***Pre-Game Thread*** Green Bay at Chicago (1 Viewer)

[geoff8695]

The good thing is, playing on that cow pasture will slow him down some.

Honestly, as a Bears the greatest fear I have is that the field will be their undoing, essentially killing our pass rush, and allowing Rodgers to have a field day. By contrast, GB has probably the best playing surface in the NFL (a 50/50 synthetic and natural grass mix), and in week 17 the Bears team speed and quickness were enhanced by the Packers excellent field. The Bears in turn were able to generate enough pass rush with the front four to keep Rodgers from getting comfortable, without having to send extra defenders and giving Rodgers lots of mismatches to exploit. Unfortunately, the craptastic playing surface and wintery elements in Chicago may take away the ability of the Bears D line to get the same type of pass rush in this game. If that happens then it forces too much of the load onto the offense and Cutler's shoulders, and greatly reduces the Bears chances. It's the only reason I wouldn't have minded facing Atlanta on the road rather than GB at home.

 

[sho nuff]

The whole "the way they've been playing lately" thing didn't help GB much in Week 17. They put up 10 points against the Bears in a desperation game on their home field in decent weather. I don't understand where this notion comes from that the Bears can't stop the GB offense. They can and they have, even when GB came in flying high.

Exactly, people see what they want to see. The whole "Bears have no chance shtick" is awful amusing.

I think this is perceived shtick...not too many Packer fans feel the Bears have no chance. In fact I think most people feel it's going to be a close game.

Perceived based on what others have been saying, the odds, and media.But you are right on as far as Packer fans...we know the Bears have had success on D against the Packers. It will not be an easy game for either team.

 

[sho nuff]

The good thing is, playing on that cow pasture will slow him down some.

Honestly, as a Bears the greatest fear I have is that the field will be their undoing, essentially killing our pass rush, and allowing Rodgers to have a field day. By contrast, GB has probably the best playing surface in the NFL (a 50/50 synthetic and natural grass mix), and in week 17 the Bears team speed and quickness were enhanced by the Packers excellent field. The Bears in turn were able to generate enough pass rush with the front four to keep Rodgers from getting comfortable, without having to send extra defenders and giving Rodgers lots of mismatches to exploit. Unfortunately, the craptastic playing surface and wintery elements in Chicago may take away the ability of the Bears D line to get the same type of pass rush in this game. If that happens then it forces too much of the load onto the offense and Cutler's shoulders, and greatly reduces the Bears chances. It's the only reason I wouldn't have minded facing Atlanta on the road rather than GB at home.

Some people think that bad conditions favor the offenses.They do in a way, the receivers at least because they know the route and cuts they are making where the D is anticipating or reacting.Though, it doesn't help on those timing routes when a WR goes to cut and slips. I think that happened to Cutler several times where a receiver slipped and the ball was picked or defended.We will see who it helps come Sunday. In the end, both teams have to play on it, so it evens out.

 

[geoff8695]

Some people think that bad conditions favor the offenses.They do in a way, the receivers at least because they know the route and cuts they are making where the D is anticipating or reacting.Though, it doesn't help on those timing routes when a WR goes to cut and slips. I think that happened to Cutler several times where a receiver slipped and the ball was picked or defended.We will see who it helps come Sunday. In the end, both teams have to play on it, so it evens out.

I agree with you on all points here. The only thing I would add is that the teams that have beaten the Packers this season are generally the ones that have been able to generate a serious pass rush with their front four. On a decent playing surface Peppers and the Bears front four can do great things.Unfortunately the home field could actually minimize that potential strength for Chicago. IF that is the case, Rodgers certainly has the edge over Cutler. He has a better track record of good decision making, and better weapons at WR to capitalize on the slippery field against the DBs.

 

[Sabertooth]

The whole "the way they've been playing lately" thing didn't help GB much in Week 17. They put up 10 points against the Bears in a desperation game on their home field in decent weather. I don't understand where this notion comes from that the Bears can't stop the GB offense. They can and they have, even when GB came in flying high.

Exactly, people see what they want to see. The whole "Bears have no chance shtick" is awful amusing.

The Bears have no chance thing is just wrong. They are the second cede in the NFC and deservedly so. The way the Packers have been playing is very sound defensively. And that goes for the Bears game a few weeks ago as well. The Bears barely crossed the 50 in that game. The Packers shut them down. This whole "nothing to play for in week 17" is garbage. You don't play your starters if you have nothing to play for. Lovie has gone on record stating that beating Green Bay is objective 1. It always has been for him and continues to be this weekend. The Packers took the best the Bears had and beat them. They will have to play a great game to beat them at home twice in a row. It would not surprise me to see either team win this game. I'm just glad the winner has a ticket to Dallas. I've been a Packer fan my whole life. My wife has been a Bears fan her whole life. We are having a lot of fun this week with the rivalry.None of the regular season games mean anything anymore. It comes down to execution. Rodgers is playing the best he's ever played but he's hasn't exactly been a Bear killer in his career.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

The whole "the way they've been playing lately" thing didn't help GB much in Week 17. They put up 10 points against the Bears in a desperation game on their home field in decent weather. I don't understand where this notion comes from that the Bears can't stop the GB offense. They can and they have, even when GB came in flying high.

Exactly, people see what they want to see. The whole "Bears have no chance shtick" is awful amusing.

The Bears have no chance thing is just wrong. They are the second cede in the NFC and deservedly so. The way the Packers have been playing is very sound defensively. And that goes for the Bears game a few weeks ago as well. The Bears barely crossed the 50 in that game. The Packers shut them down. This whole "nothing to play for in week 17" is garbage. You don't play your starters if you have nothing to play for. Lovie has gone on record stating that beating Green Bay is objective 1. It always has been for him and continues to be this weekend.

The Packers took the best the Bears had and beat them. They will have to play a great game to beat them at home twice in a row. It would not surprise me to see either team win this game. I'm just glad the winner has a ticket to Dallas. I've been a Packer fan my whole life. My wife has been a Bears fan her whole life. We are having a lot of fun this week with the rivalry.

None of the regular season games mean anything anymore. It comes down to execution. Rodgers is playing the best he's ever played but he's hasn't exactly been a Bear killer in his career.

Second cede

 

[smackdaddies]

The good thing is, playing on that cow pasture will slow him down some.

Honestly, as a Bears the greatest fear I have is that the field will be their undoing, essentially killing our pass rush, and allowing Rodgers to have a field day. By contrast, GB has probably the best playing surface in the NFL (a 50/50 synthetic and natural grass mix), and in week 17 the Bears team speed and quickness were enhanced by the Packers excellent field. The Bears in turn were able to generate enough pass rush with the front four to keep Rodgers from getting comfortable, without having to send extra defenders and giving Rodgers lots of mismatches to exploit. Unfortunately, the craptastic playing surface and wintery elements in Chicago may take away the ability of the Bears D line to get the same type of pass rush in this game. If that happens then it forces too much of the load onto the offense and Cutler's shoulders, and greatly reduces the Bears chances. It's the only reason I wouldn't have minded facing Atlanta on the road rather than GB at home.

Some people think that bad conditions favor the offenses.They do in a way, the receivers at least because they know the route and cuts they are making where the D is anticipating or reacting.Though, it doesn't help on those timing routes when a WR goes to cut and slips. I think that happened to Cutler several times where a receiver slipped and the ball was picked or defended.We will see who it helps come Sunday. In the end, both teams have to play on it, so it evens out.

I always felt it benefited the offensive line the most - it's a ton of fun to knock down defensive linemen who's footing is constantly shifting while I got to set.

 

[smackdaddies]

Some people think that bad conditions favor the offenses.They do in a way, the receivers at least because they know the route and cuts they are making where the D is anticipating or reacting.Though, it doesn't help on those timing routes when a WR goes to cut and slips. I think that happened to Cutler several times where a receiver slipped and the ball was picked or defended.We will see who it helps come Sunday. In the end, both teams have to play on it, so it evens out.

