This seems pretty narrow minded. Ok, so the best season you guys have had was when you took advantage of an extremely weak conference, got to the Super Bowl, got embarrassed by the Colts, and went back to being horrible the next year?

The Packers took the Giants to overtime, more than the Pats could do. They were very close to getting to the same point the Bears did. Either way, they dont give out prizes for 2nd place.

Jerry Angelo has not put the Bears in a position to be contenders for the next 5-7 years. Ted Thompson has put the Packers in that position. I dont think Angelo is terrible, I just think he should hire an offensive consultant or two. I dont measure GM's by one season. I measure their overall impact on the franchise and how they put their teams in a chance to compete in the future. Angelo has handicapped the Bears considerably going forward in this regard. They have absolutely no offense. None. That's on him.

Ask any GM in the league who has the better future going forward between the Packers and the Bears, Im pretty sure 31 of them would say the Packers.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Wow! Take off your cheese colored glasses. There are two teams in a position to be contenders for the next 5-7 years and that's because they have Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. Did you honestly just project out the NFL until 2015? Seriously? It's almost impossible to predict the NFL one year ahead and you are saying what will happen in 2015? Do you not remember what the Packers looked like at the end of last season? Now you think you are good for the next 7 years after losing a hall of fame QB. Please never accuse anyone on here of ever being biased.

That comment killed any credibility you have to talk about the Bears.

Dallas was better than the Packers all last year. The Giants obviously were at the end. The NFC wasn't that much improved this season but the Giants did get hot in the playoffs and ended up pulling off an all time great upset.

As for who has the better future going forward, it's the Packers right now. They were better last year and most of the time teams have a 2 or 3 year run. I would guess that Green Bay would be better than the Bears next year but it depends heavily on an unproven player.

Enjoy the next 7 years of dominant Packer teams.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Round 1 Mendenhall + Round 2 Baker + Round 3 Royal + Pants= Money

now THAT'S funny! ... you're calling someone narrow minded.


ok, i'm better now

ok I need to address this because you just completely distorted what i said. Theres alot of BS in there so Ill sift through it piece by piece.



Im not sure what this means, but taking it word for word, its a pretty illogical statement. So you are telling me only two teams are in a position to compete for a title in the next 5-7 years? Thats stupid. There's alot of very good young teams in the NFL, that have a very good foundation and core group of guys locked down that will allow them to compete. Unless Rodgers is Rex or Orton-esque, they are among that group. The Bears are not.



No I honestly didnt. You honestly completely distorted my statement. I said the Packers have a better future then the Bears. I noticed you didnt try to argue that.



Again, NO im not saying what will happen in 2015. I didnt even mention the year. I said the Packers have a better future than the Bears.



Wow... they lost by 3 points in overtime in the NFC championship by a team that went on to win the Super Bowl, Very embarrassing. Much worse than a 7-9 season.

(If you mean two seasons ago, yeah I remember them looking terrible for the whole year and getting hot at the end. I stupidly overlooked the progress their offensive lines and defensive lines had made and didnt think they had enough to compete this year. I should have paid more attention to what they were doing with their lines towards the last 3-4 games).



I think I do a pretty good job of being objective. These are all things B&B and Mac and Jurko have been saying all last week and this week. If you wanna bitch to someone and think they are going to be unbiased Bears fans, call their shows.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

You guys are misreading what I was saying. Im saying right now the Bears are not in a position to compete for the next 5 years. The Packers are in a position to do that. The phrase "in a position" is the operative one here. Im not saying the Bears wont compete at all in the next decade. Im saying right now they are not in a position to do so.



I've seen plenty of Bears fans on here talking about they are gonna get a top 5 pick in 2009 atfer JA did nothing the first week of Free Agency, yet when I say it Im wearing cheese colored glasses and Im not allowed to talk about the Bears anymore because of my biases. Who ya Crappin?

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

You are backtracking on it now, but this statement meant more than the Packers have a better future. Spin it all you want, that comment is clear. You think the Packers are going to be better than the Bears for the next 5-7 years. That's an impossible statement to make.



There are only two teams that will consistently compete for titles for the next 5-7 years and that's the Colts and the Patriots. There will be other teams that make runs at the Super Bowl and other teams will win it. The Colts or Patriots will be in the hunt for the title consistently over that time because they have two of the greatest QB's of all time. I'm not saying that the Colts and Patriots will win every Super Bowl in that time but the only way to be consistent contenders for the next 5-7 years is to have a hall of fame QB.



