2010-2011 NFC North Division

[drewm88]

BTW, if the Bears scored a TD at the end there, I am pretty sure they would have gone for two.  How nerve-wracking would that have been?

I'm sure they would have. They didn't need the win, and they wouldn't want to put their guys out there for any additional time in OT. I was terrified of this.

Thank God the Packers' D was awesome.

[Dish]

I'm sure they would have. They didn't need the win, and they wouldn't want to put their guys out there for any additional time in OT. I was terrified of this.

Thank God the Packers' D was awesome.

They absolutely would have went for 2 had they scored, that would have been an incredible moment.

[JWags85]

(unfortunately "Bad Jay" made a couple appearances which isn't very reassuring for the playoffs).

In Cutler's defense, Lovie's gameplan basically had him handing off and doing alot of nothing all game, so by the time that potential game tying drive went around, you needed 100% of Cutler when he wasn't in any sort of rhythm.  I have no clue what the hell Lovie was doing.

[MerrittsMustache]

In Cutler's defense, Lovie's gameplan basically had him handing off and doing alot of nothing all game, so by the time that potential game tying drive went around, you needed 100% of Cutler when he wasn't in any sort of rhythm.  I have no clue what the hell Lovie was doing.

The Bears had a vanilla gameplan because they didn't want to show too much to their future playoff opponents. That's what Lovie was doing.

They also called 18 running plays and 47 pass plays so I'd hardly say that Cutler was doing a lot of handing off. If anything, I would have like to see the Bears run the ball more considering Forte averaged over 6 yards per carry.

[Hards Alumni]

The Bears had a vanilla gameplan because they didn't want to show too much to their future playoff opponents. That's what Lovie was doing.

They also called 18 running plays and 47 pass plays so I'd hardly say that Cutler was doing a lot of handing off. If anything, I would have like to see the Bears run the ball more considering Forte averaged over 6 yards per carry.

Seriously, we are 16 games into the NFL season.  That is 16 games of scouting that every coach has on every team.

You can't be serious when you say they had a vanilla gameplan because they didn't want to 'show too much'.  What a joke.

[reinko]

Seriously, we are 16 games into the NFL season.  That is 16 games of scouting that every coach has on every team.

You can't be serious when you say they had a vanilla gameplan because they didn't want to 'show too much'.  What a joke.

Jay Cutler only pretended to overthrow or underthrow either other ball.  You know, he didn't want to show everyone the magic.  Also the OL purposely let the Packers sack Cutler, you know, not wanting to show off too many blocking schemes.

[MerrittsMustache]

If you guys truly think that the Bears pulled out everything that they had and gameplanned for this game the same as they would have if it were played when it mattered to them, you're kidding yourselves. That doesn't mean they weren't trying to win the game. It means that they went with their basic schemes, kept it simple and still hoped to come out with a W. That's not earth-shattering stuff or a conspiracy theory or anything. That's what teams do when they wrap up a playoff spot early.

[Benny B]

Jay Cutler only pretended to overthrow or underthrow either other ball.  You know, he didn't want to show everyone the magic.  Also the OL purposely let the Packers sack Cutler, you know, not wanting to show off too many blocking schemes.

Don't forget to mention that Cutler deliberately threw two interceptions to keep the game close.  Either that or he must have had the Green Bay DST.

[ATWizJr]

If you guys truly think that the Bears pulled out everything that they had and gameplanned for this game the same as they would have if it were played when it mattered to them, you're kidding yourselves. That doesn't mean they weren't trying to win the game. It means that they went with their basic schemes, kept it simple and still hoped to come out with a W. That's not earth-shattering stuff or a conspiracy theory or anything. That's what teams do when they wrap up a playoff spot early.

No, what teams do when they wrap up a playoff spot early is to rest their starters and pull most of them after 1/4 to 1/2 of the game (see Belicheck, Bill).  Ergo, the game was very meaningful to the Bears, and losing it is a bitter defeat to a divisional rival who now has the psychological advantage.  You're whistling past the graveyard, pal.  Keep trying to put lipstick on that pig, though.

