What if the Bears bench their starters next week? (1 Viewer)

[Sweetness_34]

This could happen folks. All of us have championship week next week, but if the Lions lose next week (and fall to 7-8) and the Packers win (8-6-1), shouldn't the Bears just bench their players (avoid any injury) since all they have to do is win week 17 and week 16 will not matter right? Am I missing something?

If the Lions and Packers both lose next week, Bears could win the division with the win on Sunday night and hence would play everyone. But what if the above scenario unfolds. Bears play on Sunday night so they will know what happened in the earlier games.

 

[pizzatyme]

Zero chance they rest their starters. Okay, maybe 1% chance.

 

[Raider Nation]

This could happen folks. All of us have championship week next week, but if the Lions lose next week (and fall to 7-8) and the Packers win (8-6-1), shouldn't the Bears just bench their players (avoid any injury) since all they have to do is win week 17 and week 16 will not matter right? Am I missing something?

If the Lions and Packers both lose next week, Bears could win the division with the win on Sunday night and hence would play everyone. But what if the above scenario unfolds. Bears play on Sunday night so they will know what happened in the earlier games.

No worries there. They are playing a team which is already on the beach.

 

[Sweetness_34]

This could happen folks. All of us have championship week next week, but if the Lions lose next week (and fall to 7-8) and the Packers win (8-6-1), shouldn't the Bears just bench their players (avoid any injury) since all they have to do is win week 17 and week 16 will not matter right? Am I missing something?

If the Lions and Packers both lose next week, Bears could win the division with the win on Sunday night and hence would play everyone. But what if the above scenario unfolds. Bears play on Sunday night so they will know what happened in the earlier games.

No worries there. They are playing a team which is already on the beach.

This is the Lions we are talking about. And Coughlin does not give up. No way I ever lay any money on the Giants but you just never know. What if Stafford or Calvin gets injured? It is football...anything can happen.

 

[thriftyrocker]

What if both teams bench their starters (if DAL beats WAS, PHI can lose to CHI and it doesn't matter)?

 

[Mikey16x]

Wait. Are you proposing that the team rests their starters in week 16, leaving a possible must-win for week 17?

 

[Raider Nation]

This could happen folks. All of us have championship week next week, but if the Lions lose next week (and fall to 7-8) and the Packers win (8-6-1), shouldn't the Bears just bench their players (avoid any injury) since all they have to do is win week 17 and week 16 will not matter right? Am I missing something?

If the Lions and Packers both lose next week, Bears could win the division with the win on Sunday night and hence would play everyone. But what if the above scenario unfolds. Bears play on Sunday night so they will know what happened in the earlier games.

No worries there. They are playing a team which is already on the beach.

This is the Lions we are talking about. And Coughlin does not give up. No way I ever lay any money on the Giants but you just never know. What if Stafford or Calvin gets injured? It is football...anything can happen.

The Giants will not be able to run, Cruz is out, Randle has been invisible, Nicks was laughing on the sidelines while his team was getting blown out, their O-line is dreadful, their secondary can't cover anyone, they are on the road and they quit for good halfway through the San Diego game. Other than that, I think they have a pretty good shot.

 

[jbz]

Wait. Are you proposing that the team rests their starters in week 16, leaving a possible must-win for week 17?

that's how I read it too. Makes zero sense if that is the scenario

 

[Mikey16x]

Wait. Are you proposing that the team rests their starters in week 16, leaving a possible must-win for week 17?

that's how I read it too. Makes zero sense if that is the scenario

If that's how we were meant to take it, that would be the dumbest move of all-time.

 

[pizzatyme]

Wait. Are you proposing that the team rests their starters in week 16, leaving a possible must-win for week 17?

that's how I read it too. Makes zero sense if that is the scenario

If that's how we were meant to take it, that would be the dumbest move of all-time.

Thus my post about the 1% chance.

 

[Phenix]

This could happen folks. All of us have championship week next week, but if the Lions lose next week (and fall to 7-8) and the Packers win (8-6-1), shouldn't the Bears just bench their players (avoid any injury) since all they have to do is win week 17 and week 16 will not matter right? Am I missing something?

If the Lions and Packers both lose next week, Bears could win the division with the win on Sunday night and hence would play everyone. But what if the above scenario unfolds. Bears play on Sunday night so they will know what happened in the earlier games.

No worries there. They are playing a team which is already on the beach.

