We Really Need To Pin This One 'Til January

[big_palooka]

3 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

It's not out of the realm of possibility that the Bears take a step back (although they won't). The thing about the SI prediction is that he attributes most of the falloff on the defense. Which, if he'd been paying more attention, he probably wouldn't have written what he did. The change in the Bears DC is, at worst, a wash. 

Again, looking at the schedule. Last year, they played a lot of bad teams and bad QBs. Teams who ended up picked in the  The defense by sure competition will take a step back. Not to mention, they could slide back to top 5-10 and it be a slide back compared to their historic defense from last year.

Arizona, SF, NYJ, TB, NYG, Det(2), Buf, GB(2),Mia - 11 out of 16 games ( 69%)  vs bottom of the league opponents. 

Stay humble. That's all I'm saying

 

[beardown3231]

17 minutes ago, big_palooka said:

Again, looking at the schedule. Last year, they played a lot of bad teams and bad QBs. Teams who ended up picked in the  The defense by sure competition will take a step back. Not to mention, they could slide back to top 5-10 and it be a slide back compared to their historic defense from last year.

Arizona, SF, NYJ, TB, NYG, Det(2), Buf, GB(2),Mia - 11 out of 16 games ( 69%)  vs bottom of the league opponents. 

Stay humble. That's all I'm saying

 

You missed my post or chose not to comment?

[Heinz D.]

29 minutes ago, big_palooka said:

Again, looking at the schedule. Last year, they played a lot of bad teams and bad QBs. Teams who ended up picked in the  The defense by sure competition will take a step back. Not to mention, they could slide back to top 5-10 and it be a slide back compared to their historic defense from last year.

Arizona, SF, NYJ, TB, NYG, Det(2), Buf, GB(2),Mia - 11 out of 16 games ( 69%)  vs bottom of the league opponents. 

Stay humble. That's all I'm saying

 

I'm always humble. Except for when I'm trying to take over the Tri-State area. Then I can get a little out of control.

But you're assuming the quality of the defense is, basically, a fluke. It's not. 

[beardown3231]

7 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

I'm always humble. Except for when I'm trying to take over the Tri-State area. Then I can get a little out of control.

But you're assuming the quality of the defense is, basically, a fluke. It's not. 

BUT THE JAGUARS LAST YEAR!!!!!!

Edited August 27, 2019 by beardown3231

[AZBearsFan]

1 hour ago, big_palooka said:

Again, looking at the schedule. Last year, they played a lot of bad teams and bad QBs. Teams who ended up picked in the  The defense by sure competition will take a step back. Not to mention, they could slide back to top 5-10 and it be a slide back compared to their historic defense from last year.

Arizona, SF, NYJ, TB, NYG, Det(2), Buf, GB(2),Mia - 11 out of 16 games ( 69%)  vs bottom of the league opponents. 

Stay humble. That's all I'm saying

 

The “Well, they played lesser competition in 2018” argument as to potential Bears defensive regression just doesn’t hold water. In the games against the non-bottom of the league opponents: 

Seattle: 17 points allowed

New England: 38 points allowed (24 on defense, 14 on ST). Mack played severely limited in this game too - missed the following 2 games due to the injury 

Minnesota: 20 points allowed

Los Angeles Rams: 6 points allowed

Minnesota: 10 points allowed 

Philadephia: 16 points allowed

TOTALS VS QUALITY OPPONENTS

107 points in 6 games (17.8 ppg)

93 points allowed by the defense (15.5 ppg)

Against the top NFC competition they faced last year they allowed 69 points in 5 games (13.8 ppg)

They were actually better on defense against the better opponents last year than they were against the also ran opponents. 

🤷‍♂️

[soulman]

5 hours ago, big_palooka said:

I know this feel disrespectful, but it's not out of the realm. Look at 2016 Raiders. 2017 Jaguars. Teams that looked promising who feel back to earth a year later.

Majority of the Bears wins in 2018 came against teams that would be picked top 10 in the draft. Their is a change in DC. The QB is still a question mark and their depth on the Oine is suspect. 

They play a much tougher scheduled this year. The defense will be great, but it's natural to take a step backwards scoring wise.

Basically if Trubisky is it, they will be fine. But if he doesn't take the next step forward, an 8-8, 7-9 season could be realistic.

When a team returns 20 of it's 22 starters and effectively replaces the two who will not return with established vets at their positions I would suggest that the greatest danger to regression would be multiple injuries to key players not a slippage in performance.  No NFL team is deep enough across the board to withstand that especially at the QB spot.

Strength of schedule is possibly the worst argument anyone could make.  Teams don't choose themselves who they play.  That's predetermined and in any event six games are played against each of their division rivals and those are always tough games.  Eight more games are also common between division teams.  Only 2 out of 16 are different based on standings.