I agree with you on all points here. The only thing I would add is that the teams that have beaten the Packers this season are generally the ones that have been able to generate a serious pass rush with their front four. On a decent playing surface Peppers and the Bears front four can do great things.Unfortunately the home field could actually minimize that potential strength for Chicago. IF that is the case, Rodgers certainly has the edge over Cutler. He has a better track record of good decision making, and better weapons at WR to capitalize on the slippery field against the DBs.

I agree with everything above, but with one additionChicago Run Game is --> Green Bay Run Game. Bad Field + Better Run Game than opponent = Win.

 

[Sabertooth]

The whole "the way they've been playing lately" thing didn't help GB much in Week 17. They put up 10 points against the Bears in a desperation game on their home field in decent weather. I don't understand where this notion comes from that the Bears can't stop the GB offense. They can and they have, even when GB came in flying high.

Exactly, people see what they want to see. The whole "Bears have no chance shtick" is awful amusing.

The Bears have no chance thing is just wrong. They are the second cede in the NFC and deservedly so. The way the Packers have been playing is very sound defensively. And that goes for the Bears game a few weeks ago as well. The Bears barely crossed the 50 in that game. The Packers shut them down. This whole "nothing to play for in week 17" is garbage. You don't play your starters if you have nothing to play for. Lovie has gone on record stating that beating Green Bay is objective 1. It always has been for him and continues to be this weekend.

The Packers took the best the Bears had and beat them. They will have to play a great game to beat them at home twice in a row. It would not surprise me to see either team win this game. I'm just glad the winner has a ticket to Dallas. I've been a Packer fan my whole life. My wife has been a Bears fan her whole life. We are having a lot of fun this week with the rivalry.

None of the regular season games mean anything anymore. It comes down to execution. Rodgers is playing the best he's ever played but he's hasn't exactly been a Bear killer in his career.

Second cede

Not sure why I thought it was the other spelling.

 

[Sabertooth]

Some people think that bad conditions favor the offenses.

They do in a way, the receivers at least because they know the route and cuts they are making where the D is anticipating or reacting.

Though, it doesn't help on those timing routes when a WR goes to cut and slips. I think that happened to Cutler several times where a receiver slipped and the ball was picked or defended.

We will see who it helps come Sunday. In the end, both teams have to play on it, so it evens out.

I agree with you on all points here. The only thing I would add is that the teams that have beaten the Packers this season are generally the ones that have been able to generate a serious pass rush with their front four. On a decent playing surface Peppers and the Bears front four can do great things.Unfortunately the home field could actually minimize that potential strength for Chicago. IF that is the case, Rodgers certainly has the edge over Cutler. He has a better track record of good decision making, and better weapons at WR to capitalize on the slippery field against the DBs.

I agree with everything above, but with one additionChicago Run Game is --> Green Bay Run Game. Bad Field + Better Run Game than opponent = Win.

It's just that simple huh? Well, why even play the game then?

 

[DoubleG]

The whole "the way they've been playing lately" thing didn't help GB much in Week 17. They put up 10 points against the Bears in a desperation game on their home field in decent weather. I don't understand where this notion comes from that the Bears can't stop the GB offense. They can and they have, even when GB came in flying high.

Exactly, people see what they want to see. The whole "Bears have no chance shtick" is awful amusing.

The Bears have no chance thing is just wrong. They are the second cede in the NFC and deservedly so. The way the Packers have been playing is very sound defensively. And that goes for the Bears game a few weeks ago as well. The Bears barely crossed the 50 in that game. The Packers shut them down. This whole "nothing to play for in week 17" is garbage. You don't play your starters if you have nothing to play for. Lovie has gone on record stating that beating Green Bay is objective 1. It always has been for him and continues to be this weekend. The Packers took the best the Bears had and beat them. .

I wanted to address this a little differently than I think it has been. Were the Bears trying to win Week 17? Sure - they wanted to win, they would have liked to have won. The coaching staff seemed to want to win - leaving the starters in the whole game. However did they need to win to keep their season alive? No. Did the Bears need to win to play for a better seed in the playoffs? No. Conversely, the Packers had to win to even make it into the playoffs. The Bears wanted to win - but they did not "need" to win. I realize this may be a fine line, but it is a line that was not lost on the coaching staff and some of the play calling, nor was it a line that was lost by the 53 Bears players playing in the game in week 17 - a line that will not exsist this coming weekend.The Packers did not "take the best the Bears had" - the Bears did not have the playoff lives at stake in week 17 the way the Packers did - and the Packers won 10-3 at home.

 

[whitem0nkey]

Aaron Rodgers is 1st player in NFL history to pass for 3+ TDs in each of his 1st 3 postseason starts

The last time the Bears played the Packers in the postseason, the head coaches were George Halas and Curly Lambeau.

The Cubs played in the World Series (1945) more recently than the last time the Bears played the Packers in the postseason (1941)

 

[Pipes]

The whole "the way they've been playing lately" thing didn't help GB much in Week 17. They put up 10 points against the Bears in a desperation game on their home field in decent weather. I don't understand where this notion comes from that the Bears can't stop the GB offense. They can and they have, even when GB came in flying high.

Exactly, people see what they want to see. The whole "Bears have no chance shtick" is awful amusing.

The Bears have no chance thing is just wrong. They are the second cede in the NFC and deservedly so. The way the Packers have been playing is very sound defensively. And that goes for the Bears game a few weeks ago as well. The Bears barely crossed the 50 in that game. The Packers shut them down. This whole "nothing to play for in week 17" is garbage. You don't play your starters if you have nothing to play for. Lovie has gone on record stating that beating Green Bay is objective 1. It always has been for him and continues to be this weekend. The Packers took the best the Bears had and beat them. .

I wanted to address this a little differently than I think it has been. Were the Bears trying to win Week 17? Sure - they wanted to win, they would have liked to have won. The coaching staff seemed to want to win - leaving the starters in the whole game. However did they need to win to keep their season alive? No. Did the Bears need to win to play for a better seed in the playoffs? No. Conversely, the Packers had to win to even make it into the playoffs. The Bears wanted to win - but they did not "need" to win. I realize this may be a fine line, but it is a line that was not lost on the coaching staff and some of the play calling, nor was it a line that was lost by the 53 Bears players playing in the game in week 17 - a line that will not exsist this coming weekend.The Packers did not "take the best the Bears had" - the Bears did not have the playoff lives at stake in week 17 the way the Packers did - and the Packers won 10-3 at home.

I think Packer fans are in denial if they think the Bears gave them their best shot is week 17. They definitely didn't lay down like some suggest but I thought they were trying some differently things to see if they would work. Had the Bears needed to win this game I'd bet the Packers would've seen alot more of Forte, who had some nice plays that game. I was really dissapointed in how the Packers played (offensively) considering what was at stake.With that said the past two meetings really don't mean a whole lot. Rodgers is on fire right now and Starks is playing a larger role. Three Bears really concern me this week...Forte, Hester and Peppers. If the Pack can contain 2 of those guys I believe they'll win. If 2 of those 3 guys have big games the Packers are in trouble but could still prevail. If all 3 of those guys have good games it will be the Bears representing the NFC.

 

[sho nuff]

I think Packer fans are in denial if they think the Bears gave them their best shot is week 17. They definitely didn't lay down like some suggest but I thought they were trying some differently things to see if they would work. Had the Bears needed to win this game I'd bet the Packers would've seen alot more of Forte, who had some nice plays that game. I was really dissapointed in how the Packers played (offensively) considering what was at stake.With that said the past two meetings really don't mean a whole lot. Rodgers is on fire right now and Starks is playing a larger role. Three Bears really concern me this week...Forte, Hester and Peppers. If the Pack can contain 2 of those guys I believe they'll win. If 2 of those 3 guys have big games the Packers are in trouble but could still prevail. If all 3 of those guys have good games it will be the Bears representing the NFC.

