Wild Card Round: #7 Bears @ #2 Saints, 3:40 CT on 1/10

[UMFan83]

mineaswell start this one up.

 

Bears have injuries and are considered giant underdogs against the Saints. We will probably lose but who knows. Even though this is a middling team that proved it with their 8-8 record and +2 point differential for the season, as a fan its good to make the playoffs especially because there were maybe 3 seasons the last decade where we were on the cusp and couldn't break through. Thank for NFL for creating a playoff seed just for us.

 

First road playoff game in 26 years. Curious to hear how the Saints have played at home this year given the lack of crowds, I'd imagine it changes the HFA at least little.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

As I mentioned in the other thread, I found a random Bears ball marker on the golf course today in Southern California. I'm convinced it's a talisman of some sort, a sign of what's about to happen this week. I just don't know what it means.

 

It's not utterly impossible for the Bears to win this game. The Saints aren't as good as the Packers. The Bears already took them to OT once. The injury situation does look pretty bleak, tbh.

[UMFan83]

As I mentioned in the other thread, I found a random Bears ball marker on the golf course today in Southern California. I'm convinced it's a talisman of some sort, a sign of what's about to happen this week. I just don't know what it means.

 

It's not utterly impossible for the Bears to win this game. The Saints aren't as good as the Packers. The Bears already took them to OT once. The injury situation does look pretty bleak, tbh.

 

I was looking at a saints blog today and they were discussing the game earlier in the year. I had forgotten that they were without Michael Thomas and Emmanuel Sanders in that game. But Brees wasn't playing with broken ribs at that point either. He doesn't look 100% just looking at a few plays from last week.

 

It's not a secret that Brees is heavily rumored to be retiring after this season...can't think of a better way to go out than to lose at home to a crappy 8-8 team that snuck in as a 7 seed

[gflore34]

As I mentioned in the other thread, I found a random Bears ball marker on the golf course today in Southern California. I'm convinced it's a talisman of some sort, a sign of what's about to happen this week. I just don't know what it means.

 

It's not utterly impossible for the Bears to win this game. The Saints aren't as good as the Packers. The Bears already took them to OT once. The injury situation does look pretty bleak, tbh.

 

I was looking at a saints blog today and they were discussing the game earlier in the year. I had forgotten that they were without Michael Thomas and Emmanuel Sanders in that game. But Brees wasn't playing with broken ribs at that point either. He doesn't look 100% just looking at a few plays from last week.

 

It's not a secret that Brees is heavily rumored to be retiring after this season...can't think of a better way to go out than to lose at home to a crappy 8-8 team that snuck in as a 7 seed

 

That would be quite entertaining along, with whomever is going to replace Smith, Josh Woods?, getting a big sack or turnover and Wims or Miller catching a TD.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Bears have played in 5 Wild Card Games, this will be the 6th.

 

They've won 2, in 1994 (beat MN 35-18) and 1990 (bet NO 16-6)

 

I'm guessing we will be 2-4 after Sunday

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Brad Biggs[/url]"]Rumors have circulated in the last week that the Bears could target Kansas City Chiefs director of football operations Mike Borgonzi. This is speculation, but I heard this from two unrelated sources in the last few days, and with the Chiefs earning the No. 1 seed in the AFC playoffs, Borgonzi wouldn’t be available to be hired away until the season is complete for the defending Super Bowl champions.

 

Does that mean it’s Borgonzi or no one else? Absolutely not. But that’s a name that was churning in the rumor mill the past few days, and a quick hiring cycle this week by teams already looking for new a GM would not remove him from play. Obviously, there are many other people in consideration for GM jobs who are attached to playoff teams, but Borgonzi is the name I heard, and if the Bears would consider hiring a new GM to work with their current coach, he’s someone who could come in and have a preestablished relationship with Nagy.

[WrigleyField 22]

Brad Biggs[/url]"]Rumors have circulated in the last week that the Bears could target Kansas City Chiefs director of football operations Mike Borgonzi. This is speculation, but I heard this from two unrelated sources in the last few days, and with the Chiefs earning the No. 1 seed in the AFC playoffs, Borgonzi wouldn’t be available to be hired away until the season is complete for the defending Super Bowl champions.