I argued that things change so fast in the NFL that you can't make that statement. The Packers have a better future next year but at the start of this season it looked like the Bears had a better future. The NFL is a league of parity and it won't take the Bears 5-7 years to catch up to the Packers. Of course the better team the previous year seems to have a better future but things change fast in the NFL.



2008 + 7 = 2015.

Also, I did mean two seasons ago. I should have been more clear. The Packers weren't predicted as a playoff team in the preseason and ended up being the third best team in the conference. It's stupid to now think that the Packers are now set for the next 5-7 years after losing a hall of fame QB.



Not recently. It's been a massive Bears bashing fest since Favre retired. During the season you have have been objective but that's gone out the window.

In this thread, you've predicted the Bears offense to be the worst in the league. It's likely that Jerry Angelo won't be able to solve one problem on the offensive side of the ball in a talent rich draft. You've basically let us know that Jerry Angelo has never made a good offensive pick(even though Greg Olsen has worked out so far) and that he won't be able to do it in the future.



Those same Bears fans have also had some positive things to say. The closest you've got is to say that if the Bears have 0 injuries, that the defense will be good. You can talk about the Bears all you want but when you say dumb stuff like the fact that the Packers are in a position to be contenders for the next 5-7 years when the NFL has a very short shelf life for any team not being QB'd by an all time great then you are showing bias.

I didn't distort anything that you said. You've backtracked from it. The Packers are in the middle of a nice 2-3 year run just like the Bears were and soon enough another team in the NFC North will make one and knock them off.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

'Cheese colored glasses'

thats fuckin great

_________________

Thanks for bringing up a point I keep harping on, Rick. The only way to practically ensure that your team does not ebb and flow is to have an all-time great QB. That's it. There's no other magic bullet, not great defense, not offensive line, not anything. That's the only one. The best GMs are the ones that make it through the down cycles as quickly as possible and keep the window open for the good ones as long as possible. When you have an all-time great QB, life is a whole lot easier.

Having an all time great QB is obviously going to make your team alot better, but its the not the only way to consistently be among the best teams in the NFL for longer than a 3 year span. Over the past decade the Ravens and Steelers have been among the best franchises in the league, without an all time great QB.



I agree completely, thats why I was making that point about TT. Towards the end of 2003, it was clear any window the Packers had was shut, and they were getting old quickly and needed to be renovated. Like Nas said, this was accomplished in about a three year span, now they have the youngest team in the NFL and one of the most talented too. If Rodgers isnt a great QB, they will very likely not win a championship with him at the helm, although it can be done. The point is, they have the pieces around him necessary to give him a shot to win. The QB is by far the most important piece, nobody argues that, but it isnt the only one.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

You need to come to terms with this one simple fact....The Packers aren't any better than the Bears right now. Favre's just one guy but he's the reason that offense worked, not the O-line or the receivers or the running backs.

I know it's argued that the Packers window to win is greater because they are the youngest team in the league. It's a little bit misleading though, because at the core foundation positions, they are actually older than the Bears. Ages are based on how old they'll be by Nov 1st of this season.

QB Rodgers (24)
LT Clifton (32)
Tauscher (31)
RB Grant (25)
DE Kampman (29)
DE Jenkins (27)
CB Harris (34)
CB Woodson (31)

QB Grossman 28
LT Tait (33)
RT TBD (since it'll be somone they'll draft, we'll go with 23)
RB Benson (25)
DE Ogunleye (31)
DE Brown (29...this is younger if you went with Anderson)
CB Tillman 28
CB Vasher (27)

The Packers have more talent than the Bears right now, and while these positions don't make up the entire 53 man roster, these are the $$$ positions. I'd call Grossman/Rodgers a wash right now, but if the Bears can address their RT and RB position, 3 years from now, I might take the Bears group over the then very old Packers group.

Thats an opinion big guy.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Absolutely....completely objective as well

This whole thread has been filled with objectivity.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Aren't all threads??

_________________
SideshowBob311: "Sadly enough, I think we're the "intelligent" portion of the sports radio fanbase".
"I make fun of whoever sucks, including me"- Harry 11/30/07

Personally I think this is a bad sigining. How much better is Marty Booker going to make the Bears? Ok he's younger than Moose, but Moose sucked and he was also 32 when the Bears signed him, playing in an offense with at least a running game. All this is going to do is take reps away from a diff WR. Draft a WR high and let him play screw Marty Booker.

To be honest as a Bears fan I am OUTRAGED!