UMFan83

For anyone that didn't see that... Syracuse was up 8 over KState with 1:20 left in the game when KState scored a TD. The guy who ran the TD in, dropped the ball and saluted the crowd and then turned and ran back to the sidelines. He didn't do any other celebrations other than the brief salute. So he was flagged for excessive celebration and the 15 yard penalty was enforced on the PAT, meaning they had to try for a 2 point conversion from the 18 yard line instead of the 3. Of course they couldn't convert and Syracuse is gonna win by 2.

What what an awful borderline penalty that destroys a critical play.

I dont know. The entire argument is odd. He has been in the league for at least 6-7 years, with numerous teams and given big roles in other teams offenses. He's been given extended chances to produce and hasn't produced like he has this year. I remember when he came to the Bears people kept saying he was a great preseason/practice player but when the curtain goes up he's very average. We only had him for 1 season. If anything it would seem he's talking about SF since that's where he began his career and spent by far the most time.

It's impossible to judge a schedule before the season. Coming into this season, many people thought we had a really tough schedule, but it turned out to be one of the easier ones until this recent stretch.

I thought this was interesting:

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

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

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

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.

I think I heard she wanted him punished, not that she was demanding a suspension. True, but his fine wasn't actually for misconduct with Sterger. The statement the NFL released said that they couldn't find/prove any misconduct and that the $50k fine was because Favre wouldn't cooperate with the investigation in a timely manner or something. So basically they did not punish Favre for what he did with Sterger.

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.

for who? or is it for whom? I've always wanted to play the Packers in the playoffs but this season, I'm really glad we avoided it. I would want to come into that game as the inferior wild card team where a loss is expected and a win brings unbridled joy. In a situation where the Bears finish 11-5, win the North and play a WC Packers team that most people believe is better than the Bears, it just sets the fans up for a deflating loss. A win would still bring a ton of happiness, but a loss would be more crushing.

Wow, I might go out of my way and put some money on the Packers then. They'll take this in double digits, I mean, given Lovie's history, Caleb Hanie is going to have serious minutes in the second half. I don't think Calib Hanie will play at all. My guess is Cutler in the first half and the backup QB Collins in the 2nd. Hanie will probably be active in the game instead of emergency 3rd QB like he is most games but I don't think he'll play. They had their chance to remove Collins as the backup QB, and they moved him back in there, so obviously they believe Collins is their man if Jay goes down.

Wasn't Sterger threatening legal action on the league if they didn't suspend Favre? I was assuming that was part of the reason the decision was being held up so long.

I think Packers fans just want to get in. Most of them believe they are as talented, if not more, as any other NFC team and if given the opportunity, can make a run to the Super Bowl. All you can do at this point is accept the position you are in and figure out a way to just get in. BTW, if Lovie's priorities this Sunday include finishing with a 6-0 division record, and beating GB, he's got his priorities mixed up. It would be cool seeing a 6-0 division record, as I believe I read that no NFC North team has done that since play began.

I believe the after division record (which would be tied at 9-3 in the Bears won and Falcons lost), the next tiebreaker is record vs. common opponents (minimum of 4) Here are the 4 common opponents between the Falcons and Bears: Eagles (Falcons lost, Bears won) Packers (Falcons won, Bears won twice) Carolina (Falcons went 1-1, Bears won) Seattle (Falcons won, Bears lost) That would put the Falcons at 3-2, the Bears 4-1, thus winning the tiebreaker over them. If the Saints won, they'd win the South and win the conference record tiebreaker over the Bears (10-2 vs. 9-3)

It would really suck to see the Bears have so few injuries during the first 15 games, only to suffer a serious injury or two while playing to win a mostly meaningless game. Other than injury concern, playing the starters is a win/win situation. With the bye coming up, I don't want rust becoming a concern, which could happen with 2 whole weeks off instead of just 1. Look at how rusty the defense was in 2005, and how rusty Grossman was. If we actually manage to beat the Packers, it would only give us more confidence going into the playoffs, and would most likely take a dangerous opponent out of the playoff picture. If we started to get blown out, we can pull the starters and I don't think confidence would suffer as most players would say that their heads weren't 100% in the game, being meaningless and all.

The NFC south games are both at noon and will be over by kickoff of the Bears game. Yes, that was what I was implying. Gotcha now.

The NFC south games are both at noon and will be over by kickoff of the Bears game.

This is a bad game for Vegas. Isn't there a chance that the Bears could have their position locked up before the game and that the starters could get pulled? Has Lovie commented on if he will do that yet? I think Lovie said he wants to beat the Packers at all times and would be playing to win no matter what. That wasn't the case in 2006.

The Bears still haven't played on Wild Card weekend since 1994. The last 4 Bears playoff appearances have come with byes.

I would think they would play at least a half. But as Al Michaels pointed out, the Bears will know by the time they take the field if they have anything to play for as the Saints and Falcons both play at noon. Not that the Panthers will actually beat the Falcons but yeah.

This is just bizarre. I never expected to clinch the bye without having to beat the Packers. Never considered the possibility for the game to be (almost) meaningless for the Bears. If the Vikings finish this off, its just another in a season of improbable breaks for the Bears. I am not complaining at all, I'm actually in love with it. I now expect Todd Collins to lead the Bears to a victory over the Packers while the Panthers beat the Falcons and Bucs beat the Saints.

The last time Thome was in the NL was with the Dodgers in 09, who traded for him knowing that he could not play in the field. He was nothing but a pinch hitter. Based on his year last year, I doubt he'll accept a similar role for a team not overly likely to contend. I call BS.

A rare Chicago sports sweep today. Bears, Bulls and Hawks all win. Great 3rd for the Hawks.