Bears game 16: January 2 @ GB, 3:15 on Fox

[imb]

jesus christ, tom brady has only thrown 4 picks

[jersey cubs fan]

I still think it is a better matchup for the Bears in Atl than NO even in Chicago.

 

 

That doesn't make any sense.

Sure it does, NO's passing game is more critical to the Bears than HFA and the possibility of bad weather. That short passing game will exploit the Bears weaknesses more than the standard 5 step drop of ATL. Atl will try and get Turner going and then go vertical with Jenkins/White, the one concern would be Gonzalez. The Saints will carbon copy NE and unlike ATL have the ability to rack up points like that regardless of location/atmosphere.

 

New Orleans has a precision passing game that can, and has been exposed in less than ideal conditions. They are also a -5 in the turnover battle while Atlanta leads the league. I cannot conceive of any legitimate reason why anybody would rather face Atlanta in Atlanta than the Saints in Chicago in January. It may not be "Bear weather", but it sure has hell isn't anything the Saints are good at dealing with.

[UK1679666180]

You're simply overlooking how the strength of the Saints offense matches up perfectly with the weakness of the Bears defense, especially with the lack of pass rush these last few weeks.

[jersey cubs fan]

You're simply overlooking how the strength of the Saints offense matches up perfectly with the weakness of the Bears defense, especially with the lack of pass rush these last few weeks.

 

You're simply overlooking the fact that the Saints aren't the Patriots.

[Omar]

Quarterback Jay Cutler expects to play the entire game and doesn't anticipate key players resting when the Chicago Bears visit Green Bay on Sunday.

[bukie]

Quarterback Jay Cutler expects to play the entire game and doesn't anticipate key players resting when the Chicago Bears visit Green Bay on Sunday.

Maybe they're just learning their lesson from 2006, when they rested that last game in Green Bay, got waxed, and then disappointed in the playoffs by getting all the way to the Super Bowl.

[Omar]

Quarterback Jay Cutler expects to play the entire game and doesn't anticipate key players resting when the Chicago Bears visit Green Bay on Sunday.

Maybe they're just learning their lesson from 2006, when they rested that last game in Green Bay, got waxed, and then disappointed in the playoffs by getting all the way to the Super Bowl.

 

1. Announce everyone is playing.

2. Bet against Vegas odds.

3. ??????????

4. PROFIT!

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I know a lot of people like to hate on Romo, but he's easily a franchise QB. Other than the fact he's only won 1 playoff game, he rates highly no matter what metric you use.

[UMFan83]

First of all, NO playing the Bears in Chicago doesn't scare me as much as it should. The Saints only have like 2 wins from November on in cold weather environments since 2006. The Bears beat them in the NFC Title game in 06, and in regular season games in 07 and 08 all in Chicago. Granted this years bears and this years saints are different teams but many of the same pieces remain, including the head coaches and the schemes they run. I think a cold weather game on Soldier Field's crappy turf would really be to our advantage. Brees has not at all looked like the QB he has been in the past. No doubt he's very capable of being that QB again, but his track record this season isn't great.

 

As far as resting players, the Bears really have very little to gain by playing their guys the entire game. The only thing they have to gain is I guess confidence by potentially beating the Packers, and less rust for their first game. What they have to lose? Injuries are the biggest thing. As someone mentioned before, I can easily see Cutler getting creamed on a blitz because the o-lines heads arent in the game. You can say all the right things, and you can really want to play hard to win, but deep down there is nothing to gain by winning, the players can't give it the 100% they need to win the game. On the other side of the ball, you have a team that needs to win to get in. This is the playoffs for them. They will deck one of our guys if they stand in the way of their playoff berth. So you have one team playing a glorified exhibition game and another team playing a playoff game. The results could be disasterous.

[davell]

I know a lot of people like to hate on Romo, but he's easily a franchise QB. Other than the fact he's only won 1 playoff game, he rates highly no matter what metric you use.

 

I don't really hate the Cowboys, but I don't think of football metrics or basketball metrics in the same vein as I do baseball metrics either. Just think baseball metrics mean more.

