Bears game 12: Sunday, Dec 5 at DET on FOX

[jersey cubs fan]

Hell of a game. The weak link quarterback was slightly less weak linkish while tossing 4 weak linked touchdowns. Hopefully that line, running attack and receivers can carry his weak linked body through another tough fight on the road in Detroit this week. The Bears are 3 point favorites against the 2-9 Lions, who are probably more like a 4-7 or 5-6 team, but has some very obvious flaws that can be exploited. As great as it is to be a surprising 8-3 right now, a loss this week could put them on the road to missing the playoffs, because it will be tough to get 2 wins in the final four games, and even 10 wins isn't a guaranteed playoff spot. Philly, NYG and GB are all likely to be 8-4 after this week's games. TB may even be able to pull off an upset against ATL, and if they do, it's smooth sailing the rest of the way for that team. Not only is a loss likely to drop them back into a tie for the division and wild card, but it would be their 4th NFC loss.

 

In other words, the Bears need this game. It will be tough, but they really need a win to put themselves into position to hold onto the division. Detroit is a pretty mediocre offense, but they can throw the ball, and they are right with the Bears in the turnover game. Chicago's defense is really stepping it up of late, but they are still living on the edge in the passing game, allowing teams to move the ball through the air. They can't leave this up to a jump ball situation with Johnson, because he will beat them.

 

Detroit has had the extra rest/prep time that Chicago had last week against Philly, and they can make things tough on the Bears. But there is no doubt that the Bears should win this game, it's just a matter of executing. And keeping the weak link from losing it.

[Mark Priors Calves]

This game scares, because every Bears games this year has and will scare me. But the Bears should win and I think they will win.

[Sammy Sofa]

It makes me nervous because it seems like they blow these types of games way too often under Lovie's regime: they win a big game/bunch of games, finally start getting some hype and it's like everyone takes the week off because they assume they're going to roll on a "lesser" team and then it blows up in their face.

[jersey cubs fan]

It makes me nervous because it seems like they blow these types of games way too often under Lovie's regime: they win a big game/bunch of games, finally start getting some hype and it's like everyone takes the week off because they assume they're going to roll on a "lesser" team and then it blows up in their face.

 

I understand the concern, but I'm not sure about your comparison to other Lovie teams. The closest thing to it would have to be the 2008 season when they won three in a row to get to 9-6 but failed to beat Houston in the final game to finish 9-7. Other than that though, they either didn't win big games in the first place, 2005/2007/2009, were really good and suffered no big losses 2006, or did about as good as they could anyway 2005.

[soapy]

This is one of the few games I feel confident about this season. The Lions are clearly better than the record they have, but the Bears win this one. The Lions may be motivated by a feeling of having the first game "stolen" from them (it wasn't), but I still feel good about it. Win this and they likely only need one more win in those final four tough games to be in the playoffs.

[tfarks]

The Giants beatdown will remain fresh in their minds this week after they came out overconfident the first time. I don't see it happening again.

 

This game won't be easy by any stretch, but the Bears players all believe they can win the division and know whats at stake.

 

The Bears must maintain a 1 game lead going into Lambeau.

[Sammy Sofa]

It makes me nervous because it seems like they blow these types of games way too often under Lovie's regime: they win a big game/bunch of games, finally start getting some hype and it's like everyone takes the week off because they assume they're going to roll on a "lesser" team and then it blows up in their face.

 

I understand the concern, but I'm not sure about your comparison to other Lovie teams. The closest thing to it would have to be the 2008 season when they won three in a row to get to 9-6 but failed to beat Houston in the final game to finish 9-7. Other than that though, they either didn't win big games in the first place, 2005/2007/2009, were really good and suffered no big losses 2006, or did about as good as they could anyway 2005.

 

Not "big losses" so much as games that they "should" win after looking good. I know that's by no means a sure thing, but these are really the only Bears games that I get nervous over.

[jersey cubs fan]

It makes me nervous because it seems like they blow these types of games way too often under Lovie's regime: they win a big game/bunch of games, finally start getting some hype and it's like everyone takes the week off because they assume they're going to roll on a "lesser" team and then it blows up in their face.

 

I understand the concern, but I'm not sure about your comparison to other Lovie teams. The closest thing to it would have to be the 2008 season when they won three in a row to get to 9-6 but failed to beat Houston in the final game to finish 9-7. Other than that though, they either didn't win big games in the first place, 2005/2007/2009, were really good and suffered no big losses 2006, or did about as good as they could anyway 2005.

 

Not "big losses" so much as games that they "should" win after looking good. I know that's by no means a sure thing, but these are really the only Bears games that I get nervous over.

 

I get nervous over games they should win much more than games you'd expect them to lose.

