After watching the Bears/Packers replay...

[slacker00]

Well FWIW it looks like it's 4 offensive TD's actually (vs. 7 for GB since 2009).

I can confirm the 4 TDs. Cutler threw 4 TDs, one each to Hester, Knox, Aromashadu, Olsen. This isn't counting the Hester PR for a TD. I'm not sure how hard the Chicago offense was really playing in the recent week 17 game in which they only managed to put up 3 points. We'll soon find out whether or not they were "playing possum".

[GoldenRichards]

I'm looking for a big game from the Packers

[PLAYA-PLAYA]

CHICAGO AND UNDER----THIS WILL BE A HARD FOUGHT GAME-----3 POINTS WILL DECIDE The NFC CHAMPIONSHIP------BEST OF LUCK ON YOUR PLAYS----"DA BEARS(WITH HOME FIELD AND POINTS) AND UNDER " FOR ME

[thebestthereis]

like the bears +3.5 even though i picked the pack to win the nfc. agreed should be close.

[Stevedore]

I can confirm the 4 TDs. Cutler threw 4 TDs, one each to Hester, Knox, Aromashadu, Olsen. This isn't counting the Hester PR for a TD. I'm not sure how hard the Chicago offense was really playing in the recent week 17 game in which they only managed to put up 3 points. We'll soon find out whether or not they were "playing possum".

If this is in fact true, 4 td's in four games isn't exactly setting the world on fire. The point still remains, Chitown has trouble scoring td's against GB's offense.

[flocko76]

I think if you like the bears take the ML. more value.

[d2bets]

If this is in fact true, 4 td's in four games isn't exactly setting the world on fire. The point still remains, Chitown has trouble scoring td's against GB's offense.

GB hasn't really seen the current Bears team. Last year is ancient history, totally new offense and scheme. Toss it out. Week 3, Bears were still learning early in the season too, still trying to figure out the O-Line alignment, the Mart offense, finding balance. And in this last game, the Bears were playing for nothing and by design were going to show GB nothing. They re-ran what they did Week 3 and of course GB knew how to defend it. It's called a setup.

[EXhoosier10]

I gotta go with the bears covering with everyone on the Pack's back

[Pride>UFC]

fuk the packers...gonna get ur ass kicked...barely beat us at home with your season on the line in a meaningless game to the bears

[jollyoscars]

we r gonna put up at least 3 tds on the pack this game

[thefonzo]

If you think the Bears were playing possum in week 17, then you don't know Lovie Smith. He had nothing on his mind except upholding the rivalry and knocking the Pack out of the playoffs.

I'm a Packer fan, but I'm not picking a winner. I've seen this play out too many times in this rivalry. Green Bay dominates 90% of the game, but Chicago makes 2 or 3 game-changing plays (SP teams, turnovers, etc.) and gets the W. Wouldn't surprise me if it happened again. That's why many Packer fans call the Bear wins "lucky". The Bears are like the gambler who goes 2-10 on his picks, but loses $1000 total on the ten losses, and wins $2000 on the 2 wins.

Funny how nobody mentioned Charles Tillman yet. That bastard forces a fumble by a Green Bay receiver every damn game.

[Bob Loblaw]

If you think the Bears were playing possum in week 17, then you don't know Lovie Smith. He had nothing on his mind except upholding the rivalry and knocking the Pack out of the playoffs.

I'm a Packer fan, but I'm not picking a winner. I've seen this play out too many times in this rivalry. Green Bay dominates 90% of the game, but Chicago makes 2 or 3 game-changing plays (SP teams, turnovers, etc.) and gets the W. Wouldn't surprise me if it happened again. That's why many Packer fans call the Bear wins "lucky". The Bears are like the gambler who goes 2-10 on his picks, but loses $1000 total on the ten losses, and wins $2000 on the 2 wins.

Funny how nobody mentioned Charles Tillman yet. That bastard forces a fumble by a Green Bay receiver every damn game.

Lovie would have loved to knock off the Packers but he wasn't going to show everything in doing so. All you have to do is take a look at the box score to see so. As I posted on another site...

Before the bye they were a 4-3 team on what was a one sided offense in favor of the passing game. After the bye up until the Packers game they were a 7-1 team on what was a balanced/rushing offense. Just looking at the number of passing to rushing plays for the Bears offense it's not hard to see the way this offense drastically change. Then looking at week 17 vs the Packers you can see they clearly went away from this winning formula when it was a close game for 4 quarters, Forte was shredding them for 6.1 yards/carry, and the strength of the Packers D is their Passing D and not Rushing D. Either Lovie and Martz are the two stupidest people in the NFL or they were clearly going with a gameplan of not divulging too much.

