To begin with, I think you mean the Bears gave up 26 points per game IN the playoffs, because, "going into the playoffs," they gave up 15.9 points per game.

So why did they give up more in the playoffs? One, they were somewhat banged up. In case you didn't notice, they gave up more points in the last four games of the regular season as well than they had generally been giving up. Was this because "these were big games, and they couldn't step up"? St. Louis, TB, Detroit and Green Bay -- after you've all but clinched the top seed -- hardly seem like games you have to prove anything, so I don't think your theory holds much weight there.

Second of all, it's the playoffs. Do you know the thing that makes the playoffs different than the regular season? You're only playing really good teams. Most of them have really good offenses. You know what happens when a really good defense plays a really good offense? It gives up a few more points than when it plays a really bad offense. Rocket science, right?

You want to know what does NOT make the playoffs different than the regular season? Giving up points/yards in any game doesn't "prove" anything special. You can make a statement, "Great defenses DO NOT give up nearly 200 yards on the ground in the biggest game of the year," but I have no reason to believe that's proof of anything. They don't? Because I swear the Bears defense DID nearly give up 200 yards on the ground, and I'm pretty sure they're a good defense. Why do I say they're a great defense? Because of the other 18 games they played, averaged out. Besides, is there something special about rushing yards? Is 200 yards on the ground a benchmark, like 500 homeruns is to the Hall of Fame, in that, once you give it up, you are NOT a great defense, by definition? That's just garbage.

Besides, I don't know how many times people have to emphasize this to you, but what the Bears were capable of doing to Indianopolis was HARDLY a poor performance. If you told me that this generation's greatest offense was going to have the ball TWICE AS LONG as your team, and that, despite that, you were only going to give up 22 points, I would say that's a pretty impressive effort. I remember you tried to use the Colts success on third-down conversions before as a reason why the Bears D was subpar before, but that's absurd. The Colts were 50% on the year on 3rd-and-10-or-longer, and you want to tell me the Bears got "destroyed" because the Colts were 8-for-18 on 3rd downs of ANY length?

Yes, the Bears are vulnerable to the run up the middle. I've watched it all year. All in all, it hasn't been a fatal flaw by any stretch of the imagination, or did you forget that they won 15 games this year? Did the Bears D have a bad game when Frank Gore had over 10-yards-a-carry against them? I watched the game, and I can assure you: The 49ers were completely helpless that game.

If you want to pick a few games that the Bears didn't COMPLETELY shut down the opposition, I suppose that's your right. But I want to know who you WOULD consider a great defense -- or a great ANYTHING -- because everyone I know about has off-days. Is Albert Pujols overrated because he hit .200 in the World Series? I didn't think so. How about New England's D -- the only defense that gave up fewer points than the Bears during the regular season? They gave up 38 f-ing points to the Colts, despite having roughly even T.O.P. in the Championship game.

So, please, clarify how the Bears have been PROVEN overrated?

Didn't he just CLOBBER you with evidence?

And you're saying "bye-bye"?

Why -- did you black out because it hit you so hard?