[Stringer Bellenson]

No, what teams do when they wrap up a playoff spot early is to rest their starters and pull most of them after 1/4 to 1/2 of the game (see Belicheck, Bill).  Ergo, the game was very meaningful to the Bears, and losing it is a bitter defeat to a divisional rival who now has the psychological advantage.  You're whistling past the graveyard, pal.  Keep trying to put lipstick on that pig, though.

Typical delusional cheesehead.  I'm curious as to just how exactly that game was "very meaningful" to the Bears?  Considering in reality that the game actually was "very meaningful" to the Packers, it wasn't all that impressive.  A psychological advantage?  Sure bud.  It was a home game that was essentially a playoff game and the Pack barely scraped it out.  Everyone knows Cutler and the line suck it up every couple of weeks, so this isn't anything new and it rarely happens in back to back performances.  In fact, the psychological advantage should go to the bears offense, because last time they played that poorly, the Patriots laid a beating on them at home.  They lost by a team on the road by 7 that had absolutely everything to lose.  The reason the Packers won this game was their weenie punter.  Bears had crap field position all game because that guy kept the ball out of Hester's hands and instead of starting at midfield they were backed up against their own goal all second half.

Hopefully they meet again, but before that happens the Pack will have to get past Vick.  Vick clowned the Pack once (Bears are one of the only teams to stop him).  You could get away with blitzing every down against the useless Bears line, especially when they're hottest receiver (Bennet) is out, but good luck doing that against Vick.  He'll be running thirty yards up the middle of the field while Woodson and every linebacker are blitzing off the edge.  If that isn't the case, it will be D Jax running down the sideline wide open for Vick's bomb TD passes or Macklin catching wide open slants over the middle while Woodson and Canseco, I mean Matthews are whiffing on Vick.  Not to mention the Pack's problem's running the ball and stopping the run.  It should be interesting.

[wadesworld]

Typical delusional cheesehead.  I'm curious as to just how exactly that game was "very meaningful" to the Bears?  Considering in reality that the game actually was "very meaningful" to the Packers, it wasn't all that impressive.  A psychological advantage?  Sure bud.  It was a home game that was essentially a playoff game and the Pack barely scraped it out.  Everyone knows Cutler and the line suck it up every couple of weeks, so this isn't anything new and it rarely happens in back to back performances.  In fact, the psychological advantage should go to the bears offense, because last time they played that poorly, the Patriots laid a beating on them at home.  They lost by a team on the road by 7 that had absolutely everything to lose.  The reason the Packers won this game was their weenie punter.  Bears had crap field position all game because that guy kept the ball out of Hester's hands and instead of starting at midfield they were backed up against their own goal all second half.

Hopefully they meet again, but before that happens the Pack will have to get past Vick.  Vick clowned the Pack once (Bears are one of the only teams to stop him).  You could get away with blitzing every down against the useless Bears line, especially when they're hottest receiver (Bennet) is out, but good luck doing that against Vick.  He'll be running thirty yards up the middle of the field while Woodson and every linebacker are blitzing off the edge.  If that isn't the case, it will be D Jax running down the sideline wide open for Vick's bomb TD passes or Macklin catching wide open slants over the middle while Woodson and Canseco, I mean Matthews are whiffing on Vick.  Not to mention the Pack's problem's running the ball and stopping the run.  It should be interesting.

This guy.  You lost, buddy.  You won the division, nobody's saying you are bad.  But you lost on Sunday.  If they were playing not to show other teams anything they would've sat Cutler after his 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or even 5th sack.

"Vick clowned the Packers once (Bears are one of the only teams to stop him)"  Packers record vs. the Eagles this season: 1-0.  Weird.  The Eagles lost their last 2 games and their last win was a miraculous breakdown by the Giants.  Without that, the Eagles are sitting at home watching the game.  And the game before that they squeeked out vs. the Cowboys.  I'm not saying the Packers will win this game, but wow...I'm curious as to what your prediction is for this game...sounds like 45-0 Eagles.  Funny stuff considering the Packers haven't lost a game by more than 4 points this year.

