RealGM

Normally the Lions don't have much of an argument when it comes to the power rankings, so I just ignore them, but this one caught my attention.

1. Chicago Bears
.
.
.
32. Detroit Lions

Really?

One play, that was a blown call, separated them on Sunday, and now the Bears are first and the Lions are last?

What a joke . Its obviously based solely on stats, particularly yards, because anyone that saw that game could see the Lions almost toying with the Bears on defense. In my opinion, the more yards a team has, the worse they look, if they only score 2 touchdowns. When you put up almost 500 yards offense and only score 2 touchdowns and 2 field goals, netting 19 points, that should be embaressing, not credited as the #1 team, lol.

Its just like when Ben Wallace would dominate a game with 4 pts. Stats mean nothing, and the fact that the Lions really won that game makes these power rankings all the more laughable, whoever wrote these rankings are a joke, obviously never even watched these games, and just did his rankings based on the box scores of each game. Not that the Lions deserve to be in the top 10 or anything, but imo, both the Lions and Bears belonged somewhere in the 20's. To put the Bears #1 is a complete joke

Dead Yardage FTW!! I only like Jeff Risdon on this site. Everyone else is a moron. I especially like the part about the Bears dominating the line of scrimmage? really? how'd that work on 1st and 1? 2nd and 1? 3rd and 1? 4th and 1? what about the 2 pt conversion? GTFO!!!

It's all stats based, and statistically, it wasn't even close. I do agree that the Bears definately didn't dominate the line of scrimmage while on offense but their D-Line and LB's did create a lot of havoc.

Lance Briggs, Brian Urlacher and Julius Peppers wrecked havoc. But our timid play calling had a hand in it as well. If we weren't forcing the run game, all game long, maybe they wouldn't have stuffed the box leading us to nothing but 3 and outs all second half until that final drive.

Calvin Johnson had what? 2-3 targets before that final drive? 1 target in the first half? Hell, we called more plays for Jerome Felton than we did for Calvin until the final couple minutes. Not too hard to predict what we were going to do.

Statistically, the Bears couldn't do crap when it matters. The Lions forced 4 turnovers and held them to only two touchdowns, despite 14 drives, a handful in our own territory. The Bears did what a Martz offense does. Gains alot of yards, but doesn't put up points because the opposing defense will pick you apart. Against a team other than the Lions without our starting QB, they won't be winning too many games with that sort of "dominance".

The 3 fumble losses and bad execution at or near the Lions 40 yard line 4 or 5 times in the second half leading to the most punts from midfield I've ever seen obviously weren't taken into consideration.

ChronicKerr wrote:It's all stats based, and statistically, it wasn't even close. I do agree that the Bears definately didn't dominate the line of scrimmage while on offense but their D-Line and LB's did create a lot of havoc.

Well, idk how "yards" weigh more than "points" as far as stats go, because in terms of points the Bears were only 5 better than the Lions, not even including the blown TD call. IMO, points are the most important stat. So if they are going to rank it based on stats, it should be based on Point Differential, not Yard Differential. Yards mean nothing unless they lead to points. btw, I'm not arguing with you, I'm talking about the guy who wrote the rankings.