Week 16: Bears (8-6) @ Eagles (8-6) 7:30 PM NBC

[Guest]

The Bears have had a couple of games they should have won this year, but the Lions seem like they've had a lot of games that were basically won and then given away at the end. Not that I'm complaining.

[Pushfrog98]

Pettigrew: "What?" or "Why?"

 

Haha.

 

I'm deaf and wear cochlear implants so I'm pretty good at reading lips and that's look like "What?". It's even funnier when you notice he smacked Megatron's ass right before that. LOL

I hadn't even noticed!

[Wilson A2000]

If the Bears got to the NFC Championship game, would they get home field against a wild card team with a better record?

[Cubswin11]

If the Bears got to the NFC Championship game, would they get home field against a wild card team with a better record?

I believe WC teams can't have home games, unless both WC would meet up then the better record would get home field. I think.

[rawaction]

If the Bears got to the NFC Championship game, would they get home field against a wild card team with a better record?

 

Yep.

[rawaction]

If Detroit loses and Green Bay and Dallas win early on Sunday, this game means nothing for either team.

[Guest]

If Detroit loses and Green Bay and Dallas win early on Sunday, this game means nothing for either team.

 

Even for seeding?

[rawaction]

If Detroit loses and Green Bay and Dallas win early on Sunday, this game means nothing for either team.

 

Even for seeding?

 

Well yeah, but I don't know if teams really care about seeding, especially when it's not for #1.

[UMFan83]

If the Bears got to the NFC Championship game, would they get home field against a wild card team with a better record?

 

Yep.

 

Happened in 2009 when #4 seed Arizona (9-7) hosted #6 seed Philadelphia (9-6-1) in the NFC Championship game.

[Guest]

@AdamHoge: Dan Patrick, who works on the NBC broadcasts, just said he thinks #Bears-Packers will be flexed in Week 17 if there are multiple options.

[JonJayCutler]

Updated playoff odds according to FO:

 

Bears: 61.1%

Lions: 19.9%

Packers: 19.0%

 

I wish I had as much confidence as they do of a Week 17 win.

[UMFan83]

@AdamHoge: Dan Patrick, who works on the NBC broadcasts, just said he thinks #Bears-Packers will be flexed in Week 17 if there are multiple options.

 

The only options I see right now are Eagles-Cowboys, Bears-Packers, and Bengals-Ravens. Again, NBC wants to pick a game that is guaranteed to have playoff implications, and not just seeding and byes, they are looking for games where one or more teams have to win to make the playoffs or else they go home.

[Guest]

@AdamHoge: Dan Patrick, who works on the NBC broadcasts, just said he thinks #Bears-Packers will be flexed in Week 17 if there are multiple options.

 

What does that mean?

 

Basically, if the Bears don't clinch this week?

[Guest]

@AdamHoge: Dan Patrick, who works on the NBC broadcasts, just said he thinks #Bears-Packers will be flexed in Week 17 if there are multiple options.

 

What does that mean?

 

Basically, if the Bears don't clinch this week?

 

Yeah, if the Bears haven't clinched after this weekend, Dan Patrick thinks the Bears week 17 game will be flexed over any other game with big playoff implications (the ones UMF listed).

[jersey cubs fan]

@AdamHoge: Dan Patrick, who works on the NBC broadcasts, just said he thinks #Bears-Packers will be flexed in Week 17 if there are multiple options.

 

What does that mean?

 

Basically, if the Bears don't clinch this week?

 

I don't get your question. It seems pretty clear what that means.

[Guest]

@AdamHoge: Dan Patrick, who works on the NBC broadcasts, just said he thinks #Bears-Packers will be flexed in Week 17 if there are multiple options.

 

What does that mean?

 

Basically, if the Bears don't clinch this week?

 

I don't get your question. It seems pretty clear what that means.

 

I don't get your statement. It seems pretty clear what my question means, especially after I expanded on it with my second question.

 

 

It's an odd phrasing, at the very least. Why not just say "if the Bears/Packers game has playoff implications?"

[CubColtPacer]

Bears/Packers will only be flexed if the Lions are eliminated. I can see it being chosen over Cowboys/Eagles in that scenario although it would be close. I don't see them choosing Ravens/Bengals unless they have to, although that game will almost certainly not be a 1:00 game because it has the potential to affect so many other games.