 

Does that mean it’s Borgonzi or no one else? Absolutely not. But that’s a name that was churning in the rumor mill the past few days, and a quick hiring cycle this week by teams already looking for new a GM would not remove him from play. Obviously, there are many other people in consideration for GM jobs who are attached to playoff teams, but Borgonzi is the name I heard, and if the Bears would consider hiring a new GM to work with their current coach, he’s someone who could come in and have a preestablished relationship with Nagy.

Pre-existing relationship better not be part of the criteria if they make a change at GM.

[Derwood]

NO 35 - CHI - 13

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Brad Biggs[/url]"]Rumors have circulated in the last week that the Bears could target Kansas City Chiefs director of football operations Mike Borgonzi. This is speculation, but I heard this from two unrelated sources in the last few days, and with the Chiefs earning the No. 1 seed in the AFC playoffs, Borgonzi wouldn’t be available to be hired away until the season is complete for the defending Super Bowl champions.

 

Does that mean it’s Borgonzi or no one else? Absolutely not. But that’s a name that was churning in the rumor mill the past few days, and a quick hiring cycle this week by teams already looking for new a GM would not remove him from play. Obviously, there are many other people in consideration for GM jobs who are attached to playoff teams, but Borgonzi is the name I heard, and if the Bears would consider hiring a new GM to work with their current coach, he’s someone who could come in and have a preestablished relationship with Nagy.

Pre-existing relationship better not be part of the criteria if they make a change at GM.

 

While I agree, Borgonzi appears to be one of, if not the best GM candidate so I'm in. I'm more worried about rumors that they'd promote Pace and bring in Borgonzi as GM.

[WrigleyField 22]

Pre-existing relationship better not be part of the criteria if they make a change at GM.

 

While I agree, Borgonzi appears to be one of, if not the best GM candidate so I'm in. I'm more worried about rumors that they'd promote Pace and bring in Borgonzi as GM.

I'm not worried about that. Why would he take that job to be Pace's underling when there's several open gigs and he could be the unquestioned leader of a football ops?

[gflore34]

NO 35 - CHI - 13

 

Thinking it'll be closer maybe, 35-28 or so, some non-starter Bear is going to play out of his ass. Despite the loss, said player will give Bears fans and Pace the impression they've found something only to have that player disappear into the mist of next season.

[jersey cubs fan]

Pre-existing relationship better not be part of the criteria if they make a change at GM.

 

While I agree, Borgonzi appears to be one of, if not the best GM candidate so I'm in. I'm more worried about rumors that they'd promote Pace and bring in Borgonzi as GM.

I'm not worried about that. Why would he take that job to be Pace's underling when there's several open gigs and he could be the unquestioned leader of a football ops?

At the same time, if they did promote Pace and hire Borgonzi as a GM, the fact that he took that job would tell me he's comfortable with the level of control he'd have over the roster and other decisions going forward, so go for it.

[WrigleyField 22]

 

While I agree, Borgonzi appears to be one of, if not the best GM candidate so I'm in. I'm more worried about rumors that they'd promote Pace and bring in Borgonzi as GM.

I'm not worried about that. Why would he take that job to be Pace's underling when there's several open gigs and he could be the unquestioned leader of a football ops?

At the same time, if they did promote Pace and hire Borgonzi as a GM, the fact that he took that job would tell me he's comfortable with the level of control he'd have over the roster and other decisions going forward, so go for it.

I suppose so.

 

I'll also add I don't necessarily get the Borgonzi love other than, "hey grab the number 2 from the hottest team currently". Maybe it's just Nagy over correction, but I just don't love a guy who's only relevant experience basically is working with/under Reid. Give me the Dodd guy from IND over him.

[gflore34]

 

While I agree, Borgonzi appears to be one of, if not the best GM candidate so I'm in. I'm more worried about rumors that they'd promote Pace and bring in Borgonzi as GM.

