Soft soft soft schedule!!

[standup49er]

:wow: just checked out "Da Bears" schedule soft soft soft!! http://www.chicagobears.com/team/schedule.html if they don't go 13 & 3 (losing to the 49ers, NY Giants and NE Patriots) then well....I just ....well...I'll be mighty shocked by gumb!! with that schedule we would also be able to go 13 & 3!!!

Yes the SeaChickens don't look good this year with no one playing except totupu and errr branch.. we should beat them this year with their injury situations I'm not sure Alexander will be the same after the broken foot, Seachicks have delicate feet I've heard :tung:

[9ersfan]

except for the fact that their backup quarterback can run and our secondary can't cover any of their wide recievers. That is depending if hasselback is still hurt when we play them.

[NyNinerFan]

Not to mention the fact that it just isn't part of our religion to put any pressure onto the passer. Just something we don't believe in.

[DavisNiner]

I think that we will sweep the chickens this season... Along with the Rams. Nov. 26th is for the West, mark my words.

I don't know if we'll sweep the chickens, but we may get one at home. But the Rams could go on a five game losing streak if the ball doesn't bounce their way. They play chargers, chiefs, seahawks, panthers, and us; and any one of those teams can take it to them. Could get interesting.

[chisoxdavid]

:wow: just checked out "Da Bears" schedule soft soft soft!! http://www.chicagobears.com/team/schedule.html if they don't go 13 & 3 (losing to the 49ers, NY Giants and NE Patriots) then well....I just ....well...I'll be mighty shocked by gumb!! with that schedule we would also be able to go 13 & 3!!!

Yes the SeaChickens don't look good this year with no one playing except totupu and errr branch.. we should beat them this year with their injury situations I'm not sure Alexander will be the same after the broken foot, Seachicks have delicate feet I've heard :tung:
Sorry for giving our team the easy schedule next year I will try to give us a harder one.......whats the 49ers excuse for not winning? They too have an easy schedule, how come they dont have a good record?

Bears opp 14-25 a bad record because we have added 6 losses to that
49ers opp 17-21 only looks better because you guys didnt win games you were supposed to, OAK? AZ? You guys should be sitting at 4-2 right now. Dont say you would have a good record if you have an easy schedule because you do and havent been able to win, Im not saying we dont have a easy schedule Im just sayin.....The Bears didnt make the schedule they just play it.

[drv775]

I think that we will sweep the chickens this season... Along with the Rams. Nov. 26th is for the West, mark my words.

It would be nice if we swept the seahags but, I don't think we are playing good enough to accomplish that feat.

[chisoxdavid]

Man we are all talkers we don't play the game...Here's to Sunday...
Your right....If my team had a bad record I would probably be saying the same thing to opposing fans.

To sunday, maybe you be drunk outta your mind so that you dont feel so bad when we win.

I gotta give you guys props for sticking by your team thru these bad times, you and the Cards fans, I became a Bears fan when they were *****ty and now they are winning so Im milking this experience for all its worth, but dont tripp you guys will get back to your winning ways sooner or later too bad we will be there to knock you outta the playoffs.

[Lono1331]

Not to whine but you call our schedule easy? With the exception of Arizona and Oakland, we've played The Rams, Philly, San Diego, and Kansas City (at Arrowhead with the reincarnation of Joe Montana, Damon Huard lol). The Bears have played some tough teams....Green Bay, Minnesota, Arizona, Buffalo and the team Roy Williams says should be 6-0, the Detroit Lions. I'd say the defending NFC North champs....may have had an easier road.
Just throwing that out there and seeing if it sticks. We both may have easier schedules in the long run but currently, the 49ers are running the gauntlet of playoff bound teams while Da Bears are playing some weak sauce in a weak division.:sflogo:

[chisoxdavid]

Not to whine but you call our schedule easy? With the exception of Arizona and Oakland, we've played The Rams, Philly, San Diego, and Kansas City (at Arrowhead with the reincarnation of Joe Montana, Damon Huard lol). The Bears have played some tough teams....Green Bay, Minnesota, Arizona, Buffalo and the team Roy Williams says should be 6-0, the Detroit Lions. I'd say the defending NFC North champs....may have had an easier road.
Just throwing that out there and seeing if it sticks. We both may have easier schedules in the long run but currently, the 49ers are running the gauntlet of playoff bound teams while Da Bears are playing some weak sauce in a weak division.:sflogo:
We do have a weaker schedule, I will give you that but our division is not that weak. Minny is playing good football, GB is not as bad as we made them look they barely lost to NO and STL, DET.....well like you said they should be 6 and 0 right now. Our division looks like all the other divisions, two good teams and two bad teams.

[49erAddiction]

The Bears have an easier shcedule then the Lions to start the year, which doesnt make sense. Either way, the Bears arent going undefeated and will lose this sunday!