[Sammy Sofa]

It makes me nervous because it seems like they blow these types of games way too often under Lovie's regime: they win a big game/bunch of games, finally start getting some hype and it's like everyone takes the week off because they assume they're going to roll on a "lesser" team and then it blows up in their face.

 

I understand the concern, but I'm not sure about your comparison to other Lovie teams. The closest thing to it would have to be the 2008 season when they won three in a row to get to 9-6 but failed to beat Houston in the final game to finish 9-7. Other than that though, they either didn't win big games in the first place, 2005/2007/2009, were really good and suffered no big losses 2006, or did about as good as they could anyway 2005.

 

Not "big losses" so much as games that they "should" win after looking good. I know that's by no means a sure thing, but these are really the only Bears games that I get nervous over.

 

I get nervous over games they should win much more than games you'd expect them to lose.

 

Yup.

[UMFan83]

The Bears must maintain a 1 game lead going into Lambeau.

 

Disagree. Because we won the 1st game against the Packers, the Bears can come into that Packers game, with a 1 game lead, tied, or down 1 game to GB and still be in a position where a win would give us the division and a loss would lose it for us.

 

Even if we lost 3 of the next 4 games and limp into the Packers game at 9-6, and the Packers win 3 of their next 4 and come in at 10-5, a win in Lambeau will still win us the division.

 

Now if we came into the game up 1 game and the Packers lost to the Lions and we beat the Lions and Vikings, then the game wouldnt matter as we would already clinch the division based on division record. If we came into the game up 1 game and the Packers lost 2 of their 3 remaining conference games (@ Det, SF, NYG) and the Bears won both of theirs (@ Det, @ Min), it would be the same scenario, except this time the Bears would win the conference record tiebreaker.

 

We are in a pretty good position right now where as long as we win 1 more game, that last game will be necessary unless the Packers win their next 4. If we win 2 more games, that last game against GB is guaranteed to mean something.

[Banedon]

Yahoo sports speculates that Smith could be one of the top 4 longest tenured coaches after this season, and in the running for Coach of the Year honors....

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AvIwL29YPtehjNrfdEVV44tDubYF?slug=cr-winnersandlosers112810

[jersey cubs fan]

Yahoo sports speculates that Smith could be one of the top 4 longest tenured coaches after this season, and in the running for Coach of the Year honors....

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AvIwL29YPtehjNrfdEVV44tDubYF?slug=cr-winnersandlosers112810

 

If they finish 12-4 I think he has to win coach of the year, although either AFC East coach could take it if they run the table. That's the high end of preseason possibilities for this Bears team. But I see no reason to talk about extensions and whatnot until after this team gets into and wins a playoff game. This isn't 2006. This team is much more fragile (although it might have the higher upside given the upgrade at QB). People are going to be betting heavily against the Bears in a playoff game, expecting Cutler to give the game away and a quality QB to pick them apart.

[Banedon]

Hey Raw, I wonder if you still think the bears should be looking D-line with the first pick in the draft? They're looking like they're going to be pick much further back in the first round at this point, and D-line looks like it's developing into one of the more solid areas of the team. Getting an OT should be a more reasonable pick with them drafting further back, don't you think?

[Butterscup1679666578]

Don't let up now.

[Old Style]

Hey Raw, I wonder if you still think the bears should be looking D-line with the first pick in the draft? They're looking like they're going to be pick much further back in the first round at this point, and D-line looks like it's developing into one of the more solid areas of the team. Getting an OT should be a more reasonable pick with them drafting further back, don't you think?

OLine HAS to be the #1 priority, IMO.

[tfarks]

The Bears must maintain a 1 game lead going into Lambeau.

 

Disagree. Because we won the 1st game against the Packers, the Bears can come into that Packers game, with a 1 game lead, tied, or down 1 game to GB and still be in a position where a win would give us the division and a loss would lose it for us.

 

Even if we lost 3 of the next 4 games and limp into the Packers game at 9-6, and the Packers win 3 of their next 4 and come in at 10-5, a win in Lambeau will still win us the division.

 

Now if we came into the game up 1 game and the Packers lost to the Lions and we beat the Lions and Vikings, then the game wouldnt matter as we would already clinch the division based on division record. If we came into the game up 1 game and the Packers lost 2 of their 3 remaining conference games (@ Det, SF, NYG) and the Bears won both of theirs (@ Det, @ Min), it would be the same scenario, except this time the Bears would win the conference record tiebreaker.

 

We are in a pretty good position right now where as long as we win 1 more game, that last game will be necessary unless the Packers win their next 4. If we win 2 more games, that last game against GB is guaranteed to mean something.

