PDA

View Full Version : 2005 Sox/2001 Bears Parallels


chisoxfanatic
05-21-2005, 07:52 PM
Riding the Orange Line back from shopping downtown this afternoon, I was thinking about two things that bear an uncanny resemblance. Those two things are the Bears of 2001 and this Sox team. Both teams got out to impressive starts, and all of the breaks went their ways. All of the bounces and defensive lapses against did assist the Bears to their impressive 13-3 record. There was real TEAM chemistry for the Monsters of the Midway that year. This year, the Sox are displaying much of that same team chemistry. They're always patting each other on the back and creating plays for themselves, and are out to an unheard of start.

Hopefully the Sox have better luck this October than the Bears did in the playoffs of the 2001 season.

Discuss...

PAPChiSox729
05-21-2005, 08:01 PM
Riding the Orange Line back from shopping downtown this afternoon, I was thinking about two things that bear an uncanny resemblance. Those two things are the Bears of 2001 and this Sox team. Both teams got out to impressive starts, and all of the breaks went their ways. All of the bounces and defensive lapses against did assist the Bears to their impressive 13-3 record. There was real TEAM chemistry for the Monsters of the Midway that year. This year, the Sox are displaying much of that same team chemistry. They're always patting each other on the back and creating plays for themselves, and are out to an unheard of start.

Hopefully the Sox have better luck this October than the Bears did in the playoffs of the 2001 season.

Discuss...

Well the Sox would have to be pretty good to get a first round bye like the Bears did...

That was an awesome season by the Bears. I can only hope the Sox are that good during the season. But unlike the Bears, I really don't see many teams that match up very well with the Sox. This team is great.

DumpJerry
05-21-2005, 08:06 PM
I disagree. Objective Bears' fans in 201 were not overly optimistic going into the season and they had a coach with the personality of a flat tire. They did it with some incredibly lucky plays, not skillful execution game after game.

This year's Sox' fans were chomping at the bit after the C. Lee deal was made. We were saying "bring it on!" over and over here and we had trouble seeing glaring holes in the lineup as KW filled out the team (turns out, we were pretty much right). Ozzie has the personality of a race car full of high octane gas. Then there is the execution of wins, day in and day out.....:D:

NorthlakeTom
05-21-2005, 08:21 PM
That was an awesome season by the Bears. I can only hope the Sox are that good during the season. But unlike the Bears, I really don't see many teams that match up very well with the Sox. This team is great.
Agreed. This Sox team matches up with the '85 Bears - the obvious difficulty in making comparisons between baseball and football aside.

MeanFish
05-21-2005, 08:27 PM
Agreed. This Sox team matches up with the '85 Bears - the obvious difficulty in making comparisons between baseball and football aside.

The '85 Bears comparison is valid, but more valid I think is the comparison between our team and the current New England Patriots dynasty.

Think about it: a collection of good but not great players who mesh well. A controversial figure serving as the central focus of the defense. (AJ Pierzynski = Rodney Harrison). An unspectacular late-draft-pick hurler who "just wins" (Mark Buehrle = Tom Brady).

The Patriots do it with strategy and chemistry, just as we do. They execute and win, just like we do.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-21-2005, 08:30 PM
:?:
The comparison does not hold up. The 2001 Bears were a lucky team because they won 12 lousy games. The 2005 Sox already have 2-1/2 times that many wins and we're barely 25 percent through the season.

Winning 12 games is luck. Winning 31 isn't.

If the 2005 Sox resemble any Bears team, it's the 1985 Super Bowl champion Bears. They're the best team in the league, beating everyone on their schedule and downright embarrassing quite a few teams, including some teams that were thought to be "good" before they got their ass handed to them playing the Sox.
:thumbsup:

So what if Baltimore managed to salvage 2 games? The '85 Bears stumbled in Miami, too.
:redface:

:iron
"****ing Marino..."

voodoochile
05-21-2005, 08:38 PM
:?:
The comparison does not hold up. The 2001 Bears were a lucky team because they won 12 lousy games. The 2005 Sox already have 2-1/2 times that many wins and we're barely 25 percent through the season.

Winning 12 games is luck. Winning 31 isn't.

If the 2005 Sox resemble any Bears team, it's the 1985 Super Bowl. They're beating everyone and downright embarrassing quite a few teams, including some teams that were thought to be "good" before they got their ass handed to them playing the Sox.
:thumbsup:

So what if Baltimore managed to salvage 2 games? The '85 Bears stumbled in Miami, too.
:redface:

:iron
"****ing Marino..."

Actually that was Buddy Ryan's fault. He insisted on covering the third WR with Wilber Marshall all game - going with a base defense instead of a nickel against the best passing offense in the league. I knew the Bears were going to lose that game. I even bet Miami -something my friends still give me grief about - what can I say, I liked the Dolphins at the time (then they hired Wannstedt and that pretty much ended my love affair with the Dolphins for all time).