Go Fore-Tee-Nine-ERRRRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSS!

[chisoxdavid]

The Bears have an easier shcedule then the Lions to start the year, which doesnt make sense. Either way, the Bears arent going undefeated and will lose this sunday!

Go Fore-Tee-Nine-ERRRRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSS!
Sir, I would be willing to bet my first born that your 49ers do not beat my Bears.

Also correct me if Im wrong but dont the Bears and Lions have almost similar schedules? Opponent wise.

[kezar71]

Sorry for giving our team the easy schedule next year I will try to give us a harder one.......whats the 49ers excuse for not winning? They too have an easy schedule, how come they dont have a good record?

Bears opp 14-25 a bad record because we have added 6 losses to that
49ers opp 17-21 only looks better because you guys didnt win games you were supposed to, OAK? AZ? You guys should be sitting at 4-2 right now. Dont say you would have a good record if you have an easy schedule because you do and havent been able to win, Im not saying we dont have a easy schedule Im just sayin.....The Bears didnt make the schedule they just play it.Well if we didn't beat Oakland, then tell me which two teams
did we beat? I see into the future, your answer is wrong:falldownlaugh: give you a hint rams and -----(punk fans):Guitar:

[DraconisRex]

Sorry for giving our team the easy schedule next year I will try to give us a harder one.......whats the 49ers excuse for not winning? They too have an easy schedule, how come they dont have a good record?

Bears opp 14-25 a bad record because we have added 6 losses to that
49ers opp 17-21 only looks better because you guys didnt win games you were supposed to, OAK? AZ? You guys should be sitting at 4-2 right now. Dont say you would have a good record if you have an easy schedule because you do and havent been able to win, Im not saying we dont have a easy schedule Im just sayin.....The Bears didnt make the schedule they just play it.

Somebody call the Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhmbulence... Because the point has nothing to do with the 49ers, despite your deflection and strawman argument.

Simply put, it's one thing to be undefeated on a tough or average schedule, but a soft schedule... Well, let's just say it tends to over-inflate the competency of the benificiary breeding a false sense of worth. Many times in the 1990s we were the benificiary of a soft schedule, fan expectations rose to "Superbowl Dreams" and we washed out of the playoffs because we, frankly, weren't as good as our record. We weren't bad. We just weren't as good as a 12-4 or 13-3 team that had played a tough record.

OTOH, we've been to the Superbowl as a 10-6 club after facing down a brutal schedule all year long. Including going to Chicago in miserable conditions and kicking tail to the tune of 28-3 in a game we "weren't supposed to win..."

So, like the 49ers of the mid-90's, you're playing a powder-puff schedule and walking around with "swagger" that, realistically, you shouldn't probably be exhibiting.

BTW, what is it with you Bear fans. You only come out of the woodwork when you're good. All those sucky Bear teams didn't get this "swagger." Didn't get this go to boards and trash-talk. Nothing personal, but most of you are acting like the typical 14-year old trash-talking Rams fans that only come around when they're winning and are not to be seen when they're losing. Grow up and get a clue, all things go in cycles, and if you're too cowardly to show up when you suck, you only look the fool when you show up when you're "good."

[tarkaba]

You mean the BEARS are as soft as this? :up:

http://www.pricerighthome.com/ebay_images/arsenal_teddy_ebay.jpg
Hey a Gunners' teddybear!

[T.Brown]

We will win sunday I have a great feeling about this game and if we lose you guys can bit** at me all you want but I dont think the bears will beat us yes we are a bad team and yes the bears play great at home but alex smith plays great any were and rex grossman is just a lucky little punk. heres to victory sunday:trophy: the bears are going to get stomped:ouch:

[swaze]

We will win sunday I have a great feeling about this game and if we lose you guys can bit** at me all you want but I dont think the bears will beat us yes we are a bad team and yes the bears play great at home but alex smith plays great any were and rex grossman is just a lucky little punk. heres to victory sunday:trophy: the bears are going to get stomped:ouch:

So hes the next joe montana and steve young rolled up into one huh??? Plays great anywhere after only 14 agmes??? Now that has to be the statement of the day.

[Bob Stone]

The Bears have an easier shcedule then the Lions to start the year, which doesnt make sense. Either way, the Bears arent going undefeated and will lose this sunday!

Go Fore-Tee-Nine-ERRRRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSS!

That's because the Bears play the Lions and the Lions play the Bears. Get it??

[T.Brown]

So hes the next joe montana and steve young rolled up into one huh??? Plays great anywhere after only 14 agmes??? Now that has to be the statement of the day.
see for yourself Alex will be a star.

[swaze]

see for yourself Alex will be a star.


Im sure every fan of EVERY NFL team says that about whoever is their QB. U think they didn't say the same thing about kordell in pitt?? How bout joey harrington im miami?? What about quincy carter in dallas?? You're a fan, what else can you say.