 

Yeah when I typed that my tiebreaker scenarios were off, I don't follow the schedule stuff much and just wait for others to break it down. I'll give it a little shot here though. The Bears screwing over their conference record is obviously bad news. If the Bears win against Det and Min, and one against the Pats/Jets they will be 11-4 going into Week 17. If the Pack lose only to the Pats they would be 10-5. If the Bears can't win in Lambeau then their division record evens up and the Pack win the division because of the conference tiebreaker. If I have that correct?, it seems like a pretty plausible scenario to me.

 

Their wildcard chances must look a lot better after beating the Eagles. Although Roy giving the Saints a game doesn't help. I'm curious to see a breakdown of the Bears playoff hopes.

[Flames24Rulz]

The Bears must maintain a 1 game lead going into Lambeau.

 

Disagree. Because we won the 1st game against the Packers, the Bears can come into that Packers game, with a 1 game lead, tied, or down 1 game to GB and still be in a position where a win would give us the division and a loss would lose it for us.

 

Even if we lost 3 of the next 4 games and limp into the Packers game at 9-6, and the Packers win 3 of their next 4 and come in at 10-5, a win in Lambeau will still win us the division.

 

Now if we came into the game up 1 game and the Packers lost to the Lions and we beat the Lions and Vikings, then the game wouldnt matter as we would already clinch the division based on division record. If we came into the game up 1 game and the Packers lost 2 of their 3 remaining conference games (@ Det, SF, NYG) and the Bears won both of theirs (@ Det, @ Min), it would be the same scenario, except this time the Bears would win the conference record tiebreaker.

 

We are in a pretty good position right now where as long as we win 1 more game, that last game will be necessary unless the Packers win their next 4. If we win 2 more games, that last game against GB is guaranteed to mean something.

 

Yeah when I typed that my tiebreaker scenarios were off, I don't follow the schedule stuff much and just wait for others to break it down. I'll give it a little shot here though. The Bears screwing over their conference record is obviously bad news. If the Bears win against Det and Min, and one against the Pats/Jets they will be 11-4 going into Week 17. If the Pack lose only to the Pats they would be 10-5. If the Bears can't win in Lambeau then their division record evens up and the Pack win the division because of the conference tiebreaker. If I have that correct?, it seems like a pretty plausible scenario to me.

 

That's correct.

 

I think if the Packers and Bears both take care of business, both will make the playoffs and the Week 17 matchup would be for a first-round bye.

[UMFan83]

If the Bears win against Det and Min, and one against the Pats/Jets they will be 11-4 going into Week 17. If the Pack lose only to the Pats they would be 10-5. If the Bears can't win in Lambeau then their division record evens up and the Pack win the division because of the conference tiebreaker. If I have that correct?, it seems like a pretty plausible scenario to me.

 

 

Actually I made a big mistake. It actually goes: 1) Record, 2) H2H record, 3) Division Record, 4) Record vs. Common Opponents, 5) Conference record. I forgot that common opponents goes ahead on conference record in divisional ties. An easy way to figure that out is to look at the records of the 2 teams that are not common to each team.

 

Bears:

W - @Carolina

L - Seattle

 

Packers:

L - @Atlanta

TBD - San Francisco

 

So in a way, a win against SF is not a bad thing for the common opponents tiebreaker, as it means the Bears would tie the Packers in record vs. common opponents.

 

Imagine this crazy scenario:

 

Bears:

@ Det - W

NE - L

@ Min - W

NYJ - W

@ GB - L

 

11-5 (OVERALL), 1-1 (H2H), 5-1 (DIV), 10-4 (COMMON), 8-4 (CONF)

 

Packers:

SF - W

@ Det - W

NYG - L

@ NE - W

Chi - W

 

11-5 (OVERALL), 5-1 (DIV), 10-4 (COMMON), 8-4 (CONF)

 

Then it would come down to strength of victory....so this is how that looks right now:

 

Bears:

2-9 (DET)

3-8 (DAL)

7-4 (GB)

1-10 (CAR)

2-9 (BUF)

4-7 (MIN)

6-5 (MIA)

7-4 (PHI)

-----------

32-56 (TOTAL)

 

Packers:

7-4 (PHI)

2-9 (BUF)

2-9 (DET)

4-7 (MIN)

9-2 (NYJ)

3-8 (DAL)

4-7 (MIN)

-----------

31-46 (TOTAL)

 

Right now the difference in strength of victory is solely in the Bears extra victory over the Packers being over a 1-10 Carolina team. Otherwise, their other 7 victorys each even out (5 common victories, plus the Bears beating GB and Miami evens out over Minnesota (#2) and the Jets). Unfortunately the Packers don't have any 1-10 teams to beat. If the scenario that produces this tiebreaker being needed happens, the Packers would win this tiebreaker easily with the remaining teams they beat having a 26-28 record (factoring W/L to the Bears and Packers) and the Bears 15-22. Even if these teams won all remaining games not against the Bears and vice versa for the Packers, the Packers would still win the SOV tiebreaker.

