Packers > Bears

[Gwaki]

Skol VIKINGS!

[RawdogDX]

Can someone get rawdog spellcheck

f u

[MU B2002]

Honestly, does it matter who started the original Packers v Bears discussion?  Based on the mutual distaste for the opposite fanbase, I would say the discussion started long before any of us.


Now as far as the Packers > Bears discussion, as a Bears fan I can acknowledge there are significant short comings on the offensive side of the ball, namely at WR, but it is probably a little premature to label one team better than the other.  Teams can win without WRs and a flashy QB, see Baltimore 2001.  Provided the defense and Forte continue their solid play, I would say that the Bears have a small edge over the Vikings, are well ahead of the Lions, and are very close to the Packers.  But it is still very early in the season, so it will be interesting to see how everything plays out.

[wadesworld]

TallTitan said.....The Packers won more games in the last week than the Brewers

Then you brought up the Bears in the thread.  You were the first to mention the Bears in the thread.  Then you started this thread.  Obviously there is an obsession somewhere deep inside.

An obsession?  With what?  I have an obsession with how good the Packers have been since I have come into this world and been old enough to know what football is.  TallTitan brought up the Packers, so I had a little fun about the Packers being better than the Bears.  Then somebody said that we should leave the Packers/Bears out of the baseball thread and that a Packers/Bears thread was needed, so I started one with a title that poked fun at the Bears.  Quite honestly I wouldn't have even known whether the Bears or Panthers had won their game on Sunday until far after it was over had a friend of mine who was praising the Bears and bashing the Packers not been in our room at the time...so I brought up the game updates online as the Packers were scoring 24 points in the last 5 minutes and the Bears were giving up their lead in the 4th quarter.  And thankfully John Kitna set up 21 of those points for the Packers (and straight up gave him 14).  John Kitna has 2 STUD wide receivers and yet can't do anything, so RIGHT NOW Aaron Rodgers is the best quarterback in the NFC North...in the long wrong maybe things will change, but RIGHT NOW the Packers have the best quarterback in the division.  Kitna stinks.  Grossman/Orton stinks.  Jackson stinks.  Rodgers, SO FAR, has been a STUD...RIGHT NOW he is the best quarterback in the division.  Let's look at Grossman's first 2 starts of his career and compare them to Rodgers's first 2 stars of his career.

[only a warrior]

How true - his posts are like a car wreck, you don't want to look but you just have to know how many typos and grammatical errors there are!!

Can someone get rawdog spellcheck

[SaintPaulWarrior]

Because Packers/Bears was brought up in the Brewers/Cubs thread and people said a thread for Bears/Packers was needed, so I made it.

I will try and make this simple for you.  You brought up the Packers and Bears in the other thread.  It did not just come out of thin air.

[wadesworld]

I will try and make this simple for you.  You brought up the Packers and Bears in the other thread.  It did not just come out of thin air.

I will make it even more simple for you.  TallTitan brought up the Packers in order to mock the Brewers.  The Brewers should be mocked, so I can't respond with anything about the Cubs, because they are clearly better, so I brought up the Bears...a team that the Packers have been better than since I was old enough to know what football was...ya dig?

Even if you don't, I don't really care.  You can think I am obsessed with being better than the Bears, that's fine.  The fact is simply that the Packers have been better than the Bears for as long as I have known, so I know nothing more than the Packers being better than the Bears overall.  Would it be nice to beat the Bears every time we play them?  Sure, it would be nice to beat every team every time we play them.  But do I the measure success of the Packers on how they fare against the Bears only?  Absolutely not...last year was a huge success, going 13-3 and to the NFC Championship game.  It would have been even better had we beaten the Bears twice, being 15-1, but we didn't, so I don't mind, our overall record was better than the Bears, and that's what matters to me.

[SaintPaulWarrior]

TallTitan brought up the Packers in order to mock the Brewers.  The Brewers should be mocked, so I can't respond with anything about the Cubs, because they are clearly better, so I brought up the Bears

Thanks for proving my point that you originally brought up the Bears.  That is all I have been trying to say to begin with.  I have never said anything about wins or losses.  Just that the subject did not start on its own as you claimed earlier.  You initiated the Bears and Packers in the other thread, nobody else.  Very simple.

[IAmMarquette]

This thread is already worse than the Brewers/Cubs thread.

[mu-rara]

What's wrong with Bear fans....

a third of them don't show up when the Bears suck......Chicago is the biggest front running town there is.

[DegenerateDish]

I hate to use the Cubs as an example, but suffice it to say, Chicago is not a front running town. Check out the Cubs attendance over the years, and this is coming from a White Sox fan.

If your team does suck though, why show up? The Bears sell out every game and have for a long time (yes, I know about the Packers four generation wait list, yada yada yada).