[T.Brown]

Im sure every fan of EVERY NFL team says that about whoever is their QB. U think they didn't say the same thing about kordell in pitt?? How bout joey harrington im miami?? What about quincy carter in dallas?? You're a fan, what else can you say.
True, true, but you cant say theres not somthing special about alex smith

[swaze]

True, true, but you cant say theres not somthing special about alex smith

I have no idea, the normal time it takes to tell if a QB is good is 3 years from what I understand. He was bad as a rookie, hes good so far in his second year. Now I would assume hell be even better next yr. But if he isn't does that mean he aint good? No, just means everyone will have their own criteria in determining that. I like what hes doing but I have no idea how his career will end up. Will he be a peyton manning, nah I dont believe that. But can he be on the level of drew brees?? Quite possibly but noone knows that as of right now. But he's impressing this year as opposed to last yr.

[T.Brown]

I have no idea, the normal time it takes to tell if a QB is good is 3 years from what I understand. He was bad as a rookie, hes good so far in his second year. Now I would assume hell be even better next yr. But if he isn't does that mean he aint good? No, just means everyone will have their own criteria in determining that. I like what hes doing but I have no idea how his career will end up. Will he be a peyton manning, nah I dont believe that. But can he be on the level of drew brees?? Quite possibly but noone knows that as of right now. But he's impressing this year as opposed to last yr. he was bad last year but who isent bad there rookie year. but Alex will deliver for us next year you can bet on it.

[swaze]

he was bad last year but who isent bad there rookie year. but Alex will deliver for us next year you can bet on it.


Well it depends on what you mean by being bad.... Ben R went 15-1 as a rookie correct?? Do i think he was the best QB that yr??? Not even close. So are we equating success with record?? If so then kyle orton can say he won 10 games as a rookie who didn't even take reps in training camp so he was really behind most rookies who are expected to start. My definition is not so much about record, its about how they played, decisions they make, and mechanics and all that. I think alex did alot of bad judging on the field last yr and this yr he not making those mistakes. But it all depends really on what kind of team you put a rookie on. Linert aint looking too bad this yr. But he also has a team that already have weapons on offense as well so it might be a lil easier for him in arizona as opposed to say ummmm detroit or cleveland. It just all depends IMO.

[T.Brown]

Well it depends on what you mean by being bad.... Ben R went 15-1 as a rookie correct?? Do i think he was the best QB that yr??? Not even close. So are we equating success with record?? If so then kyle orton can say he won 10 games as a rookie who didn't even take reps in training camp so he was really behind most rookies who are expected to start. My definition is not so much about record, its about how they played, decisions they make, and mechanics and all that. I think alex did alot of bad judging on the field last yr and this yr he not making those mistakes. But it all depends really on what kind of team you put a rookie on. Linert aint looking too bad this yr. But he also has a team that already have weapons on offense as well so it might be a lil easier for him in arizona as opposed to say ummmm detroit or cleveland. It just all depends IMO. I agree 100 percent

[chisoxdavid]

Well if we didn't beat Oakland, then tell me which two teams
did we beat? I see into the future, your answer is wrong:falldownlaugh: give you a hint rams and -----(punk fans):Guitar:
I got my #s wrong, my bad. You guys should be 3-3

[chisoxdavid]

Somebody call the Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhmbulence... Because the point has nothing to do with the 49ers, despite your deflection and strawman argument.

Simply put, it's one thing to be undefeated on a tough or average schedule, but a soft schedule... Well, let's just say it tends to over-inflate the competency of the benificiary breeding a false sense of worth. Many times in the 1990s we were the benificiary of a soft schedule, fan expectations rose to "Superbowl Dreams" and we washed out of the playoffs because we, frankly, weren't as good as our record. We weren't bad. We just weren't as good as a 12-4 or 13-3 team that had played a tough record.

OTOH, we've been to the Superbowl as a 10-6 club after facing down a brutal schedule all year long. Including going to Chicago in miserable conditions and kicking tail to the tune of 28-3 in a game we "weren't supposed to win..."

So, like the 49ers of the mid-90's, you're playing a powder-puff schedule and walking around with "swagger" that, realistically, you shouldn't probably be exhibiting.