 

I don't even use the one playoff win against him. If I did, I wouldn't have Cutler as a franchise guy either. To me, it's who I think makes an actual difference for a team. Cutler has no offensive line and no wide receivers to speak of this year. He's still growing as a decision maker obviously, but he's a guy that makes a true difference. On the other hand, I think you can throw a Jon Kitna into Dallas' and he'll still put up very respectable stats for them, as he has done this season. I have always thought Romo was a product of this and there's no way to tell whether or not he'd make a difference playing on a different team, so my opinion probably will never change on him.

[jersey cubs fan]

As far as resting players, the Bears really have very little to gain by playing their guys the entire game. The only thing they have to gain is I guess confidence by potentially beating the Packers, and less rust for their first game. What they have to lose? Injuries are the biggest thing. As someone mentioned before, I can easily see Cutler getting creamed on a blitz because the o-lines heads arent in the game. You can say all the right things, and you can really want to play hard to win, but deep down there is nothing to gain by winning, the players can't give it the 100% they need to win the game. On the other side of the ball, you have a team that needs to win to get in. This is the playoffs for them. They will deck one of our guys if they stand in the way of their playoff berth. So you have one team playing a glorified exhibition game and another team playing a playoff game. The results could be disasterous.

 

Chicago's offense has needed every snap all year to get to where they are, and they still have room to improve. There is something to be gained by playing a quality opponent at full capacity when you have 2 weeks before your next game.

[davell]

I'd rather go ahead and let the guys play. Don't take the pedal off the gas. You're already going to have a bye week, so getting a full games worth of reps this week is fine with me. Yeah, there's the injury risk, but to me, you either play all game or sit all game, since an injury can happen at any stage. And if you're already thinking about getting a half off or something, it may even allow for more mental lapses, possibly causing more of a chance of getting hurt anyway.

[Wilson A2000]

I know I am a bit late on this and didn't have the opportunity to post on it when it occurred, but did Hester pose like Tomlinson does after he caught that pass for a TD? Did LT think Hester was showing him up?

[UMFan83]

As far as resting players, the Bears really have very little to gain by playing their guys the entire game. The only thing they have to gain is I guess confidence by potentially beating the Packers, and less rust for their first game. What they have to lose? Injuries are the biggest thing. As someone mentioned before, I can easily see Cutler getting creamed on a blitz because the o-lines heads arent in the game. You can say all the right things, and you can really want to play hard to win, but deep down there is nothing to gain by winning, the players can't give it the 100% they need to win the game. On the other side of the ball, you have a team that needs to win to get in. This is the playoffs for them. They will deck one of our guys if they stand in the way of their playoff berth. So you have one team playing a glorified exhibition game and another team playing a playoff game. The results could be disasterous.

 

Chicago's offense has needed every snap all year to get to where they are, and they still have room to improve. There is something to be gained by playing a quality opponent at full capacity when you have 2 weeks before your next game.

 

That's a valid point. I guess I'm not sure the net benefit of that is worth the risk of injuries. I'm sort of dealing with gambler's falicy when I consider that though. I feel like because we've been so fortunate with injuries this year, we are due to suffer a major one playing in an insignificant game.

 

In 2005 I think resting our guys killed us and am still mad about that. Rex Grossman started 1 game and played in a half of another and for some reason did not even play the last game of the season against Minnesota. That game would have given Grossman valuable snaps against NFL competition. I believe that year he was hurt in the 1st preseason game, so he barely had any game action all year. He came out in the playoff game ice cold, he was something like 2 for his first 12 throws or something. He looked *ok* as the game went along but by then we were trailing.

 

In 2006 resting our guys didn't seem to hurt us, although we should have crushed that Seattle team. That team had several weeks of meaningless games, as I believe we cliched at least a bye with 3 games to go. They played their starters the whole game against TB, played them for a half against Detroit (I believe) and played them for a quarter or maybe a half against GB.

[Wilson A2000]

Grossman had a 0 passer rating that last game against Green Bay in 2006 with three interceptions, but he obviously did fine in the playoffs. This article said that there was some debate as to whether or not Rex would start the playoff game? I didn't remember that.