If your team (Cubs, White Sox, Brewers, Packers, Bears) sucks, and it's late in the year, don't you make a bigger statement by NOT going to a game? Even when they suck, I still use my Bears season tix. If the guy next to me doesn't show up, I can hardly blame them, especially if they're 3-10 or in that neighborhood.

Blind loyalty isn't necessarily a good thing. Sometimes the empty seats speak a lot louder than having a packed house.

To call Bear fans front runners though is an absolute joke.

[RawdogDX]

What's wrong with Bear fans....

a third of them don't show up when the Bears suck......Chicago is the biggest front running town there is.

Please find a source that lists a game where soldier field was a third empty.  You are talking out of your ass.

And as for you only a warrior.  This a message board take your pathetic old ass to the new york times page if you want to be a bitch.

[wadesworld]

Haha this is going to be a fun thread.

[RedWebster]

Like I said, Bears fans are just worried about whether or not they beat the Packers, while the Packers fans worry about how they do in the playoffs.

Like losing in the NFC Championship at home to a significant underdog?

At least the Bears were able to hold serve and reach the 2007 Super Bowl.

By the way, what is the difference between the 2007 Bears and the Favre-led 1998 Packers? Answer? Bear fans booed their QB out of a job for losing the big one and Packer fans want to erect a statue of theirs.

[IAmMarquette]

Please find a source that lists a game where soldier field was a third empty.  You are talking out of your ass.

And as for you only a warrior.  This a message board take your pathetic old ass to the new york times page if you want to be a bitch.

You're (I assume) and native speaker. Learn to spell. You make us all look bad.

[wadesworld]

Like losing in the NFC Championship at home to a significant underdog?

At least the Bears were able to hold serve and reach the 2007 Super Bowl.

By the way, what is the difference between the 2007 Bears and the Favre-led 1998 Packers? Answer? Bear fans booed their QB out of a job for losing the big one and Packer fans want to erect a statue of theirs.

Is this post a joke?  I sure hope so because this might be the worst post I've ever seen.  Losing in an NFC Championship is something to be ashamed of?  So what is it when your team doesn't make the playoffs (the norm for the Bears with some exceptions every once in a while)?  You really think the Packers should've booed Favre in 1999 after he had won a Super Bowl 2 years before and took another team to the Super Bowl the previous year?  WOW!  The difference between those teams was that 1 team made it to the Super Bowl IN SPITE of their quarterback (the 2007 Bears) and 1 team made it to the Super Bowl in large part BECAUSE of their quarterback (1998 Packers).  Favre has a Super Bowl ring and an unprecedented 3 League MVPs, to go along with just about every significant quarterback NFL record.  You think if Favre had been a Bear and done what he did for the Packers for the Bears there wouldn't be a statue of him in front of Soldier Field/his number wouldn't be retired?

WOW!

[Moonboots]

Like losing in the NFC Championship at home to a significant underdog?

At least the Bears were able to hold serve and reach the 2007 Super Bowl.

By the way, what is the difference between the 2007 Bears and the Favre-led 1998 Packers? Answer? Bear fans booed their QB out of a job for losing the big one and Packer fans want to erect a statue of theirs.

Let's get a few things straight here.

The Favre-led 1997 Packers reached the Super Bowl. Coming off his 3rd consecutive MVP season.  Three.  1995. 1996. 1997.  The best player in football.  Have I made it clear?  In 1998, the year you erroneously attribute to a Packer Super Bowl appearance, Favre threw 31 TDs, 23 INTs, leading the Pack to an 11-5 record, including a late season surge that had them as the most dangerous team in the playoffs, and a likely pick to return to a Super Bowl for a 3rd consecutive year.  The only thing that kept us from doing so was a blown call on a Jerry Rice fumble (the call that brought back instant replay) and a Darren Sharper blown coverage on "The Catch II."

Rex Grossman was a detriment to a fundamentally strong defensive and special teams squad, and his only responsibility was NOT to screw it up.  He did.  And in the process, failed to bring the Lombardi Trophy back to Chicago for the first time since Super Bowl XX. 

Oh, and as far as the NFC Championship game is concerned... I was at that game, and calling it a loss to a significant underdog does a disservice to the 2007 New York Giants.  We're talking about the hottest team in the NFL who had won 9 straight on the road, coming in and executing flawlessly on offense through much of the game under adverse conditions.  Then going on to complete the greatest upset in NFL history.  Don't give me this "at least we made it to the Super Bowl" crap. We know all about them, we have 12 of them.

[Moonboots]

Please find a source that lists a game where soldier field was a third empty.  You are talking out of your ass.