BTW, what is it with you Bear fans. You only come out of the woodwork when you're good. All those sucky Bear teams didn't get this "swagger." Didn't get this go to boards and trash-talk. Nothing personal, but most of you are acting like the typical 14-year old trash-talking Rams fans that only come around when they're winning and are not to be seen when they're losing. Grow up and get a clue, all things go in cycles, and if you're too cowardly to show up when you suck, you only look the fool when you show up when you're "good."
No one is saying we dont have weak schedule. I personally cant wait to get these next 2 games (49ers and Miami) and go play the harder part of the schedule....NYG, NYJ, NE

[standup49er]

There have been some great points made by people on this thread, some people got what I was saying and some not, thats cool tho... DraconisRex elocuted my point well in response to a Bear that didn't quite get it. hearing peopel say the bears are the best team in football now was really what stated my thoughts for the thread. I just don't see how you could say such a thing when looking at their schedule, the colts however are "The Real Deal" in my humble opinions chedule far tougher, their schedule last year was far tougher and they had an impresive regular season. Anyways...thanks for the responses people :smile:

[swaze]

There have been some great points made by people on this thread, some people got what I was saying and some not, thats cool tho... DraconisRex elocuted my point well in response to a Bear that didn't quite get it. hearing peopel say the bears are the best team in football now was really what stated my thoughts for the thread. I just don't see how you could say such a thing when looking at their schedule, the colts however are "The Real Deal" in my humble opinions chedule far tougher, their schedule last year was far tougher and they had an impresive regular season. Anyways...thanks for the responses people :smile:

Well actually they aint saying that anymore. Now the giants are the best team in football according to espn. People get too excited about all that anyway. If a team is 6-0 and there are no other undefeated teams in the conf, what do you expect them to say??? ITs irrevelent IMO anyway because who are they to determine whos the best after week 6. The best team in the NFL will be the one holding the lombardi trophy in miami, until then its just someones opinion and if you ask 32 NFL fans who the best team was, you would probably get 32 different answers.

[standup49er]

Not sure that the steelers were the best team last year, yes they were good but luck/fortune (or poor officiating according to SeaChickens Head coach) Also has alot to do with that. 32 seperate fans saying there team is the best is to be expected...Professional sports analysts whom are supposed to bring insight into the inevitable and interesting commentary on this beautiful game, you would think, could base their "Opinion" on more than just bandwaggon fodder.

[swaze]

Not sure that the steelers were the best team last year, yes they were good but luck/fortune (or poor officiating according to SeaChickens Head coach) Also has alot to do with that. 32 seperate fans saying there team is the best is to be expected...Professional sports analysts whom are supposed to bring insight into the inevitable and interesting commentary on this beautiful game, you would think, could base their "Opinion" on more than just bandwaggon fodder.

Very true, but I know just from listening to them for years what teams they just dont like and regardless of how well the team plays or who they beat it takes alot for them to say that the team is a good one. Then the next thing you know they are on the bandwagon until one bad game then its, I knew they were bad they were just lucky. I dont value their opinion anymore than someone off the street. There are certain ones I like and they are always based on fact and never emotion. They tell it like it is. But alot of them just ramble on about past teams. There are only a few analysts who actually put in the time to study up on teams and it shows. Check this out...

http://msn.foxsports.com/fantasy/story/6078524 since when did rex grossman turn black and play WR?

[Bob Stone]

Not sure that the steelers were the best team last year, yes they were good but luck/fortune (or poor officiating according to SeaChickens Head coach) Also has alot to do with that. 32 seperate fans saying there team is the best is to be expected...Professional sports analysts whom are supposed to bring insight into the inevitable and interesting commentary on this beautiful game, you would think, could base their "Opinion" on more than just bandwaggon fodder.

Professional sports analysts know very little more than you or I. I was rooting for the Seahawks last year but you can't take anything away from the Steelers for winning three playoff games on the road. And while there was bad officiating in the super bowl, Holmgren's complaining was just a smokescreen to cover up bad coaching and clock management. Also, before we give anymore creedence to "experts", I always like to point out that not one espn expert picked the White Sox to win the World Series last year and not one of them picked the Tigers to even get past the Yankees.

[swaze]

Professional sports analysts know very little more than you or I. I was rooting for the Seahawks last year but you can't take anything away from the Steelers for winning three playoff games on the road. And while there was bad officiating in the super bowl, Holmgren's complaining was just a smokescreen to cover up bad coaching and clock management. Also, before we give anymore creedence to "experts", I always like to point out that not one espn expert picked the White Sox to win the World Series last year and not one of them picked the Tigers to even get past the Yankees.


Exactly, they know no more than anyone else. And consider the former players (ie...michael irving) who regardless of who they are talking about continues to show alliance with his boys. He still calls bmore the best team in the league. I mean come on, i know ray is your boy but lets be realistic.

[BarrelHead]

:wow: just checked out "Da Bears" schedule soft soft soft!! http://www.chicagobears.com/team/schedule.html if they don't go 13 & 3 (losing to the 49ers, NY Giants and NE Patriots) then well....I just ....well...I'll be mighty shocked by gumb!! with that schedule we would also be able to go 13 & 3!!!