This is the Lions we are talking about. And Coughlin does not give up. No way I ever lay any money on the Giants but you just never know. What if Stafford or Calvin gets injured? It is football...anything can happen.

The Giants will not be able to run, Cruz is out, Randle has been invisible, Nicks was laughing on the sidelines while his team was getting blown out, their O-line is dreadful, their secondary can't cover anyone, they are on the road and they quit for good halfway through the San Diego game. Other than that, I think they have a pretty good shot.

The Lions look like a bad team right now, the Giants just played the Seahawks but have been doing pretty well of late.

 

[Sweetness_34]

Wait. Are you proposing that the team rests their starters in week 16, leaving a possible must-win for week 17?

If the Packers win and Det loses in week 16, Bears beating Eagles will not mean anything for them. They have to beat GB anyways and that is all they have to do in that scenario. Similar issue with Eagles....both teams might have nothing to play for other than a potential play off seed.

 

[Sweetness_34]

This could happen folks. All of us have championship week next week, but if the Lions lose next week (and fall to 7-8) and the Packers win (8-6-1), shouldn't the Bears just bench their players (avoid any injury) since all they have to do is win week 17 and week 16 will not matter right? Am I missing something?

If the Lions and Packers both lose next week, Bears could win the division with the win on Sunday night and hence would play everyone. But what if the above scenario unfolds. Bears play on Sunday night so they will know what happened in the earlier games.

No worries there. They are playing a team which is already on the beach.

This is the Lions we are talking about. And Coughlin does not give up. No way I ever lay any money on the Giants but you just never know. What if Stafford or Calvin gets injured? It is football...anything can happen.

The Giants will not be able to run, Cruz is out, Randle has been invisible, Nicks was laughing on the sidelines while his team was getting blown out, their O-line is dreadful, their secondary can't cover anyone, they are on the road and they quit for good halfway through the San Diego game. Other than that, I think they have a pretty good shot.

I get that....trust me I do. But it is football. We just saw Cassell and Asiata beat the Eagles.

 

[Sweetness_34]

Wait. Are you proposing that the team rests their starters in week 16, leaving a possible must-win for week 17?

that's how I read it too. Makes zero sense if that is the scenario

read carefully....if Det loses and falls to 7-8 and GB wins and gets to 8-6-1, since the Bears are at 8-6 right now, winning against Eagles will not help them win anything. They still HAVE to beat GB in week 17 because if the Bears beat Eagles and go to 9-6, then losing to GB gives GB the div at 9-6-1. If the Bears lose to Eagles and go to 8-7, they still get in the playoffs by just beating the Packers who will then fall to 8-7-1.

So, read carefully again. It is a possible scenario that the Bears will not able to win anything next week or lose anything other than potential playoff seeding.

Now if the Lions and Packers both lose, all the Bears have to do is then beat Eagles and then the week 17 game will be useless for them.

 

[Raider Nation]

Won't happen, even if everything else in your scenario falls into place.

CHI sits everyone in week 16. Then they get beat in week 17. Then Trestman gets run out of town because "his guys weren't sharp."

Think like a coach and not like a fan.

 

[Sweetness_34]

Won't happen, even if everything else in your scenario falls into place.

CHI sits everyone in week 16. Then they get beat in week 17. Then Trestman gets run out of town because "his guys weren't sharp."

Think like a coach and not like a fan.

I agree the chances are very slim but we should understand that it is possible and keep a look out on how things go on Sun afternoon

 

[Raider Nation]

This could happen folks. All of us have championship week next week, but if the Lions lose next week (and fall to 7-8) and the Packers win (8-6-1), shouldn't the Bears just bench their players (avoid any injury) since all they have to do is win week 17 and week 16 will not matter right? Am I missing something?

If the Lions and Packers both lose next week, Bears could win the division with the win on Sunday night and hence would play everyone. But what if the above scenario unfolds. Bears play on Sunday night so they will know what happened in the earlier games.

No worries there. They are playing a team which is already on the beach.

This is the Lions we are talking about. And Coughlin does not give up. No way I ever lay any money on the Giants but you just never know. What if Stafford or Calvin gets injured? It is football...anything can happen.

The Giants will not be able to run, Cruz is out, Randle has been invisible, Nicks was laughing on the sidelines while his team was getting blown out, their O-line is dreadful, their secondary can't cover anyone, they are on the road and they quit for good halfway through the San Diego game. Other than that, I think they have a pretty good shot.

The Lions look like a bad team right now, the Giants just played the Seahawks but have been doing pretty well of late.