Well said...and I don't think they necessarily gave us everything they had. But I don't think this trying some different things plays out well. As much as Cutler was getting hit, that seems just terribly stupid on the part of their coaching staff if they stuck with that sort of plan the whole game while watching him take hits.And I agree on the 3 that should worry the Packers fans.

 

[shadyridr]

Does this game remind anybody of another recent matchup a few years ago?

In 2007, the Giants played the Pats in a meaningless (for NY) week 17 game. Pats were going for an undefeated season, Giants already clinched a playoff spot. Coughlin decided to play his starters the entire game and the result was a great, tough fought loss for the GMen. A few weeks later, they had a rematch in the Super Bowl and everybody knows the outcome.

This year the Bears played the Packers in a meaningless (for CHI) week 17 game. Packers were going for ap layoff spot, Chicago already clinched a bye. Lovie decided to play his starters the entire game and the result was a great tough fought loss for the Bears. A few weeks later they have a rematch...

 

[Stinger Ray]

I think Packer fans are in denial if they think the Bears gave them their best shot is week 17. They definitely didn't lay down like some suggest but I thought they were trying some differently things to see if they would work. Had the Bears needed to win this game I'd bet the Packers would've seen alot more of Forte, who had some nice plays that game. I was really dissapointed in how the Packers played (offensively) considering what was at stake.With that said the past two meetings really don't mean a whole lot. Rodgers is on fire right now and Starks is playing a larger role. Three Bears really concern me this week...Forte, Hester and Peppers. If the Pack can contain 2 of those guys I believe they'll win. If 2 of those 3 guys have big games the Packers are in trouble but could still prevail. If all 3 of those guys have good games it will be the Bears representing the NFC.

Well said...and I don't think they necessarily gave us everything they had. But I don't think this trying some different things plays out well. As much as Cutler was getting hit, that seems just terribly stupid on the part of their coaching staff if they stuck with that sort of plan the whole game while watching him take hits.And I agree on the 3 that should worry the Packers fans.

So which is it? Earlier in this thread you were arguing that the Bears did try to win the game and having their starters in was proof of that.

 

[DoubleG]

I think Packer fans are in denial if they think the Bears gave them their best shot is week 17. They definitely didn't lay down like some suggest but I thought they were trying some differently things to see if they would work. Had the Bears needed to win this game I'd bet the Packers would've seen alot more of Forte, who had some nice plays that game. I was really dissapointed in how the Packers played (offensively) considering what was at stake.With that said the past two meetings really don't mean a whole lot. Rodgers is on fire right now and Starks is playing a larger role. Three Bears really concern me this week...Forte, Hester and Peppers. If the Pack can contain 2 of those guys I believe they'll win. If 2 of those 3 guys have big games the Packers are in trouble but could still prevail. If all 3 of those guys have good games it will be the Bears representing the NFC.

Well said...and I don't think they necessarily gave us everything they had. But I don't think this trying some different things plays out well. As much as Cutler was getting hit, that seems just terribly stupid on the part of their coaching staff if they stuck with that sort of plan the whole game while watching him take hits.And I agree on the 3 that should worry the Packers fans.

So which is it? Earlier in this thread you were arguing that the Bears did try to win the game and having their starters in was proof of that.

Did you just call out sho nuff in Bears/Packers thread. Awwww #### o/u on just this argument = 4 pages...by Thursday.

 

[DoubleG]

Does this game remind anybody of another recent matchup a few years ago?In 2007, the Giants played the Pats in a meaningless (for NY) week 17 game. Pats were going for an undefeated season, Giants already clinched a playoff spot. Coughlin decided to play his starters the entire game and the result was a great, tough fought loss for the GMen. A few weeks later, they had a rematch in the Super Bowl and everybody knows the outcome.This year the Bears played the Packers in a meaningless (for CHI) week 17 game. Packers were going for ap layoff spot, Chicago already clinched a bye. Lovie decided to play his starters the entire game and the result was a great tough fought loss for the Bears. A few weeks later they have a rematch...

Interesting comparison - I hadn't thought of that.Things that make you go

 

[sho nuff]

I think Packer fans are in denial if they think the Bears gave them their best shot is week 17. They definitely didn't lay down like some suggest but I thought they were trying some differently things to see if they would work. Had the Bears needed to win this game I'd bet the Packers would've seen alot more of Forte, who had some nice plays that game. I was really dissapointed in how the Packers played (offensively) considering what was at stake.With that said the past two meetings really don't mean a whole lot. Rodgers is on fire right now and Starks is playing a larger role. Three Bears really concern me this week...Forte, Hester and Peppers. If the Pack can contain 2 of those guys I believe they'll win. If 2 of those 3 guys have big games the Packers are in trouble but could still prevail. If all 3 of those guys have good games it will be the Bears representing the NFC.

Well said...and I don't think they necessarily gave us everything they had. But I don't think this trying some different things plays out well. As much as Cutler was getting hit, that seems just terribly stupid on the part of their coaching staff if they stuck with that sort of plan the whole game while watching him take hits.And I agree on the 3 that should worry the Packers fans.

So which is it? Earlier in this thread you were arguing that the Bears did try to win the game and having their starters in was proof of that.

Without getting into some personal pissing match with you...they were trying to win. I don't think they pulled out all the stops and threw everything they had at us.

 

[Mr.Pack]

I think Packer fans are in denial if they think the Bears gave them their best shot is week 17. They definitely didn't lay down like some suggest but I thought they were trying some differently things to see if they would work. Had the Bears needed to win this game I'd bet the Packers would've seen alot more of Forte, who had some nice plays that game. I was really dissapointed in how the Packers played (offensively) considering what was at stake.With that said the past two meetings really don't mean a whole lot. Rodgers is on fire right now and Starks is playing a larger role. Three Bears really concern me this week...Forte, Hester and Peppers. If the Pack can contain 2 of those guys I believe they'll win. If 2 of those 3 guys have big games the Packers are in trouble but could still prevail. If all 3 of those guys have good games it will be the Bears representing the NFC.

Well said...and I don't think they necessarily gave us everything they had. But I don't think this trying some different things plays out well. As much as Cutler was getting hit, that seems just terribly stupid on the part of their coaching staff if they stuck with that sort of plan the whole game while watching him take hits.And I agree on the 3 that should worry the Packers fans.

So which is it? Earlier in this thread you were arguing that the Bears did try to win the game and having their starters in was proof of that.

This is the crap we don't need in this thread.Sho, don't even go there.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I think Packer fans are in denial if they think the Bears gave them their best shot is week 17. They definitely didn't lay down like some suggest but I thought they were trying some differently things to see if they would work. Had the Bears needed to win this game I'd bet the Packers would've seen alot more of Forte, who had some nice plays that game. I was really dissapointed in how the Packers played (offensively) considering what was at stake.With that said the past two meetings really don't mean a whole lot. Rodgers is on fire right now and Starks is playing a larger role. Three Bears really concern me this week...Forte, Hester and Peppers. If the Pack can contain 2 of those guys I believe they'll win. If 2 of those 3 guys have big games the Packers are in trouble but could still prevail. If all 3 of those guys have good games it will be the Bears representing the NFC.

Well said...and I don't think they necessarily gave us everything they had. But I don't think this trying some different things plays out well. As much as Cutler was getting hit, that seems just terribly stupid on the part of their coaching staff if they stuck with that sort of plan the whole game while watching him take hits.And I agree on the 3 that should worry the Packers fans.

So which is it? Earlier in this thread you were arguing that the Bears did try to win the game and having their starters in was proof of that.

Without getting into some personal pissing match with you...they were trying to win. I don't think they pulled out all the stops and threw everything they had at us.

Just checking because after the game week 17 you said this..."There was little that was vanilla about the Bears play calling.You don't come out in deep drops and that many passes if you are going vanilla.""If they were not trying to win, Cutler would not have been out there late in that game.The so-called vanilla play is laughable given the blitzes the Bears were even running."

 

[Stinger Ray]

Green Bay 23 Chicago 17

 

[Eric Stratton]

I can't wait for the game. It will be a fight to the end with these two teams and it should be a very entertaining game to watch. It's a great story to have these two teams meet for the right to go to the SB!