Yes the SeaChickens don't look good this year with no one playing except totupu and errr branch.. we should beat them this year with their injury situations I'm not sure Alexander will be the same after the broken foot, Seachicks have delicate feet I've heard :tung:
Dear ZIPPY;
You are the 10,000th opposing fan to mention our soft schedule. What is your suggestion to remedy this unfairness? Change the seasons games week to week? So to match up teams with better records so they will constantly be playing other teams with better records?

Then again, if that were to happen, your 49ers would be playing the Raiders EVERY week.

It is what it is Zippy, now go back to your room and get ready to take your beating like a man.

9ers 9
bears 38

[Bob Stone]

:wow: just checked out "Da Bears" schedule soft soft soft!! http://www.chicagobears.com/team/schedule.html if they don't go 13 & 3 (losing to the 49ers, NY Giants and NE Patriots) then well....I just ....well...I'll be mighty shocked by gumb!! with that schedule we would also be able to go 13 & 3!!!

Yes the SeaChickens don't look good this year with no one playing except totupu and errr branch.. we should beat them this year with their injury situations I'm not sure Alexander will be the same after the broken foot, Seachicks have delicate feet I've heard :tung:

We can't help it that we have a soft schedule. The league is making us play the 49ers.

[Bob Stone]

I really don't think that the bears are as good as the hype. A SB ring should not even be talked about. The fact is that there are at least 4 AFC and 3 NFC teams that can beat the bears. It will be a hard hill to climb to even make it to the NFC championship game.

And don't under estimate our 49ers this weekend. We have an offense that rates in the top 10 in the NFL and a QB that makes very few mistakes. Also, Nolan had 2 weeks to fix our D probleme.

Who are you trying to convince, me or you? I've been here all week and haven't been a trash talker or smack talker. I have respect for all opponents. Both teams have been off for two weeks.

[Bob Stone]

Please don't mistake what I am saying for trash talk. I just don't see the bears beating the Giants, Eagles or Saints. I think that the Rams would be tough for them as well. In the AFC (IF and that is a HUGE IF the bears made it to the SB) I don't see them beating the Patriots, Beangles, Colts, Denver or SD.

All just my oppinion, sure. But the fact is that the Bears are in the weakest confrience in the entier NFL.

Your conference isn't any better, but that's not the point. Since the Bears play the Giants in NY and the Patriots in Boston and the Rams in St. Louis, we'll both have to wait and see how it plays out.

[standup49er]

Dear ZIPPY;
You are the 10,000th opposing fan to mention our soft schedule. What is your suggestion to remedy this unfairness? Change the seasons games week to week? So to match up teams with better records so they will constantly be playing other teams with better records?

Then again, if that were to happen, your 49ers would be playing the Raiders EVERY week.

It is what it is Zippy, now go back to your room and get ready to take your beating like a man.

9ers 9
bears 38


LOL...ROFLMAO...please read the posts that are in this thread, take a minute (normaly a few seconds but your obviously a little challenged) and think before you respond. I have not said the bears are bad, good or great, just that there schedule is too soft for them being as hyped as they are. I'm sorry you don't like that opinion/the truth but well, there it is, hide your forced acceptence of this reality behind poorly thought out, badly written response with an attempt at humour through condesention (the term "zippy" an interesting one although an obvious reflection on your vocabulary).

Seriously read the posts!! and you'll get the point...maybe try watching your team again and seeing if those 40 yard running of the backfoot throws your "stud" QB makes into double and triple coverage are pure skill or exceptionaly lucky (luck ran out against Arizona huh!)

The Bears have a good defensive team but are not the best as stated by the all media, which once again was the point of the post. please read below for an example of someone getting it :smile:

Posted by DraconisRex

Somebody call the Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhmbulence... Because the point has nothing to do with the 49ers, despite your deflection and strawman argument.

Simply put, it's one thing to be undefeated on a tough or average schedule, but a soft schedule... Well, let's just say it tends to over-inflate the competency of the benificiary breeding a false sense of worth. Many times in the 1990s we were the benificiary of a soft schedule, fan expectations rose to "Superbowl Dreams" and we washed out of the playoffs because we, frankly, weren't as good as our record. We weren't bad. We just weren't as good as a 12-4 or 13-3 team that had played a tough record.

OTOH, we've been to the Superbowl as a 10-6 club after facing down a brutal schedule all year long. Including going to Chicago in miserable conditions and kicking tail to the tune of 28-3 in a game we "weren't supposed to win..."

So, like the 49ers of the mid-90's, you're playing a powder-puff schedule and walking around with "swagger" that, realistically, you shouldn't probably be exhibiting.

BTW, what is it with you Bear fans. You only come out of the woodwork when you're good. All those sucky Bear teams didn't get this "swagger." Didn't get this go to boards and trash-talk. Nothing personal, but most of you are acting like the typical 14-year old trash-talking Rams fans that only come around when they're winning and are not to be seen when they're losing. Grow up and get a clue, all things go in cycles, and if you're too cowardly to show up when you suck, you only look the fool when you show up when you're "good."

