Predictions
by Andrew B on Sep 28, 2008 10:49 AM EDT
14 comments
Okay, Angelo Jackass Cataldi has it Beard 24, Eagles 10.
I think this game plays out like the Packers game in 2006 with Westbrook out. The Bears are good against the run, but not very good against the pass, except passes to running backs and tight ends. So I don't see us missing Westbrook or LJ that much, since they wouldn't have contributed much except running up the tackle totals for Urlacher. Celek and Buckhalter can fill in just fine for getting tackled short of a first down.
The Bears are weak stopping the run up the middle and off right tackle, and the Eagles are strong running right to those points. The Bears also cannot cover #1 receivers and #3, 4, and 5 receivers. Eagles win it going away, with nice contributions from Jackson and GLew and Buck running behind Gilles and Runyan. This could be another game where GLew comes in with one or two touchdowns. Something like Eagles 27, Bears 9 or maybe 13.
0 recs |
14 comments
Email
Print
Comments
why is he
a jackass for predicting a bears win?
by Joe_D on Sep 28, 2008 12:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Cataldi = Jackass
Because Cataldi pretends to be a fan and is not. He’s a jackass New England transplant fake.
He picks the Eagles to be 7-9 or 8-8 or 9-7 each season (way to go out on a limb there!).
Unless a game is an obvious blowout, he predicts Eagles losses.
He revels in defeat and hopes and prays for it each week with his show and columns.
by Andrew B on Sep 28, 2008 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Misconception
“The Bears are weak stopping the run up the middle and off right tackle”
Wrong. Watch a Bears game and you’ll see what I mean.
The Bears are weaker against the pass. They’re more vulnerable to TEs, not less. Learn the Tampa 2 system and the Bears before making comments.
by bs1220 on Sep 28, 2008 12:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Know Andrew, Know Stats
No he don’t, do he?
by Andrew B on Sep 28, 2008 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
its not a comment its a fanpost yours is the comment
by the way -the bears are weak period…
2008/2009 the body bag season
by EAGLE_MAN71 on Sep 28, 2008 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bears against the run
Here’s the stats for the Bears against the run – yards per rush, and percentage of running plays in each direction. This is based on the HIGHLY BIASED play-by-play put out by the NFL, so its clearly anti-Bears propaganda. Just want to get that out of the way ahead of time.
Left End 0.50 yards per rush (15% of running plays)
Left Tackle 2.37 yards per rush (12% of plays)
Middle/Guard 4.29 yards per rush (54% of plays)
Right Tackle 5.83 yards per rush (10% of plays)
Right End 2.54 yards per rush (8% of plays)
The average run goes for about 4 yards, so if your average is over that, you are weak or average. The Eagles should have success running behind Gilles and Runyan.
by Andrew B on Sep 28, 2008 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just a guess...
But I’m thinking Andrew’s getting his stats from Football Outsiders who have the Bears ranked 18th against runs up the gut allowing just under 4.3 yards per attempt and 30th in the league when the opposing offense runs behind right tackle (just over 5.8 ypa).
Have a gander at their tables.
by cavortingEagle on Sep 28, 2008 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS...
..is anti-Bears propaganda, they only provide you with what big brother wants you to know. Didn’t you know that it’s a website run by the Packers? Their former webmaster was Farvre himself.
A team can be strong against the run AND have some issues with the defending certain types of running attacks, there’s nothing wrong with that. And saying that there are weak spots in the Bears Run blitz is not sacriligious, nor is it fallacious. And by the way, just because Urlacher was on TV portrayed as a grizzly bear in a 54 jersey breathing fire, does not mean that he is really said Grizzly bear on the field.
Furthermore, in talking about Cataldi, if the Steelers couldn’t put ONE touchdown on the board against a HEALTHY defense which is not hurting right now, how in gods name are the Bears going to put up 24 against us? wait wait wait…I’m getting something from Cataldi right now…
Cataldi’s inner thoughts….
“Hmm…the Bears have Kyle Orton and they are called the Bears…Bears are bigger than eagles….a grizzly bear is taller then a Bald Eagles wingspan so therefore the score should obviously be 24-10…DAMN the other commentators and betting websites, they know nothing about football! No one understands my true system of understanding who wins games, for only Nature will tell us who wins ::Cataldi proceeds to slather mud on his face as he runs down a rabbit and eats it alive::”
by thwalls on Sep 28, 2008 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
a grizzly bear is taller then a Bald Eagles wingspan so therefore the score should obviously be 24-10
hahaha
by Remis on Sep 28, 2008 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i stand corrected, the bears won and the eagles lost , the eagles were the weaker team in this match -good game -[ouch that hurt ] – on to next week
2008/2009 the body bag season
by EAGLE_MAN71 on Sep 29, 2008 1:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Weaker Team?
The Eagles outgained the Bears by 90 yards and got two more turnovers. 9 times out of 10, the team that does that wins.
by Andrew B on Sep 29, 2008 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Andrew B
yeah i guess your right i was just being frustrated about the game . -Know Andrew, Know Stats -dude i got to thinking about this i got a nickname for you -[THE BLEEDING GREEN STAT MACHINE], .. it is funny how some people from other sites try to argue with you and have no clue how many stats and info/facts you know , go eagles
2008/2009 the body bag season
by EAGLE_MAN71 on Sep 30, 2008 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