We have lost road games to the 1st and 2nd seeds in the NFC and the 1st seed (and by far best team in the NFL...who happened to beat Da Bears by THIRTY on the ROAD) by a combined 10 points.  Again, I'm not saying we will win this game, but we have proven that we can go anywhere and hang with anybody.  It will be an interesting game.

Edit:  And by the way, Earl Bennett is your hottest receiver?  Really?  In the 3 games leading up to the Packers game he had a total of 7 catches for 104 yards and 0 touchdowns.  Again, the THREE games leading up to the Packers game (when he was healthy).  That is a "hot" receiver?  Dang, that's sad.  He has had 2 good games all season.  1 when he had 7 catches for 104 yards and 0 touchdowns in the 1 game itself and the other simply because he caught 2 touchdown passes.  He is averaging 37.4 ypg (excluding the Packers game, so in the 15 games he played in) with a total of 3 touchdowns.  His backup (Rasheed Davis) had 7 catches for 63 yards against the Packers.  That would be the 3rd most productive game if it was Bennett.  I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have gotten much more production from Earl Bennett, and chances are they would've gotten worse production.  But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!

[Stringer Bellenson]

Wadesworld, where did I say they weren't playing to show anything?  That's right I didn't.  I said it was a completely meaningless game.  Someone suggested that this was "very meaningful" to the Bears, and the fact is that it was not.  If you care to explain how this was a meaningful game for the Bears feel free.  A tune-up doesn't equal "very meaningful" in my book.  Just because they played their starters doesn't mean it was meaningful, though you leap to that conclusion without any logical explanation how playing starters = meaningful.  Maybe if the Packers would have put the game out of reach, Cutler would've been yanked.  But the facts are, despite a dismal performance by the Bears offense, the game was never out of reach.  Cleveland played their starters too, did that make it a meaningful game? 

As for Vick clowning the Pack, maybe that's a little too bold, but rushing for over one hundred yards and posting a passer rating over 100 is a pretty good performance.  I apologize, I actually know that game went down to the wire, but for some reason I thought the Pack lost.  I should've know that though, how can I forget that the Bears gave the Packers their first loss of the season?  Look we can go all day back and forth about who beat who, and who lost to who.  Both teams lost to a crappy Washington team and a very good Patriots team.  The Packer's lost to the Dolphins and Lions (2 very bad teams), and what if the Pack had not "squeeked" by the Bears? They'd be sitting at home too.  What if your mom never met your dad?  What if the queen had a dick? 

45-0 prediction?  I reread my post and seemed to miss where I said that?  Once again you are putting words in my mouth.  Just like I never said the Bears were trying not to show anything, I never made a prediction about the outcome of the Eagles game.  I simply said I hope they meet again, and for that to happen they'll have to stop the Eagles.  I acknowledge the Bears deficiencies and the fact that if you blitz your linebackers and cornerback on every single down against their rag-tag line and a rattled Cutler, you can have success.  However, I don't think you can get away with that against Vick, which was evidenced by his 100 yards rushing and 100 qb rating the last time they met; though I didn't look at the stats, I just recalled Vick gave them the kind of problems Cutler and the Bears can't.

As for Bennet, the fact is that if you actually watched Bears games, you would know that Bennet developed into Cutlers go to receiver when he was under pressure.  At no point did I suggest the Bears had some high powered receiving corp.  Each week a different WR ends up with the touchdowns and most yards.  There's really no rhyme or reason to how it works.  But when Cutler is under pressure, like he was all day against the Packers, he tends to find earl Bennet as a safety blanket.  I think that he would've been better served to have Bennet there than the former arena league corner Resheid Davis.

WadesWorld, you seem to be the one having problems with the facts, or should I say making up your own facts as you go along; try replying to what I actually said.  The purpose of my post was to say that it's asinine to claim that the Packers will now have some sort of psychological edge should the teams meet again, especially considering that it was a seven point game on the road.  The Bears crap line allowed Forte to average over 6 yards a carry, the Bears D shut down the mighty Packer offense, the Bears were playing a meaningless game, the Packers had everything to play for; looking at the totality of the circumstances I'm just not ready to crown the Pack like some.  Additionally, I never said the Bears would win anything, simply that it will be interesting.