I'm not worried about that. Why would he take that job to be Pace's underling when there's several open gigs and he could be the unquestioned leader of a football ops?

At the same time, if they did promote Pace and hire Borgonzi as a GM, the fact that he took that job would tell me he's comfortable with the level of control he'd have over the roster and other decisions going forward, so go for it.

 

Why not give a try? Of course, success with the Chiefs doesn't translate into success elsewhere, hitting on Maholmes like they did, while a product of good scouting, there's still an element of luck or an uncontrollable variable that broke in their favor, something that cannot be replicated. I'm all for keeping Pace, if he has to be retained, and bringing a new GM , along with keeping Pace as far away from remedying the QB as possible. Later rounds of the draft, fine, QB and first round pick? No, hard pass on Pace calling the shots.

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

While I agree, Borgonzi appears to be one of, if not the best GM candidate so I'm in. I'm more worried about rumors that they'd promote Pace and bring in Borgonzi as GM.

I'm not worried about that. Why would he take that job to be Pace's underling when there's several open gigs and he could be the unquestioned leader of a football ops?

At the same time, if they did promote Pace and hire Borgonzi as a GM, the fact that he took that job would tell me he's comfortable with the level of control he'd have over the roster and other decisions going forward, so go for it.

 

I cant see Ryan Pace giving up any control over roster decisions. Building the roster was supposedly why we hired him.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm not worried about that. Why would he take that job to be Pace's underling when there's several open gigs and he could be the unquestioned leader of a football ops?

At the same time, if they did promote Pace and hire Borgonzi as a GM, the fact that he took that job would tell me he's comfortable with the level of control he'd have over the roster and other decisions going forward, so go for it.

 

I cant see Ryan Pace giving up any control over roster decisions. Building the roster was supposedly why we hired him.

I can't see him moving up the ladder regardless, since he's in his early 40s with less than two decades of experience and very limited success.

 

He's way too young to be ready to take a step back from day to day ops, unless he's got other stuff going on in his personal life.

 

I haven't seen any real rumors that he was going to get promoted with a GM coming in under him, was just responding to others mentioning such an idea.

[UMFan83]

Mitch's pass chart last week:

 

 

Looks like he went 2-7 with an interception on passes thrown 6+ yards beyond the LOS

[WrigleyField 22]

Mitch's pass chart last week:

 

 

Looks like he went 2-7 with an interception on passes thrown 6+ yards beyond the LOS

It was probably the right game plan. But helps underscore his limitations and that the prior 3 game run was a mirage. I'm back down to maxing his guaranteed money on a new deal to like 10M tops (and I still feel awfully generous).

[UMFan83]

Mitch's pass chart last week:

 

 

Looks like he went 2-7 with an interception on passes thrown 6+ yards beyond the LOS

It was probably the right game plan. But helps underscore his limitations and that the prior 3 game run was a mirage. I'm back down to maxing his guaranteed money on a new deal to like 10M tops (and I still feel awfully generous).

 

I think its a better game plan for this upcoming game with the Saints pass D, but I think you need to open it up a little more otherwise the defense has to play a near perfect game to win. That may be the case regardless.

 

Either way, I'm sick of having a QB that you have to build game plans like this around, especially in this era of NFL football, but that's conversation for a different time.

[WrigleyField 22]

I definitely think they can be more agressive against the Saints, on both sides of the ball. They don't have to worry as much about Brees torching them as Rodgers.

 

The GB game plan was basically like the game plan of a midmajor upsetting in the tourney. Slow the game down enough that there's less overall possessions so you open up the roll that luck/variance plays. If you limit mistakes and capitalize on one or two bounces, you pull off the upset. So, yea, probably similar game plan, but with a little more margin for error where you could take more shots and actually try to stress their D and O a little bit and create opportunities rather than just hope opportunities appear.

[gflore34]

Mitch's pass chart last week:

 

 

Looks like he went 2-7 with an interception on passes thrown 6+ yards beyond the LOS

It was probably the right game plan. But helps underscore his limitations and that the prior 3 game run was a mirage. I'm back down to maxing his guaranteed money on a new deal to like 10M tops (and I still feel awfully generous).