[miaum]

We can't help it that we have a soft schedule. The league is making us play the 49ers.


After Sunday you may think your schedule isn't so soft!:whistling:

[BillyBones]

Then again, if that were to happen, your 49ers would be playing the Raiders EVERY week.

Yeah, well...

The Bears have the second-best D in the NFL and the Raiders have the 5th...so what does that say?

[BillyBones]

So, like the 49ers of the mid-90's, you're playing a powder-puff schedule and walking around with "swagger" that, realistically, you shouldn't probably be exhibiting.

Yeah, that might be true of the 49ers if it wasn't for those enormous blowouts in the postseason...

I guess that's where the comparisons end, eh hoser?

[BillyBones]

You mean the BEARS are as soft as this? :up:
[/IMG]

naw...more crying
like this:
http://i2.ebayimg.com/02/i/08/2d/b3/e9_2.JPGhttp://www.masada2000.org/retard2.gif

[Centaur]

This misperception has surfaced again as it does every year. The league attempts to make the schedule a little tougher for the better teams and easier for the poorer teams. Yet it never seems that way in the media rankings of schedules because a good team never plays itself and neither does a poor team.

In the case of the Bears, they never play the 2005 NFC North champs (themselves), yet their divisional rivals must play them twice. Then the Bears get six games against the division's also-rans. All four NFC North teams play eight common inter-divisional opponents (this year all of the teams in the NFC West and AFC East.) That includes the Seahawks and Patriots. The remaining two games are against teams in the NFC East and NFC South that finished in matching positions. That means the Bears play the 2005 champs of those divisions (Giants and Bucs) while the rest of the NFC North does not.

If you believe the Bears are only doing well because of a so-called "soft" schedule, does that mean the 49ers will have an easy time on Sunday?

[jmichura]

This misperception has surfaced again as it does every year. The league attempts to make the schedule a little tougher for the better teams and easier for the poorer teams. Yet it never seems that way in the media rankings of schedules because a good team never plays itself and neither does a poor team.

In the case of the Bears, they never play the 2005 NFC North champs (themselves), yet their divisional rivals must play them twice. Then the Bears get six games against the division's also-rans. All four NFC North teams play eight common opponents (this year all of the teams in the NFC West and AFC East.) That includes the Seahawks and Patriots. The remaining two games are against teams in the NFC East and NFC South that finished in matching positions. That means the Bears play the 2005 champs of those divisions while the rest of the NFC North does not.

If you believe the Bears are only doing well because of a so-called "soft" schedule, does that mean the 49ers will have an easy time on Sunday?

I think people don't think about what they are saying. People are just very quick to try to put other teams down while they complain that their team gets no respect. The Bears are 6-0, that undefeated. So of course the combined records of the teams they faced isn't going to be a good because those teams lost a combined total of six games to the Bears, while winning none. So of course, it is easier to say that the Bears have had an easy schedule. Teams that have faced us, on the other hand have a combined record of 4-2 against us, thus making them look a bit better.

So let's look at the teams that the Bears have faced and their records not counting the Bears games.

GB: 2-3
DET: 1-4
MIN: 4-1
SEA: 4-1
BUF: 2-4
ARI: 1-4

Total: 14-17

Now let's do the same for ours:

ARI: 0-5
STL: 4-1
PHI: 3-3
KC: 2-3
OAK: 1-4
SD: 3-2

Total: 13-18


See that? The Bears, have faced teams with similar records as us if you not include their Bears games and then not include 49er games for teams we've faced.

To put things in perspective, if you are an a winless team (assuming to ties), then you will obviously not have faced a team that is currently winless. If you are an undefeated team, then you will have not faced a team that is also undefeated (again, assuming no ties). So yes, those teams the Bears faced don't look that great. That's because they have each dropped a game to the Bears.

[chisoxdavid]

I think people don't think about what they are saying. People are just very quick to try to put other teams down while they complain that their team gets no respect. The Bears are 6-0, that undefeated. So of course the combined records of the teams they faced isn't going to be a good because those teams lost a combined total of six games to the Bears, while winning none. So of course, it is easier to say that the Bears have had an easy schedule. Teams that have faced us, on the other hand have a combined record of 4-2 against us, thus making them look a bit better.

So let's look at the teams that the Bears have faced and their records not counting the Bears games.

GB: 2-3
DET: 1-4
MIN: 4-1
SEA: 4-1
BUF: 2-4
ARI: 1-4

Total: 14-17

Now let's do the same for ours:

ARI: 0-5
STL: 4-1
PHI: 3-3
KC: 2-3
OAK: 1-4
SD: 3-2

Total: 13-18


See that? The Bears, have faced teams with similar records as us if you not include their Bears games and then not include 49er games for teams we've faced.