 

[sho nuff]

[ By contrast, GB has probably the best playing surface in the NFL (a 50/50 synthetic and natural grass mix), and in week 17 the Bears team speed and quickness were enhanced by the Packers excellent field.

After seeing the Packers field over the last few years since they redid it...I have wondered why Chicago or other colder weather places have not done the same with their natural surfaces.EDIT: Seeing on the company site at least Denver and Philly use the same or similar surface.Chicago is a strange one because the Bears don't own the stadium...but they get control of what surface they play on. So the Park District keeps paying for the resodding, but they would rather have a different surface...while the Bears still want the natural grass.

 

[Sabertooth]

The whole "the way they've been playing lately" thing didn't help GB much in Week 17. They put up 10 points against the Bears in a desperation game on their home field in decent weather. I don't understand where this notion comes from that the Bears can't stop the GB offense. They can and they have, even when GB came in flying high.

Exactly, people see what they want to see. The whole "Bears have no chance shtick" is awful amusing.

The Bears have no chance thing is just wrong. They are the second cede in the NFC and deservedly so. The way the Packers have been playing is very sound defensively. And that goes for the Bears game a few weeks ago as well. The Bears barely crossed the 50 in that game. The Packers shut them down. This whole "nothing to play for in week 17" is garbage. You don't play your starters if you have nothing to play for. Lovie has gone on record stating that beating Green Bay is objective 1. It always has been for him and continues to be this weekend. The Packers took the best the Bears had and beat them. .

I wanted to address this a little differently than I think it has been. Were the Bears trying to win Week 17? Sure - they wanted to win, they would have liked to have won. The coaching staff seemed to want to win - leaving the starters in the whole game. However did they need to win to keep their season alive? No. Did the Bears need to win to play for a better seed in the playoffs? No. Conversely, the Packers had to win to even make it into the playoffs. The Bears wanted to win - but they did not "need" to win. I realize this may be a fine line, but it is a line that was not lost on the coaching staff and some of the play calling, nor was it a line that was lost by the 53 Bears players playing in the game in week 17 - a line that will not exsist this coming weekend.The Packers did not "take the best the Bears had" - the Bears did not have the playoff lives at stake in week 17 the way the Packers did - and the Packers won 10-3 at home.

I agree to an extent. But just because it is win or go home now for both teams doesn't mean the Bears (or the Packers) are going to try harder or perform better. A lot of football is imposing your will on the other team. A lot of it is the way the ball bounces. Like I said before, I don't think the past two games are of much value at all when trying to predict this one.

 

[smackdaddies]

The whole "the way they've been playing lately" thing didn't help GB much in Week 17. They put up 10 points against the Bears in a desperation game on their home field in decent weather. I don't understand where this notion comes from that the Bears can't stop the GB offense. They can and they have, even when GB came in flying high.

Exactly, people see what they want to see. The whole "Bears have no chance shtick" is awful amusing.

The Bears have no chance thing is just wrong. They are the second cede in the NFC and deservedly so. The way the Packers have been playing is very sound defensively. And that goes for the Bears game a few weeks ago as well. The Bears barely crossed the 50 in that game. The Packers shut them down. This whole "nothing to play for in week 17" is garbage. You don't play your starters if you have nothing to play for. Lovie has gone on record stating that beating Green Bay is objective 1. It always has been for him and continues to be this weekend. The Packers took the best the Bears had and beat them. .

I wanted to address this a little differently than I think it has been. Were the Bears trying to win Week 17? Sure - they wanted to win, they would have liked to have won. The coaching staff seemed to want to win - leaving the starters in the whole game. However did they need to win to keep their season alive? No. Did the Bears need to win to play for a better seed in the playoffs? No. Conversely, the Packers had to win to even make it into the playoffs. The Bears wanted to win - but they did not "need" to win. I realize this may be a fine line, but it is a line that was not lost on the coaching staff and some of the play calling, nor was it a line that was lost by the 53 Bears players playing in the game in week 17 - a line that will not exsist this coming weekend.The Packers did not "take the best the Bears had" - the Bears did not have the playoff lives at stake in week 17 the way the Packers did - and the Packers won 10-3 at home.

I think Packer fans are in denial if they think the Bears gave them their best shot is week 17. They definitely didn't lay down like some suggest but I thought they were trying some differently things to see if they would work. Had the Bears needed to win this game I'd bet the Packers would've seen alot more of Forte, who had some nice plays that game. I was really dissapointed in how the Packers played (offensively) considering what was at stake.With that said the past two meetings really don't mean a whole lot. Rodgers is on fire right now and Starks is playing a larger role. Three Bears really concern me this week...Forte, Hester and Peppers. If the Pack can contain 2 of those guys I believe they'll win. If 2 of those 3 guys have big games the Packers are in trouble but could still prevail. If all 3 of those guys have good games it will be the Bears representing the NFC.

I have posted this before, but since this canard won't die....You have nothing to play for yet you keep in your franchise qb the whole game, in which he gets absolutley hammered, including six sacks?That means at least one of the following:1. Lovie is the stupidist coach in the NFL for putting his post season at risk by endangering his qb2. Lovie hates Cutler so he left him in to get the crap kicked out of him3. Cutler "threw" the game with a sub 45% qb rating like a pool player attempting to sucker a bigger bet on the next game.4. Cutler is not the Bears franchise qb so Lovie doesnt care if he is knocked out5. The Bears actually did want to win the game, and your attempts to defend how the Packers def. smacked the Bears offense, is, well, pathetic

 

[DrJ]

The whole "the way they've been playing lately" thing didn't help GB much in Week 17. They put up 10 points against the Bears in a desperation game on their home field in decent weather. I don't understand where this notion comes from that the Bears can't stop the GB offense. They can and they have, even when GB came in flying high.

Exactly, people see what they want to see. The whole "Bears have no chance shtick" is awful amusing.

The Bears have no chance thing is just wrong. They are the second cede in the NFC and deservedly so. The way the Packers have been playing is very sound defensively. And that goes for the Bears game a few weeks ago as well. The Bears barely crossed the 50 in that game. The Packers shut them down. This whole "nothing to play for in week 17" is garbage. You don't play your starters if you have nothing to play for. Lovie has gone on record stating that beating Green Bay is objective 1. It always has been for him and continues to be this weekend. The Packers took the best the Bears had and beat them. They will have to play a great game to beat them at home twice in a row. It would not surprise me to see either team win this game. I'm just glad the winner has a ticket to Dallas. I've been a Packer fan my whole life. My wife has been a Bears fan her whole life. We are having a lot of fun this week with the rivalry.None of the regular season games mean anything anymore. It comes down to execution. Rodgers is playing the best he's ever played but he's hasn't exactly been a Bear killer in his career.

The thing is, we've seen that Lovie/Martz make decisions that don't seem to be based on any sort of logic. What was the point of that Forte pass out of the wildcat? Some have suggested it's so that it's on film and Green Bay has to prepare for it, but I really can't see them preparing for that much, and the entire success of that play relies on it being a surprise. There's no logic in calling or letting Mike Martz call that play in that game, no matter how far out of reach you thought it was. I think that winning the game was somewhere on their list of priorities. But I also think experimenting and trying to get stupid things on film seem to also be part of their motivation for some of this stuff. Is it stupid? Yes. Lovie has a long list of faults, which is why Bears fans were calling for his head before the season, and he often does things that make sense to no one other than him. I just don't believe based on that gameplan and how far it differentiates from their gameplan in about every game since the bye (a time span where they were the #6 most balanced offense, and I believe it includes that game), that there weren't some other strange thoughts in their head in that game.