Week 1
Pass - 39
Rush - 31

Week 2
Pass - 30
Rush - 19

Week 3
Pass - 30
Rush - 18

Week 4
Pass - 36
Rush - 16

Week 5 - (No Cutler)
Pass - 22
Rush - 42

Week 6
Pass - 45
Rush - 14

Week 7
Pass - 44
Rush - 16

Week 8
Bye Week

Week 9
Pass - 31
Rush - 31

Week 10
Pass - 36
Rush - 38

Week 11
Pass - 28
Rush - 40

Week 12
Pass - 25
Rush - 28

Week 13
Pass - 30
Rush - 28

Week 14 - Patriots - down early and down big. Had no choice but to throw.
Pass - 28
Rush - 14

Week 15
Pass - 25
Rush - 33

Week 16
Pass - 27
Rush - 27

Week 17
Pass - 45
Rush - 20

Playoff Game 1
Pass - 32
Rush - 45

Yes, they played their starters and wanted to win. No, they didn't throw their best gameplan at them in doing so.

[Stevedore]

fuk the packers...gonna get ur ass kicked...barely beat us at home with your season on the line in a meaningless game to the bears

Meaningless my ass. You played to win and got beat. He played his starters the whole game jackass. Keep telling yourself that it meant nothing. Bears blow the Pack out? Nobody has all year, you think the Bears are? Take another toke genius.

[thefonzo]

Lovie would have loved to knock off the Packers but he wasn't going to show everything in doing so. All you have to do is take a look at the box score to see so. As I posted on another site...

Before the bye they were a 4-3 team on what was a one sided offense in favor of the passing game. After the bye up until the Packers game they were a 7-1 team on what was a balanced/rushing offense. Just looking at the number of passing to rushing plays for the Bears offense it's not hard to see the way this offense drastically change. Then looking at week 17 vs the Packers you can see they clearly went away from this winning formula when it was a close game for 4 quarters, Forte was shredding them for 6.1 yards/carry, and the strength of the Packers D is their Passing D and not Rushing D. Either Lovie and Martz are the two stupidest people in the NFL or they were clearly going with a gameplan of not divulging too much.

Week 1
Pass - 39
Rush - 31

Week 2
Pass - 30
Rush - 19

Week 3
Pass - 30
Rush - 18

Week 4
Pass - 36
Rush - 16

Week 5 - (No Cutler)
Pass - 22
Rush - 42

Week 6
Pass - 45
Rush - 14

Week 7
Pass - 44
Rush - 16

Week 8
Bye Week

Week 9
Pass - 31
Rush - 31

Week 10
Pass - 36
Rush - 38

Week 11
Pass - 28
Rush - 40

Week 12
Pass - 25
Rush - 28

Week 13
Pass - 30
Rush - 28

Week 14 - Patriots - down early and down big. Had no choice but to throw.
Pass - 28
Rush - 14

Week 15
Pass - 25
Rush - 33

Week 16
Pass - 27
Rush - 27

Week 17
Pass - 45
Rush - 20

Playoff Game 1
Pass - 32
Rush - 45

Yes, they played their starters and wanted to win. No, they didn't throw their best gameplan at them in doing so.

The Bears had a lot of negative plays on early downs in that game, like sacks or imcomplete passes on first down, causing more pass attempts than runs on later downs. That's part of the reason for the imbalance, along with all the passes on the last drive that ended the game with the INT.

You could argue that they should have run more on the early downs, but maybe G.B. was stacking the line or run blitzing a lot. I don't know, I'd have to watch the game again.

Martz is very smart, but he also has a huge ego. If I were a Bears fan I would be very worried about Martz trying to be too fancy, and end up outsmarting himself.

Kind of like Oregon in the BCS title. Chip Kelly spent the whole first quarter trying to look like an offensive genius, trying out new shit, and it got him nowhere.

Just sayin I'd be worried about Martz trying to be the hero instead of just "doing his job."

[thefonzo]

And just to piggy tail what I said about Martz in my last post. Cutler had a 44 QB rating that game, only completed 50% of his passes, for 4.3 yards per attempt, all anemic.

Yeah, Yeah, the Bears were showing a vanilla game plan, blah, blah, blah. Their "vanilla" runs were obviously working better than their "vanilla" passes. So why did Martz and Lovie keep dropping Cutler back to pass?

Just wouldn't trust Martz in a big game. Just like I still don't trust McCarthy's playcalling when it's time for the Pack to kill the clock with a 1 score lead.

