SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all PFR content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing PFR blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Pro-Football-Reference.com » Sports Reference
For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.
ShareThisThe Bears
I'll admit it. I thought the Bears were pretenders last year and that they'd struggle to make the playoffs this year, much less be in the hunt for a first round bye. I know I'm not alone on this. At this point, we're well beyond acknowledging that they're for real and we need to start talking about where their start ranks among the all-time dominant starts to a season.
Since the 1970 merger, 56 teams have started the season 5-0, including this year's Bears and Colts. The Ravens might join them tonight. Of those teams, the 2006 Bears have the 2nd-highest point differential and they are one of only two teams to have won 4 of their first five by 20 points or more. The list below shows all the 5-0 starters, Margin is the team's point differential through five games, B stands for blowout and is the number of 20+ point victories in the first five games.
TM YR Margin B Record
==========================
stl 1999 123 4 13- 3-0
chi 2006 120 4 ??????
was 1991 111 3 14- 2-0
den 1998 89 2 14- 2-0
mia 1984 88 2 14- 2-0
nwe 1974 87 2 7- 7-0
chi 1986 86 2 14- 2-0
den 1997 84 2 12- 4-0
min 1975 81 2 12- 2-0
ind 2005 77 2 14- 2-0
den 1977 77 2 12- 2-0
ind 2003 76 2 12- 4-0
chi 1985 75 1 15- 1-0
stl 2001 75 2 14- 2-0
phi 2004 74 1 13- 3-0
nor 1991 74 2 11- 5-0
stl 2000 72 2 10- 6-0
ram 1973 72 2 12- 2-0
min 1998 70 2 15- 1-0
kan 2003 70 2 13- 3-0
was 1971 67 2 9- 4-1
min 2003 67 1 9- 7-0
dal 1976 66 1 11- 3-0
dal 1977 66 1 12- 2-0
pit 1978 64 1 14- 2-0
min 1974 63 1 10- 4-0
nyg 1990 63 1 13- 3-0
den 1986 61 1 11- 5-0
stl 1974 61 2 10- 4-0
nor 1993 60 1 8- 8-0
mia 1972 57 1 14- 0-0
phi 1981 56 1 10- 6-0
bal 1977 54 0 10- 4-0
mia 1992 53 1 11- 5-0
nwe 2004 52 0 14- 2-0
cin 1975 51 1 11- 3-0
sdg 1994 50 0 11- 5-0
was 1978 49 1 8- 8-0
tam 1979 48 0 10- 6-0
buf 1980 48 0 11- 5-0
cin 1988 47 1 12- 4-0
was 1986 47 1 12- 4-0
dal 1983 47 0 12- 4-0
buf 1991 47 0 13- 3-0
min 1973 43 0 12- 2-0
ram 1985 40 0 11- 5-0
sfo 1984 40 0 15- 1-0
ram 1989 40 0 11- 5-0
tam 1997 39 0 10- 6-0
ind 2006 35 0 ??????
ram 1978 35 0 12- 4-0
car 2003 33 1 11- 5-0
sfo 1990 33 0 14- 2-0
jax 1998 32 0 11- 5-0
min 2000 31 0 11- 5-0
nyj 2004 31 0 10- 6-0
Sure, the Bears schedule hasn't been that tough, but it hasn't been a joke either. The 1999 Rams' was almost certainly easier. The 1991 Redskins had a tougher slate than the 2006 Bears and if you made me choose just one team (after having given it very little thought), I'd say that the 1991 Redskins probably had the best 5-game start in modern NFL history. But the Bears have a pretty strong case.
A few weeks ago, I opined that the first two weeks' results don't mean much. But a look at the top of this list shows that the first five weeks' unquestionably do, at least if they are as strong as the Bears' have been. Six of the top 10 teams on that list made the Super Bowl and a few of the ones that didn't were favored to.
This entry was posted on Monday, October 9th, 2006 at 3:24 am and is filed under General, History. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
How about Grossman's 102.3 passer rating, in spite of his 4 interceptions! IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF HIS GREATNESS THAT THE BILLS DEFENSE DROPPED ALL 4 OF THEM!!!!
I've created a new statistic: "DROPPED INTERCEPTION COMPONENT OF PASSER RATING"
The Bear's team passer rating was 103.0
When you adjust for the 4 INTs that were dropped, it becomes 60.8
Therefore, the Bills defense contributed 42.2 to the Bears' team passer rating in the form of DROPPED INTERCEPTIONS.
I don't think anybody has any idea where this Bears' passing game came from. Muhammed and Clark were known commodities, but Berrian and Grossman have pretty much emerged from nothingness to create a good passing game. I'm distraught by this turn of events.
