Only team with a winning record…

[cranky]

38 minutes ago, UnluckyforSome said:

We are all a bit biased on that opinion as well, and that's what being a fan is about.

Actually that part abuot the Bears is not my opnion. I was watching some show and they were talking about how lucky the Bears have been this year. That's the only reason I brought it up.

[Bear Hands]

We got blown out twice that's how it happens.  

[UnluckyforSome]

27 minutes ago, cranky said:

Actually that part abuot the Bears is not my opnion. I was watching some show and they were talking about how lucky the Bears have been this year. That's the only reason I brought it up.

That's fine and all, but I think you missed a little bit with what I was saying. It's not that your opinion doesn't matter or have merit, but I would think Bears fans feel exactly the same, that it shows they are growing and learning how to win, not just getting lucky bounces.

In that way, we are biased, even to the point that will seek out data that will support our feelings and judgement.

[PleaseCutStewart]

Our gameplan is pretty much hope that the other team fugs up more than we fug up. Somehow that strategy has resulted in a winning record (so far)

[PNW_PantherMan]

22 minutes ago, Bear Hands said:

We got blown out twice that's how it happens.  

Yes but with no blow outs of our own to even it out.  I guess that would be pretty odd to have a team that either wins or loses by 30 every week and has ~0 point differential.

[kungfoodude]

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

Pretty much... and another reason why I'm not a huge fan of stat driven stuff.

This is one of the worst scenarios statistically imaginable to pull out the "stats are for losers." This may go down as an all-time worst call. Let me show you.

 

Super Bowl Winners Point Differential

Over 100: 45 (76.3%)

50-100: 12 (20.3%)

0-49: 1 (1.7%)

Negative: 1 (1.7%)

 

Both the 0-49 and Negative instances were Eli Manning and the NY Giants.

[X-Clown]

1 hour ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

Yes but with no blow outs of our own to even it out.  I guess that would be pretty odd to have a team that either wins or loses by 30 every week and has ~0 point differential.

We beat Atlanta by 30 in the first meeting

[csx]

2 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Pretty much... and another reason why I'm not a huge fan of stat driven stuff.

This isnt some fantasy nerd stat. This is common sense scoring information. 

[kungfoodude]

14 minutes ago, csx said:

This isnt some fantasy nerd stat. This is common sense scoring information. 

Yeah, I will wager the instances of teams making the playoffs with negative point differentials are quite small statistically. 

It just makes sense. If you are rarely outscoring other teams....well....that means you lose a lot.

[Diehardpanth02]

5 hours ago, Jaxel said:

Da Bears also have a negative point differential.

Dang they do, missed that one. Just one tuddy though LOL good catch

[Mr. Scot]

2 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

This is one of the worst scenarios statistically imaginable to pull out the "stats are for losers." This may go down as an all-time worst call. Let me show you.

Super Bowl Winners Point Differential

Over 100: 45 (76.3%)

50-100: 12 (20.3%)

0-49: 1 (1.7%)

Negative: 1 (1.7%)

Both the 0-49 and Negative instances were Eli Manning and the NY Giants.

The only point totals that matter are the ones at the end of a game. 

In 2003, we started off hot but got manhandled in game five by the Titans. People said that 'exposed us', but it just turned out to be a bump in the road. Individual games can be different than the overall narrative. 

Of course, to be clear, my view of this season's overall narrative doesn't have us in the playoffs or ending as an upper echelon team.

Steps in the right direction perhaps, but we're still not that good... 

[Mr. Scot]

2 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

Yeah, I will wager the instances of teams making the playoffs with negative point differentials are quite small statistically. 

It just makes sense. If you are rarely outscoring other teams....well....that means you lose a lot.

That's the part that matters. 

[PNW_PantherMan]

2 hours ago, X-Clown said:

We beat Atlanta by 30 in the first meeting

You're right.  I'm an idiot.

[strato]

4 hours ago, PleaseCutStewart said:

Our gameplan is pretty much hope that the other team fugs up more than we fug up. Somehow that strategy has resulted in a winning record (so far)

There is definitely a don’t fug up factor to winning in the NFL. In a true parity situation making the fewest mistakes is probably the number one factor in the outcome. 
 

I would add that in most jobs if you just handle the simple really easy to do poo like being on time and dressing properly, you are more than halfway secure. 

Edited 15 minutes ago by strato