THE 2013 CHICAGO BEARS!!!!!!!!!!

Indifference71 wrote:

81 wrote:

PJBuckeye wrote:

We are more sophisticated than this meatball "DA BEARS" crap. It's so worn out.

you're nuts.

Daaaa Bears rules.

it's like bashing that team up north. it never gets old.

I was thinkign the same thing....that shit never gets old with me.

I can't believe it's only Tuesday!!!! 5 more days of waiting...I don't think I can handle this.

Were just killing time until then.

Serious note I'm glad it's the Packers vs Bears for the NFC.

It's great for both teams.

when was the last time a home team was an underdog in a championship game?

and grunge

and the Bears didn't even have a full game plan in place in the loss while the Packers were facing a must win

interesting look at how the bears transformed their offense for the better over the course of the season...

http://www.csnphilly.com/01/20/11/Eagle ... feedID=692

The Chicago Bears are hosting the NFC Championship game on Sunday. They are one win away from the Super Bowl. The Eagles are sitting home, wondering why the wheels fell off their playoff wagon for the second year in a row.

Well, they might learn something by studying the Bears, specifically the way they fixed their offense on the fly this season.

The Bears lost three of four games going into their bye week, Oct. 31, and they were in a downward spiral that appeared irreversible. They suffered a 17-3 home loss to the Giants in which quarterback Jay Cutler was sacked 10 times. They lost to Washington, 17-14, as Cutler was intercepted four times by the same player, cornerback DeAngelo Hall.

It was ugly and embarrassing and the bye week was full of speculation about whether head coach Lovie Smith would even survive the season. So how did the Bears go from rock bottom to the brink of a Super Bowl?

Simply put, they changed. Offensive coordinator Mike Martz, no doubt at the urging of the head coach, changed his approach. Instead of the spread-the-field, everybody-out-in-the-pattern, bombs-away style he favors, Martz went conservative: more protection, more quick throws and more rushing attempts.

The result was a more balanced offense that saved the Bears season. The Eagles – who ran the ball effectively much of the season but got away from it at the end and suffered as a result (sound familiar?) – would be wise to take note.

Look at the numbers …

In the first seven regular season games, the Bears had a pass-to-run ratio of 61 percent to 39 percent. Martz was trying to run a deep-drop vertical passing game behind a less than stellar offensive line, and the results were terrible. Cutler was getting pounded (31 sacks), and because he was in so many long-yardage situations, the Bears were the worst team in the league at converting third downs.

They were 15-for-84, 17.9 percent, converting on third down. They were 1-for-11 on third downs against Dallas, 0-for-13 against the Giants and 0-for-12 in a loss to Seattle. You could play blindfolded and do better than that.

Stubborn as he is, Martz knew he had to change so the Bears came out of the bye with a whole new approach. They were less reckless, they max protected more and they put the ball in the hands of Matt Forte, their underrated – and underutilized – running back.

The numbers over the last nine regular season games tell the story. The Chicago offense was almost perfectly balanced – 258 called runs, 275 called passes. The pass to run ratio dropped to 52-48. Sacks went down, turnovers went down and efficiency went up.

The Bears went from the worst third-down offense in football to one of the best. In the last nine games, the Bears successfully converted 49 of 111 third downs, a 44.1 rate and obviously a huge improvement.

In their divisional playoff win against Seattle, the Bears ran the ball 45 times (for 176 yards) and threw it just 29 times. They converted 10 of 18 third downs. Remember, they were 0-for-12 against the same defense earlier in the season.

Going against the Green Bay defense and its fierce pass rush, look for Martz to stick with what’s working.

Indifference71 wrote:

Woah, woah, woah...first you want to get rid of "DA BEARS" and now Seinfeld???