And as for you only a warrior.  This a message board take your pathetic old ass to the new york times page if you want to be a bitch.

Maybe not a third... but I have a little comparison to throw at you here.

Notes: Not so full-bodied

6,659 ticket holders skip game

By BOB McGINN


Posted: Jan. 14, 2007

Chicago - Playoff fever wasn't exactly alive and well Sunday at sold-out Soldier Field.
On an extremely mild afternoon for mid-January in America's third-largest city, 6,659 fans with tickets for the NFC divisional playoff game between their Chicago Bears and the Seattle Seahawks didn't attend.
The Bears announced that there were 62,184 tickets distributed but only 55,525 fans were in attendance, leaving the hefty no-show count.
It's a situation that would be unimaginable in places such as Green Bay, Denver and Kansas City, and in almost every city with a National Football League franchise. After all, the Bears were seeded No. 1, the temperature was 32 degrees at kickoff, the wind was mild and there was no precipitation.
Several Bears played laughed at the suggestion that their fans might not be all that supportive by league standards.
"I guess the 55,000 or so made up for it," cornerback Charles Tillman said. "It was loud. But I have no clue. You might have to ask the 6,000."
A Bears spokesman said tickets had face values between $120 and $150. The only theory was that some fans were taking a "show me" attitude and had no plans to show up until the Bears made the NFC Championship Game

.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=552670


Now... the comparison.

No place like home: Packers superior at Lambeau

By Tom Silverstein
of the Journal Sentinel staff Jan. 4, 1997


Green Bay -- It's not always the most comfortable place in the world but for the Green Bay Packers, Lambeau Field is home. Home for the regular season; home for the playoffs; home for the National Football Conference Championship Game.
And even when the skies turn gray and mother nature decides it's time for a cold shower, the Packers value their home as though it were built with their very own hands.
"It was pretty sloppy today," Packers guard Aaron Taylor acknowledged. "But it's Lambeau Field. (Expletive), we're used to it."
On Saturday, the Packers embraced their home Saturday in a way no other team has by capturing their 17th consecutive Lambeau Field victory with a 35-14 decision over the San Francisco 49ers. In turn, they raised their post-season record to 8-0 at their hallowed home.
Green Bay's triumph over the 49ers in a rain-soaked divisional playoff game kept alive its Super Bowl hopes and set up a showdown next Sunday with the winner of today's Dallas-Carolina game for supremacy in the NFC.
And the Packers achieved it all in typical Lambeau fashion. They overcame 34 degree temperatures, 9-degree wind chill, 20 mph winds and a steady downpour to send the 49ers packing for the second time in two years.
"I woke up about 4:30 this morning, but I couldn't go back to sleep," Green Bay defensive tackle Santana Dotson said. "I was trying and trying, but it was such a big game that I couldn't go back to sleep.
"I heard the rain outside, but I was like 'Well, this is Lambeau conditions. Green Bay conditions. I'm at home, let's just enjoy it.' I was hoping the 49ers were more concerned about it than we were."
Of course, the Packers would have looked pretty bad had they shown concern for the weather. Considering a record crowd of 60,787 fans braved the elements without heated benches and sideline blowers, the Packers couldn't complain.
The most amazing thing about the attendance numbers was the fact there were only three no shows. Speculation was either they were giving birth or their cars didn't start.
"They probably got stuck in traffic," safety LeRoy Butler said.
There is no one undeniable statistic to define which team handled the weather better than the other Saturday, but the 49ers committed five turnovers and six penalties in falling to the Packers for a third consecutive time.
Green Bay, on the other hand, fumbled five times, but only lost one and did not throw an interception. The Packers committed just one penalty for 5 yards.
Whether those numbers are the result of the Packers' ability to navigate in treacherous conditions or the result of a physical superiority are up in the air. All the Packers know is that when the stands are filled with screaming fans, they are a very tough team to beat.
"They have a pretty good feeling," Green Bay coach Mike Holmgren said of his team. "You have to go out and do it each time again.
"As I said before, the home-field advantage in and of itself doesn't guarantee you anything, but everyone wants it. We're a pretty confident group here now."
Whether it was Desmond Howard walking on water for 117 yards on two punt returns or Edgar Bennett plowing through the muck for 80 yards and two touchdowns or Brett Favre avoiding an interception, the Packers were able to function without any calamity.
It wasn't the first time they've had to overcome wet conditions or chilly temperatures during their current streak, so when they pored into the locker room after the game there was only a smattering of celebration.
"I think if you look there are organizations who make it to the championship and they're like, 'Oh, that's great,' " Packers safety LeRoy Butler said. "They'll be satisfied.
"But we've been there before. Let's go to a new horizon, you know. We have some unfinished business. We set a standard for ourself and that's playing in Lambeau Field. I think everybody knows that."
From the beginning, it was clear that the players were not going to have any easy day keeping their feet on the soggy turf. Virtually all of the players on both teams wore one-inch cleats, the maximum allowed by the league.
Punt returner Howard set the tone for the Packers, however, returning a first quarter punt 71 yards for a touchdown. Howard did not slip at all on the play and broke at least one tackle on his way to the end zone.
"My major concern going out to pre-game was to try to field the ball," Howard said. "With the rain coming down and the wind was pretty gusty . . . that was going to be the first and foremost (concern)."
The 49ers weren't debilitated by the conditions as say, the Los Angeles Raiders were in 1993 when they were defeated, 28-0, in near zero temperatures. But a week after beating the Philadelphia Eagles at home in a pouring rain, the 49ers couldn't hold up this time around.
"Our strength is usually being able to stop the run," linebacker Ken Norton said. "They were able to get people on people and just kind of fall for yards.
"They're opening holes. The footing was real bad. No one could come off their blocks. It seemed like they knew how to play in it and we didn't."
Now that the Packers have beaten the 49ers, they can focus their attention on Dallas or Carolina. No matter what the case, their attention will be on the opponent and not the forecast.
"We have the best field people in the league," Butler said. "But you have to expect it will be like that (again). That's what games are made of. That's what the old Green Bay Packers played on, why should it change for us?"