To put things in perspective, if you are an a winless team (assuming to ties), then you will obviously not have faced a team that is currently winless. If you are an undefeated team, then you will have not faced a team that is also undefeated (again, assuming no ties). So yes, those teams the Bears faced don't look that great. That's because they have each dropped a game to the Bears.

I was trying to make this point earlier in the thread but it didnt come out as good.

[Bearsfan1970]

Somebody call the Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhmbulence... Because the point has nothing to do with the 49ers, despite your deflection and strawman argument.

Simply put, it's one thing to be undefeated on a tough or average schedule, but a soft schedule... Well, let's just say it tends to over-inflate the competency of the benificiary breeding a false sense of worth. Many times in the 1990s we were the benificiary of a soft schedule, fan expectations rose to "Superbowl Dreams" and we washed out of the playoffs because we, frankly, weren't as good as our record. We weren't bad. We just weren't as good as a 12-4 or 13-3 team that had played a tough record.

OTOH, we've been to the Superbowl as a 10-6 club after facing down a brutal schedule all year long. Including going to Chicago in miserable conditions and kicking tail to the tune of 28-3 in a game we "weren't supposed to win..."

So, like the 49ers of the mid-90's, you're playing a powder-puff schedule and walking around with "swagger" that, realistically, you shouldn't probably be exhibiting.

BTW, what is it with you Bear fans. You only come out of the woodwork when you're good. All those sucky Bear teams didn't get this "swagger." Didn't get this go to boards and trash-talk. Nothing personal, but most of you are acting like the typical 14-year old trash-talking Rams fans that only come around when they're winning and are not to be seen when they're losing. Grow up and get a clue, all things go in cycles, and if you're too cowardly to show up when you suck, you only look the fool when you show up when you're "good."

Hold the phone there, sparky. I and plenty others have been Bear fans in good times and bad and have taken plenty of guff from fans of other teams. Bear fans are some of the most loyal out there. I live in the SF bay area (grew up in Chicago and have been a Bears fan since I could crawl) and have seen so called "diehard 49er fans" jump ship to the Raiders when their team is not doing quite as good. I've seen it many, many times.

Also, we realize the schedule is soft but let's be realistic, the 49ers had the advantage of playing in the easiest division in football for YEARS. They basicly were spotted 6 wins a year and cakewalked to the playoffs and beat teams that played in much more tougher divisions with way tougher schedules. I'd venture to say the reason you beat us on our turf in the NFC playoffs all those years ago was because your team wasn't as banged up as ours was and only had the one tough game to make it in unlike the other teams in the playoffs.

If you think our D isn't for real you're only fooling yourself. I think the Bears will match up just fine against the Giants and Patriots and could hang with the Chargers, Broncos and Colts as well.

"Swagger?" Do you know how sick everyone got of hearing about "THE 5 time Superbowl Champions" even after the Cowboys won 5 and now the Steelers as well? Care to talk about how the Niners cheated the salary cap in 94? How about the fact that the Packers, Bears and Giants have more overall titles anyway. Packers have 12, Bears have 9 and the Giants have 6. Don't wanna except that? Look it up:
http://www.profootballhof.com/

Go to the teams I mentioned and it'll tell you the same thing I just did. There are teams that won more titles than the 49ers did before the 49ers even existed. Most 49er fans think that history started in 1981 and are too arrogant to ever give another team their due. The NFL tells it like it is no matter what 49er fans say. They also fail to realize that Bill Walsh owes his "genius" west coast offense to Sid Gilman. Something most Niner fans have no clue about because they have been given this "swagger" that was force fed by the local media for years.

Better watch it before you point the finger at fans of other teams. Sounds to me you need the "waaaaambulance." Take that butt whooping you just got like a man and give credit where it's due. The Bears OWNED your team today. Deal with it.

[Bearsfan1970]

Somebody call the Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhmbulence... Because the point has nothing to do with the 49ers, despite your deflection and strawman argument.

Simply put, it's one thing to be undefeated on a tough or average schedule, but a soft schedule... Well, let's just say it tends to over-inflate the competency of the benificiary breeding a false sense of worth. Many times in the 1990s we were the benificiary of a soft schedule, fan expectations rose to "Superbowl Dreams" and we washed out of the playoffs because we, frankly, weren't as good as our record. We weren't bad. We just weren't as good as a 12-4 or 13-3 team that had played a tough record.

OTOH, we've been to the Superbowl as a 10-6 club after facing down a brutal schedule all year long. Including going to Chicago in miserable conditions and kicking tail to the tune of 28-3 in a game we "weren't supposed to win..."

So, like the 49ers of the mid-90's, you're playing a powder-puff schedule and walking around with "swagger" that, realistically, you shouldn't probably be exhibiting.