You can put these words in my mouth though:  Clay Matthews is on steroids.

[MerrittsMustache]

No, what teams do when they wrap up a playoff spot early is to rest their starters and pull most of them after 1/4 to 1/2 of the game (see Belicheck, Bill).  Ergo, the game was very meaningful to the Bears, and losing it is a bitter defeat to a divisional rival who now has the psychological advantage.  You're whistling past the graveyard, pal.  Keep trying to put lipstick on that pig, though.

Tom Brady left the Pats game in the 2nd quarter with the Pats up 14-0, and then came back into the game and played until the Pats were up 31-0. If the Bears-GB game was 31-0 in favor of either team, do you think the Bears would have had their starters in? (Hint: No)

The psychological advantage? In other words, if the Packers come to Soldier Field for the NFC Championship Game, the Bears will somehow be intimidated by the fact that the Packers beat them in a meaningless game? Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

[MU B2002]

Bears hate packers.
packers hate Bears. cheeseheads vs FIBS.  I love this time of year. 

[Moonboots]

If Stringer Bell's head would get any bigger over this Bears team, he'd be bordering on a Jay Cutler-sized dome.  Let's get a few things straight.  The game held no playoff implications for the Bears, but to call it meaningless would suggest you didn't even watch it. Schematically, the Bears did nothing differently from what they had done over the previous 5 weeks. Their play calling wasn't vanilla. They didn't favor the run (which was actually a mistake on Martz's part). You think it was all for sh*ts and giggles that they let Cutler get planted in the turf 6 times yesterday?

As far as the "dismal performance" by the Bears' offense, I don't know.. maybe you ran into the best defense in the NFC? You might want to check the figures on that. I'm just saying.

Are the Bears good? Sure. Are they overrated? Absolutely. Your little "what if your mom never met your dad, what if the queen had a dick?" thing was sort of cute, but we can play, too. Ready? What if the Bears didn't get a gift win against the Lions week 1? What if the Bears didn't play three 3rd string QBs in 4 weeks? What if the Packers didn't have 9 of 22 opening day starters on IR, or had 193 missed starts due to injury this season?

Beyond that, playoff football stems back to QB play and defense, and I'll take my chances with the Packers rather than the Bears in that case. It will just take one "bad Jay" appearance to end the Bears playoff hopes.

As far as Earl Bennett (please notice the bolded second "t". Sorry. Just a pet peeve.) is concerned, I'm going to refuse to think he's anything of a difference maker. I understand they played in college together, and that he's a fine middle of the road possession receiver, but he struggles to gain separation or get vertical. Maybe Cutler would have been "better served" (your words) with Bennett instead of Davis, but I'm pretty sure Rodgers would have been better served with Finley and Grant in there, too. Good luck getting any sympathy from Packer fans for having a starter not playing.

I'm all about talking football, but if we're going to speak in extremes like the Packers "blitzing their linebackers and corners every play" against Vick, there's going to be a fundamental breakdown in our ability to keep this conversation intelligent. With a week to prepare for Vick (which we didn't have last time) expect Capers to shadow the line of scrimmage and bring pressure from Vick's strong side, forcing him to roll right. It'll be a mirror of the nickel blitz package the Packers usually run with Woodson and Matthews stunting. It's going to come down to a 75% healthy Vick (according to his interview today) beating the Packers with his arm. Given that we have the best pass defense in football, I'll take my chances.

[Moonboots]

Jay Cutler only pretended to overthrow or underthrow either other ball.  You know, he didn't want to show everyone the magic.  Also the OL purposely let the Packers sack Cutler, you know, not wanting to show off too many blocking schemes.

I missed this the first time, and just saw it. I laughed out loud. Nice work.

[MerrittsMustache]

If Stringer Bell's head would get any bigger over this Bears team, he'd be bordering on a Jay Cutler-sized dome.  Let's get a few things straight.  The game held no playoff implications for the Bears, but to call it meaningless would suggest you didn't even watch it. Schematically, the Bears did nothing differently from what they had done over the previous 5 weeks. Their play calling wasn't vanilla. They didn't favor the run (which was actually a mistake on Martz's part).

