jersey cubs fan

I'm not even sure if it was about being loopy. But gun shy is more what I would describe it as. And the lack of cohesiveness for an offense with a new coordinator, no established receivers and an ever changing line made for a sloppy game. Briggs is important but it's not like the defense gave up a ton of points without him. Seattle's offense scored 21. True, but you'd have to think with Briggs in there it would help in the defense getting off the field faster. Although the Seahawks only scored 21 on offense, they dominated time of possession 34-25. Of course part of that is because the Bears had several really short drives, and punted I believe 6 times. The defense gave up 3.6 yards per rush, which is less than their 3.7 season average. They were beaten through the air because they didn't touch Hasselback and it's not like Briggs makes a huge difference in pressuring the QB. Seattle needed a lot to win that game. Chicago's offense was still developing, and they were dealing with a QB coming off a concussion in his first game back. The line was in shambles and Briggs was out. They also had the bye week to prepare. On its own I really think a more stable and established Cutler makes the biggest difference now. The other stuff just adds to the reasons why Chicago should handle the Seahawks. A loss would be a huge disappointment and should at least take years off the inevitable Lovie extension. Maybe they only add one season. Getting to the conf championship game will get him 3.

I'm not even sure if it was about being loopy. But gun shy is more what I would describe it as. And the lack of cohesiveness for an offense with a new coordinator, no established receivers and an ever changing line made for a sloppy game. Briggs is important but it's not like the defense gave up a ton of points without him. Seattle's offense scored 21.

No, because the second someone picks off the pass, he's kneeling down, because the game's over. Sure, if the pick is deep over the middle. But considering how often pick 6's come off passes in the flat where there is nothing but clear sailing for the defender, you have to think most guys are staying upright and running it in to clinch the game. A safety coming off a possession that starts with a kickoff, instead of a punt deep inside the 5, turnover on downs following a goal line stand or red zone turnover, is highly unlikely.

I don't really think this claim makes much sense. People make threats to every person who makes a high profile mistake. It doesn't matter if the person "doesn't bat an eye" or actually shows remorse for the mistake.

Post-concussion Cutler is the biggest, but those two mattered as well. I would have preferred to face New Orleans in Chicago again, but I think the Bears show up and impress this weekend. I don't know if you can definitively say that post-concussion Cutler was the biggest issue. We simply don't know how severe the concussion was 2 weeks prior. Rodgers returned 2 weeks after his 2nd concussion of the year and threw for 400 yards and 4 TDs. I'm willing to accept it as a possibility, but I don't think you can say with certainty the concussion affected Cutler any more than a crappy o-line, lack of running game and bad playcalling did. He sure as hell looked goofy to me. They were still developing as an offense and the concussion delayed that development by a few weeks at least.

Post-concussion Cutler is the biggest, but those two mattered as well. I would have preferred to face New Orleans in Chicago again, but I think the Bears show up and impress this weekend.

Better yet... Vance's is better. With the Super Mario Bros? Whatever... My favorite is #22, not just for getting pushed around like a rag doll, but for giving up completely on the 22 yard line. What a pathetic show.

My guess is they would both serve their time in the countries where they live, and where the crimes occured.

I wouldn't either. A team traveling out west in front of that type of environment, and Hasselbeck should be good to go as well. I'm sure New Orleans is still going to win, but it definitely wouldn't surprise me if Seattle won. Well if Hasselbeck plays I would be surprised if Seattle wins.

That makes a lot of sense, but I really think they want to do something about the worthless preseason games and how it's hurting the fan experience of attending. Despite most of the money being in TV, they still want full stadiums of excited fans. They've gotten a lot of blowback from season ticket holders who either get screwed by having to buy those, or just don't buy them at all. They also want to expand international regular season games, which means for some fans that is just 7 meaningful games and 2 worthless ones. I think they want to keep 10 home dates for everybody, but only having 1 exhibition.

But it was ok to throw him the ball 10 times? I like how you keep ignoring that. If you think about the stupid question you are asking maybe you will realize why I'm not paying much attention to it. They did throw him the ball. He did touch the ball. He did run 15 times and caught 8 officially plus a couple more. What somebody is complaning about is that he should have had even more. I don't think that makes any sense. But receptions aren't the same as runs from a physical exertion/toll standpoint.

He got those touches already though, so why would it not make sense for me to not want him to get a lot more? Receptions aren't the same risk as simply pounding the ball over and over on the run. He already got as many touches in that game than he has since Miami. He ran 14, 13, 9, 17 and 19 in the games leading up to this one. I really don't see the point in giving him much more than he did. They played the game at full strength, but there was no good reason to go above and beyond, especially when it came to the running back who is backed up by a bum. I don't see the point in unnecessarily exposing him to more risk, and I don't see the point of a Bears fan wanting them to do that. A Giants fan? Sure. But a Bears fan should not care about that.