Also three of their 2018 losses came against Miami (13th pick) the NYG (6th pick) and Green Bay (12th) pick .  If the 2018 schedule the Bears played varied by only two games from the schedule all other NFCN teams that alone it would not explain why Chicago (12 wins) did far better than other NFCN teams and it would not explain a difference between 10 or 11 wins vs 7 wins in 2019 either.

Will the Bears defense score as many points as they did last year?  I dunno but the backups scored two TDs against the Colts on Sat. so who can really say.  It's possible but then so is the possibility the offense will score more often based on upgrades at RB, a deeper and healthier receiver core, all five OL returning including two Pro Bowlers and a former Pro Bowler, plus "double doink" is gone.

The God's honest truth is that all of this regression talk is based on two factors. 1) Fangio is gone so naturally the defense won't be as good, and 2) Mitch will regress.  Both are pure speculation and I would even say wishful thinking because if both are wrong the Bears will be a very powerful opponent in 2019 and in the foreseeable future.  They're a fairly young team with their key players locked up.

So to be honest and barring major injuries I'll take my chances on the Bears winning 11-12 games in 2019 as opposed to 7.

[big_palooka]

8 hours ago, beardown3231 said:

You missed my post or chose not to comment?

Missed it, apologies. Again, no disrespect intended. I'm just stating it's not out of the realm of possibility that the team takes a step back, it happens every year to teams.

12 hours ago, beardown3231 said:

New Orleans, NE, Seattle, etc have been playing tough schedules due to finishing 1st or 2nd in their division for the last 5+ years.

 This is true, but you fail to mention that they are proven and they have QBs and you win consistently in this league when you have the right QB. Do the Bears have the right QB? Jury is still out. Point is, they have to prove consistency before we can start penciling them in. And the NFC North has has some good teams, unlike some of these other divisions. 

12 hours ago, beardown3231 said:

The Bears will also play more 2018-non-playoff/bad teams in 2019- Oakland, Giants, Washington, Denver, Green Bay twice, Minnesota twice and Detroit twice.

And you have to respect most these teams should be improved. Including the 6 games in the division. GB is a proven team with a league best QB. The Vikings have a ton of talent and coaching.

12 hours ago, beardown3231 said:

And yes, the defense probably won't score 74 touchdowns again this year, but they'll also probably have a better offense than 26th or whatever it was in 2018.

And that's my point. They won a lot of games spurred by the defense that will realistically take a step back, yet still be great. Just not that level of impact. 

The offense is speculation, because Trubisky either clicks or he doesn't. And I'd worry about the Oline for a 16 game season. 

[big_palooka]

8 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

But you're assuming the quality of the defense is, basically, a fluke. It's not. 

I'm not. I'm saying they are great, but they won't match the ridiculous high bar set as year for a scoring defense. And the offense (Trubisky) won't have it as easy this year as a result. 

[big_palooka]

6 hours ago, soulman said:

So to be honest and barring major injuries I'll take my chances on the Bears winning 11-12 games in 2019 as opposed to 7.

FWIW, I'm not arguing they won't win 11-12 games, they should. They are very talented with some minor holes. And enough talent to hide a QB if he proves he's not the guy. I'm just playing devils advocate for why they could slip and be an 8-9 win team and it's not a massive disrespect. 

[dll2000]

9 hours ago, beardown3231 said:

BUT THE JAGUARS LAST YEAR!!!!!!

I hear this so much.  Look at character of Jags key players versus Bears key players.

That regression just isn't going to happen absent season ending injuries. 

 

[dll2000]

Let's say for argument sake MT isn't a lick better from last year or somehow regressed.

Allen Robinson is still far better than he was at this time last year. 

Long is better than he was last year.

Daniels is better than he was last year. 

Miller says he he knows offense way better and can play faster as a result. Though I think he may be rusty for game one with time missed. 

We swapped Howard for Montgomery Davis and Patterson, I think that is objective improvement. 

If MT hasn't improved offense is still better.  If he has, then it is significantly better.

Will that show up every single game? No.  Every QB/offense in league maybe save Mahomes had  a crappy game or games last year.

Just like kicker won't make every kick.  But over long run, offense will be better. 

 

[soulman]

41 minutes ago, big_palooka said:

FWIW, I'm not arguing they won't win 11-12 games, they should. They are very talented with some minor holes. And enough talent to hide a QB if he proves he's not the guy. I'm just playing devils advocate for why they could slip and be an 8-9 win team and it's not a massive disrespect. 

I really didn't see it as massive disrespect either.  I saw it as flawed logic which is pretty much how I process most of this stuff.  And my post was surely no reflection on you, only SI.  You posed a very fair set of questions which I responded to.  And you may see the possibility of an 8-9 win team, which his also fair even if I don't, but SI predicts a 7-9 team which would mean a 5 loss difference over 2018 for roughly the same team but now another year advanced under it's HC, QB, and it's defensive leaders.  That's big don't you think?