BTW, what is it with you Bear fans. You only come out of the woodwork when you're good. All those sucky Bear teams didn't get this "swagger." Didn't get this go to boards and trash-talk. Nothing personal, but most of you are acting like the typical 14-year old trash-talking Rams fans that only come around when they're winning and are not to be seen when they're losing. Grow up and get a clue, all things go in cycles, and if you're too cowardly to show up when you suck, you only look the fool when you show up when you're "good."

Hold the phone there, sparky. I and plenty others have been Bear fans in good times and bad and have taken plenty of guff from fans of other teams. Bear fans are some of the most loyal out there. I live in the SF bay area (grew up in Chicago and have been a Bears fan since I could crawl) and have seen so called "diehard 49er fans" jump ship to the Raiders when their team is not doing quite as good. I've seen it many, many times.

Also, we realize the schedule is soft but let's be realistic, the 49ers had the advantage of playing in the easiest division in football for YEARS. They basicly were spotted 6 wins a year and cakewalked to the playoffs and beat teams that played in much more tougher divisions with way tougher schedules. I'd venture to say the reason you beat us on our turf in the NFC playoffs all those years ago was because your team wasn't as banged up as ours was and only had the one tough game to make it in unlike the other teams in the playoffs.

If you think our D isn't for real you're only fooling yourself. I think the Bears will match up just fine against the Giants and Patriots and could hang with the Chargers, Broncos and Colts as well.

"Swagger?" Do you know how sick everyone got of hearing about "THE 5 time Superbowl Champions" even after the Cowboys won 5 and now the Steelers as well? Care to talk about how the Niners cheated the salary cap in 94? How about the fact that the Packers, Bears and Giants have more overall titles anyway. Packers have 12, Bears have 9 and the Giants have 6. Don't wanna except that? Look it up:
http://www.profootballhof.com/

Go to the teams I mentioned and it'll tell you the same thing I just did. There are teams that won more titles than the 49ers did before the 49ers even existed. Most 49er fans think that history started in 1981 and are too arrogant to ever give another team their due. The NFL tells it like it is no matter what 49er fans say. They also fail to realize that Bill Walsh owes his "genius" west coast offense to Sid Gilman. Something most Niner fans have no clue about because they have been given this "swagger" that was force fed by the local media for years.

Better watch it before you point the finger at fans of other teams. Sounds to me you need the "waaaaambulance." Take that butt whooping you just got like a man and give credit where it's due. The Bears OWNED your team today. Deal with it.

[Bearsfan1970]

Sorry for the double post.

[Juiced]

Well if the 9ers cheated the Salary cap how come they where not stripped of the title? I mean if they cheated shouldnt the San Diego Chargers be champs then?

As for the easy division - not quite the Rams in the late 80s where plenty good - much more of a challenege than anyone currently in the NFC North - how about Chicago with a guaranteed 6 wins this year.

As for 5 time superbowl champ- consider yourself lucky - the 9ers should have won it in 87, 90, 95, and 97 - they should be 9 time champ and lost the NFC title game in 92 and 93 to dallas

as for other NFL titles - competition is stiffer - the football league isnt made up of a handful of teams but now its 32 back then 28?
What was it when chicago won 8 of those 9? 6 teams?
Where you even alive for most of them? any of them?
and it did say superbowl champ - keyword superbowl

The 9ers in the 80s through the 90s was easily the greatest team assembled and reloaded year after year - even the one year in there the 9ers didnt make we still spanked the playoff bound bears 52-10

9ers fans can just laugh at yesterday - why because since 1980 we have owned the Bears - you guys had 85 we had the rest until 2003
I dont mind too much - we will be back and with Mccaskey running the Bears - we know they will be back at their normal spots too:smile:

[Bearsfan1970]

What utter BS.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda....bottom line the niners couldn't win those years because they cakewalked in and then got beat by a real team.

The 85 Bears was the best, toughest and greatest team ever assembled and would have whooped any one of those Niner teams.

How many of those Niner SBs were you around for? I saw the 85 Bears live and in color, jack.

If pre SB era is "meaningless" and shouldn't count, why is the NFC trophy named after George Halas and the SB trophy named after Lombardi? Because those two fielded champions time and again. Looking at the bigger picture since the NFLs inception the 49ers are a blip on the radar.

6 teams? Nice try, buffoon. There were more than 6 in 1963.

Why was Debartalo run out of town if it wasn't for the salary cap cheating? Fact is it happened and that 94 title is tainted.

It's about time another team got to "cakewalk" in (funny, the Niners did it for decades!) but to say our schedule is a cakewalk shows you don't know much about todays NFL.

The Bears have won 4 of the last 5 and the all time record is different by ONE game. Hardly "owning" anyone at all. :rolleyes2:

Keep dreaming, another Bears SB is gonna happen. Maybe a few more and it'll be a looooong time before the Niners even smell another.