By Jason Jones

Every single NFL season exposes a franchise for being a figurative fraud. Generally it is a team that exhibits mediocrity consistently over a period of time. Ineptitude to even give decent teams a run from game to game. Just ask realistic Raider, Ram, Brown, and 49er fans over the last few years, and it will be clear. Fans of those teams (some no longer apply to this discussion, i.e. 49ers) will tell you, that on any given Sunday…they would not expect to win, much less be competitive. This generally is a franchise wide problem that starts at the top and trickles all the way down. S_ _ _ rolls downhill as they say. Every once in a while we can look at a team that is decent, or even good, and say…they are a fraud.

Appearing in a SuperBowl is never a fluke. However, the Chicago Bears vs. the Indianapolis Colts may have been as close as we’ll see.
Some who may be a little naïve to believe just about any spin a team will apply would believe that the most recent SuperBowl Bears team merely followed a blueprint formulated by the 2000 Ravens team. That is a little farfetched for me. Do you really believe that Urlacher was their Ray Lewis, Mike Brown was there Ed Reed, and Tommie Harris was their Terrell Suggs? At each defensive position, the Bears are just not as good as the Ravens. Offensively, they were a little similar. The Ravens were completely inept and depended often on the defense to win 6-3 type games. The Bears were not following a blueprint, they just had lesser players. Or…maybe just maybe…its because they were the Bears that was the reason they were not as good.
Sounds like an odd angle to take, I know. If I were to ask, “name me five of the biggest surprises in the early going of the 2005 season”, I would be willing to put money on the fact that three of those players would be Jay Cutler, Kyle Orton and Cedric Benson. Three players who at some point have played for the Bears (Cutler currently). More importantly, three players who’s numbers were convincingly better on the only other team they each have played for (Cutler-Broncos, Orton-Broncos, Benson-Bengals). Think I’m losing it? Check the numbers. For the record, Cutler went to a team with a lesser quality receiving core and Orton went to a better one. However, both Brandon Marshall and Eddie Royal through 5 games compared to 2008 have produced roughly 45-50% less on the field, thus making the Orton argument even more compelling.
In 2009 through the first 5 games Jay Cutler has thrown 75 less yards, has a slightly worse completion percentage (0.3%), the same average of touchdowns and interceptions (2 to 1), a noticeable difference in quarterback rating (-8.1%), and the win loss record could be the same after the bye week (4-1). The average stat line for Jay Cutler in 2009 is 225 yds, 65.3% completion percentage, 2 touchdowns, 1 interception, 93.6 QB Rating per game, and a win loss record of 3-1. As compared to 300 yds, 65.5% completion percentage, 2 touchdowns, 1 interception, 101.7 QB Rating per game and a win loss record of 4-1. Now that the margin loser (by being in Chicago) is out of the way, we can progress toward larger disparages in the numbers.
In 2009 through the first 5 games Kyle Orton has taken the “field general” moniker and added efficiency to the formula. With the Bears in 2008 Orton threw 27 yards less (220), had a slightly worse completion percentage (-1.3), the same number of touchdowns. The interception numbers argument is skewed. Literally, 4 ints to 1. But in actuality the one from 2009 was intercepted by Randy Moss. Yes, that Randy Moss.

It was a desperation interception on an end of the half Hail Mary play. To keep it fair, Orton threw 3 more interceptions through week 5 in 2008 with the Bears than he has through 5 games with the Broncos. The next two categories are a little more impressive. In 2009, Orton is almost literally 2 or 3 more completions away from a 100+ QB Rating. In addition, he has “lead” (if you believe win loss is completely on the QB) the Broncos to a 5-0 record; one of only 5 teams left in the NFL who can boast that.
Now for the fun one…I give you the league leader in rushing, Cedric Benson. Yes, that Cedric Benson. The 4th overall pick that the Bears cut. In his first full season as the starter with the Bengals, there is no better running back in the NFL than Benson…statistically. In 2007 (Benson’s last full season with the Bears) Benson had 184 less rushing yards through the first 5 games. It would’ve taken the first 8 games in 2007 to come close to equaling his total rushing yards through 5 games in 2009. Only 2.9 yards per carry, compared to 4.4 yards per carry in 2009. Two touchdowns and 3 fumbles in 2007. Three touchdowns and 1 fumble in 2009. 25 less receiving yards in 2007 than in 2009. Even though it is not considered a relevant stat for running backs, two more wins and two less losses in 2009.
The Bears are not the Browns or the Raiders or the Rams, but I think we can put to bed the idea that some fans still hold (specifically delusional Bears fans) that the Chicago Bears are an elite franchise in the NFL. This team that lost to the Packers in week one by 6. Had a quality win against a Steeler team who at the time could not run the ball to the bathroom. They then proceeded to get passed the lame and injured Seahawks by the skin of their teeth and doubled up the Lions; in doing so allowing the Lions to score 24 points on them. The Bears are a decent team. However, it may be time to consider that Lovey Smith inherited a decent team and has yet to improve it. This franchise keeps drafting offensive lineman and defensive players in the first day of the draft ignoring skill positions like wide receiver. In game one of the regular season the starter wide receiver’s were 5’11 (Hester) and 5’9 (Davis). If it weren’t for Earl Bennett and Johnny Knox making serious contributions, this team’s receiver’s would be consistently shorter than the cornerbacks covering them. Matt Forte is a very good player and could evolve into a great player, but so what.

The Bears are in the discussion with the Panters (1-3), the Jaguars (2-3), and the Buccaneers (0-5). All teams that have had moderate to substantial success in the last 5 years, but still do not make the personnel moves necessary to sustain success.
These are not bad teams, but they may be less than solid organizations. Of course the players and employees would never admit to such an accusation, but its interesting to dissect. I’m not claiming to be right about it, I’m just saying…