 28th and 27th. I'm not sure why I keep getting teams clearly superior to the seahawks as a comparison. The are not comparable.
It's that once you're in the post-season tournament, past performance is not necessarily indicative of future success.
Which isn't supported by anything I can find, at least not in recent NFL history. With just one team with less than 11 victories (10) winning the super bowl in the last decade I'd say the exact opposite is true.
To put it another way, would anybody be surprised if the two six seeds reached the Super Bowl? This is the wrong year to make the argument that the regular season matters in the playoffs.
Not talking about seeds. I'm talking about record. They're not the same. Would I be surprised if a 7-9 team made it to the super bowl? Shocked would be more likely.
Could a 7-9 team get healthy and on a roll and make it to the super bowl? Anything is possible, but judging from recent history, not likely. The seahawks were a bad team, both record wise and stats wise, that had one good game, but they were no threat to win the super bowl.
posted by justgary at 08:27 PM on January 18, 2011
I'm not sure why I keep getting teams clearly superior to the seahawks as a comparison. The are not comparable.
Because the argument is bigger than the Seahawks. The No. 1 seeds are gone. The Super Bowl champs were dispatched by a 7-9 playoff team. Vegas likes the Packers to win it all. All three of these things reflect an NFL season in which the playoffs were a whole new ballgame.
posted by rcade at 09:37 PM on January 18, 2011
Because the argument is bigger than the Seahawks.
I'm not sure what argument you're referring to. It wasn't my argument. My original post was only in regards to the seahawks, or any other 7-9 team reaching the playoffs.
My point was that all the 'you can throw records out the window' in the playoffs when it came to seattle after their upset over new orleans were misguided. One game? Sure. But seattle as a dangerous team that could get on a roll and go far in the playoffs? No.
There are 4 teams left, each had at least 10 wins during the season. All had positive point differentials. The seahawks had none of that. They were, and are a bad team.
If you want to claim the playoffs are wild and crazy and full of surprises, I agree. The best regular season record doesn't mean much in the playoffs. But if you want to claim that it's so open a team that was bad during the season can turn it on in the playoffs and suddenly become a good team and a danger to make a run at the super bowl, I disagree. Again, I think any comparison between the packers and seahawks are worthless. One team won 11 games and were statistically far, far superior to the other that won 7.
The first time a 7-9 team wins the super bowl, hell, makes it to the super bowl, I'll eat my words. I'm not too worried about that happening. Teams that bad don't when championships in the NFL.
posted by justgary at 12:14 AM on January 19, 2011
I think there is some historical basis for pretty poor regular season teams going all the way to a championship; the challenge in at least baseball and football getting into the post-season (as opposed to basketball and hockey, where a larger % of teams make the post-season). Not infrequently, there is a team that just puts it all together at the right time or gets healthy and then rolls after squeaking into the post-season. The 2006 Cardinals were a pretty poor regular season team, but they had Albert Pujols, Chris Carpenter, Scott Rolen and Jim Edmonds, among others, and their true talent level was probably not reflected by their 86-win record. Same with the Packers this year, who lost their 6 games by a combined 20 points and lost two games in which Rodgers did not play or was knocked out.
However, I do not think the Seahawks fit in that category; they never really had the juice or the players to advance particularly far. The Seahawks were fortunate to get a home game (in a stadium with one of the few measurable home field advantages -- the rate of false starts by the visiting team is higher there than at other stadiums, in a statistically significant manner) against a team required to travel 2000 miles, that was down to its third choice running back (and eventually its fifth stringer over the course of the game) and was missing one of its top two DBs and its best blocking tight end, among other players on IR or inactive for the game. Hats off to the Seahawks for winning the game they were given and taking advantage of the circumstances, but let's not pretend that them making the playoffs makes them anything other than a below-average team.
posted by holden at 11:10 AM on January 19, 2011
The first time a 7-9 team wins the super bowl, hell, makes it to the super bowl, I'll eat my words. I'm not too worried about that happening. Teams that bad don't when championships in the NFL.
Teams with a 7-9 record have a .500 winning percentage in the playoffs which is the average winning percentage for playoff teams in the playoffs. Seriously though, I think you're making a pretty safe bet considering there's only been one 7-9 playoff team to this point and we'll probably be heading for 18 regular season games soon.
posted by tron7 at 01:42 PM on January 19, 2011
Again, the real argument here isn't whether the 'Hawks were a better team than their record would indicate, it was that regular season records aren't an indicator of performance in the playoffs.
posted by THX-1138 at 03:47 PM on January 19, 2011
Teams with a 7-9 record have a .500 winning percentage in the playoffs which is the average winning percentage for playoff teams in the playoffs.
Winning percentage wasn't my point. Reaching the super bowl was.
Seriously though, I think you're making a pretty safe bet considering there's only been one 7-9 playoff team to this point and we'll probably be heading for 18 regular season games soon.
Then make it 8-8, or 9-7. Teams with those records have made the playoffs. None have made it to the super bowl in the past 10 years. And only one 10 win team has made it.
Also, there's a reason only one 7-9 team has made it. They don't belong there.
Again, the real argument here isn't whether the 'Hawks were a better team than their record would indicate, it was that regular season records aren't an indicator of performance in the playoffs.
Unless you have less than 10 wins. That's a pretty good indicator you have very little chance of reaching the super bowl. If you want a good chance you should probably shoot for 11 wins.
Maybe I'm not being clear. I'm basically claiming what holden said here:
However, I do not think the Seahawks fit in that category; they never really had the juice or the players to advance particularly far. The Seahawks were fortunate to get a home game (in a stadium with one of the few measurable home field advantages -- the rate of false starts by the visiting team is higher there than at other stadiums, in a statistically significant manner) against a team required to travel 2000 miles, that was down to its third choice running back (and eventually its fifth stringer over the course of the game) and was missing one of its top two DBs and its best blocking tight end, among other players on IR or inactive for the game. Hats off to the Seahawks for winning the game they were given and taking advantage of the circumstances, but let's not pretend that them making the playoffs makes them anything other than a below-average team.
The seahawks were a bad team during the regular season. Bad record wise, bad statistically. While a 10 win team can surely be better than their record, chances are a 7-9 team isn't 7-9 because of a few breaks. They're 7-9 because they're a bad team.
The seahawks had one good game where everything fell into place, but the whole 'throw the record out the window the seahawks are dangerous' expoused by some fans and media after their victory was wishful thinking. If you were a bad team in the regular season, record wise and statistically, you will not magically turn into a good team in the playoffs.
posted by justgary at 04:09 PM on January 19, 2011
So much for the Seahawks. Was anyone else disappointed that the Soldier Field crew was so good at sweeping away the snow? I love snow games.