 

[boubucarow]

I have posted this before, but since this canard won't die....You have nothing to play for yet you keep in your franchise qb the whole game, in which he gets absolutley hammered, including six sacks?That means at least one of the following:1. Lovie is the stupidist coach in the NFL for putting his post season at risk by endangering his qb2. Lovie hates Cutler so he left him in to get the crap kicked out of him3. Cutler "threw" the game with a sub 45% qb rating like a pool player attempting to sucker a bigger bet on the next game.4. Cutler is not the Bears franchise qb so Lovie doesnt care if he is knocked out5. The Bears actually did want to win the game, and your attempts to defend how the Packers def. smacked the Bears offense, is, well, pathetic

The Bears have been a 1:1 ratio team the entire second half of the season. Against the Packers week 17 in a close game throughout, they were greater than a 2:1 pass to run ratio team. We have every right to question why Lovie left Cutler out to be beaten up a bit. However, it simply is idiotic to think the Bears changing their entire offensive philosophy in a game they didn't have to win isn't an indicator that they held back. They tried to win the game, no doubt. But they obviously were hoping to get lucky while experimenting with the passing game.Or can you explain why the Bears ran the ball about 10-15 times less than their normal game plan would suggest when the running game was very efficient?On Sunday, the Bears will try to get Forte/Taylor about 30 touches. It will be up to the Packers to stop the running game (which they didn't week 17) or to get far enough ahead to force Cutler to throw the ball.

 

[DrJ]

I have posted this before, but since this canard won't die....You have nothing to play for yet you keep in your franchise qb the whole game, in which he gets absolutley hammered, including six sacks?That means at least one of the following:1. Lovie is the stupidist coach in the NFL for putting his post season at risk by endangering his qb2. Lovie hates Cutler so he left him in to get the crap kicked out of him3. Cutler "threw" the game with a sub 45% qb rating like a pool player attempting to sucker a bigger bet on the next game.4. Cutler is not the Bears franchise qb so Lovie doesnt care if he is knocked out5. The Bears actually did want to win the game, and your attempts to defend how the Packers def. smacked the Bears offense, is, well, pathetic

1 isn't entirely reasonable. The Patriots had nothing to play for in week 17, yet put Tom Brady at risk by having him play half of the game. Lovie could have been trying to give the passing game an opportunity to continue to tune up heading into the playoff. Get the OL more experience against the type of blitzes and pass rush they'd see when they got there, in a game where the opposing team was going to be playing up to playoff level competition. I do think winning the game was on their list of priorities, but they were balancing it with some other things they wanted to accomplish in the game as well and didn't necessarily put forth the gameplan they would have if it were their only priority.

 

[sho nuff]

Brady wasn't sacked that entire week 17 game.

Cutler was sacked 6 times and hit quite a bit more.

While I don't think they get them everything they had...holding back seems a bit odd choice of words too.

If a team is just holding back, do they go to a pass heavy attack...or do they run the ball and just try and keep the clock moving to get it over with without getting someone hurt.

Some of the reasoning here simply does not pass the smell test to being a reasonable excuse.

 

[DrJ]

I have posted this before, but since this canard won't die....You have nothing to play for yet you keep in your franchise qb the whole game, in which he gets absolutley hammered, including six sacks?That means at least one of the following:1. Lovie is the stupidist coach in the NFL for putting his post season at risk by endangering his qb2. Lovie hates Cutler so he left him in to get the crap kicked out of him3. Cutler "threw" the game with a sub 45% qb rating like a pool player attempting to sucker a bigger bet on the next game.4. Cutler is not the Bears franchise qb so Lovie doesnt care if he is knocked out5. The Bears actually did want to win the game, and your attempts to defend how the Packers def. smacked the Bears offense, is, well, pathetic

The Bears have been a 1:1 ratio team the entire second half of the season. Against the Packers week 17 in a close game throughout, they were greater than a 2:1 pass to run ratio team. We have every right to question why Lovie left Cutler out to be beaten up a bit. However, it simply is idiotic to think the Bears changing their entire offensive philosophy in a game they didn't have to win isn't an indicator that they held back. They tried to win the game, no doubt. But they obviously were hoping to get lucky while experimenting with the passing game.Or can you explain why the Bears ran the ball about 10-15 times less than their normal game plan would suggest when the running game was very efficient?On Sunday, the Bears will try to get Forte/Taylor about 30 touches. It will be up to the Packers to stop the running game (which they didn't week 17) or to get far enough ahead to force Cutler to throw the ball.

The clock management on the final drive was just bizarre as well. 1-10-CHI 2 (4:49) 22-M.Forte left end pushed ob at CHI 6 for 4 yards (26-C.Peprah).2-6-CHI 6 (4:42) 22-M.Forte left end to CHI 11 for 5 yards (55-D.Bishop).3-1-CHI 11 (3:59) 6-J.Cutler pass short left to 82-G.Olsen to CHI 18 for 7 yards (38-T.Williams).1-10-CHI 18 (3:22) 6-J.Cutler pass short left to 82-G.Olsen pushed ob at CHI 24 for 6 yards (50-A.Hawk).2-4-CHI 24 (3:16) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete short right to 23-D.Hester (21-C.Woodson).3-4-CHI 24 (3:14) 6-J.Cutler up the middle to CHI 31 for 7 yards (26-C.Peprah).1-10-CHI 31 (2:30) 6-J.Cutler pass short middle to 82-G.Olsen to CHI 37 for 6 yards (93-E.Walden, 55-D.Bishop).Two-Minute Warning So this team, that's really gung ho about winning this game and has to drive the field 98 yards to tie the score is dink and dunking, and using the entire play clock here? Then finally, once it hits 2 minutes, they decide to run a 2 minute drill. Kind of haphazardly, because they are still letting tons of time tick off, sparing timeouts, and letting the clock run down to 26 seconds while they're hitting the GB 30. With a time out still in hand of course.2-4-CHI 37 (2:00) 6-J.Cutler pass short right to 81-R.Davis to CHI 41 for 4 yards (26-C.Peprah).1-10-CHI 41 (1:35) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete deep left to 13-J.Knox.2-10-CHI 41 (1:31) 6-J.Cutler pass short middle to 22-M.Forte to GB 48 for 11 yards (50-A.Hawk). 1-10-GB 48 (1:07) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete deep left to 13-J.Knox.2-10-GB 48 (1:02) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short left to 22-M.Forte to GB 48 for no gain (55-D.Bishop).Timeout #2 by CHI at 00:51. 3-10-GB 48 51) 6-J.Cutler pass short right to 23-D.Hester to GB 32 for 16 yards (38-T.Williams).1-10-GB 32 26) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete deep right to 19-D.Aromashodu (38-T.Williams). 2-10-GB 32 20) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass deep left intended for 23-D.Hester INTERCEPTED by 36-N.Collins at GB 11. 36-N.Collins to GB 35 for 24 yards (22-M.Forte).If you seriously think this was the final drive of a team attempting to win that game, you're dumber than you claim Lovie Smith to be. I think one of the big questions here, would Lovie have gone for 2 if they actually scored with this bizarre drive. I think he would have.

 

[Illegal Pants Downfield]

The Bears have been a 1:1 ratio team the entire second half of the season. Against the Packers week 17 in a close game throughout, they were greater than a 2:1 pass to run ratio team. We have every right to question why Lovie left Cutler out to be beaten up a bit. However, it simply is idiotic to think the Bears changing their entire offensive philosophy in a game they didn't have to win isn't an indicator that they held back. They tried to win the game, no doubt. But they obviously were hoping to get lucky while experimenting with the passing game.Or can you explain why the Bears ran the ball about 10-15 times less than their normal game plan would suggest when the running game was very efficient?On Sunday, the Bears will try to get Forte/Taylor about 30 touches. It will be up to the Packers to stop the running game (which they didn't week 17) or to get far enough ahead to force Cutler to throw the ball.

I'm a Packer fan, and I would agree with this.The truth, I suspect, falls somewhere in between the far-Bears leaning contention that the Bears didn't care/weren't trying and the far-Packers leaning contention that the Bears were laying everything on the line to beat the Packers week 17.I also agree with the idea that, with these two teams, the regular season matchups really have no bearing on what this one's going to be.I am anxious and excited for this game, and I could really see it going either way.If the Packers don't lose the turnover battle and don't give up a big play on special teams, I suspect they win the game. If Hester gets his, or if the Bears defense wreaks havoc, the Bears absolutely have every chance in the world to take this game. I also agree that Sho Nuff needs to know when enough is enough.