[JonJayCutler]

This is why the Cowboys blowing the game against the Saints was so horrible. If the Bears have to rely on a Wild Card, there's a good chance the Saints will beat them for the 5th seed, meaning instead of playing an NFC West team in the first round, we'll have to travel to GB or PHI/NYG.

 

Anyway, this game has the ability to be a potential let-down, so please be careful. And I don't want to see Tim Jennings anywhere near Calvin. That's a 9-inch height differential. Tillman or Bowman, please.

[sneakypower]

getting Avril back last week is great is great for our chances, as he's our best pass-rusher and him lining up against Webb should be one of our best mismatches

 

i hope Cutler targets Smith early & often after the awful game he had on Thanksgiving, i like his chances of a rebound game and getting a pick

 

i think we'll lose obviously, because we're still too undisciplined, but we'll keep it close and have a fake rally in the closing minutes like we do every week

[rawaction]

Hey Raw, I wonder if you still think the bears should be looking D-line with the first pick in the draft? They're looking like they're going to be pick much further back in the first round at this point, and D-line looks like it's developing into one of the more solid areas of the team. Getting an OT should be a more reasonable pick with them drafting further back, don't you think?

 

Yes. I think DE is good, because Peppers and Izzy have been wonderful all year. You still have Wootton who you hope can contribute next year and Melton has flipped over there at times this year. At DT: Adams is a FA, Harrison is a candidate to be cut, Harris is overpaid and a candidate to get cut also. That leaves Melton and Toeina at DT. Even if you bring back Harris, I think you need a body at DT, and a top tier talent.

 

Also, OL is still the #1 priority, but I still think interior OL is a bigger need than OT, and starting caliber interior OL can be had in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

 

Say what you want about Webb and Omiyale, but the team likes what Omiyale has done, and Webb is still just 22. And if any of them fail, you still have Chris Williams who's 24. Interior, you have Kreutz who's going to be gone. Garza who's up there in age. And Williams playing out of position. Backups are an undrafted guy and a converted college TE.

 

If I go DT 1st, I'd probably go OG 2nd and OC 3rd or 4th. And wait til 1st round next year for a legit OT, because I really don't like this class of tackles.

[Magnetic Curses]

getting Avril back last week is great is great for our chances, as he's our best pass-rusher and him lining up against Webb should be one of our best mismatches

 

i hope Cutler targets Smith early & often after the awful game he had on Thanksgiving, i like his chances of a rebound game and getting a pick

 

i think we'll lose obviously, because we're still too undisciplined, but we'll keep it close and have a fake rally in the closing minutes like we do every week

 

this is a trap game for sure. we need to maintain the level of focus to beat the lions, who are dangerous and definitely not pushovers.

 

they need to watch the giants game every single week until the end of the season.

[UMFan83]

This is why the Cowboys blowing the game against the Saints was so horrible. If the Bears have to rely on a Wild Card, there's a good chance the Saints will beat them for the 5th seed, meaning instead of playing an NFC West team in the first round, we'll have to travel to GB or PHI/NYG.

 

This is true. Heck, I'd almost rather have the 5th seed then win the division with the 3rd seed. Either way you are playing on the first weekend and either way, you are playing on the road in the next round and likely the next 2 rounds. I'd trade a home game against the Saints for a road game against the Rams or Seahawks anyday, and I don't care if both teams have good home records.

[jersey cubs fan]

This is why the Cowboys blowing the game against the Saints was so horrible. If the Bears have to rely on a Wild Card, there's a good chance the Saints will beat them for the 5th seed, meaning instead of playing an NFC West team in the first round, we'll have to travel to GB or PHI/NYG.

 

This is true. Heck, I'd almost rather have the 5th seed then win the division with the 3rd seed. Either way you are playing on the first weekend and either way, you are playing on the road in the next round and likely the next 2 rounds. I'd trade a home game against the Saints for a road game against the Rams or Seahawks anyday, and I don't care if both teams have good home records.

 

Eh, I'm not so sure I'd hate to face New Orleans in Chicago in January.

[Banedon]

This is why the Cowboys blowing the game against the Saints was so horrible. If the Bears have to rely on a Wild Card, there's a good chance the Saints will beat them for the 5th seed, meaning instead of playing an NFC West team in the first round, we'll have to travel to GB or PHI/NYG.

 

This is true. Heck, I'd almost rather have the 5th seed then win the division with the 3rd seed. Either way you are playing on the first weekend and either way, you are playing on the road in the next round and likely the next 2 rounds. I'd trade a home game against the Saints for a road game against the Rams or Seahawks anyday, and I don't care if both teams have good home records.

 

Eh, I'm not so sure I'd hate to face New Orleans in Chicago in January.

 

Getting to play GB two weeks in a row would be interesting as well....especially if both games were meaningful.