While agree that Stringer is a little nuts, I stopped reading your post after the bolded part because it's not only dead wrong, but it's contradictory.

[Moonboots]

While agree that Stringer is a little nuts, I stopped reading your post after the bolded part because it's not only dead wrong, but it's contradictory.

@ GB - 45 pass plays called, 20 run plays. (+25)

vs. NYJ - 31 pass, 23 run (+8)

@ MN - 25 pass, 33 run (-8 in a blowout win)

vs. NE - 30 pass, 12 run (+18 in a blowout loss)

@ Det - 35 pass, 22 run. (+13)

Something also of note, how they played the Pack the first time..

vs. GB 33 pass, 15 run (+18) from GB game week 3.

The play calling is consistent with how Martz calls games when they're close, and he actually ended up opening it up more than usual rather than scaling anything back. We still saw the same pre-snap motion, the same combination routes, and the same designed back hip throws that gave the Jets fits in week 16, though they didn't have the same success rate against GB.

With the success Forte was having, being just a shade more balanced like he was against the Jets probably would have worked in their favor.

Obviously the pass/run numbers will never match up exactly, but it's clear that whatever Martz wanted to throw out there on Sunday was far from conservative (read: vanilla) and he had every intention of trying to move the ball with his starting offensive unit on the field.

I'm interested to hear how I am wrong or contradictory, and willing to hear you out. Maybe I'm missing something.  

[Stringer Bellenson]

First off, I was only lured on here to respond to the idea that the Packers  rather unimpressive 10-3 home win with their season on the line so badly demoralized the Bears, that in the case the two teams would meet again at Soldier Field, the Bears would have this PTSD as result; thus giving the Packers a psychological advantage.  Then it was suggested that a Bears fan was "walking on his grave" as a result.  This just seemed a little ridiculous to me.  Additionally, and I say this at the risk of sounding political, seeing the term "lipstick on a pig" and the Bears in the same sentence just bothers me.

The game held no playoff implications for the Bears, but to call it meaningless would suggest you didn't even watch it. Schematically, the Bears did nothing differently from what they had done over the previous 5 weeks. Their play calling wasn't vanilla. They didn't favor the run (which was actually a mistake on Martz's part). You think it was all for sh*ts and giggles that they let Cutler get planted in the turf 6 times yesterday?

I guess the way I see it is by looking at the final ramifications of a loss when discussing "meaningless."  For the Bears, if they lost, they would live another day.  A loss for the Pack meant they would go home.  I would think there's a huge difference in what's going on in the back of a player's head, and that perhaps the Packers had a huge advantage in the "sense of urgency department." 

Schematically speaking, I feel like Martz typically makes adjustments that are evident even to an average fan after half time, and I just didn't see anything any different from the first half.  Perhaps this was just because of the Packers Defense being very highly ranked; but I think it's not completely unreasonable to think that the Bears could have held back, even if just a little.  You are absolutely correct about not running the ball more, schematically I was hoping that if there's a next time, the Bears would be running a hell of a lot more.  Plus, the running and passing have been much more balanced.  So in my mind, I guess that qualifies as doing something that you haven't done schematically the last 5 weeks. 

As for Cutler getting beat down, like I said, I really don't think it was part of the plan.  Contrary to what you all might assume, I actually fully expected the Packers to whip the Bears.  I would think Lovie figured that they'd play the starters till they get down by a few scores, but that never came.  I'm thinking something similar to when the Giants played the Patriots tough in that final game, then beat them when something actually mattered a few weeks later; it was a good opportunity to play in hostile environment and in a play-off type atmosphere.  (I'm not suggesting the Bears will have the same result as the Giants either.)  Was it a risk playing the starters?  Sure, but no one got hurt and Cutler's got 2 weeks off.

Are the Bears good? Sure. Are they overrated? Absolutely. Your little "what if your mom never met your dad, what if the queen had a dick?" thing was sort of cute, but we can play, too. Ready? What if the Bears didn't get a gift win against the Lions week 1? What if the Bears didn't play three 3rd string QBs in 4 weeks? What if the Packers didn't have 9 of 22 opening day starters on IR, or had 193 missed starts due to injury this season?

