Will the Bears Win The Division(NFC North)
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
1. I would prefer anyone who has a general consensus of the NFL to come and challenge
2. No points should be given other than convincing arguments
3. We are only debating that they will win the division, not if they make the playoffs, therefore claiming they are a wild card playoff team will cause your argument not to be counted
4. Injuries will take a role in this debate, as they affect the playoff chances
5. Forefiet of around results in an auto loss
6. Evidence should be mostly fact related(stats, injury confirmations), your analysis is an opinion and that is what judges are looking for
7. Respect the opponent
8. The opening person may start with 3 opening arguments, the con may add +1 to the round 1. Then there shall be no more addition args
III. Nagy
- Jets (1-2, rookie Quarterback)
- Bills (1-2, rookie Quarterback)
- Giants (1-2, atrocious offensive line)
- Rams (Admittedly this one will be tough, but this one is also in Chicago, which might make the difference)
- 49ers (Just lost Garoppolo for the season)
- Also face the Bills, Jets, Dolphins, Patriots, and 49ers
- Seahawks (Its at Seattle, we've seen the Packers choke against them before)
- Falcons (Terrific offense, capable defense)
Packers and Bears have 5 of the same non-division opponents. If we judge both teams to be about equal based on the score of their game (22-21), the Falcons and Rams games will be incredibly hard for the Packers to win. However, this team depends entirely on Rodgers, so if he falters against in a game against any of these other teams, the Packers won't have anyone to fall back on to bail them out, and they will probably lose.
- Also play the Jets, Dolphins, and the Patriots.
- Eagles (In Philly, Defending Champs, good luck)
- Cardinals (Winnable, though they lost to the Bills so anything is possible)
- Saints (Saints beat the Falcons who are a lot like the Bills)
- Seahawks (In Seattle)
- Cowboys (Winnable)
- Seahawks (At home, also winnable)
- Panthers (Have only lost to the Falcons so far, they look pretty good)
- Rams (They threw 4 interceptions against the Jets, they wont do good against the Rams lets be honest)
- Cardinals (Winnable)
The Lions look like they have the easiest schedule out of any team in the NFC North now that we've seen a few games be played, but the issue is that the Lions themselves are look really inconsistent.... How do you beat the Patriots in Boston by 16 when 2 weeks earlier you lose 48-17 to the Jets? If the Lions are inconsistent against teams that are struggling, they're not going to do good against teams that have their act together like the Panthers and the Rams, and will probably lose a handful of other winnable games along the way.
-Nagy's collegian level plays do not work in today's nfl
-Nagy doesn't focus on the Bears solid run game
-Nagy is not a good enough coach in his first year to guide the Bears to an NFC North Division win
Peterman 0/3 0 TD 1 INT
Drew Brees 23/33 2TD 1INT
Keenum 25/40 318yds 1TD, 1NT
They are still contenders if they fix the broken run game.
Pats(it’s Tom Brady, he will torch their secondary)
Jets(agree)
Bills(agree, but don’t count out)
Giants(agree)
Rams(a tough team in no way will they win. The defense and offense is too much. 3 amazing receivers, this game might be less close than we think)
49ers(unless they find a solid qb to replace, this is an L)
Dolphins( I hope they win and they might. If Tannehill plays like this, he could beat us)
Falcons(agree)
Rams(will get smoked)
Cardinals(win)
Dolphins(pretty sure they will win, cmon, they are going to run out of steam, Bears play them when they are going to be shaky)
Rams(This could go either way, but they are going to lose if Cook is not healthy
Eagles(I don't know but I don’t think they play them soon. They were close last year. I think they will take the reins off an win with a good QB this time)
Saints(win here too, I think they can pull off a win vs a ehh saints d)
Panthers(win, too inconsistent)
Seahawks(win)
I thank my opponent, looking forward to round 2
Buccaneers = #4 in Passing = Did not win division, did not make playoffs
My opponent argues that a pass-rush would be enough to claim a division title. While that may be true, it needs to be perfected, which Nagy hasn’t done yet
The Vikings have a better secondary so than the Bears, so as evidence proves, they will the division.
Rodgers is able to carry the team by himself
They are dead last in run defense, which hasn’t affected them too much
The Jets game was to forget
Yes, the Vikings did lose a pretty bad game to the Bills, I am shocked myself. The offense completely shut down. However I don’t think that will define them in the long run
Vikings can easily shut down the Bears defensively
Thanks for reading! Remember to vote ONLY for argument points!