 

[boubucarow]

Brady wasn't sacked that entire week 17 game.Cutler was sacked 6 times and hit quite a bit more.While I don't think they get them everything they had...holding back seems a bit odd choice of words too.If a team is just holding back, do they go to a pass heavy attack...or do they run the ball and just try and keep the clock moving to get it over with without getting someone hurt.Some of the reasoning here simply does not pass the smell test to being a reasonable excuse.

They held back from implementing what would have been their entire offensive game plan since they did not have to win the game. They wanted to work on the passing game so they did that at the expense of running the ball as much as they would have normally. If the Bears had to win in week 17, you would have seen a lot more of Forte.It is odd that if they held back, why would Cutler play the whole game under duress? But the passing game was the focus and we will see this week what they discovered in week 17 by airing it out.What the Packers stopped defensively week 17 has little to do with what will happen Sunday. That really is the point trying to be made here.I tried to make the same point before the Seahawks game that the Bears October offense had little to do with its current offense. Some Seahawks fans were just as stubborn.Please just take it from the Bears fans that have watched every snap this season, it was obvious to us that week 17 was a very abnormal game plan for the Bears and has no chance to be repeated on Sunday.

 

[sho nuff]

I agree it was odd to see. I just think it was unwise of their coaching staff to expose their QB to that if it was just to get an idea of things.

The defense the Bears see will also likely be different. I think Capers knows the bears are not going to come out in just 7 step drops and not try and establish the run early.

 

[Mr.Pack]

I have posted this before, but since this canard won't die....

You have nothing to play for yet you keep in your franchise qb the whole game, in which he gets absolutley hammered, including six sacks?

That means at least one of the following:

1. Lovie is the stupidist coach in the NFL for putting his post season at risk by endangering his qb

2. Lovie hates Cutler so he left him in to get the crap kicked out of him

3. Cutler "threw" the game with a sub 45% qb rating like a pool player attempting to sucker a bigger bet on the next game.

4. Cutler is not the Bears franchise qb so Lovie doesnt care if he is knocked out

5. The Bears actually did want to win the game, and your attempts to defend how the Packers def. smacked the Bears offense, is, well, pathetic

The Bears have been a 1:1 ratio team the entire second half of the season. Against the Packers week 17 in a close game throughout, they were greater than a 2:1 pass to run ratio team. We have every right to question why Lovie left Cutler out to be beaten up a bit. However, it simply is idiotic to think the Bears changing their entire offensive philosophy in a game they didn't have to win isn't an indicator that they held back. They tried to win the game, no doubt. But they obviously were hoping to get lucky while experimenting with the passing game.Or can you explain why the Bears ran the ball about 10-15 times less than their normal game plan would suggest when the running game was very efficient?

On Sunday, the Bears will try to get Forte/Taylor about 30 touches. It will be up to the Packers to stop the running game (which they didn't week 17) or to get far enough ahead to force Cutler to throw the ball.

What does this have to do with Sunday?

 

[DrJ]

I agree it was odd to see. I just think it was unwise of their coaching staff to expose their QB to that if it was just to get an idea of things.The defense the Bears see will also likely be different. I think Capers knows the bears are not going to come out in just 7 step drops and not try and establish the run early.

It's definitely a high risk/low reward move. If Cutler gets injured, a lot of people probably call for his head again despite what happened this season. Fortunately for him, that didn't happen. I'm not going to accuse Lovie of doing the right thing all of the time. You could come up with a long list of stupid things from this season alone - he is probably among the worst coaches at using the challenge flag. Some of those goal line 4th and 1's, despite the fact the OL was a train wreck at that point. He's been better this season, but historically his clock management skills have been very questionable. The way he exposed Cutler in that final game. That stupid Forte pass. Yeah, he does dumb stuff. But they're in the NFC championship game, so it's tolerable again for now.

 

[sho nuff]

I agree it was odd to see. I just think it was unwise of their coaching staff to expose their QB to that if it was just to get an idea of things.The defense the Bears see will also likely be different. I think Capers knows the bears are not going to come out in just 7 step drops and not try and establish the run early.

It's definitely a high risk/low reward move. If Cutler gets injured, a lot of people probably call for his head again despite what happened this season. Fortunately for him, that didn't happen. I'm not going to accuse Lovie of doing the right thing all of the time. You could come up with a long list of stupid things from this season alone - he is probably among the worst coaches at using the challenge flag. Some of those goal line 4th and 1's, despite the fact the OL was a train wreck at that point. The way he exposed Cutler in that final game. That stupid Forte pass. Yeah, he does dumb stuff. But they're in the NFC championship game, so it's tolerable again for now.

Seems similar to how some of us feel about McCarthy at times.

 

[Eric Stratton]

I have posted this before, but since this canard won't die....

You have nothing to play for yet you keep in your franchise qb the whole game, in which he gets absolutley hammered, including six sacks?

That means at least one of the following:

1. Lovie is the stupidist coach in the NFL for putting his post season at risk by endangering his qb

2. Lovie hates Cutler so he left him in to get the crap kicked out of him

3. Cutler "threw" the game with a sub 45% qb rating like a pool player attempting to sucker a bigger bet on the next game.

4. Cutler is not the Bears franchise qb so Lovie doesnt care if he is knocked out

5. The Bears actually did want to win the game, and your attempts to defend how the Packers def. smacked the Bears offense, is, well, pathetic

The Bears have been a 1:1 ratio team the entire second half of the season. Against the Packers week 17 in a close game throughout, they were greater than a 2:1 pass to run ratio team. We have every right to question why Lovie left Cutler out to be beaten up a bit. However, it simply is idiotic to think the Bears changing their entire offensive philosophy in a game they didn't have to win isn't an indicator that they held back. They tried to win the game, no doubt. But they obviously were hoping to get lucky while experimenting with the passing game.Or can you explain why the Bears ran the ball about 10-15 times less than their normal game plan would suggest when the running game was very efficient?

On Sunday, the Bears will try to get Forte/Taylor about 30 touches. It will be up to the Packers to stop the running game (which they didn't week 17) or to get far enough ahead to force Cutler to throw the ball.

The clock management on the final drive was just bizarre as well. 1-10-CHI 2 (4:49) 22-M.Forte left end pushed ob at CHI 6 for 4 yards (26-C.Peprah).

2-6-CHI 6 (4:42) 22-M.Forte left end to CHI 11 for 5 yards (55-D.Bishop).

3-1-CHI 11 (3:59) 6-J.Cutler pass short left to 82-G.Olsen to CHI 18 for 7 yards (38-T.Williams).

1-10-CHI 18 (3:22) 6-J.Cutler pass short left to 82-G.Olsen pushed ob at CHI 24 for 6 yards (50-A.Hawk).

2-4-CHI 24 (3:16) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete short right to 23-D.Hester (21-C.Woodson).

3-4-CHI 24 (3:14) 6-J.Cutler up the middle to CHI 31 for 7 yards (26-C.Peprah).

1-10-CHI 31 (2:30) 6-J.Cutler pass short middle to 82-G.Olsen to CHI 37 for 6 yards (93-E.Walden, 55-D.Bishop).

Two-Minute Warning

So this team, that's really gung ho about winning this game and has to drive the field 98 yards to tie the score is dink and dunking, and using the entire play clock here? Then finally, once it hits 2 minutes, they decide to run a 2 minute drill. Kind of haphazardly, because they are still letting tons of time tick off, sparing timeouts, and letting the clock run down to 26 seconds while they're hitting the GB 30. With a time out still in hand of course.

2-4-CHI 37 (2:00) 6-J.Cutler pass short right to 81-R.Davis to CHI 41 for 4 yards (26-C.Peprah).

