Anyone still believe in "Meaningless Wins"?

[CrackerDog]

This team is 4-5 and with better closing efforts against Minnesota and Detroit, we're 6-3 and leading the division. Not saying this team isn't flawed because it is and they'd likely lose in the playoffs pretty quick. But the NFC is pretty lousy so who knows?

 

Just WIN baby. Just win.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

I am fired up but then I looked at who we are chasing and Packers and Falcons still have a nice path to the playoffs. It doesn't help that our conference record is absolutely brutal, which will hurt when it comes to tie-breakers. I still can't see a team with Rodgers crashing that hard and missing the playoffs (unless his oline gets him killed), although I could see Atlanta running into issues. The back half of our schedule is manageable. Had we pulled out one of those games, we'd be in business. Then again, we kind of stole that Chiefs game.

 

Still...we got a chance, but to realistically have a shot, we'll have to win at least one of these next two. Win them both and well, even better.

[scs787]

Falcons can rebound, but they lost their last 2 weeks to the Bucs and San Fran, then the week before they barely won a 10-7 game against the 2-7 Titans. I'm not convinced they are any good.

 

I'm more worried about Seattle finally flipping the switch.

[adam]

We basically have to go 6-1 in our last 7 to have a chance with tie breakers. We also need either MIN or GB to beat each other twice. A split would be the worst for us since that would almost assure both of them a 10 win season. So if we don't pass either of those two teams, they split and go 11-5 and 10-6, we will need to pass SEA and ATL.

 

For ATL, even if they go 10-6 and win 4 games (IND, TB, JAX, NO) and lose 3 (CARx2, MIN), they would be 6-6 in the CONF and 2-3 in common games. If we go 6-1 but beat WAS, TB, SF, and MIN, we would be 4-1 in common games and own the higher tie breaker. For SEA, they have the easiest schedule and own the head to head tie breaker with us, so our only hope is they lose at least two games (PIT, MIN, or ARZ) and go no higher than 9-7. We still would need 10 wins and a 6-1 record in our last 7 to do that.

 

CHI 4-5 (1-5 CONF w/6 to play in CONF)

Denver - L/W

@ Green Bay - L/W

San Francisco - W

Washington - W

@ Minnesota - L/W

@ Tampa Bay - W

Detroit - W

Worst Case 8-8, best case 10-6

 

DIV

MIN 7-2 (3-0 DIV/4-1 CONF)

Green Bay - L/W

@ Atlanta - W

Seattle - L/W

@ Arizona - L

Chicago - L/W

NY Giants - W

@ Green Bay - L

Worst Case - 9-7 / 11-5

 

WC

GB 6-3 (1-1 DIV/4-2 CONF)

@ Minnesota - L/W

Chicago - L/W

@ Detroit - W

Dallas - L/W

@ Oakland - L/W

@ Arizona - L

Minnesota - W

Worst Case - 8-8 / 11-5

 

WC

ATL 6-3 (4-3 CONF w/5 to play in CONF)

Indianapolis - L/W

Minnesota - L

@ Tampa Bay - L/W

@ Carolina - L

@ Jacksonville - W

Carolina - L

New Orleans - W

Worst Case - 8-8 / 10-6

 

SEA 4-5 (4-4 CONF, beat us H2H)

San Francisco - W

Pittsburgh - L/W

@ Minnesota - L/W

@ Baltimore - W

Cleveland - W

St. Louis - W

@ Arizona - L

Worst case 8-8, best case 10-6

 

An ATL and GB loss this week, with a win by us would be huge. The interesting part is Minnesota is the one team that plays us, GB, ATL, and SEA. So their games are going to have the biggest impact on the playoffs going forward. That Week 17 game of MIN at GB might decide the division and potential WC team.

[madlithuanian]

I'm all in.

 

 

This team is 4-5 and with better closing efforts against Minnesota and Detroit, we're 6-3 and leading the division. Not saying this team isn't flawed because it is and they'd likely lose in the playoffs pretty quick. But the NFC is pretty lousy so who knows?

 

Just WIN baby. Just win.

 

[jason]

We all want th Bears to win, but every game we have major issues at multiple positions. This team would be better served by losing a few and getting a higher draft pivk than they would barely missing/making the playoffs.

[CrackerDog]

We all want th Bears to win, but every game we have major issues at multiple positions. This team would be better served by losing a few and getting a higher draft pivk than they would barely missing/making the playoffs.

 

We'll just never agree on this one. I don't think the Bears "learned" anything of value yesterday and while they're surely working their way to better draft position and this season was a write-off in my mind before it started, I'd definitely love it if they had 2 of those 3 W's in close games they could've won, making their record good enough to still be in the hunt. We're not going to be bad enough to get a top 5 pick and once you get past that portion of the draft there's so many ways you can take your draft it almost doesn't matter whether you're picking ten, fifteen or twenty. The problem with the Lovie era wasn't the "meaningless wins" so much as the meaningless first round choices by Angelo.