The case made by Pro is that the Bears stand a chance of winning whereas the case made by Con was that the Vikings are blatantly going to be the winner instead while decimating the strategy choices made by this coach 'Nagy'.
For me, Con blatantly takes the point on Offence in that he makes Pro back-foot strongly (not even concede later like with Nagy but entirely back-foot from Round 1 through to Round 2) that the Bears have nowhere near the best offence of the seeming only four teams [I am very ignorant of American Football and never ever want to get into such a braindead sport but I fully read both debates, I assure you]. The issue here is that Pro doesn't do anything other that the Bears can run down a team? Is that knock them over with raw momentum and stuff or is it literally running to strike or what? I don't know but I fully understand that what Pro is saying is Bears can maneuvre at high speeds in ways the other teams in their particular division struggle to equal but concedes they have irrational passing strategy relative to the other 7 as well as relying on 'overall league' performance whereas this debate is about division and not the overall NFL so even if you're a running specialist and those that perform well in the league have good 'rush stats', this alone means it's a stat that's worth considering (like leg muscle toning for a fighter of ANY martial art for example) but not that it is good enough to counteract their deficiency in passing stats which Con clearly proves are subpar relative to the others in the division and which ultimately factors in more than rushing in output of a team. Pro's counter was logically fallacious in that he proved that a passing-specialist (Chargers) didn't beat their opposition for their Division as well as the #4, #6 and #9 in 2017 and does an extremely similar thing for 2016 stats but everything is relative in divisions (because you could be the best of the worst division or the worst of the best one if I'm not mistaken in how it all works, the splitting isn't based on skill unless I'm wrong). Even if I am wrong, the sample sizing and analysis of WHY passing matters so much would have won Pro the point. I was waiting to see more of a scientific 'here is why their passing prowess will be enough to win and counters rushing stats' etc but instead all I got was a justification of them standing a chance to win the division and the burden of proof to prove they win the division. I think that Pro does do a decent job but that Con does a 'good' job and wins by a margin that's slight due to how LITTLE they explained here.
Now let's look at defence. It seems that 'front line' functions much less like a 'front liner that engages ON THE enemy' and rather a tank-like being that waits to be hit and tank tackles and manoeuvres such that the mid-to-back liners can grab the ball and push it forth to a 'scorer' or something. That's how Pro portrays the strategy in how they put the front line relative to the team and this passive form of a front line seems to indeed then directly translate into good defence but what I'm at a loss at is if their defence is truly that optimal how do the bears get scored against so frequently relative to games played?
I feel the only strong point Pro made is that Bears seem to perform well against tough opponent in ways these "Packers" clearly don't. It seems both debaters think Packers are losing. I think that Vikings and Lions were insufficiently attacked by Pro because just proving something is possible to beat doesn't mean the probability of beating them is such that we should hedge bets on the bears winning the division (which in my eyes is basically what this debate is, if you were to bet money would you bet if for or against the Bears winning the division? Yeah, that's the debate). Con simply states that he's proven you defeat rush attacks with efficient passing and since Vikings are good at the counter-style to Bears, it's clear that Bears are far more likely to use than if they were not against a counter-styled opponent yes? Both debaters agree it's either Vikings or Bears so really this debate became that.and if your playstyle counters your opponent, you have to put in less effort and can afford to be less good and still equal them so imagine if you are equal what an unfair advantage that is.
It seems Pro is forced to drop that Nagy is a terrible coach due to restrictions in the agreed debate structure, that's Pro's fault for accepting the debate and I award the Nagy argument to Con.
Honestly Con won in my eyes.because this whole "weakness" line of attack by Pro only really affected the packers and Lions and Con keeps saying that it's the Vikings who will win the division.
called it from early on :P
yep lol
Boy did you get lucky you didn't do this debate later.
hey man the bears be winning
Packers have no excuse now. Lol.
Vikings will win. Trubisky is too inconsistient.
Thank you for taking the time to vote.
Writing an RFD now.
bump
Since the last argument was posted before week 4, as a judge, you should take presumption that the Week 4 did not happen
Final statements, no need to extend
Round 3 should be a wrap up claim about all. very minimal
Ok...
Hey my bad for citing the Packers-Chiefs game in round one which was the pointless preseason game, I meant to refer to the Packers-Redskins game instead that happened in week 3 but somehow got them mixed up. Will post arguments tomorrow
For Rodgers stats: Pro Reference
For Game Stats: I used google to look up
As A Bears fan I love to see my team getting praised :). But I have to argue vs you
I love a fuckin good sports debate. Will try to keep my arguments short and to the point. Good luck! :D