[infamousbacardi]

2 by my count as I wrote in #'s 10 and 14. But that's what I'm saying here. Why does that have anything to do with luck or why is that fishy? If they don't commit those penalties then neither INT happens. Same with some of the holds. If they don't hold then they're sacked. That has nothing to do with luck. And as I also said I think the biggest penalties in this game was the holding that wasn't called and the roughing the passer that was called on the Packers final TD drive. Bears have a bigger gripe when it comes to penalties in that game. Those were missed plays by the refs that lead directly to a Packer TD. There wasn't a single Packer penalty that was called that shouldn't have been. I didn't see any Bears penalties that weren't called that should have been.

Wow. I'm a die hard Packer fan, but come on. I was going to sort of grant you some of your point, but as soon as you said, "the Bears had more to gripe about in terns of penalties"...I almost spit up my water.
They say you could call holding on every play in the NFL...when one team has in the realm of more than 10 penalties than the opposition in a game, your statement sounds ignorant.
I'm not even going to get into the "this was" or "that wasn't" a penalty game, because that's a waste of time...but there is no way you could possibly say the Bears had a bigger penalty gripe with a straight face when their opposition had nearly 10 more penalties than them, when there is a penalty on every play in the NFL.
You just threw away what could have been a decent point.

[Bob Loblaw]

Wow. I'm a die hard Packer fan, but come on. I was going to sort of grant you some of your point, but as soon as you said, "the Bears had more to gripe about in terns of penalties"...I almost spit up my water.
They say you could call holding on every play in the NFL...when one team has in the realm of more than 10 penalties than the opposition in a game, your statement sounds ignorant.
I'm not even going to get into the "this was" or "that wasn't" a penalty game, because that's a waste of time...but there is no way you could possibly say the Bears had a bigger penalty gripe with a straight face when their opposition had nearly 10 more penalties than them, when there is a penalty on every play in the NFL.
You just threw away what could have been a decent point.

More penalties don't equal a bigger gripe. They just don't. The Packers committed the penalties and the refs called them.

I will admit I wasn't able to analyze every single play of the game. From what I saw as obvious penalties and what impact they had on the game I stand by my opinion that the Bears have the bigger gripe. Had I analyzed every single play then that opinion might change so I can see part of your point.

[infamousbacardi]

More penalties don't equal a bigger gripe. They just don't. The Packers committed the penalties and the refs called them. I will admit I wasn't able to analyze every single play of the game. From what I saw as obvious penalties and what impact they had on the game I stand by my opinion that the Bears have the bigger gripe. Had I analyzed every single play then that opinion might change so I can see part of your point.

And that is fair enough...and that's exactly the point Bob. I have not watched the replay by any means...and of course, as a Packer fan, I'm sure I'd find a few gripes with a couple of the 18...however, as my point persists...if there is a penalty on every play in the NFL...there is no way you can have that lopsided of a game in terms of throwing that yellow laundry. I'm not complaining about the officiating, or even blaming it for the loss...however, you can't just say that the penalties had nothing to do with it. They had over 150 yards of penalties called against them, probably had to give that crew the next week off for pulled muscles in their throwing arms.
But the clear counter to your point is exactly as we have stated...if you watched every play of that game and were looking penalties, you would have found 50 for each team that could have been called and weren't...and that's not right when you consider the more than 10 penalty difference between the two sides. JMHO.

[Bob Loblaw]

And that is fair enough...and that's exactly the point Bob. I have not watched the replay by any means...and of course, as a Packer fan, I'm sure I'd find a few gripes with a couple of the 18...however, as my point persists...if there is a penalty on every play in the NFL...there is no way you can have that lopsided of a game in terms of throwing that yellow laundry. I'm not complaining about the officiating, or even blaming it for the loss...however, you can't just say that the penalties had nothing to do with it. They had over 150 yards of penalties called against them, probably had to give that crew the next week off for pulled muscles in their throwing arms.
But the clear counter to your point is exactly as we have stated...if you watched every play of that game and were looking penalties, you would have found 50 for each team that could have been called and weren't...and that's not right when you consider the more than 10 penalty difference between the two sides. JMHO.

I still disagree with that. If the Packers O-Line had committed a false start on 10 consecutive plays and they called 10 penalties on the Packers to the Bears 0 then it's justified. The refs don't need to then try and find anything they can penalize the Bears for just to even out the penalty score. Every penalty I saw was justified. Do you think the refs want to call a meaningless penalty on a forward pass at the end of the game or consecutive meaningless penalties inside the 1 that doesn't move the ball? No, they would rather not because it's a waste of time, but they have to because those are clear as day penalties. Every penalty that has been mentioned in this thread has been a clear as day penalty imo. And the Packers committed much more than the Bears did and it was justified.