 

But whatever, I understand your point and respect it. There's definitely a school of thought that supports it. I just want to kick ass and let the chips fall where they may.

[jason]

We'll just never agree on this one. I don't think the Bears "learned" anything of value yesterday and while they're surely working their way to better draft position and this season was a write-off in my mind before it started, I'd definitely love it if they had 2 of those 3 W's in close games they could've won, making their record good enough to still be in the hunt. We're not going to be bad enough to get a top 5 pick and once you get past that portion of the draft there's so many ways you can take your draft it almost doesn't matter whether you're picking ten, fifteen or twenty. The problem with the Lovie era wasn't the "meaningless wins" so much as the meaningless first round choices by Angelo.

 

But whatever, I understand your point and respect it. There's definitely a school of thought that supports it. I just want to kick ass and let the chips fall where they may.

 

I understand the other side on this as well. But for clarification, I don't think they learned anything in the sense you're referring. Sure, guys got valuable snaps for experience, and the coaches realized a blind guy with a seeing eye dog could do better than Mariani, but my point isn't about that. It's purely about wins, losses, and draft position. Higher draft position yields better players statistically and higher draft trade value. The Bears need better players. And they need a lot of players. The Bears aren't currently a good team. They're a very well coached average team that needs an infusion of talent and youth. Losses this season are better for the franchise moving forward.

[Chitownhustla]

We'll just never agree on this one. I don't think the Bears "learned" anything of value yesterday and while they're surely working their way to better draft position and this season was a write-off in my mind before it started, I'd definitely love it if they had 2 of those 3 W's in close games they could've won, making their record good enough to still be in the hunt. We're not going to be bad enough to get a top 5 pick and once you get past that portion of the draft there's so many ways you can take your draft it almost doesn't matter whether you're picking ten, fifteen or twenty. The problem with the Lovie era wasn't the "meaningless wins" so much as the meaningless first round choices by Angelo.

 

But whatever, I understand your point and respect it. There's definitely a school of thought that supports it. I just want to kick ass and let the chips fall where they may.

 

Meaningless draft picks was the true problem. With Pace we can only hope he continues to draft well, so there wont be many meaningless first round draft picks.

[Connorbear]

I understand the other side on this as well. But for clarification, I don't think they learned anything in the sense you're referring. Sure, guys got valuable snaps for experience, and the coaches realized a blind guy with a seeing eye dog could do better than Mariani, but my point isn't about that. It's purely about wins, losses, and draft position. Higher draft position yields better players statistically and higher draft trade value. The Bears need better players. And they need a lot of players. The Bears aren't currently a good team. They're a very well coached average team that needs an infusion of talent and youth. Losses this season are better for the franchise moving forward.

 

Agreed 100%.

 

Peace

[adam]

I think you play for a playoff spot until you are mathematically eliminated. If we lose to GB, we are out of it, and winning games would not help our draft position, though it might help the team's outlook going into the offseason.

 

What I would do is go all out against GB, and if you win, you keep going all out until you lose again. Once you lose that 7th game, you give young guys longer looks and more reps, and even shut down guys with lingering injuries. Use the last couple of games as auditions for some of the younger guys and even put in some new schemes or plays that you wanted to look at.

 

Our last 3 losses have been by a total of 8 pts and 3 of our last 4 wins were by a total of 6 pts. That is 6 games decided by a total of 14 pts. We could easily be 1-9 as much as 7-3. So the way things are playing out, 7-9 or 6-10 seem like the most likely outcomes.

 

 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

My rule is, if you are winning because your core players are getting better, then it is absolutely valuable and needed. If you were winning because a bunch of guys who aren't part of your future are playing well, then I'd argue differently. Right now, we are in a process of changing everything and building new players. We are playing a lot of young players and I love what we are doing. We are also seeing our QB, who is extremely talented, play the best football of his career and it would be invaluable if that were to continue (as it means we have a much earlier window of true contention). I hope we win every freakin game here on out because right now, we are doing it because of young players making plays and other key cogs who will be around.

 

 

[madlithuanian]

Especially at this point when it is clear we will not make the playoffs.

 

Agreed 100%.

 

Peace

 

[madlithuanian]

You go all out against GB no matter what!

 

I think you play for a playoff spot until you are mathematically eliminated. If we lose to GB, we are out of it, and winning games would not help our draft position, though it might help the team's outlook going into the offseason.

 

What I would do is go all out against GB, and if you win, you keep going all out until you lose again. Once you lose that 7th game, you give young guys longer looks and more reps, and even shut down guys with lingering injuries. Use the last couple of games as auditions for some of the younger guys and even put in some new schemes or plays that you wanted to look at.

