Game 15: Lions @ Bears Thread

[evolutionkb]

This should have been a blow out in the Lion's favor. Shit happens Offense and ST shit to bed, but we still pull it off. You have to say that for this team, even when they look shitty in 2/3 phases of the game, they still manage to pull out a win.

 

[turok]

Was that a "true" Bears win b/c their receivers dropped a shitload of on-target passes by their freaking scantly used backup QB Claussen?

 

[mhughes0021]

Claussen gave himself up late. Not sure anyone could have pulled off that tackle.

doesn't have much to do with the slide or not....moreso that he led with this crown of his helmet and headhunted claussen.

 

[inkfreq]

Was that a "true" Bears win b/c their receivers dropped a shitload of on-target passes by their freaking scantly used backup QB Claussen?

According to LKP it was, unless you consider than Stafford hasn't been turning over the ball in recent weeks, so those two interceptions in the red zone were "true TDs", in which case the Lions put another "true" 14 on the board, and it's still a "true" win.

Of course, then you take into account that their starting QB wasn't in today, and obviously the Bears had a "true" win.

Hard to keep track of who really won under the "true bullshit" method. It's more confusing than the old BCS system.

 

[mhughes0021]

Amazingly, as shitty as they look, they are doing exactly what Lombardi is asking them to do. Short passes, efficient, and then look for the big play down field when it develops.

Granted, today Stafford threw two picks in the red zone, but for the most part they haven't been turning over the ball much either.

They are managing the field well, and limiting mistakes. This is no Denver offense at all, but it's really no worse than a few teams, including the Ravens in 2000, who won championships.

Lombardi still has no clue. Were running vs 8 man fronts and passing vs 6 man fronts almost the entire game. Very elementary checks aren't being made to put us in situations to succeed. Stafford is either too dumb to read a defense and make adjustments are Lombardi doesn't trust him to.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Chicago, against Clausen? Minny, a rook? TB, who knows?

 

[inkfreq]

doesn't have much to do with the slide or not....moreso that he led with this crown of his helmet and headhunted claussen.

Not even close.

http://fansided.com/2014/12/21/jimmy-clausen-lit-helmet-helmet-hit-vs-lions-video/

You can see Ansah has already dropped his head and is barrelling in before Claussen slides and gives himself up.

Definitely not a "heads up" play by any means, but Ansah is clearly trying to go waist on Claussen, and then Claussen slides and Ansah has no idea he's doing it.

The commitment to the hit was already there before the slide started.

 

[mhughes0021]

Not even close.

http://fansided.com/2014/12/21/jimmy-clausen-lit-helmet-helmet-hit-vs-lions-video/

You can see Ansah has already dropped his head and is barrelling in before Claussen slides and gives himself up.

Definitely not a "heads up" play by any means, but Ansah is clearly trying to go waist on Claussen, and then Claussen slides and Ansah has no idea he's doing it.

The commitment to the hit was already there before the slide started.

correct...the commitment to spear someone with the crown of his helmet was already there prior to the slide.

 

[inkfreq]

correct...the commitment to spear someone with the crown of his helmet was already there prior to the slide.

Stop smoking all that bud dude. It's clear he was dropping the shoulder in for the hit.

There was no headhunting, which was your first statement, and no intent for a dirty hit either. Everyone, except you, has said it didn't look like there was any intent there, they just collided at the wrong time, including the Bears fan written article I linked that included the video.

 

[kalinecountry]

So I'm at my friends house he's watching the pats. I use the laptop to check the Lions' score and I see they are losing 14 - 10 with 7:45 leaft in the 4th quarter. I tell him Lions are losing shit and the bears backup qb is having a better game than Stafford.
Then I say the Lions need a touchdown to take the lead...and In two seconds the gamescore says "Lions Touchdown"! Victory snatched from the jaws of defeat.
It will be a tough game next Sunday in greenbay. It would be so great for them to win there for the first time in over 20 years.

 

[mhughes0021]

Stop smoking all that bud dude. It's clear he was dropping the shoulder in for the hit.