I'm not sure what you consider "of late" but the Giants have dropped 3 of their last 4 games and were completely lifeless in the past two.

 

[pizzatyme]

This could happen folks. All of us have championship week next week, but if the Lions lose next week (and fall to 7-8) and the Packers win (8-6-1), shouldn't the Bears just bench their players (avoid any injury) since all they have to do is win week 17 and week 16 will not matter right? Am I missing something?

If the Lions and Packers both lose next week, Bears could win the division with the win on Sunday night and hence would play everyone. But what if the above scenario unfolds. Bears play on Sunday night so they will know what happened in the earlier games.

No worries there. They are playing a team which is already on the beach.

This is the Lions we are talking about. And Coughlin does not give up. No way I ever lay any money on the Giants but you just never know. What if Stafford or Calvin gets injured? It is football...anything can happen.

The Giants will not be able to run, Cruz is out, Randle has been invisible, Nicks was laughing on the sidelines while his team was getting blown out, their O-line is dreadful, their secondary can't cover anyone, they are on the road and they quit for good halfway through the San Diego game. Other than that, I think they have a pretty good shot.

The Lions look like a bad team right now, the Giants just played the Seahawks but have been doing pretty well of late.

I'm not sure what you consider "of late" but the Giants have dropped 3 of their last 4 games and were completely lifeless in the past two.

The last 15 minutes of today's practice?

 

[jim k]

This could happen folks. All of us have championship week next week, but if the Lions lose next week (and fall to 7-8) and the Packers win (8-6-1), shouldn't the Bears just bench their players (avoid any injury) since all they have to do is win week 17 and week 16 will not matter right? Am I missing something?

If the Lions and Packers both lose next week, Bears could win the division with the win on Sunday night and hence would play everyone. But what if the above scenario unfolds. Bears play on Sunday night so they will know what happened in the earlier games.

You are right on with your scenarios. I think the possibility that the bears/packers could be a tie game should be in the Bears mgmt scenarios. A tie gives Bears head to head advantage over packers. I dont think bears rest their starters.

Edit: even a tie does not matter in your scenario. The bears could rest their starters for the final week vs packers if detroit loses and packers win.

 

[MDSkinner]

I assume this is a joke. But as was noted in the Eagles benching their starters thread, both teams still have to play for seeding no matter how you slice it. And seeding is important. No players are going to be benched for this game on either side no matter how the early games go, I am certain of that.

 

[pennystock]

I also think Chicago would not want to rest their starters against a team they might possible face in the playoffs.

 

[stbugs]

I assume this is a joke. But as was noted in the Eagles benching their starters thread, both teams still have to play for seeding no matter how you slice it. And seeding is important. No players are going to be benched for this game on either side no matter how the early games go, I am certain of that.

Agreed, you have to play like you think you are going to win in the playoffs. If they lose to Philly, they have to play in Philly in the NFC Championship if somehow both win against Seattle/NO or Carolina. That is a big enough incentive to not get your team out of sync and thus miss the playoffs completely. The #1 and #2 seeds are set. Seattle (with a remote chance of SF) and most likely the winner of the NO/Carolina game. No other teams have a chance at the byes.

Also, Cutler has played one game now since coming back, pretty sure you want him sharp in the playoffs. The Bears offense looks good enough to play with anyone, so getting the 3 seed could be huge if they continue to play well.

 

[drew1976]

As has been said, they need to play for seed.

But really, who would they be protecting? Almost everyone on defense is interchangeable and for once the Bears have a plethora of weapons on offense. Yes, it would suck to lost Forte, Marshall, Jeffrey or (M) Bennett. But it's better to get the rhythm going since Cutler has been out. And if Cutler gets hurt, well that may be a wash or better....

 

[stbugs]

As has been said, they need to play for seed.

But really, who would they be protecting? Almost everyone on defense is interchangeable and for once the Bears have a plethora of weapons on offense. Yes, it would suck to lost Forte, Marshall, Jeffrey or (M) Bennett. But it's better to get the rhythm going since Cutler has been out. And if Cutler gets hurt, well that may be a wash or better....

