Friday, September 29, 2006

Here's another thing that I'm suddenly kind of wondering about today. Most prognosticators like to list scores along with the games they predict, and, it seems, very often these scores are only three or seven points apart. The thing is, predicting that a team will win by seven points or less, in football, is really only predicting that the team you think will win is going to win because they got one more break to go their way than the other team. I think a team can only really claim to have "won" a game against the other team if they win by more than one score: more than seven points. This is because, in a football game, unless you're up by more than seven points, you're pretty much at all times one Chris Thompson falls on his ass for no reason or Kurt Warner fumbles a snap and a lineman picks it up with only daylight in front of him away from suddenly being behind. And that bullshit touchdown can be the end of a season. That's just how it goes in football. So, it seems like picking a team to win 17-13 is really saying that you want this team to win, or that you think they'll get lucky once more or manage to avoid the other team getting lucky once more than the other team. (sorry about that last sentence...) That said, I think the Bears are going to really beat the Seahawks this week. The Seahawks have always had a tough time on the road, and it really wasn't until last year that they started to shake that stigma, and only because they finally became a significantly better than most teams in the league. But the Bears are at that level, too. And I will be at the field this week wearing a Tommie Harris jersey, which, along with the however-many-odd thousands of other screaming Bears fans wanting to see Matt Hasselback on his tush and Seahawks running backs getting pulverized in the back field and Ricky Manning Jr. making me forget he's a psychopath for a few moments is going make it really tough for the Seahawks to do anything like they did last week. I've come to the conclusion that a team that relies on a powerful passing attack to win games will fail when they struggle, because so many things have to go right to put up 40 points and if you don't have other elements in place that can actually win games for you, when that passing game struggles, and it only takes a few things going wrong for a passing game to suddenly look bad, there's no where else to go, and the point total drops significantly. The Seahawks haven't really been able to run the ball this year, and they're not going to suddenly be able to do that in Sunday night at Soldier Field. The Bears' line (which has Tank Johnson, who would be a star on the line for most other teams, actually playing behind someone who's better than him) is going to get Hasselbeck out of his rhythm at least five or six times, and those times will be enough to prevent the Hawks from going off. Unless the Bears aren't as jazzed as I think they'll be, this is going to look like last year's first game against the Panthers except this time with a decent offense playing for the Bears, and the result will be, I'm going to give a range here, (17-30) Bears to (0-9) Seahawks. At least it better be. Because I'm going to be in the stands. And I've never got to see my Bears win in person. And I really really really want to.

No comments: