You PLAY to WIN the GAME.... duh

---

Twin sized.
Less chasing that way.

F*** it. Let's hurt Cutler.

---

Lovie really is in a no-win situation. The chance that Chicago can get the #1 spot is pretty much nil, so either they lay down which makes him look bad and unprofessional, or he runs the risk of losing a key player to injury for a somewhat meaningless game other than playing a long standing rival. With the potential for the Bears' O-line to offer Cutler lame-duck protection I would be really concerned if I was the HC.

Side note: Who do you think the Bears would prefer to see in the playoffs between the Pack and the Giants? The G-Men crushed them and knocked Cutler out of the game. Is rivalry more important or is knocking out a team whose style is very effective against your game plan? Tough call, but I am thinking about how I believe teams laid down last season to make sure Pittsburgh didn't get in. Even though the Giants stunk it up last week, they are a team that is built for playoff football if they can keep their turnovers down. The Packers are great, but will their injuries and lack of a running game finally catch up with them?

Just as there are examples for resting your starters in meaningless games (see Wes Welker & the Patriots last year), there are examples for playing your starters, too.

The 2007 Giants were going up against the Patriots in the last game of the season when the Patriots were 15-0. It was a meaningless game to the Giants, they were the 5th seed, didn't have a bye week, but played their starters the entire game and barely lost to the Patriots, 38-25.

The Giants did have three starters injured (LB, CB, C) during that game, but used that strong performance against the Patriots to fuel a deep run through the playoffs, culminating in a win against those Patriots in the Superbowl to wreak their perfect season. 🙂

They are not going to play all out, coaches always say this stuff about playing starters the whole game but they never do. And why would they, what's the best case, they win a long drawn out battle in cold weather risking injury?

Even if the Packers made the playoffs and won their first game, they would play at Atlanta, not at Bears in the 2nd round - they wouldn't play Packers again until at home in the NFCG. So its even like there is a motivation to get the Packers out so you don't have to play them right away in the playoffs.

---

Ahhh. I remember that game. Sexy Rexy left at halftime with a QB rating of 0.0. Good times, good times...

---

True, but the Saints and Colts both lost meaningless games down the stretch last year and ended up in the Super Bowl. Nobody wants to be the coach that loses a star player in a meaningless game. With the O-line in Chicago being what it is, I certainly wouldn't risk it.

See this is what you call homerism at its best. If you are saying that then the Packers are just as lucky to be where we are. The games we have faced then backups :

Eagles (knocked out Kolb)
Lions both times and lost to their 3rd string
Cowboys
49ers

so right there is 1/3 of our games

---

Kolb to Vick... We faced the starter and the 2nd in voting for league MVP.

49ers? Huh? Wasn't Troy Smith the starter? He's been outperforming Alex Smith, hence him being the starter. If anything, that game became harder with him in. You have a very loose definition of back-up.

The only real back-ups we faced were the Lions twice and the Cowboys.

The Bears also had the Lions twice, the Cowboys, the Panthers, I reckon, although it matters little who's playing for them, the Dolphins, the Vikings.

Did they luck out there? Yes.

Does that mean their teams isn't that good? No.

They beat the Eagles who came to play that week with Vick at the helm. They beat us. They embarassed a good Jets defense.

I don't know if they're as good as their seed implies, especially not if you look at who they beat and who they lost to this year, but they're not a bad team, by any means.