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20070505020051/http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/recap/NFL_20061231_GB@CHI

[Flames24Rulz]

Grossman had a 0 passer rating that last game against Green Bay in 2006 with three interceptions, but he obviously did fine in the playoffs. This article said that there was some debate as to whether or not Rex would start the playoff game? I didn't remember that.

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20070505020051/http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/recap/NFL_20061231_GB@CHI

 

Debate on sports radio, yes. Debate as to who was actually going to start that game, no.

[UMFan83]

lol, I love that article, from 2006, leading off with the Favre 'will he/won't he' discussion.

[Wilson A2000]

lol, I love that article, from 2006, leading off with the Favre 'will he/won't he' discussion.

 

I remember the speculation going on even before that. There was one particular game in Chicago where the Bears absolutely pummeled Favre to the point where he was almost seriously injured. The Packers were terrible that year and many thought that could be the end. I would not be surprised if Favre came back next year with a team that needed a QB just like Minnesota did. Maybe San Francisco, maybe Arizona.

[UMFan83]

Does anyone know if the 2011 schedules are going to follow the same format as previous years? I read somewhere that the schedule formatting was only in play until the CBA expires. I guess there's a lot up in the air (is there a season, will it be full or will games be lost due to lockout, will they goto 18 games), but based on the old schedule, the Bears 2011 opponents are just about set.

 

Home: Packers, Vikings, Lions, Falcons, Panthers, Raiders, Chargers, Rams/Seahawks

Road: Packers, Vikings, Lions, Saints, Buccaneers, Broncos, Chiefs, Eagles

[Garwilly]

Does anyone know if the 2011 schedules are going to follow the same format as previous years? I read somewhere that the schedule formatting was only in play until the CBA expires. I guess there's a lot up in the air (is there a season, will it be full or will games be lost due to lockout, will they goto 18 games), but based on the old schedule, the Bears 2011 opponents are just about set.

 

Home: Packers, Vikings, Lions, Falcons, Panthers, Raiders, Chargers, Rams/Seahawks

Road: Packers, Vikings, Lions, Saints, Buccaneers, Broncos, Chiefs, Eagles

 

A couple years ago, the pairings in the AFC West were switched from the Chiefs/Broncos (and Chargers/Raiders) playing the same inter-conference opponents at home or road, to Chiefs/Chargers and Broncos/Raiders.

 

I am sure that I butchered the phrasing on that, but ultimately, the home/road for the AFC West match ups are not simply the reverse of 2007.

[UMFan83]

Ahh yes I forgot about that. I read that on some website awhile ago

[UMFan83]

I thought this was interesting:

 

Green Bay is tied for the fourth fewest penalties in the NFL with 74. Remarkably, 18 of those (24.3 percent) came in the Bears' 20-17 victory in Week 3.

 

"It made me sick," McCarthy said of those penalties. "Clearly the penalties were the biggest factor in the outcome of the game, and there is no way around it."

[BigSlick]

playing the afc west and nfc west isn't too bad, probably the easiest two divisions we could play (of course that also means the rest of our division gets easier than usual games as well)

 

as a bears fan i'm fully prepared for our luck to peter out and us to be mediocre/bad again next year, so i fully anticipate us not taking advantage of the schedule

[bukie]

playing the afc west and nfc west isn't too bad, probably the easiest two divisions we could play (of course that also means the rest of our division gets easier than usual games as well)

 

as a bears fan i'm fully prepared for our luck to peter out and us to be mediocre/bad again next year, so i fully anticipate us not taking advantage of the schedule

Except that they're playing the AFC West and NFC South.

[BigSlick]

playing the afc west and nfc west isn't too bad, probably the easiest two divisions we could play (of course that also means the rest of our division gets easier than usual games as well)

 

as a bears fan i'm fully prepared for our luck to peter out and us to be mediocre/bad again next year, so i fully anticipate us not taking advantage of the schedule

Except that they're playing the AFC West and NFC South.

my bad, read it wrong, still not the worst draw