http://www2.jsonline.com/packer/arc/13097/96gbrev.html


If you can find a way to justify that one....

[JSwarriors08]

Please find a source that lists a game where soldier field was a third empty.  You are talking out of your ass.

And as for you only a warrior.  This a message board take your pathetic old ass to the new york times page if you want to be a bitch.

Doesn't anyone else agree that this is completely uncalled for?  Contribute something useful.  Find a more intelligent way to articulate your argument.

[mu-rara]

Please find a source that lists a game where soldier field was a third empty.  You are talking out of your ass.

And as for you only a warrior.  This a message board take your pathetic old ass to the new york times page if you want to be a bitch.

Sources would list games as sold out, or close to.  I'm talking no shows, and I remember many TV shots of a plenty empty stadium.

[RawdogDX]

You're (I assume) and native speaker. Learn to spell. You make us all look bad.

I'm not making anyone look bad.  'learn to spell' how dare you.  I'm dyslexic something i struggled with my whole life and was still able to graduate with honors from a prestigious university.    If i knew you i'm sure i could come up with a 100 reasons you make me sick.

[DegenerateDish]

For someone who was in attendance that day against Seattle, and who still has strong ties to the Bears front office, I sure don't remember many empty seats. Surely not a "plenty empty stadium". That statement is just ridiculous.

Another big point that clearly is failed to have been mentioned here, and is clearly missed out by Mr. McGinn, is that the Seattle organization and the NFL barely used any of their allotted tickets for this game. While that number doesn't add up to 6,000 tickets, it is still a significant number in the thousands. Fair or not, these count as no shows.

The Super Bowl typically has 1,000 or more no shows as well. I'm sure though that if the game was in Green Bay, Denver, or Kansas City, that wouldn't be the case though.

[Moonboots]

For someone who was in attendance that day against Seattle, and who still has strong ties to the Bears front office, I sure don't remember many empty seats. Surely not a "plenty empty stadium". That statement is just ridiculous.

Another big point that clearly is failed to have been mentioned here, and is clearly missed out by Mr. McGinn, is that the Seattle organization and the NFL barely used any of their allotted tickets for this game. While that number doesn't add up to 6,000 tickets, it is still a significant number in the thousands. Fair or not, these count as no shows.

The Super Bowl typically has 1,000 or more no shows as well. I'm sure though that if the game was in Green Bay, Denver, or Kansas City, that wouldn't be the case though.

I definitely understand the Super Bowl, because so many tickets are eaten up by corporations and given to rich snobs who could care less about the game.

As far as Seattle not using their alloted tickets, I always thought unused tickets from the away team got thrown back into the pool for Chicago fans.  I'm not positive though.

[MU B2002]

I thought this thread was about the Bears and Packers football teams, not the need of one group of fans to be better than the other.




The brats at Soldier Field are .023 inches longer than those sold at Lambeau, so I would argue that the Bears are superior.

[Moonboots]

I thought this thread was about the Bears and Packers football teams, not the need of one group of fans to be better than the other.




The brats at Soldier Field are .023 inches longer than those sold at Lambeau, so I would argue that the Bears are superior.

Not true. Lambeau Field's brats are superior in every conceivable way. 

In all seriousness though... I don't have much to say about the Bears yet, except that Matt Forte may be the first legitimate running back Chicago has had in a long time.