Part of the reason why I asked about the consequences about your mom not meeting your dad and the queen having a dick is because I hoped to make a preemptive strike against these types of arguments.  (I think my earl bennetT comment was lost in translation.)  Most criticism I hear about the Bears is always is one of these WHAT IF'S.  WHAT IF the Megatron catch was a td in the first game?  Well, had there been some sort of meeting in which the NFL got together and decided to change that particular rule in the summer of 2010, maybe it would have been.  But a rule's a rule. 

WHAT IF the Bears didn't face a bunch of back up QB's?  Well the Bears were responsible for knocking out Stafford and Favre to begin with.

WHAT IF Lovie challenged that td against the Redskins.  That's right he didn't, so I'm not gonna bring it up because it's bs.

None of it matters now, and none of it is legitimate criticism in my book.  As far as losing to crap teams, everyone, even the Pats have done it.  So have the Packers.  But feel free to bash the Bear's offensive line, front office decisions, the size of Cutler's melon, not getting a big name receiver.  I won't argue with you.  Where you think the Bears are overrated, I get the sense that they are underrated based on some of the ridiculous rhetoric that I was responding to initially. We both seem to think they are good, but not great.  Personally, I feel this way about the entire NFC, including the Pack.  I feel this way because if the Bears and Packers are 1-1.  If the Bears are simply good, and the Bears beat the Packers once at home in a close game, and the Packers beat the Bears at home in a close game, does mean that it's possible that the Packers are simply good and not great?  Or at least not great enough to warrant talk of psychological demoralization at the mere thought of them playing again. 

As far as Earl Bennett (please notice the bolded second "t". Sorry. Just a pet peeve.) is concerned, I'm going to refuse to think he's anything of a difference maker. I understand they played in college together, and that he's a fine middle of the road possession receiver, but he struggles to gain separation or get vertical. Maybe Cutler would have been "better served" (your words) with Bennett instead of Davis, but I'm pretty sure Rodgers would have been better served with Finley and Grant in there, too. Good luck getting any sympathy from Packer fans for having a starter not playing.

Perhaps people are assuming I'm some Bears homer who thinks they're going to the promised land, and I can see how people can mistakenly think that given that I made an Earl BennetT reference.  Look, there are certain things about the Bears that piss me off more than you'd ever know.  I know they've got a bunch of bargain barrel receivers and linemen, and I didn't mean to suggest that EB is some hero.  I simply felt that there would've been a few 5 yard slants or outs that he might've found, then gotten tackled immediately, that Davis didn't.  He just helps Cutler avoid getting killed now and again.  I used the "better served" language to defend the idea against WadesWorld that I claimed the Bears had sweet WR's.  The only reason I brought BennetT up in the first place was to point to an obvious deficiency in the Bears offense when they are getting blitzed, and this was more of a reference to the difference between the Eagles. 

Obviously the Packers are gonna scheme differently, but I suppose half of my post could've been slightly veiled in a light shade of teal.  The point is, the Bears have certain useless aspects of their offense that allow the Packers to look dominant.  I just feel that the Eagles are the type of team that don't match up well for the Packers.  The Packers seem to be at their best  when they are blitzing and applying pressure, especially off the edge. I just feel like Vick's gonna beat someone shadowing him at some point, if not someone else will be left unaccounted for, or perhaps the middle of the field.  Where as the Bears rush 3 and sit everyone back in a preventish defense, they've had success.  I don't know if the Packers ever play like that? It's the same way the Bears dropped over 40 on a good Jet's D, and the Packer's put up a couple field goals; perhap's it's match-ups?  I never said who would win one way or another, simply that it will be interesting. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

As an impartial observer, I'd much rather play the Bears in the playoffs then the Packers.  Both teams are flawed, but the Bears have more of them this season.

However, I also agree that the Bears did not play as if that game was a must win game.  I don't think they made it vanilla, but they certainly didn't have the emotion they would have if the playoffs were on the line for them as well.  It's human nature, you just won't give it all when you're already in.