I just knew PHG was going to weigh in on this issue, and I agree with him. Nothing lucky about what is going on with the Sox. Sure they have had a couple of lucky bounces go their way (passed ball in the bottom of the ninth of a tied game with the bases loaded and they still won the game) but there isn't anything fluky going on with this team over all. Spectacular pitching, good defense, timely hitting, the ability to create runs and a fair amount of power without their best hitter in the lineup yet.

This is a solid ballclub. The 2001 Bears had holes all over the place as the playoff game against Philly proved. It was still a fun season for the sheer unexpected "look what I found factor" - like going looking for quarters on the street and finding a $100 bill blowing down the sidewalk. The were built to be that $100 bill. The fact that we found a wallet stuffed with them doesn't make this season lucky...

PaleHoseGeorge
05-21-2005, 08:43 PM
...what can I say, I liked the Dolphins at the time (then they hired Wannstedt and that pretty much ended my love affair with the Dolphins for all time)....

:wanne
"Daaa, Voodoo's got a groin..."

:gulp:

NorthlakeTom
05-21-2005, 08:44 PM
The '85 Bears comparison is valid, but more valid I think is the comparison between our team and the current New England Patriots dynasty.

Think about it: a collection of good but not great players who mesh well. A controversial figure serving as the central focus of the defense. (AJ Pierzynski = Rodney Harrison). An unspectacular late-draft-pick hurler who "just wins" (Mark Buehrle = Tom Brady).

The Patriots do it with strategy and chemistry, just as we do. They execute and win, just like we do.
Good points. You're right about the strategy and chemistry. The '85 Bears simply brutalized the competition. I remember the announcer during the Super Bowl: "This is a case of men playing boys."

The '85 Bears weren't a collection of superstars either, outside of Singletary and Walter. The best comparison would be the Bears' defensive strategy/execution and the Sox's pitching.

FarWestChicago
05-21-2005, 08:54 PM
I knew the Bears were going to lose that game.:cleo

I think Twinkle Toes Fuller may have had something to do with it to.

batmanZoSo
05-21-2005, 08:59 PM
The 85 Bears are one of the best football teams ever assembled for that one year. It's hard to argue that when they gave up no points headed into the Super Bowl and had the Patriots going backward at halftime. Is this White Sox team one of the best baseball teams ever? No. As of right now, it's not even one of the best Sox teams ever because it's only May 21st.

Irishsox1
05-21-2005, 09:00 PM
The 2001 Bears were not aggresive on offense. The plan was to hold the other team to 3 points, while the Bears scored 1 touchdown. This White Sox team is very aggresive on offense and defense.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-21-2005, 09:01 PM
:walnuts :dye: :rowand :elduque: :jon :burly :AJ: :everett:
"We're not here to start no trouble, we're just here to do the CHAM-PION-SHIP SHUFFLE!!!"

chisoxfanatic
05-21-2005, 09:35 PM
Fair enough, and your arguments do bear very valid points.

MeanFish
05-21-2005, 09:39 PM
Fair enough, and your arguments do bear very valid points.

Props on the cheesarific pun! :D:

Frater Perdurabo
05-21-2005, 10:03 PM
The '85 Bears weren't a collection of superstars either, outside of Singletary and Walter. The best comparison would be the Bears' defensive strategy/execution and the Sox's pitching.

WHAT? The 85 Bears had plenty of "superstars," particularly on defense in addition to Walter and Samurai Mike. How about 2002 Pro Football Hall of Fame inductee Dan Hampton? He wasn't even the best D-lineman that year - remember Super Bowl XX MVP Richard Dent? Wilbur Marshall, Otis Wilson, Gary Fencik, Jimbo Covert and Jay Hilgenberg each made several Pro Bowls. Even Jim McMahon made the Pro Bowl after his 85 season.

Anyway, the 05 Sox don't remind me of any particular Bears team. As PHG mentioned, the sheer brevity of the NFL schedule doesn't in any way translate to the marathon that is the 162-game MLB schedule. The games themselves are so different. But don't take my word for it... just read what George Carlin (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/humor7.shtml) has to say:

Baseball is played on a diamond, in a park. The baseball park!
Football is played on a gridiron, in a stadium, sometimes called Soldier Field or... War Memorial Stadium.

Baseball begins in the spring, the season of new life.
Football begins in the fall, when everything's dying.

....
And finally, the objectives of the two games are completely different:

In football the object is for the quarterback, also known as the field general, to be on target with his aerial assault, riddling the defense by hitting his receivers with deadly accuracy in spite of the blitz, even if he has to use the shotgun. With short bullet passes and long bombs, he marches his troops into enemy territory, balancing this aerial assault with a sustained ground attack that punches holes in the forward wall of the enemy's defensive line.

In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! - I hope I'll be safe at home!