"The Bear’s team passer rating was 103.0
When you adjust for the 4 INTs that were dropped, it becomes 60.8"
OK. Now do the same thing for every other QB in NFL history, so we can have some perspective on what a 60.8 adjusted QB rating means.
My point is that there is no difference between a dropped interception and a regular interception in terms of how good of a pass it was. Therefore, in that sense, the passer rating formula is meaningless.
===
Let's face it, dropped interceptions are forgotten.
===
Who has a better day of the following 2 hypothetical quarterbacks, both of whom have the same completion percentage, yardage, and number of touchdowns, and same number of attempts:
(A) who has 2 INTs, with none dropped
or
(B) who has 0 INTs, but 4 were dropped
===
Since I'm more than a mere complainer, I have a solution in mind!
"Dropped INTs" should become an official stat for passers. Why not? It might be a bit subjective, but so arr ERRORs in baseball and nobody complains.
===
GIMME THE CREDIT I DESERVE FOR A GOOD POINT!
Let's face it, it's not every day somebody thinks up a new football stat with as much utility as the concept I laid out in comments 1 and 4. In light of the inevitable criticism of my thought process (as well as the impractical nature of it, the argument that not all INTs are bad passes, etc., etc.), let me say that I could see "Dropped Interception Component of Passer Rating" being the standard by which secondaries are judged, as well as the old staple: INTs. Defenses with lower DICOPRs would, in so far as that goes, be stronger than defenses with higher DICOPRs.
===
It made me sick to hear Phil Simms (who I'm assuming still possesses a spleen) rattle on and on about how great Grossman's rating was, without mentioning the 4 dropped INTs.
"My point is that there is no difference between a dropped interception and a regular interception in terms of how good of a pass it was. Therefore, in that sense, the passer rating formula is meaningless."
=============
I agree. But my point is that these numbers tend to balance out over the course of a season. Every QB will have some dropped INT's. Just like every QB will throw an occasional interception on a hail mary. That hurts the rating, even though it's a meaningless play. A lot of these things tend to even out over the course of a season. The Football Outsider stats account for a lot of these things as well (although I don't think dropped INTs are factored in).
Eerie. I am thinking to myself, "who are the Bears' comparables now, after 5 games", and voila, here it is.
Bill M.-- I think you are just trying to come up with a stat with "INT" in it that Losman is not going to be leading by the end of the season. Boy, that Losman throws a more catchable INT ball than Grossman, the one to Briggs hit him right in the numbers, after he had settled right in the middle of an offensive zone where no Bills could be found.
At the other end of the 5-0 spectrum, the Colts may be undefeated, but they are in trouble as this season goes on. Sure are reminding me a lot of my 2003 KC Chiefs. As that season went on, everyone clung to the "I know we can't stop the run, but we keep winning" card, until we lost a home playoff game without forcing a single punt. So far, Indy has been fortunate to win the games against good competition when they were gouged and outplayed for much of the game (NYG and particularly Jac), and struggled to beat the Jets, Titans, and Texans. They will probably have enough to win the South, but I have a feeling the Dungy index is going to take another downward turn in the playoffs.
On a related note for Doug, are the 2006 Bears on pace for one of the largest single season turnarounds in pass offense in modern history of the NFL, as measured by either YPA or adjusted YPA?
Bill I was at the game on Sunday, and all I can say is I agree with your skeptism, and not just because of the dropped INTs. Grossman's completion percentage just keeps going down, and while he has gotten away with it so far because he has completed enough long passes to keep his YPA at a high level, eventually those incompletion are going to stop falling on the ground and will start falling into DBs hands. A similar thing happened to Eli Manning last season. He hasn't quite reached the same level as Eli (whose completion percentage was about 52% in the first half of last season) but it seems to me he could start having problems when he starts playing better defenses. The fact that Bears don't play a strong D anytime soon may actually work against them as the more success Rex has with his go for broke style the more bad habbits he is going to develop. I really think Chicago should switch to the more selective Griese. He won't make as many big plays but he'll be less mistake prone and given the strength of Chicago's defense, I think that fact justifies a switch...
But I've been wrong before.
JKL, off the top of my head the 1999 Rams would have to be at the top of the list, unless some really, really horrible team became just decent. The 1998 Rams were one of the worst passing teams in the league, and the '99 squad was one of the best passing teams ever.
JKL said:
LOL
I HOPE Losman leads the league in INTs for the season! If that's what it takes to bring about positive change. No Super Bowls with him, I'm afraid. (Then again, at 2-3, they could probably win out for homefield advantage throughout the playoffs 
)
I don't get why everybody labels me as a Bills fan
I don't think that Griese has the timing with Muhsin, Des Clark and Bernard Berrian.