 

It's all you've got with Mitch, in what was, at the time, a must win game, what else could they do?

 

Against the Saints I see no reason not to go balls to the walls aggressive with Mitch, who cares if it results in multiple TO's and Saints a route? We know the short passes, runs eat the clock rely on the defense won't work, for one game, the dip horsefeathers could look competent. Plus, in recent years, the Saints have found all kinds of new and creative ways to lose in the playoffs, wouldn't losing to Bears with Mitch playing the game of life just be the cherry on top?

[gflore34]

I definitely think they can be more agressive against the Saints, on both sides of the ball. They don't have to worry as much about Brees torching them as Rodgers.

 

The GB game plan was basically like the game plan of a midmajor upsetting in the tourney. Slow the game down enough that there's less overall possessions so you open up the roll that luck/variance plays. If you limit mistakes and capitalize on one or two bounces, you pull off the upset. So, yea, probably similar game plan, but with a little more margin for error where you could take more shots and actually try to stress their D and O a little bit and create opportunities rather than just hope opportunities appear.

 

Exactly, they've nothing to lose, all the pressure to succeed is on the Saints don't know if that makes a difference with professional athletes but, hell, why not?

[raw]

While the game was competitive, the Bears called very few plays with routes beyond that 6-yard depth. It was pretty pathetic actually. The only ones I truly remember are the 3rd play of the game (really high to Mooney) and the deep ball to Mooney. Other than that, they didn't open up the field until the Bears were down 2 scores. Mitch threw the pick the first time they opened it up. Then kept checking it down.

 

FWIW, the pass chart vs. Houston looks very similar. The Bears just had astronomical YAC numbers in that game.

[UMFan83]

It was probably the right game plan. But helps underscore his limitations and that the prior 3 game run was a mirage. I'm back down to maxing his guaranteed money on a new deal to like 10M tops (and I still feel awfully generous).

 

It's all you've got with Mitch, in what was, at the time, a must win game, what else could they do?

 

Against the Saints I see no reason not to go balls to the walls aggressive with Mitch, who cares if it results in multiple TO's and Saints a route? We know the short passes, runs eat the clock rely on the defense won't work, for one game, the dip horsefeathers could look competent. Plus, in recent years, the Saints have found all kinds of new and creative ways to lose in the playoffs, wouldn't losing to Bears with Mitch playing the game of life just be the cherry on top?

 

I'm confused why you think it was ok against the Packers but that they should go aggressive with the Saints who are a better pass defense. If the logic is to control TOP and slow the game down to offset a bad offense, I'd think that would be the same strategy against the Saints even if they potentially have a less explosive offense (though not dramatically with their playmakers)

[gflore34]

It was probably the right game plan. But helps underscore his limitations and that the prior 3 game run was a mirage. I'm back down to maxing his guaranteed money on a new deal to like 10M tops (and I still feel awfully generous).

 

It's all you've got with Mitch, in what was, at the time, a must win game, what else could they do?

 

Against the Saints I see no reason not to go balls to the walls aggressive with Mitch, who cares if it results in multiple TO's and Saints a route? We know the short passes, runs eat the clock rely on the defense won't work, for one game, the dip horsefeathers could look competent. Plus, in recent years, the Saints have found all kinds of new and creative ways to lose in the playoffs, wouldn't losing to Bears with Mitch playing the game of life just be the cherry on top?

 

I'm confused why you think it was ok against the Packers but that they should go aggressive with the Saints who are a better pass defense. If the logic is to control TOP and slow the game down to offset a bad offense, I'd think that would be the same strategy against the Saints even if they potentially have a less explosive offense (though not dramatically with their playmakers)

 

Odds are neither approach will work but, I'm of the mind the Saints are expecting a very conservative approach but, Bears go aggressive, it may surprise them and work. Also, it doesn't matter, this is one of those games where they can go out and have "fun" attempting this or that, they've nothing to lose. I'd like to see Mitch look like a franchise play making QB for one game, I think there's a higher probability of that happening with a chance taking aggressive game plan.