[slacker00]

If this is in fact true ...

Dude, just admit that you were mistaken. This fact is true. Look it up for yourself. And I call myself a slacker...

If you think the Bears were playing possum in week 17, then you don't know Lovie Smith.

Martz was calling the offensive plays, not Lovie.

[d2bets]

If you don't think the Bears were playing possum in Week 17 (and assuming you watched Week 3), then you don't know football. It's so obvious it's laughable. I imagine GB knew that was coming too. It's no wonder it looked like they knew the plays before they unfolded. They had seem em all before live.

[Frostware]

Chicago!

[tealish]

Yeah you're right, the teams have changed so much, last meeting has little to no meaning here. Packers peaking too strong at the right time of year. They roll this weekend.

[Stevedore]

Dude, just admit that you were mistaken. This fact is true. Look it up for yourself. And I call myself a slacker...



Martz was calling the offensive plays, not Lovie.

Does it even matter if I was? My original point was to show that over 4 games the Bears offense had trouble scoring td's on the Packers defense. That's still the case even with the improved numbers.

[Stevedore]

GB hasn't really seen the current Bears team. Last year is ancient history, totally new offense and scheme. Toss it out. Week 3, Bears were still learning early in the season too, still trying to figure out the O-Line alignment, the Mart offense, finding balance. And in this last game, the Bears were playing for nothing and by design were going to show GB nothing. They re-ran what they did Week 3 and of course GB knew how to defend it. It's called a setup.

Oh, ok thanks for clearing that up.

[Wrecktangle]

Chi+3 now, the jungle is starting to wake up.

This game should have opened close to pick-em.

[Dark Horse]

Chi+3 now, the jungle is starting to wake up.

This game should have opened close to pick-em.

Exactly. And it would have been at the start of the month. Since then, CHI has played once. So this crazy line is all based on two good GB games. The oddsmakers couldn't get around the public hype even if they had wanted to.

My most advanced NFL method (10+ years in the making) shows GB was the beneficiary of two lucky games. Everything went their way. How do we know if a team is playing with the wind in their backs or is really that good? That's the question, isn't it? In any case, that luck won't continue this Sunday. So either GB is really that good, or they're back down to earth. On the road. Against a division rival. And against the winner of that division that is now being disrespected as home dog... (Chicago was 5-1 in the division. How can they be home dogs?)

The public is trapped by its own need to identify the champion. It thinks GB is the best team, and all other considerations must make way for this belief. It sees a team that is peaking at the right time, and doesn't consider that this team is due for an average game.

[infamousbacardi]

Exactly. And it would have been at the start of the month. Since then, CHI has played once. So this crazy line is all based on two good GB games. The oddsmakers couldn't get around the public hype even if they had wanted to.

My most advanced NFL method (10+ years in the making) shows GB was the beneficiary of two lucky games. Everything went their way. How do we know if a team is playing with the wind in their backs or is really that good? That's the question, isn't it? In any case, that luck won't continue this Sunday. So either GB is really that good, or they're back down to earth. On the road. Against a division rival. And against the winner of that division that is now being disrespected as home dog... (Chicago was 5-1 in the division. How can they be home dogs?)

The public is trapped by its own need to identify the champion. It thinks GB is the best team, and all other considerations must make way for this belief. It sees a team that is peaking at the right time, and doesn't consider that this team is due for an average game.

Wow. This Chicago homer jargon just blows my mind. 2 lucky games? You do know that Aaron Rodgers threw for nearly 700 yards in 2 games against the Falcons, right? That was luck? Ummm, no, the Falcons secondary is shit, and that's why they are watching this weekend. The bottom line is, from nearly any non-biased fans opinions, the Packers are better at nearly every position than the Bears, with the likely exception of RB and DE.
QB? By far GB
WRs? By far GB
RB? CHI
LBs? Very Close
Secondary? By far GB
O Line? Both suck
D line? Apples to orange as they play different systems, but I'd consider CHI due to Peppers.

At the end of the day, this game will be decided by which QB doesn't make the stupid pass...and let me just ask you one question...your money on the line, you want to bet against Rodgers or Cutler to make that pass?
It's just simple analysis. The Packers just have more talent, and unless they beat themselves with turnovers and 50 penalties again, they will win this game.