1-10-CHI 41 (1:35) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete deep left to 13-J.Knox.

2-10-CHI 41 (1:31) 6-J.Cutler pass short middle to 22-M.Forte to GB 48 for 11 yards (50-A.Hawk).

1-10-GB 48 (1:07) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete deep left to 13-J.Knox.

2-10-GB 48 (1:02) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short left to 22-M.Forte to GB 48 for no gain (55-D.Bishop).

Timeout #2 by CHI at 00:51.

3-10-GB 48 51) 6-J.Cutler pass short right to 23-D.Hester to GB 32 for 16 yards (38-T.Williams).

1-10-GB 32 26) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete deep right to 19-D.Aromashodu (38-T.Williams).

2-10-GB 32 20) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass deep left intended for 23-D.Hester INTERCEPTED by 36-N.Collins at GB 11. 36-N.Collins to GB 35 for 24 yards (22-M.Forte).

If you seriously think this was the final drive of a team attempting to win that game, you're dumber than you claim Lovie Smith to be. I think one of the big questions here, would Lovie have gone for 2 if they actually scored with this bizarre drive. I think he would have.

So those three deep passes including the final two weren't attempts to win that game?

 

[DoubleG]

I have posted this before, but since this canard won't die....

You have nothing to play for yet you keep in your franchise qb the whole game, in which he gets absolutley hammered, including six sacks?

That means at least one of the following:

1. Lovie is the stupidist coach in the NFL for putting his post season at risk by endangering his qb

2. Lovie hates Cutler so he left him in to get the crap kicked out of him

3. Cutler "threw" the game with a sub 45% qb rating like a pool player attempting to sucker a bigger bet on the next game.

4. Cutler is not the Bears franchise qb so Lovie doesnt care if he is knocked out

5. The Bears actually did want to win the game, and your attempts to defend how the Packers def. smacked the Bears offense, is, well, pathetic

The Bears have been a 1:1 ratio team the entire second half of the season. Against the Packers week 17 in a close game throughout, they were greater than a 2:1 pass to run ratio team. We have every right to question why Lovie left Cutler out to be beaten up a bit. However, it simply is idiotic to think the Bears changing their entire offensive philosophy in a game they didn't have to win isn't an indicator that they held back. They tried to win the game, no doubt. But they obviously were hoping to get lucky while experimenting with the passing game.Or can you explain why the Bears ran the ball about 10-15 times less than their normal game plan would suggest when the running game was very efficient?

On Sunday, the Bears will try to get Forte/Taylor about 30 touches. It will be up to the Packers to stop the running game (which they didn't week 17) or to get far enough ahead to force Cutler to throw the ball.

The clock management on the final drive was just bizarre as well. 1-10-CHI 2 (4:49) 22-M.Forte left end pushed ob at CHI 6 for 4 yards (26-C.Peprah).

2-6-CHI 6 (4:42) 22-M.Forte left end to CHI 11 for 5 yards (55-D.Bishop).

3-1-CHI 11 (3:59) 6-J.Cutler pass short left to 82-G.Olsen to CHI 18 for 7 yards (38-T.Williams).

1-10-CHI 18 (3:22) 6-J.Cutler pass short left to 82-G.Olsen pushed ob at CHI 24 for 6 yards (50-A.Hawk).

2-4-CHI 24 (3:16) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete short right to 23-D.Hester (21-C.Woodson).

3-4-CHI 24 (3:14) 6-J.Cutler up the middle to CHI 31 for 7 yards (26-C.Peprah).

1-10-CHI 31 (2:30) 6-J.Cutler pass short middle to 82-G.Olsen to CHI 37 for 6 yards (93-E.Walden, 55-D.Bishop).

Two-Minute Warning

So this team, that's really gung ho about winning this game and has to drive the field 98 yards to tie the score is dink and dunking, and using the entire play clock here? Then finally, once it hits 2 minutes, they decide to run a 2 minute drill. Kind of haphazardly, because they are still letting tons of time tick off, sparing timeouts, and letting the clock run down to 26 seconds while they're hitting the GB 30. With a time out still in hand of course.

2-4-CHI 37 (2:00) 6-J.Cutler pass short right to 81-R.Davis to CHI 41 for 4 yards (26-C.Peprah).

1-10-CHI 41 (1:35) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete deep left to 13-J.Knox.

2-10-CHI 41 (1:31) 6-J.Cutler pass short middle to 22-M.Forte to GB 48 for 11 yards (50-A.Hawk).

1-10-GB 48 (1:07) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete deep left to 13-J.Knox.

2-10-GB 48 (1:02) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short left to 22-M.Forte to GB 48 for no gain (55-D.Bishop).

Timeout #2 by CHI at 00:51.

3-10-GB 48 51) 6-J.Cutler pass short right to 23-D.Hester to GB 32 for 16 yards (38-T.Williams).

1-10-GB 32 26) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete deep right to 19-D.Aromashodu (38-T.Williams).

2-10-GB 32 20) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass deep left intended for 23-D.Hester INTERCEPTED by 36-N.Collins at GB 11. 36-N.Collins to GB 35 for 24 yards (22-M.Forte).

If you seriously think this was the final drive of a team attempting to win that game, you're dumber than you claim Lovie Smith to be. I think one of the big questions here, would Lovie have gone for 2 if they actually scored with this bizarre drive. I think he would have.

So those two deep passes weren't attempts to win that game?

Reading is a skill. There is a difference between "trying" to win the game. And "needing" to win - part of the difference is in effort and human nature (and some is in play selection and clock management).As several fans (from both sides) have posted, either the Bears didn't give it 100% in many of the aspects I just listed or Martz and Lovie morphed into the stupidest coaching staff on the planet for 1 week (week 17), before seeing the error of their ways and then miaculously returned to the 1:1 run to pass ratio that had won them 7 out of their final 8 games (prior to week 17). I think the former makes more sense than the latter. If Packer-backers wish to pin their hopes on the prayer that Love and Martz will turn stupid again this coming Sunday, and revert back to a 2:1 or worse pass to run ratio, be my guest. I, for one, think the Bears will attempt to run the ball, slowing down GB's pass rush just enough to set up Cutler and co. for some chunks in the passing game when the opportunity presents itself.

On the defensive side, the Bears will use a similar game plan as they did against the 'hawks - shut down the run game completely, forcing the Packers to become one dimensional. Unlike the Falcons, the Bears will generate a pass rush with their front four and I think Rodgers will have a little tougher day throwing on the Bears in cold weather on a sloppy track than he did in the dome against Atlanta.

 

[Eric Stratton]

I have posted this before, but since this canard won't die....

You have nothing to play for yet you keep in your franchise qb the whole game, in which he gets absolutley hammered, including six sacks?

That means at least one of the following:

1. Lovie is the stupidist coach in the NFL for putting his post season at risk by endangering his qb

2. Lovie hates Cutler so he left him in to get the crap kicked out of him

3. Cutler "threw" the game with a sub 45% qb rating like a pool player attempting to sucker a bigger bet on the next game.

4. Cutler is not the Bears franchise qb so Lovie doesnt care if he is knocked out

5. The Bears actually did want to win the game, and your attempts to defend how the Packers def. smacked the Bears offense, is, well, pathetic

The Bears have been a 1:1 ratio team the entire second half of the season. Against the Packers week 17 in a close game throughout, they were greater than a 2:1 pass to run ratio team. We have every right to question why Lovie left Cutler out to be beaten up a bit. However, it simply is idiotic to think the Bears changing their entire offensive philosophy in a game they didn't have to win isn't an indicator that they held back. They tried to win the game, no doubt. But they obviously were hoping to get lucky while experimenting with the passing game.Or can you explain why the Bears ran the ball about 10-15 times less than their normal game plan would suggest when the running game was very efficient?

On Sunday, the Bears will try to get Forte/Taylor about 30 touches. It will be up to the Packers to stop the running game (which they didn't week 17) or to get far enough ahead to force Cutler to throw the ball.