I think getting Cutler sharp and getting the 3 seed is important enough and way outweighs getting rest for the week 17. Getting rest for week 17 makes the ultimate goal getting into the playoffs. The Bears ultimate goal is winning the Super Bowl and resting starters in week 16 goes against that goal. No Bears fan cares about just getting in, they want to host the NFC Championship game at Soldier Field.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Wait. Are you proposing that the team rests their starters in week 16, leaving a possible must-win for week 17?

that's how I read it too. Makes zero sense if that is the scenario

If that's how we were meant to take it, that would be the dumbest move of all-time.

look at the source

 

[Insein]

Lol funny that there is dumb people in every fan base. A small contingent of Eagles fans want them to rest also if Dallas wins.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

teams have done this before, and LOL at NBC flexing this game and it might be totally meaninless in the standings.

 

[stbugs]

teams have done this before, and LOL at NBC flexing this game and it might be totally meaninless in the standings.

Pretty significant to fantasy fans with all the players on both offenses. I definitely will watch it. I think it could be a really good game to watch.

 

[cheese]

Wait. Are you proposing that the team rests their starters in week 16, leaving a possible must-win for week 17?

that's how I read it too. Makes zero sense if that is the scenario

If that's how we were meant to take it, that would be the dumbest move of all-time.

The point is that they're leaving a must-win for wk17 no matter what they do. Winning the game doesn't make wk17 any less necessary.

I don't think it's as far-fetched as some are making it, but I think the main reason it won't happen is the QB situation.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

teams have done this before, and LOL at NBC flexing this game and it might be totally meaninless in the standings.

Pretty significant to fantasy fans with all the players on both offenses. I definitely will watch it. I think it could be a really good game to watch.

Im saying teams with nothing to play for have benched their players in week16 for an all or nothing game in week17.

Thats what coaches do, now seeding for Philly vs Chicago (3 seed vs 4 seed) is important somewhat.

Worst case scenario IMO is that week 17 is all that matters for both teams and week16 is totally meaningless

 

[dhockster]

Actually if GB wins and Chicago loses, GB goes into the last game with a 1/2 game lead. If the Bears/Packers game ends in a tie, the Packers win the division, 8-6-2 record vs. 8-7-1. Yes, that is a remote possibility, but imagine if it actually happened. Trestman would look very silly.

Same thing goes for the Eagles. If Dallas wins and the Eagles sit their starters and lose, both teams are going into the final week at 8-7. If the game finishes in a tie, then Dallas wins the division with a better head-to-head (Dallas won the first game). Both the Bears and Eagles will be playing their starters on Sunday. The only thing you could see if the game is a blowout in the second half is both teams pull starters early.

 

[Bayhawks]

Won't happen, even if everything else in your scenario falls into place.

CHI sits everyone in week 16. Then they get beat in week 17. Then Trestman gets run out of town because "his guys weren't sharp."

Think like a coach and not like a fan.

I agree the chances are very slim but we should understand that it is possible and keep a look out on how things go on Sun afternoon

No, we shouldn't. It's not going to happen. If a player is questionable to play, and the week 16 game "doesn't matter" that player might sit when he would otherwise play, but they aren't going to sit a healthy Forte, Marshall, Jeffreys, etc even if the game "doesn't matter."

 

[Bayhawks]

teams have done this before, and LOL at NBC flexing this game and it might be totally meaninless in the standings.

Please show me ONE EXAMPLE of a team sitting its (healthy) starters in week 16, only to play them in week 17.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

teams have done this before, and LOL at NBC flexing this game and it might be totally meaninless in the standings.

Please show me ONE EXAMPLE of a team sitting its (healthy) starters in week 16, only to play them in week 17.

I believe Dallas did this just two years ago when the week17 game vs NYG was play to get in, Ill have to dig through the archieves

 

[buck naked]

Some people worry too much.

 

[iamkoza]

OP... you are WAY overthinking this.... there is no way the bears rest their starters even if your scenario comes to fruition. The only way they rest starters would be in the 4th qtr of a blowout... but that is no different than any other 4th qtr blowout game

as a bears fan, it doesnt seem like a trestman thing to do anyways, he is a planner and he will plan to play his best guys to win the game... he isn't going to throwout the gameplan 1 hr before the game

 

[MDSkinner]

teams have done this before, and LOL at NBC flexing this game and it might be totally meaninless in the standings.

Please show me ONE EXAMPLE of a team sitting its (healthy) starters in week 16, only to play them in week 17.

I believe Dallas did this just two years ago when the week17 game vs NYG was play to get in, Ill have to dig through the archieves

If it did happen (and I believe you) I doubt very much that playoff seeding was on the line. It is just silly to risk losing the 3 seed for either of these teams.

 

[VA703]

wont happen week 16

this is why most leagues have their championships this week..