[d2bets]

Wow. This Chicago homer jargon just blows my mind. 2 lucky games? You do know that Aaron Rodgers threw for nearly 700 yards in 2 games against the Falcons, right? That was luck? Ummm, no, the Falcons secondary is shit, and that's why they are watching this weekend. The bottom line is, from nearly any non-biased fans opinions, the Packers are better at nearly every position than the Bears, with the likely exception of RB and DE.
QB? By far GB
WRs? By far GB
RB? CHI
LBs? Very Close
Secondary? By far GB
O Line? Both suck
D line? Apples to orange as they play different systems, but I'd consider CHI due to Peppers.

At the end of the day, this game will be decided by which QB doesn't make the stupid pass...and let me just ask you one question...your money on the line, you want to bet against Rodgers or Cutler to make that pass?
It's just simple analysis. The Packers just have more talent, and unless they beat themselves with turnovers and 50 penalties again, they will win this game.

You neglected special teams altogether. GB better not do that.

I think the game will be decided by special teams and turnovers.

[infamousbacardi]

You neglected special teams altogether. GB better not do that.

I think the game will be decided by special teams and turnovers.

Special teams is a big factor when 2 teams are very close on paper. In my opinion, the Pack have enough talent to cover that up. My guess is they won't be ignoring it, however.
We'll see what happens, though as I said, the only team that can beat GB is the Packers

[d2bets]

Special teams is a big factor when 2 teams are very close on paper. In my opinion, the Pack have enough talent to cover that up. My guess is they won't be ignoring it, however.
We'll see what happens, though as I said, the only team that can beat GB is the Packers

The game isn't played on paper. What has GB's offense done against Chicago that makes you think they will just score at will? I don't see it happening. They had 11 drives on their homefield last game and ended just 1 with a TD. 2-11 on 3rd downs. Dealing with the crowd, the field, a defense that flies and puts pressure. It's not going to be easy.

A big play on special teams or a key turnover can very easily be the difference. I see this game coming down to the final minutes one way or another.

[infamousbacardi]

The game isn't played on paper. What has GB's offense done against Chicago that makes you think they will just score at will? I don't see it happening. They had 11 drives on their homefield last game and ended just 1 with a TD. 2-11 on 3rd downs. Dealing with the crowd, the field, a defense that flies and puts pressure. It's not going to be easy.

A big play on special teams or a key turnover can very easily be the difference. I see this game coming down to the final minutes one way or another.

The Packers don't need to score at will. The Bears won't score more than 17 points, so a good 20 would do it. They don't need to go for half a hundred like they did last weekend.
18 penalties for 152 yards, 2 turnovers, and allowed a kick returned for a TD...and only lost by 3 in Chicago. With my money on the line, I'd be more comfortable not betting on the anomaly to occur, and go with the more talent.
I hope it's a good game, and the best team wins. We'll see what happens.

[Sunde91]

Exactly. And it would have been at the start of the month. Since then, CHI has played once. So this crazy line is all based on two good GB games. The oddsmakers couldn't get around the public hype even if they had wanted to.

My most advanced NFL method (10+ years in the making) shows GB was the beneficiary of two lucky games. Everything went their way. How do we know if a team is playing with the wind in their backs or is really that good? That's the question, isn't it? In any case, that luck won't continue this Sunday. So either GB is really that good, or they're back down to earth. On the road. Against a division rival. And against the winner of that division that is now being disrespected as home dog... (Chicago was 5-1 in the division. How can they be home dogs?)

The public is trapped by its own need to identify the champion. It thinks GB is the best team, and all other considerations must make way for this belief. It sees a team that is peaking at the right time, and doesn't consider that this team is due for an average game.

Uhh, what? You're talking in the playoffs? Cause GB has been the antithesis of lucky all year in the regular season with their injuries and terrible breaks in every one of their losses.

But for the playoffs, how were they lucky against Philly when they thoroughly outplayed them in 1st half, won TOP by 4 minutes, somehow lost in total yards by 43 yards, dropped a TD catch, etc.? (Missed FGs, ok, well dropped TD catch is >)

They were lucky against ATL too? Hmm, they only outgained ATL by a modest 248 yards, won TOP by 19 minutes, never punted once all game, etc. And ATL's first half scores were off what? A GB fumble and kick return for TD.

No mention of Bears being lucky drawing a 7-9, 27th Sargarin ranked Seattle team at home? Not to mention the Bears breaks in the regular season.

Don't know if you're trolling, or being a homer, or just stupid.

You also just mentioned the "due factor" with them being due for an average game... Whoever said you were a "sharp" here?

[GOBBluth]

Yeah this should be a great game. Seems to close to call. If I had to, I'd go with the Pack. But that be more of a bet against Cutler then the team

[chaseman]

I absolutely love that everyone is betting the pack