:D:

SluggersAway
05-21-2005, 10:42 PM
Ask me in October if this team resembles the '85 Bears, we should have a better understanding of the situation. But, I really hope they do.

scottyl
05-21-2005, 10:45 PM
Please don't compare this team to the 2001 Bears.

chidonez
05-21-2005, 11:12 PM
Sure, it seems the same in the sense that we've won a lot of close games, but the comparisons stop there. The dynamic in this game is just too different. Look at our pitching staff. Pitching, IMHO, is so-much more important than the quarterback position, and we got it. In fooball, you can get by with a decent QB. In baseball, you must have the hurlers, and so far we do. Barring injury, I don't see how anyone touches us at this point of time. Things do happen, however, that's the nature of the game. But I'm having a great time watching this, the thinking man's sport, as we dice opponents. That said, we have to get hot at the right time, which is Sept & October. No matter how good we are now, we all know how streaky our pasttime is.

Bisco Stu
05-22-2005, 05:11 PM
Does that mean we'll lose to the Phillies in the World Series?

chaerulez
05-23-2005, 09:40 AM
Riding the Orange Line back from shopping downtown this afternoon, I was thinking about two things that bear an uncanny resemblance. Those two things are the Bears of 2001 and this Sox team. Both teams got out to impressive starts, and all of the breaks went their ways. All of the bounces and defensive lapses against did assist the Bears to their impressive 13-3 record. There was real TEAM chemistry for the Monsters of the Midway that year. This year, the Sox are displaying much of that same team chemistry. They're always patting each other on the back and creating plays for themselves, and are out to an unheard of start.

Hopefully the Sox have better luck this October than the Bears did in the playoffs of the 2001 season.

Discuss...

Regardless if anyone wants to admit it or not, a few of those Bears' wins were due to luck. Their record made them seem better than they actually were. Remember good, but not great Green Bay team also swept them that season. With that said, the Bears were a true team that year and it was a blast to watch. But also the head coach was lauded... but a few years later everyone found out he really wasn't that good of a coach. For the Sox, I think Ozzie is the real deal and this season is no fluke. But the team chemistry thing, I'll agree with that all the way.

miker
05-23-2005, 02:41 PM
Why do I suddenly have the mental image of Ted Washington hustling after a foul pop-up?

NorthlakeTom
05-23-2005, 03:27 PM
WHAT? The 85 Bears had plenty of "superstars," particularly on defense in addition to Walter and Samurai Mike. How about 2002 Pro Football Hall of Fame inductee Dan Hampton? He wasn't even the best D-lineman that year - remember Super Bowl XX MVP Richard Dent? Wilbur Marshall, Otis Wilson, Gary Fencik, Jimbo Covert and Jay Hilgenberg each made several Pro Bowls. Even Jim McMahon made the Pro Bowl after his 85 season.

Yeah, you're right. Thanks for refreshing my memory.

Hitmen77
05-23-2005, 04:07 PM
Riding the Orange Line back from shopping downtown this afternoon, I was thinking about two things that bear an uncanny resemblance. Those two things are the Bears of 2001 and this Sox team. ...

So you're saying that the Sox are racking up a bunch of lucky wins, will get bounced quickly from the playoffs and then will follow this year up with a series of crappy seasons?

Sorry, but.......
:threadsucks

downstairs
05-23-2005, 04:14 PM
Aaaaaalllright... put down the crack pipe.

Its far from fair to call the '05 Sox the '85 Bears. THE NEED TO WIN THE WORLD SERIES FIRST!

chisoxfanatic
05-23-2005, 05:11 PM
So you're saying that the Sox are racking up a bunch of lucky wins, will get bounced quickly from the playoffs and then will follow this year up with a series of crappy seasons?

Read the last statement in the thread starter.

Sxy Mofo
05-23-2005, 05:27 PM
Like someone else said, this team (if we're going to compare the dynamic, not the championships) is like the patriots. Team unity, good coach, good at the most important positions (quarterback there, pitching here). And a whole bunch of role players that know their job and do it well.

While I loved the '01 bear teams, and during bored moments still find myself watch the browns, 9ers, and jacksonville game highlights... that team was missing some key parts and relied SOLELY on team chemistry. though they had some good parts: urlacher, brown, atrain, dub (was good that year), washington and traylor, a solid o-line... they were missing the key part at quarterback, especially after miller went down in the playoff game.

The only comparison I see is a winning culture and great team chemistry, but that's about it. I hated jauron as a coach... i love the O.Z. I hated shoop and blache, I love the bench coaches. The most important position on the field the bears didn't have, the sox do.

and the last team i'll compare the sox to is the '85 bears. That team didn't need chemistry or role players or anything like that. They were just that good. This years sox aren't like that team and just can't get by on talent alone.

CLR01
05-23-2005, 10:47 PM
Please don't compare this team to the 2001 Bears.


Thank You. With all of the speed this teams has they can certainly defend against the pass. Plus our offense does not center around a mediocre at best QB and slow overachieving RB.


DUH Bears!