There was no headhunting, which was your first statement, and no intent for a dirty hit either. Everyone, except you, has said it didn't look like there was any intent there, they just collided at the wrong time, including the Bears fan written article I linked that included the video.

go watch it again...thers no shoulder anywhere near the tackle...hes almost horizontal to the ground with his head completely down. no arms...no shaoulder...nothing. I do think the slide was late and the hit to the head was not what he was going for. but if it was just incidental contact like you are suggesting it wouldn't have been called and wouldn't have waranted an article to be written about it. It was a personal foul and just added to a list of dumb shit the lions did all day.

 

[brewer229]

The point was that any team even the best in the league can play tough games against average to below average division opponents. Don't forget the packers only beat the Vikings by 3 the last time they played them.

My point was if it was just one game than it would be more excusable. When you routinely makes games extremely close it doesn't fill you with lots of confidence.

I view Lions closer to Arizona than New England.

I think Arizona record is better than their play suggest it should be. Likewise with the lions.

 

[tomdalton22]

The man is right... on all points.

And any argument I would make to say the Lions are contenders, I would make for every single team headed into the playoffs. Including the Falcons.

After next week, there will be 12 legit contenders for the big title. Any team on any given Sunday.

Every team that makes the playoffs has a chance...but not all teams have an equal chance. The better teams have a better chance. Those teams that have a bye have a better chance. Anything can happen but the best teams usually are the ones to make it to the Super Bowl.

 

[inkfreq]

Every team that makes the playoffs has a chance...but not all teams have an equal chance. The better teams have a better chance. Those teams that have a bye have a better chance. Anything can happen but the best teams usually are the ones to make it to the Super Bowl.

Disagree again. Wild Card teams go to the Bowl a lot. The "best" teams don't usually make it, the hottest teams do.

 

[brewer229]

Disagree again. Wild Card teams go to the Bowl a lot. The "best" teams don't usually make it, the hottest teams do.

Since the wild card began in 1970 only 10 wild card teams have made it to the super bowl. So I wouldn't call that a lot.

 

[tomdalton22]

Disagree again. Wild Card teams go to the Bowl a lot. The "best" teams don't usually make it, the hottest teams do.

6 wild card teams have won the SB since they started the WC. 6 out of 36 years which is 17% of the time.

 

[boogerlovejoy]

Yes because a +163 differential and 1st round bye is the exact same as a +49 and 6th seed.

2007 New York Giants

+22 Differential (373 For....351 Against)

Beat one of the 5 best teams OF ALL TIME in the Super Bowl.

Any Given Sunday.

 

[inkfreq]

And since 1993.. a stretch of 20 years, the #1 and #1 in each conference have only met in the SuperBowl twice. Once in '93 when the Cowboys beat the Bills, and once last season when the Seahawks beat the Broncos. That my friends is a 10% ratio of the "best usually going to the Superbowl".

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=5696

Which means, 90% of the time, the Superbowl is played by two teams who are not necessarily the best in the regular season (that number is very skewed, because often it is one of the #1 seeds, but not the other), and the winner of the SuperBowl has been a team ranked other than a #1 seed.

In fact, since 1993, that same 20 year stretch, only the Cowboys, Saints, and Seahawks have won the Superbowl while being the top seed in the NFC, and the '98 Broncos and '03 Patriots are the only AFC teams to do it.

Five teams in 20 years have won while being the #1 seed in their conference, and two of those years, no matter which team won the SuperBowl, it would have been the #1 seed.

That means only 25% of the time does a #1 seed actually win the big game. 75% of the time, a team other than the #1 seed wins it.

That is a huge ratio difference, and should serve to dispel the myth that "usually" the best teams win, or even make it, to the SuperBowl.

10% of the time, over a 20 year stretch, have the two best teams played one another, and 75% of the time the SuperBowl is won by a team other than one of the best two teams, just to sum all that up.

 

[brewer229]

2007 New York Giants

+22 Differential (373 For....351 Against)

Beat one of the 5 best teams OF ALL TIME in the Super Bowl.

Any Given Sunday.

Yep, can happen.

Say you were to bet $5000, can put it on #1 and #2 seed or #5 and #6 to win superbowl. Which would you choose?

 

[inkfreq]

Oh, and since 1993, that same period, six Wild Card teams have advanced to the Superbowl, which is one less than the number of #1 seeds who have advanced to the SuperBowl.