 

Our last 3 losses have been by a total of 8 pts and 3 of our last 4 wins were by a total of 6 pts. That is 6 games decided by a total of 14 pts. We could easily be 1-9 as much as 7-3. So the way things are playing out, 7-9 or 6-10 seem like the most likely outcomes.

 

[Chitownhustla]

You go all out against GB no matter what!

 

A Bears victory against GB will make my season. I will have my uncle from GB at my house for the game, it would be great to watch the Bears beat them with him there to talk a little shit.

[CrackerDog]

Question... When you get to the point of the season you're playing guys with an eye toward the future, do you continue to play Forte? I do. Because we already know what we have in our other guys and Matt is:

 

1. Playing for his future contract, likely elsewhere

2. Less valuable to the Bears and therefore potentially the "better guy to get hurt" if it happens.

 

Not that I want to see Matt leave nor do I want to see him hurt, but given his age and the likelihood of his leaving, I'd play it that way.

 

Thoughts?

[madlithuanian]

I think you still play him, but don't over-work him.

 

Question... When you get to the point of the season you're playing guys with an eye toward the future, do you continue to play Forte? I do. Because we already know what we have in our other guys and Matt is:

 

1. Playing for his future contract, likely elsewhere

2. Less valuable to the Bears and therefore potentially the "better guy to get hurt" if it happens.

 

Not that I want to see Matt leave nor do I want to see him hurt, but given his age and the likelihood of his leaving, I'd play it that way.

 

Thoughts?

 

[scs787]

This draft looks to be fairly mediocre in terms of elite talent. Nothing worth "Tanking" for.

[dawhizz]

This draft looks to be fairly mediocre in terms of elite talent. Nothing worth "Tanking" for.

 

I'm certainly not in favor of "tanking", I just think when I see a flawed team that's going to in all likelihood miss the playoffs, I recognize the value in losses from a draft pick standpoint. Remember, the last two years has seen Aaron Donald and Leonard Williams go in the picks immediately before ours.

[CrackerDog]

I think you still play him, but don't over-work him.

 

Yeah, I guess I'm saying I wouldn't worry too much about his workload. He's been a horse for years and so it won't impact him much if the Bears bring him back for a few more years. If they more on, his workload won't matter at all.

 

I'm sure he wants to showcase his talents as the season wraps up. If he didn't, he'd just take his current injury and ride it out for the rest of the year. He wants to tell other teams looking at him "I'm durable."

 

If he decides a one year deal (maybe two) is all he needs to stay with the team, I hope the Bears hang onto him.

[jason]

Question... When you get to the point of the season you're playing guys with an eye toward the future, do you continue to play Forte? I do. Because we already know what we have in our other guys and Matt is:

 

1. Playing for his future contract, likely elsewhere

2. Less valuable to the Bears and therefore potentially the "better guy to get hurt" if it happens.

 

Not that I want to see Matt leave nor do I want to see him hurt, but given his age and the likelihood of his leaving, I'd play it that way.

 

Thoughts?

 

I think you play him as the #1 RB and give Langford about 25% of the snaps. This is good because:

1. Forte is better than Langford overall

2. Forte deserves respect from the Bears and to earn his new contract...either in Chicago or elsewhere.

3. It saves some snaps for Langford's future.

[CrackerDog]

I think you play him as the #1 RB and give Langford about 25% of the snaps. This is good because:

1. Forte is better than Langford overall

2. Forte deserves respect from the Bears and to earn his new contract...either in Chicago or elsewhere.

3. It saves some snaps for Langford's future.

 

My point exactly, although you summarized it better. I agree 100%

[jason]

And this thread is especially poignant after such a brutal outcome. Other than the GB win, which is 100% worthwhile, the other wins aren't really great wins for the future of this team.

[ChileBear]

And this thread is especially poignant after such a brutal outcome. Other than the GB win, which is 100% worthwhile, the other wins aren't really great wins for the future of this team.

Yep. No consistency When they can put away shite teams like San Fran, then I'll believe they have a future.

[50england50]

I would rather have my teams competing and being in games than being annilated week in week out and going 2-14, 3-13 and getting a high pick. This is a team game and with good drafting you can improve the team. Look at Seattle's good drafting from round 1 to 7 and good coaching staff to develop the players you have picked.

For me I am pretty much happy with season considering how injuries have impacted on our season such as Jeffrey and Royal being banged up and White needing the operation.

Other than some blown assignments at times the defense as been an improvement over the mess that was Mel Tucker. I am also happy that we aren't playing the outdated cover 2 that Aaron Rodgers just cuts through like butter.

This year was about changing the culture in the building and evaluating the roster. Players such as Forte can stay for a home team discount or he can walk if he wants the money.