Alaskan Grizzly

1941 Although I have to admit that I didnt know that at the time I read the article. I assumed in the "modern era" and remembered it was the Rams and Giants they played in '85. My bad. Either way, I'll take the position the Bears are in over the others playing next week.

"You know what makes me sad? You do". Ha ha.. Seriously "come on man". This team is the #2 seed after having one of the toughest schedule and admittedly weakest Oline. You guys are starting to sound like the "professional" naysayers who many here have villified many times over in not do friendly terms. The Bears will be hosting whoever in two weeks and things will be different. Pretty sure that the team didn't perform this unexpectedly to make it this far and then flop. If they let us and all Bears fans down in two weeks then all the skeptics were right. And there's alot more wrong than just a weak Oline. By the way, the last time the Bears played the Packers three times? They advanced to the Super Bowl.

Totally agree with you Connor. This is no way representative how a team (Bears) who have nothing to lose or gain (other than a not needed injury) how they would play against a team in desperation mode (Pavkers) later in the playoffs. Especially at Soldier Firld. Should have pulled the starters at halftime.

BULAGA!!!! Again!!! You can't tell me this is how the Bears would be playing if this was a playoff game. Pretty sure Martz is much more creative than that.. As was evidenced in both the Jets and Vikings games. Forte is obviously on an upswing and pretty sure The offense would adapt to benefit from a good run game. Desperate (Packers) times call for desperate measures.'

BULAGA strikes again!!!! Nice stop Jennings!!! Off a hold nonetheless.

Sorry but in defense of both. Would you rather have Cutler throw another pick? Which probably would have been the case with double coverage on Hester. And with Lovie althogh bad timing he was trying to avoid another delay of game call. And the Pack probably knew that hence why Taylor made the big game. But that could just be my "devil advocate" speaking. Now you can't tell me the second string couldn't have done this well right?

TOMMIE!!! No "loaf" for you sir!!!

It was apparent that Cutler didn't want to throw the ball when he did. He tried to stop it but it was too late. Could tell by the trajectory and that he had his eyes closed right when he threw it, like DAMN I didn't want to do that. Tomme that is good thing. Know it's odd but... It is what it is

Well besides Peanut and Forte he's the only one catching anything.

Alaskan Grizzly = Rasheid Davis fan club president

It's called conservation. Winning doesn't mean more than staying intact and healthy. Not at this point. And what kind of "momentum" do you have with a week off?

I agree with everything you said except for Cutler. Can't afford him hurt and Hanie needs more reps to see where he is at again, in case he's needed. That and I'm afraid Cutler is going to have a bad sack at this rate.

Now time to bring in the second stringers. It's apparent the Bears can match GB punch for punch. Need to see how the backups do, in case their needed.

What a bunch of crap on Peppes. Although Suh did the same a few weeks ago and was penalized. And I am now a big fan of Jennings

And Bulaga is going to be the end of the GB season at this rate! Yeehaw!

For the record I am a Rashied Davis fan and glad he is doing well. Nice hold in the endzone GB by the way.

Not bad for an "egomaniac", non-flexible, pass first minded type of guy (Martz) eh? I, for one, am glad to see that Martz is able to expand his repertoire while making Cutler, Forte, Olsen (hates the TE position) a better squad. That and he is intelligent enough to adapt in game and for the season's conditions. Good job.

Welcome to the "Lovie"bus

Whoops... You are right. Thinking back I believe STL was where I had TB. Thank you. I started glossing over when I saw where CHI was placed and that Dil-hole had drawn it up.

Whoops... You are right. Thinking back I believe STL was where I had TB. Thank you. I started glossing over when I saw where CHI was placed and that Dil-hole had drawn it up.

Not necessarily in order: 1) Any team who beats or ANYone who knocks the Bears 2) The fact that the Bears have not won ALL the Superbowls 3) The "Lombardi" trophy? Really??? (should be the Halas trophy) 4) LeBron James didn't sign with the Bears instead of the loser Heat 5) Brett Favre and all "Fudge"packers not named Aaron Rodgers Very honorable mention: The fact that Sweetness wasn't immortal. RIP Walter.

I think and how I understand it is that ATL is pretty much in the driver's seat for the #1 and "control their own destiny". However, Chicago plays a factor if ATL (and NO or TB?) lose and CHI wins this weekend then ChI has a chance one on one with ATL by "comparitive teams" played and their results. I thinking safe to say that the Bears need to win this weekend in order to get a first round bye, regardless. Otherwise we'll be looking at Trent Dildofer's playoff scenario: ATL #1 / PHI #2 (bye) GB at CHi (wildcard 1) TB at NO (wildcard 2) At least that's what I recall seeing yesterday. Imagine that, playing GB back to back.

Uhmmm. I thought a large part of why the Bears lost the Super Bowl was because they didn't score enough points. Which you can't do if you turnover the ball...Grossman. The D didnt fail in so much as the team (O and D) failed to work together as a whole. Turning the ball over to a team run by someone like Manning will not work 9 times out 10. And Jason I'm sorry but this "Cover 2" is in fact a very aggressive scheme. As the earlier poster mentioned sometimes too aggressive and why at times you'll find a Corner or Safety on single coverage because the Dline or LBs were busy with initial pursuit and out of position for support. The 3-4 (as pointed out) and even the vaunted '46' had it's weaknesses too. They all do. The fact is that the way the Cover 2 works is that the initial rush is suppossed to trump any gain by either stopping the run early (which they had been doing the majority of the time) or rush the passer to either force a turnover, make a short dumpoff that gains little or nothing or try the lower percentage long pass. Hence why the coverage at that point is minimal because the completion rate for the long ball is minimal and affords the coverage extra time to get in position,.. Ergo Harris and his late game INT. So going back to the original thought that the D is not aggressive check this out. Review tape or even during the upcoming Packer game and during each tackle, when the D is on the field, count how many players are in the tackle or the vicinity. It's usually 11. If thats not aggressive I'm not sure your definition.

Not to dwell on a dark subject but looking back at the New England game. The one thing that was glaring to me was the time of possession during the first half. I don't have the numbers in front of me but they were definitely skewed in favor of NE. The by-product of this was the defense being on the field for a long time. That and the glaring weakness of the Cover 2 (dink and dunking) was how NE not only ate up a lot of clock but also scored most of their points. Yesterday was an example of how the Offense was able to meet NY score for score; not something that the traditional Bears scheme is made up nor as a fan am I accustomed to see. Is it that Martz' plan is starting to gel and opposing teams are actually more concerned with the O rather than the D? Interesting concept for a team from Chicago.

'Bout time!!! Ha ha