 

[meatwad1]

teams have done this before, and LOL at NBC flexing this game and it might be totally meaninless in the standings.

When have teams done this? I do not remember even one instance where a team that did not have a playoff spot, let alone a seed locked up rested players.

Give me a team that did this.

 

[meatwad1]

teams have done this before, and LOL at NBC flexing this game and it might be totally meaninless in the standings.

Please show me ONE EXAMPLE of a team sitting its (healthy) starters in week 16, only to play them in week 17.

I believe Dallas did this just two years ago when the week17 game vs NYG was play to get in, Ill have to dig through the archieves

You are right, Dallas did do that against the Eagles. And the result was that they got their asses kicked next week by a hard charging Giants team. Only idiots like the Cowboys would do something so stupid. By this time, you think most football people would recognize that the Superbowl teams are usually the teams that get hot. Sort of hard to get hot when you are resting players.

 

[cheese]

teams have done this before, and LOL at NBC flexing this game and it might be totally meaninless in the standings.

When have teams done this? I do not remember even one instance where a team that did not have a playoff spot, let alone a seed locked up rested players.

Give me a team that did this.

Patriots have done this multiple times. 2005 and I think 2009. There is no real difference between 3 and 4 seed. I'm not sure the "don't have a playoff spot" part is relevant since winning wouldn't impact their chances of getting one.

 

[DaveL]

3/4 seedings are still up for grabs. Why would either the Eagles or Bears rest their guys. I realize it's a long shot, but Bears/Eagles could still happen in the NFC CG, would feel pretty dumb if you gave away that home field advantage

 

[General Tso]

teams have done this before, and LOL at NBC flexing this game and it might be totally meaninless in the standings.

When have teams done this? I do not remember even one instance where a team that did not have a playoff spot, let alone a seed locked up rested players.

Give me a team that did this.

The only team I can remember resting players in 1week 16 was the 2009 Colts, but they already had the #1 seed locked up.

 

[Sweetness_34]

Just so everyone knows, I am not saying this is going to happen or likely to happen. I agree it is remote at best but it is something to be aware of. As a Bears fan, I do not want them to rest anyone except maybe Briggs if this scenario unfolds.

 

[Bayhawks]

teams have done this before, and LOL at NBC flexing this game and it might be totally meaninless in the standings.

When have teams done this? I do not remember even one instance where a team that did not have a playoff spot, let alone a seed locked up rested players.

Give me a team that did this.

Patriots have done this multiple times. 2005 and I think 2009. There is no real difference between 3 and 4 seed. I'm not sure the "don't have a playoff spot" part is relevant since winning wouldn't impact their chances of getting one.

No, they haven't.

Only looked up Brady, but in 2009, he played the entire week 16 game, and he played most of the week 17 game (Hoyer played the 4th quarter + part of the 3rd). In 2005, Brady played the entire week 16 game, and only played the 1st quarter in week 17.

In neither case did the Patriots sit players in week 16 to have them play in week 17, which is what the OP is suggesting could happen with the Bears.

 

[Bayhawks]

teams have done this before, and LOL at NBC flexing this game and it might be totally meaninless in the standings.

Please show me ONE EXAMPLE of a team sitting its (healthy) starters in week 16, only to play them in week 17.

I believe Dallas did this just two years ago when the week17 game vs NYG was play to get in, Ill have to dig through the archieves

Sort of. They started, then pulled Romo, but Murray, Jones, Witten, Bryant, and Austin all played late into the game. This is the closest example of what the OP is suggesting, but even this is not an exact comparison.

 

[Banger]

zero chance.

 

[Insein]

teams have done this before, and LOL at NBC flexing this game and it might be totally meaninless in the standings.

Please show me ONE EXAMPLE of a team sitting its (healthy) starters in week 16, only to play them in week 17.

I believe Dallas did this just two years ago when the week17 game vs NYG was play to get in, Ill have to dig through the archieves

Sort of. They started, then pulled Romo, but Murray, Jones, Witten, Bryant, and Austin all played late into the game. This is the closest example of what the OP is suggesting, but even this is not an exact comparison.

Romo was dinged up early in that game. I remember because I owned him and lost my champ game by 12 pts and he got me 1.

 

[Sweetness_34]

Trestman: I've spent no time thinking about whether I'd treat the Eagles game differently if DET & GB results make it meaningless to NFCN.

 

[Hoosier16]

Lol funny that there is dumb people in every fan base.