A defense as good as the Bears field won't lose much ground if any only because Vic Fangio and some of his staff have left.  It was somewhat expected that having completed his goal of boosting yet another NFL defense to the top as he did in SF that he would finally get his shot at a HC job.  But at least some of the media would like to imagine that Chuck Pagano is some kind of schlub instead of a very successful NFL DC and HC.  So IMHO that kind of logic about a regression is sliced thinner than deli pastrami.

You know the very same thing was speculated upon when Buddy Ryan left the Bears after their '80s Super Bowl win to accept the HC job at Philly.  Vince Tobin took over and for the next two years the Bears defensive stats were even better.  The conductor may lead the symphony but without world class musicians he still can't make that symphony world class.  It's entirely possible Pagano's more aggressive approach will fit this defense even better now that Smith and Mack have had a full camp and Floyd is finally 100%.

As for QB I believe Mitch Trubisky has already shown many signs of maturing as Nagy's QB.  Is he the kind of QB who like some can put a team on his shoulders and win on his own?  No, not yet, but that can't be completely ruled out at some point in the future.  He has terrific mobility and pocket presence, a good arm, he's smart, he's hard working, and very devoted to improving in any way he can.  But he may also end up as some would label him "a system guy" which is fine too.  That's all he really has to be to win right now.

The rest of the offense has been strengthened and depth as been added at the skill positions in support of both the offensive schemes and of Trubisky.  The weakness if anyone chooses to see it that way is OL depth but then that's pretty much true of many teams. How many have three starting caliber vet OTs or two Pro Bowl caliber OGs?  The only defense there other than staying healthy is having one of the best OL coaches around and the hope he can get a couple of backups prepared to take over if necessary.

That's all I've got brother.

[Superman(DH23)]

Everyone loves to point to previous teams that have regressed.  The problem is that if you looked at more than the box score that the regression was predictable.  There are 2 big indicators of regression: pythagorean wins and record in close games.  Everybody seems to have a different definition of what constitutes a close game, but the absolute greatest margin is typically 8 pts.  The Bears were 6-4 in games of margins of 8 pts or less, which doesnt point to regression as its not high outlier, what's interesting is when you deep dive that, it actually points to growth and not regression at all. 3 of the Bears close wins were actually blowouts that were made to look closer in the final score bc of the defense giving up points at the end of games in which those scores were meaningless.  So in reality close win record would be 3-4, 

Pythagorean wins also point to no regression as the score was 11.5 and they won 12 games.  

Truthfully the analytics.show the Bears are what their record says they are and the guys picking against the Bears are just grasping at straws.

[soulman]

9 minutes ago, Superman(DH23) said:

Everyone loves to point to previous teams that have regressed.  The problem is that if you looked at more than the box score that the regression was predictable.  There are 2 big indicators of regression: pythagorean wins and record in close games.  Everybody seems to have a different definition of what constitutes a close game, but the absolute greatest margin is typically 8 pts.  The Bears were 6-4 in games of margins of 8 pts or less, which doesnt point to regression as its not high outlier, what's interesting is when you deep dive that, it actually points to growth and not regression at all. 3 of the Bears close wins were actually blowouts that were made to look closer in the final score bc of the defense giving up points at the end of games in which those scores were meaningless.  So in reality close win record would be 3-4, 

Pythagorean wins also point to no regression as the score was 11.5 and they won 12 games.  

Truthfully the analytics.show the Bears are what their record says they are and the guys picking against the Bears are just grasping at straws.

Great post  and we've reviewed this before based on the same analysis Jonathan Wood presented.

In essence there can be only two story lines for 2019 regarding the Bears.  Either you have to take the position that they are a true SB contender which based on sports book odds and the betting public they are or you have to take the position that they will regress badly.

That's how the media works and that's how they approach it.  As informed fans we can also see a middle ground that sees them somewhat unchanged but still very competitive and likely to be in the thick of it come December.  This may or may not be "our year" but I agree that all mathematical or statistical indicators point away from any major regression.

Edited August 27, 2019 by soulman

[dll2000]

I think thing outsiders don't get is most Bears fans will be first to tell you their team is mediocre or needs a lot of things to go right for this or that to happen.

We aren't cheerleaders predicting Super Bowl or deep playoff run every year.  We find something postive to focus on most offseasons, but there is still a backbone  of realism on final outcomes of season. 

We have taken a deep look at the 2019 Bears and see a very good team on paper. 

It's NFL and things can go badly wrong as they have for many other talented teams with high expectations, but those would all be unpredictable happenstance and bad luck. There is no logical reason Bears shouldn't be a very good team this year.