The clock management on the final drive was just bizarre as well. 1-10-CHI 2 (4:49) 22-M.Forte left end pushed ob at CHI 6 for 4 yards (26-C.Peprah).

2-6-CHI 6 (4:42) 22-M.Forte left end to CHI 11 for 5 yards (55-D.Bishop).

3-1-CHI 11 (3:59) 6-J.Cutler pass short left to 82-G.Olsen to CHI 18 for 7 yards (38-T.Williams).

1-10-CHI 18 (3:22) 6-J.Cutler pass short left to 82-G.Olsen pushed ob at CHI 24 for 6 yards (50-A.Hawk).

2-4-CHI 24 (3:16) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete short right to 23-D.Hester (21-C.Woodson).

3-4-CHI 24 (3:14) 6-J.Cutler up the middle to CHI 31 for 7 yards (26-C.Peprah).

1-10-CHI 31 (2:30) 6-J.Cutler pass short middle to 82-G.Olsen to CHI 37 for 6 yards (93-E.Walden, 55-D.Bishop).

Two-Minute Warning

So this team, that's really gung ho about winning this game and has to drive the field 98 yards to tie the score is dink and dunking, and using the entire play clock here? Then finally, once it hits 2 minutes, they decide to run a 2 minute drill. Kind of haphazardly, because they are still letting tons of time tick off, sparing timeouts, and letting the clock run down to 26 seconds while they're hitting the GB 30. With a time out still in hand of course.

2-4-CHI 37 (2:00) 6-J.Cutler pass short right to 81-R.Davis to CHI 41 for 4 yards (26-C.Peprah).

1-10-CHI 41 (1:35) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete deep left to 13-J.Knox.

2-10-CHI 41 (1:31) 6-J.Cutler pass short middle to 22-M.Forte to GB 48 for 11 yards (50-A.Hawk).

1-10-GB 48 (1:07) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete deep left to 13-J.Knox.

2-10-GB 48 (1:02) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short left to 22-M.Forte to GB 48 for no gain (55-D.Bishop).

Timeout #2 by CHI at 00:51.

3-10-GB 48 51) 6-J.Cutler pass short right to 23-D.Hester to GB 32 for 16 yards (38-T.Williams).

1-10-GB 32 26) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete deep right to 19-D.Aromashodu (38-T.Williams).

2-10-GB 32 20) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass deep left intended for 23-D.Hester INTERCEPTED by 36-N.Collins at GB 11. 36-N.Collins to GB 35 for 24 yards (22-M.Forte).

If you seriously think this was the final drive of a team attempting to win that game, you're dumber than you claim Lovie Smith to be. I think one of the big questions here, would Lovie have gone for 2 if they actually scored with this bizarre drive. I think he would have.

So those two deep passes weren't attempts to win that game?

Reading is a skill. There is a difference between "trying" to win the game. And "needing" to win

Yes it is...here is what he wrote "If you seriously think this was the final drive of a team attempting to win that game"Now some of you Bear fans are trying to tell us they weren't attempting to win the game on the final drive. Absurd and laughable!

 

[DoubleG]

Reading is a skill. There is a difference between "trying" to win the game. And "needing" to win

Yes it is...here is what he wrote "If you seriously think this was the final drive of a team attempting to win that game"Now some of you Bear fans are trying to tell us they weren't attempting to win the game on the final drive. Absurd and laughable!

Get back to me when you've read the rest of my post. TIA.

 

[Eric Stratton]

Reading is a skill. There is a difference between "trying" to win the game. And "needing" to win

Yes it is...here is what he wrote "If you seriously think this was the final drive of a team attempting to win that game"Now some of you Bear fans are trying to tell us they weren't attempting to win the game on the final drive. Absurd and laughable!

Get back to me when you've read the rest of my post. TIA.

No need to to try and deal with people that think the Bears weren't attempting to win that game on the final drive. I'd like to see you clowns tell that to the faces of the Bear players and watch them pummel you!

 

[Limp Ditka]

Reading is a skill. There is a difference between "trying" to win the game. And "needing" to win

Yes it is...here is what he wrote "If you seriously think this was the final drive of a team attempting to win that game"Now some of you Bear fans are trying to tell us they weren't attempting to win the game on the final drive. Absurd and laughable!

Get back to me when you've read the rest of my post. TIA.

No need to to try and deal with people that think the Bears weren't attempting to win that game on the final drive. I'd like to see you clowns tell that to the faces of the Bear players and watch them pummel you!

To be fair, the Bears were probably trying to tie the game on that final drive.

 

[Eric Stratton]

Reading is a skill. There is a difference between "trying" to win the game. And "needing" to win

Yes it is...here is what he wrote "If you seriously think this was the final drive of a team attempting to win that game"Now some of you Bear fans are trying to tell us they weren't attempting to win the game on the final drive. Absurd and laughable!

Get back to me when you've read the rest of my post. TIA.

No need to to try and deal with people that think the Bears weren't attempting to win that game on the final drive. I'd like to see you clowns tell that to the faces of the Bear players and watch them pummel you!

To be fair, the Bears were probably trying to tie the game on that final drive.

Good point!

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

So in Summary Bears fans think the Bears are better and will win and Packer Fans feel the Packers will. We also have the usual suspects who feel repeating themselves to those who will not listen will overcome that resistance.

Me, I'm excited and nervous. No outcome will surprise me. If my team prevails I may act as if it were inevitable, though I know right now that is not so.

 

[DoubleG]

Reading is a skill. There is a difference between "trying" to win the game. And "needing" to win

Yes it is...here is what he wrote "If you seriously think this was the final drive of a team attempting to win that game"Now some of you Bear fans are trying to tell us they weren't attempting to win the game on the final drive. Absurd and laughable!

Get back to me when you've read the rest of my post. TIA.

No need to to try and deal with people that think the Bears weren't attempting to win that game on the final drive. I'd like to see you clowns tell that to the faces of the Bear players and watch them pummel you!

Oh good - name calling and wishing violence on us "clowns". Perhaps you have something constructive or factual you'd like to add? I have some:The Packers were 18th in the NFL against the rush this past season - Bears defense was 2nd. In game that might feature less than ideal weather and poor footing, the Bears ability to run the ball against the Packers pourus run defense and keep the ball out Rodgers hands will be huge.To put that 18th rush defense ranking for the Pack in perspective - that is 3 slots ahead (and less than 80 yards better than) the Seattle Seahawks rushing defense - and Seattle only gave up 4.2 YPC, while the Packers allow 4.7 YPC...but don't worry - I'm sure the Bears will try to pass 40 times and only rush 14 or so, despite Forte averaging over 6 YPC the last time the two teams played.

 

[sho nuff]

Reading is a skill. There is a difference between "trying" to win the game. And "needing" to win

Yes it is...here is what he wrote "If you seriously think this was the final drive of a team attempting to win that game"Now some of you Bear fans are trying to tell us they weren't attempting to win the game on the final drive. Absurd and laughable!

Get back to me when you've read the rest of my post. TIA.

No need to to try and deal with people that think the Bears weren't attempting to win that game on the final drive. I'd like to see you clowns tell that to the faces of the Bear players and watch them pummel you!

To be fair, the Bears were probably trying to tie the game on that final drive.

Though, I think the thought was Lovie would go for 2 had they scored at the end there.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

If you seriously think this was the final drive of a team attempting to win that game, you're dumber than you claim Lovie Smith to be.

This may be one of the worst posts the Shark Pool has ever seen.

 

[RBM]

Pretty funny reading the passion of these posts, and then knowing that last game being discussed means nothing for this weekend.

 

[cr8f]

So in Summary Bears fans think the Bears are better and will win and Packer Fans feel the Packers will. We also have the usual suspects who feel repeating themselves to those who will not listen will overcome that resistance.Me, I'm excited and nervous. No outcome will surprise me. If my team prevails I may act as if it were inevitable, though I know right now that is not so.

Well said. It's just too bad we don't have Finley and Ryan Grant.