He got 15 carries, I'm really not sure what you're complaining about. Basically, I'm saying either [expletive] or get off the pot. Why? Why is it better to go all out. They gave proper effort and tried to win the game, but they were never going to put everything on the line for that game. It would make no sense to do so. They played it as it should have been played and are now ready for the playoffs. Bitching about Forte not running more yesterday just doesn't make sense. Ok. You don't want to understand my point. I don't feel like beating my head against a wall. No, I don't understand your point. There is no reason to go balls to the wall in that situation. They gave an honest effort, but running Forte over and over and over wasn't the best for the team. Trying to keep the line/cutler/wr learning was the best they could hope for (and they mostly failed).

I really hope they are considering dealing some of these guys to plan for the future.

I would be ecstatic. Go Green Bay and Seattle!

He got 15 carries, I'm really not sure what you're complaining about. Basically, I'm saying either [expletive] or get off the pot. Why? Why is it better to go all out. They gave proper effort and tried to win the game, but they were never going to put everything on the line for that game. It would make no sense to do so. They played it as it should have been played and are now ready for the playoffs. Bitching about Forte not running more yesterday just doesn't make sense.

He got 15 carries, I'm really not sure what you're complaining about. He's complaining because your argument makes no sense. You say there's more likely to be an injury running the ball, so instead of taking people out you just don't run the ball. That makes no sense. And your "only" 15 carries doesn't make any sense considering he had 8 catches, and 2 more than got called back due to penalty or the Matthews sack. So, he had basically 25 touches. Which you also argued that Forte has more wear and tear. I don't think it's hard to understand the concept behind playing your starters but not overexposing them to risk. Forte had 15 carries and what'shisname is crying that he didn't get more. There really wasn't much of a good reason to give him more. They went out and played a vanilla game and put in a decent effort but were not going to go balls to the wall, and they shouldn't have. Complaining that Forte didn't run enough yesterday just does not make any sense for a Bears fan.

Combine that with McFadden being on my fantasy team and I was a big Raiders fan this year

I don't think it'll be that high. Somewhere in the 13-14 range. High but not unheard of for a playoff game. I believe the Packers Patriots Super Bowl was 17. It's probably unheard of for a home team to be that much of an underdog in a playoff game, though. I'm seeing 10.

He got 15 carries, I'm really not sure what you're complaining about.

Running the football is probably the riskiest thing you can do from a health standpoint. I'm very happy they limited Forte's carries. But he still got it 15 times. Riskier than dropping back the QB and letting him get sacked 6 times? If limiting injury was the point, then put in backups. Yes, running the ball is a greater injury risk than a QB taking sacks. That mileage takes a toll on a back, and with Forte already going through that rookie year he had any chance the Bears can take to limit his touches is a good thing for his future, and theirs. That's both in terms of near term and future.

No idea about the lockout. I'd have no problem with an 18 game season, but that is going to definitely involve 2 less preseason games, keeping the total at 20, or 10 home gates per team. I'd hate to see an NBA style soft cap. The NFL's cap works perfectly fine as is and I hope they keep it, with some modification to rookie pools.

Somebody is coming to Chicago in 2 weeks. If current seeds hold, Philly would be coming in for a revenge game. If the dogs wins, the Bears would get another crack at the juggernaut Seahawks team. If Green Bay pulls off the road upset and New Orleans wins, as they should, then the Saints come back to Chicago for the first time since 2008 and the Bears would be looking to extend their winning streak against New Orleans to five. Obviously the two most likely opponents are New Orleans and Philly, which are both playing their own rematch games this coming weekend. Everybody in this playoff group is beatable. Philly hasn't looked impressive for 60 minutes of football since the week after losing to the Bears, when they came from behind against Houston. For some it took the Vikings loss to "prove they were beatable". New Orleans was sloppy in the first half of the season, rolled through the midsection with five straight 30 points games, then slipped at the end with losses to Baltimore and Tampa and an average of just 18 points per game. Seattle sucks at football. And the two teams Chicago can't meet until a potential conference championship matchup will be discussed at a later date.

Running the football is probably the riskiest thing you can do from a health standpoint. I'm very happy they limited Forte's carries. But he still got it 15 times.

I don't get all the "they shouldn't have done it" talk. It is really hard to win in baseball without impact players, and they were lacking them, especially with pitching.