American Football: NFL Firsts in last nights Bears game

Last nights Bears-Cardinals game yielded a few NFL firsts. And being a big Packers fan, I actually found myself rooting for the Bears.

• It was the first win in Bears history in which they trailed by at least 20 points in the second half.
  
• The Cardinals are the first team in NFL history to lose consecutive games in one season after leading by at least 14 points at the end of the first quarter in each game.
  
• In Monday's loss to the Bears, Matt Leinart became the first player in NFL history to throw at least two first-quarter touchdown passes in each of his first two career starts.
  

Also, the last time a team won on the road when committing 6 turnovers was 20 years ago. Also, The last time a team won on the road while completing less than 40 percent of its passes and throwing at least four picks was almost 22 years ago: on Dec. 2, 1984 the Cowboys won in Philadelphia, 26-10, despite Danny White going 8 for 25 with four picks and Tony Dorsett throwing an interception on his only pass.

And even further, Devin Hester had an 83-yard punt return for a touchdown on Monday night after having an 84-yard touchdown on a punt in the Bears' first game. The only two other rookies in NFL history who had at least two 80-yard punt-return touchdowns in their rookie seasons were George Atkinson for the 1968 Raiders and Craig Yeast for the 1999 Bengals.

And... The Bears are only the second team in NFL history to score at least twice on fumbles and at least once on a return of either a kickoff or a punt in one game.

And... Edgerrin James had a key fumble in the fourth quarter and gained only 55 yards on 36 carries. That's the most carries in one game in NFL history by a player who did not average at least two yards per rush. The old record was set way back on Nov. 25, 1951, by the Giants Eddie Price, who ran 32 times for 47 yards.

It was a great game... if you missed it... then I'm deeply sorry.



[Edited on 10/18/2006 by GiantsFan]

From a purely spiteful, venomous, malicious standpoint, I loved the game because Bill Bidwill can't eat enough $#!+ to satisfy me. I hate the guy, hate the way he's run one of the original franchises into the ground, hate everything about his sorry, ignorant and repellent approach to football. I remember about 25 years ago when the San Francisco Chronicle ran a series on him called "Portrait of a Bad Owner." It was sure something to read, but it was too modestly titled. Perhaps "Portrait of an Atrocious Owner" would have been more apt.

So, as sad as that game was for all those guys who played their hearts out--and make no mistake, they did--and as sad as it was for their fans, who were really into it, for the first time I can remember since they were in St. Louis, I didn't mind the outcome. There's just no amount of agony that team can suffer under Bidwill which will evoke anything resembling pathos from me.

The man is basically George Steinbrenner, minus the loud mouth and the commitment to winning. That is, he's an outrageous, pampered, spoiled brat who inherited a zillion dollars from his rich daddy; he's had everything handed to him on a 24K gold platter; he thinks that's how life is supposed to operate (I'm struggling not to compare him with you-know-who); and he has s--- for brains (struggling mightily now...). Just as the brutality of Lenin and the frothing-at-the-mouth insanity of Stalin were paradigms of socialism at its worst, Bidwill is the private sector's paradigm of capitalism at its worst (struggling even more mightily...). I absolutely hate the guy, and if his team went 0-16 for the next 10 years in a row because of his outrageous mismanagement, indifference and stupidity, it would be swell with me. (Think: Donald Stirling, prior to the Clippers' amazing performance last season.)

But as much malicious pleasure as I derived from watching the absolute worst defeat ever suffered by the absolute worst franchise in the NFL, that was a dreadful sight last night. How the hell does a team play THAT badly on offense, yet score THAT many points, despite the fact the other team's QB has a good game?

I mean, young Leinhart did not have a bad game. Considering the defense he was up against, he showed great composure. The only thing "bad" you can say about him is that his right tackle stunk to the high heavens, which is hardly his fault--though Bidwill had better address that problem by getting a real right tackle, before his young QB is toast. But to have your QB show that much poise against THAT defense, and to have your defense play their hearts out and make their offense look THAT putrid, and for your team to put THAT many points on the board, and to STILL lose the game?

W. T. F. ? ? ? ?

As Giants Fan suggests, you had to see the game to believe it. No amount of reading about it, or watching encapsulated replays of it, will give you the feel of what happened. I suppose it might help for you to know what the score was when ARIZONA got the ball back with something like 10 seconds left in the 3rd quarter. That piece of information, coupled with the knowledge of what Chicago's "offensive" output was from that point on, might tell you what sort of Twilight Zone occurrence viewers saw in the final 15 minutes and 10 seconds last night.

But really: You had to see it.

BHN