Playoffs should be fun.  Philly is going to have their hands full, but with Vick as the wildcard, they could also make life hell for the Packers, too. 

[Moonboots]

Stringer Bell, good post.

I didn't even address the psychological advantage thing, and actually missed it entirely. In this case, I don't think the Packers gain any sort of real advantage over the Bears from this victory. I think both teams know it's entirely possible that the Packers could win in Soldier if these teams meet again in three weeks, but I don't think Sunday's game really swayed the doubts of beliefs of either team one way or the other. It was played exactly as most tough divisional games should be, and when push came to shove, we obviously needed this win a lot more than you did, and executed as such in the late 3rd and 4th quarter.

I see where you're coming from in calling the game meaningless. You can game plan all you want, but you can't artificially create urgency, and that's why you finally saw the Pack get it done late on Sunday.


In my mind, Vick is sort of a wild card in this game.  I watch a TON of NFL football (and re-watch.. and watch again after that. Thanks NFL Game Rewind for taking up so much of my free time). Vick obviously presents a skill set unlike any other QB in the game. I'm still of the belief that to succeed in the playoffs, you will ultimately need a QB who can drop back, plant and deliver the ball accurately under pressure. There's been a few successful playoff teams that didn't have that, but it required other wordly contributions from other parts of the team (think 06 Bears, 00 Ravens, 02 Bucs). I don't see Philly being that special in other units, and I don't see Vick being able to lead with his arm. I think as long as the Packers win the turnover battle, they win the game.

The thing about the Bears is that Cutler is a complete enigma. He possesses the arm to be a dominant playoff QB, but his footwork is goofy, and he'll struggle with accuracy in some games. If he's on point, the Bears can live up to their seed as the second best team in the NFC behind Atlanta. If he's off? You can kiss them good bye.

As far as me calling the Bears overrated... I still mean it in a sense. I don't think they're consistent enough to be considered the 2nd best team in the NFC. You look at games like the Philly game, and they were scary good there. They also played well offensively against a good Jets team. But there's a lot of duds in there, too. At the same time, admittedly, there's a certain level of sour grapes from me as a Packers fan. You can only play the team they put in front of you every Sunday and take care of business. Mike Holmgren used to say sometimes it's better to be lucky than good, and it's best of all to be both. Bears were lucky early on, and have really started to figure that offense out since midseason. They're incomplete, but they can be a force.

And your last paragraph is spot on, especially the second to last sentence. The NFL is all about matchups, every week. Creating mismatches in both scheme and personnel is the only way to win in the NFL. It's also the reason that Finley is easily the biggest loss the Packers had this year. He forced defenses to make wholesale changes to how they could play the Packers.

As far as scheme match ups to Vick, I'm interested to see what Capers has up his sleeve. Our week 1 game plan was for Kolb, and maybe 5 plays of Vick at Wildcat. Capers said as much after the game. Now, with an entire week to game plan for him in a playoff situation, I wouldn't be surprised to see him unveil something we haven't seen all year. He's been known to have formations that he saves for specific teams. Last year, we saw "Big Okie" (linebacker in for a safety in the nickel) against the hapless Rams whose only weapon was Steven Jackson. We saw "Corner Okie" (Cover 2 shell with Woodson as a free rover in blitz and run support) against the Cowboys in a must-win in '09. And they unveiled the Psycho (1-5-5) package that gets used on occasion to confuse QBs as well.

Of course, if an athletic freak like Vick is entirely on his game, there could be nothing we can do. Here's to hoping we can rattle him early and often and force him to play from behind. This is one of my favorite weekends of football the entire year. I'm looking forward to it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Favre masseuse video.  LOL


http://deadspin.com/5725878/newest-favre-allegations-get-the-taiwanese-animation-treatment

[Spotcheck Billy]

could Vince Young be the next Viking QB?

[MU B2002]

could Vince Young be the next Viking QB?

As a Bears fan, I can only hope. 

However, I think he ends up in Miami and McNabb ends up with the Vikings.

[MU B2002]

QUestion:

Bears and Packers can't play round 2 correct?  Wouldn't the Pack automatically play Atlanta regardless of the outcome of the other game, as 6 seed?