And while yes, his accuracy has been dropping, I also think his decisions have been improving. Give the kid time.
As a Bears fan, I can say it. Their schedule has been a joke, and will continue to be. The Seahawks were the only tough game so far, and lets be honest--it's not the 2005 Seahawks, and they were without Alexander.
I pegged the Bears to go 14-2. That should be good enough for the bye. In the playoffs, anyone's got a chance. GO BEARS!
Bill M,
You have got to be kidding me. Should we also start factoring in missed sacks? How about all of those throws to the sideline to avoid a sack (and the accompying lost yardage)? Okay, maybe those are bad examples. How about when the QB takes a knee at the end? More bogus lost yardage. Here's another one, missed tackles that amp up a QB's rating with YAMT (Yards After Missed Tackle) as opposed to YAC (Yards After Catch)!
Point is, stat's are there to glorify teams/players. I would have to believe that the majority of people that go looking at stats aren't trying to find out how much a team or player sucks!
"Give the kid time." Rex Grossman has still not played in a season worth of games. He will get better. He is good at things now that cannot be developed. He will improve on the things that a quarterback gets better at with more playing time. If the bears play at the level they are capable of, all the games they have played this season, with the exception of the minnesota game, there is no team in the league that can stay with them. And as far as Grossman's dropped int's, I cringe everytime he throws the ball. Sometimes, my eyes open back up and the ball is being dropped by a db, other times I open my eyes and the ball is being caught for a td; I cant even explain that feeling; as a chicago bears fan, we havnt had much of that. They are going to play more bad games, like they did at minnesota; if they overcome those bad games as well, they will do very well. Ill predict that Grossman makes the pro-bowl; Ill even predict he starts.
OK, Dave B., you've got me ticked off now.
I've made an excellent case to cast more than a reasonable doubt on the sacred and almighty passer rating. Why can none of you give it 2 seconds before you crucify it???????????????
Bill M
Maybe you should calculate the passer rating of other quarterbacks with this new criterion and then compare Grossman because right now you are comparing apples to "improved" apples not exactly then same. just a thought
Doug -- Clearly, you should stick to analyzing stats. In your column, you make an impressive analysis, categorizing the 2006 Bears in historically elite terms, and bound for Super Bowl glory. Maybe the live view you had of the Bills-Bears game isn't as clear as what we see on TV. Or maybe you just have the same "big picture" view of as a low-level government bean counter. Pull Rex Grossman now?! The guy has almost single-handedly turned the NFL's biggest joke of an offense into a historic jugernaut. Heck, last year's Bear's offense wouldn't have even scored against Northwestern. And you would start Griese over Grossman. For the sake of the town you live in, we can only hope that you do not operate any large machinery.
Lastly, I'm curious: Don't you think the '98 Champion Bulls should have started Steve Kerr at shooting guard over Michael Jordan? Kerr's field goal percentage was actually higher.
It's not an interception if it's dropped. A dropped interception makes no sense.
Yesterday I decided to create a power ranking for this season based on the simple power rankings that came out last May and the results ended up shocking me. One of the criticisms of the Bears' unbelievable start thus far is that they've faced weak competition. But using the simple power rankings formula, the Bears average margin of victory still only fell from to an adjusted 21.28 points per game. That means, that against an average team (like, say the Redskins who are at right about 0), the way the Bears have been playing so far they'd still be expected to win by three touchdowns.
In comparison, at this point last year, Indy was leading the league with about a 12 point adjusted margin of victory. I'm not even sure the '91 Skins start was as impressive as this (they did play three 10 win teams in the first five weeks but also played a 3 and a 4 win team)...only wish I had the time to do the research.
THE BEARS HAVE NOW WON 7 INCLUDING THE CLASSIC GAME AT ARIZONA AND WE SAW GROSSMAN FALL APART-BUT WE'RE STILL 7-0. EVERYONE WANTS TO COMPARE THIS YEAR'S BEARS DEFENSE TO 1985 BUT THE QUARTERBACK HAD TO GROW IN THE EARLY GAMES (MCMAHON) AND THE DEFENSE PULLED HIM OUT A LOT--THERE ISN'T ANY QUESTION THE BEARS HAVE THE TALENT TO MAKE AND WIN THE SUPERBOWL BUT IT TAKES THE COMBINATION OF TALENT, BLENDING, MATURATION, AND MOMENTUM AT THE RIGHT TIME AND I THINK THE LOSS TO THE PANTHERS AND HAVING LOVEY SMITH AS THEIR COACH GIVE THE BEARS A BIG EDGE IN THAT DEPT