[UMFan83]

Bears/Packers will only be flexed if the Lions are eliminated. I can see it being chosen over Cowboys/Eagles in that scenario although it would be close. I don't see them choosing Ravens/Bengals unless they have to, although that game will almost certainly not be a 1:00 game because it has the potential to affect so many other games.

 

I think there's a scenario where the Lions aren't eliminated but the Bears-Packers game has guaranteed implications

 

Week 16:

Bears lose

Lions win

Packers win

 

Packers 8-6-1

Lions 8-7

Bears 8-7

 

Setting up the following scenario:

 

Lions clinch with a win and Packers loss

Bears clinch with a win and Lions loss

Packers clinch with a win

 

So even if the Lions win, it would be a guaranteed win or go home scenario for the Packers.

 

So would NBC take that over a Cowboys-Eagles game where the winner goes to the playoffs and the loser goes home? It's unclear from that tidbit. I'd think they would go for the NFC East game, but who knows.

 

I agree it's unlikely they chose Bengals-Ravens, but if there's a scenario where Bengals-Ravens can affect the following teams playoff chances in terms of seeding, byes and even making the playoffs: Colts, Patriots, Bengals, Ravens, Dolphins, they might opt for that to draw more viewers in.

[jersey cubs fan]

@AdamHoge: Dan Patrick, who works on the NBC broadcasts, just said he thinks #Bears-Packers will be flexed in Week 17 if there are multiple options.

 

What does that mean?

 

Basically, if the Bears don't clinch this week?

 

I don't get your question. It seems pretty clear what that means.

 

I don't get your statement. It seems pretty clear what my question means, especially after I expanded on it with my second question.

 

 

It's an odd phrasing, at the very least. Why not just say "if the Bears/Packers game has playoff implications?"

Because his statement very easy to interpret at first glance.

[SouthSideRyan]

Bears/Packers will only be flexed if the Lions are eliminated. I can see it being chosen over Cowboys/Eagles in that scenario although it would be close. I don't see them choosing Ravens/Bengals unless they have to, although that game will almost certainly not be a 1:00 game because it has the potential to affect so many other games.

 

I think there's a scenario where the Lions aren't eliminated but the Bears-Packers game has guaranteed implications

 

Week 16:

Bears lose

Lions win

Packers win

 

Packers 8-6-1

Lions 8-7

Bears 8-7

 

Setting up the following scenario:

 

Lions clinch with a win and Packers loss

Bears clinch with a win and Lions loss

Packers clinch with a win

 

So even if the Lions win, it would be a guaranteed win or go home scenario for the Packers.

 

So would NBC take that over a Cowboys-Eagles game where the winner goes to the playoffs and the loser goes home? It's unclear from that tidbit. I'd think they would go for the NFC East game, but who knows.

 

I agree it's unlikely they chose Bengals-Ravens, but if there's a scenario where Bengals-Ravens can affect the following teams playoff chances in terms of seeding, byes and even making the playoffs: Colts, Patriots, Bengals, Ravens, Dolphins, they might opt for that to draw more viewers in.

 

They'd take the Eagles-Cowboys game because there'd be a chance the Bears would have nothing to play for

[Guest]

Because his statement very easy to interpret at first glance.

 

Please definitively interpret it for me then. I am not as smart as you.

 

Why/how wouldn't there be multiple options?

 

If there aren't multiple options, why wouldn't it still be Bears/Packers if it would be Bears/Packers if there were multiple options?

[jersey cubs fan]

Because his statement very easy to interpret at first glance.

 

Please definitively interpret it for me then. I am not as smart as you.

 

Why/how wouldn't there be multiple options?

 

If there aren't multiple options, why wouldn't it still be Bears/Packers if it would be Bears/Packers if there were multiple options?

 

Oh my god you are really trying to prove that you were confused by that simple statement?

[Guest]

Because his statement very easy to interpret at first glance.

 

Please definitively interpret it for me then. I am not as smart as you.

 

Why/how wouldn't there be multiple options?

 

If there aren't multiple options, why wouldn't it still be Bears/Packers if it would be Bears/Packers if there were multiple options?

 

Oh my god you are really trying to prove that you were confused by that simple statement?

 

I wasn't confused. It was an oddly phrased statement that I was able to interpret in spite of that.

 

Multiple options of what? What the hell way of phrasing that is that?

[Guest]

Would just like to add that jersey nitpicking the fact that I'm nitpicking something simple might be the most amazing thing that has ever happened on this board.

[imb]

[expletive] OFF GOONY