The goal should be ….

[Connorbear]

… to win the Superbowl. If we can't make the playoffs, then I want to do whatever we can to make it easier to win the Superbowl the next year or as soon as possible. A better draft pick, to me, can help to achieve that goal.

 

Peace

[adam]

Every team's goal is to win the SB. It is not like we have an option to make the playoffs or not.

 

This season is going to come down to Week 17 against GB. DET is going to lose against BAL, and we are going to win against CLE and PHI to setup a win and you're in scenario. At that point, we are not going to better our draft position that much, especially with us already having 7 wins. The worst we will do is 8-8 and best is 10-6 with a playoff berth.

[Connorbear]

Every team's goal is to win the SB. It is not like we have an option to make the playoffs or not.

 

This season is going to come down to Week 17 against GB. DET is going to lose against BAL, and we are going to win against CLE and PHI to setup a win and you're in scenario. At that point, we are not going to better our draft position that much, especially with us already having 7 wins. The worst we will do is 8-8 and best is 10-6 with a playoff berth.

 

 

My point is once you know are not going to make the playoffs, it should be all about next year. Wins don't matter at that point. Getting better so you can win the SB in the future does.

 

Peace

[Mongo3451]

My point is once you know are not going to make the playoffs, it should be all about next year. Wins don't matter at that point. Getting better so you can win the SB in the future does.

 

Peace

As long as that doesn't mean tanking games to get a better pick. I agree if you are out of the playoff scenario, you should give bubble guys and youngsters a long look to learn more about them and provide experience.

[jason]

My point is once you know are not going to make the playoffs, it should be all about next year. Wins don't matter at that point. Getting better so you can win the SB in the future does.

 

Peace

 

Too bad Lovie Smith never understood that. Multiple years the Bears were out of it, yet he was bound and determined to get meaningless wins that ultimately hurt draft position.

[Connorbear]

As long as that doesn't mean tanking games to get a better pick. I agree if you are out of the playoff scenario, you should give bubble guys and youngsters a long look to learn more about them and provide experience.

I'm not talking about tanking games but winning shouldn't be the priority.

 

Peace

[scs787]

I agree overall, but hey're still very much in it, and should be till the very end, so the timing of this post is a little odd to me.

 

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I'm not talking about tanking games but winning shouldn't be the priority.

 

Peace

 

 

 

Nolo comprendo.

 

EDIT: Connor, there was no implication of yours or whoever else suggested it "being a fan". I have no doubt "you're a fan" just why someone would wish for the team to lose just to get better in the draft. I don't get it, won't get it and really don't care to understand. If you want your team to lose to get a better draft pick...all I can say is 'aye carumba'.

 

I should add that I would personally never want to be a teammate of yours with that way of thinking.

[Connorbear]

I agree overall, but hey're still very much in it, and should be till the very end, so the timing of this post is a little odd to me.

This was in response to another post where it was implied that someone is not a fan if they don't want their team to win every game regardless of whether or not they are going to make the playoffs. My point is as I stated.

 

Peace

[Lucky Luciano]

This was in response to another post where it was implied that someone is not a fan if they don't want their team to win every game regardless of whether or not they are going to make the playoffs. My point is as I stated.

 

Peace

 

this is my thought on it as i have stated this in the past and maybe yours also...

 

if you are mathematically out of the playoffs there is NO sense to me to play older veterans or your franchise type players (other than offensive line for obvious reasons and you could even add one spot per game there) in the last game or three of the season. it is just plain stupid.

 

lovie smith virtually took 3 years off of urlacher's career doing so for absolutely nothing. it not only prematurely led do url's retirement it hurt us in MANY ways the following season and limited our potential to achieve the ultimate goal.

 

if winning a superbowl is paramount over any other consideration, and it sure as HELL should be, you do this:

 

you play your younger players or your veteran players on the bubble for the following season's cuts.

 

you do this so your GM and coaches can really evaluate the existing talent and future young players they have under contract this season OR the veteran players whose contracts are up and gives you real data on whether to resign them or not.

 

this certainly is not game planning to lose or tanking a game or season's end. the results will 'probably' be losses but at least you will get valuable information you need when the season is over to make your team better for next season's superbowl run.

 

i will state this again... if you do not win a superbowl your season is a failure and you need to do everything possible to prepare for next seasons success.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

this is my thought on it as i have stated this in the past and maybe yours also...

 

if you are mathematically out of the playoffs there is NO sense to me to play older veterans or your franchise type players (other than offensive line for obvious reasons and you could even add one spot per game there) in the last game or three of the season. it is just plain stupid.

 

lovie smith virtually took 3 years off of urlacher's career doing so for absolutely nothing. it not only prematurely led do url's retirement it hurt us in MANY ways the following season and limited our potential to achieve the ultimate goal.

 

if winning a superbowl is paramount over any other consideration, and it sure as HELL should be, you do this:

 

you play your younger players or your veteran players on the bubble for the following season's cuts.

 

you do this so your GM and coaches can really evaluate the existing talent and future young players they have under contract this season OR the veteran players whose contracts are up and gives you real data on whether to resign them or not.

 

this certainly is not game planning to lose or tanking a game or season's end. the results will 'probably' be losses but at least you will get valuable information you need when the season is over to make your team better for next season's superbowl run.

 

i will state this again... if you do not win a superbowl your season is a failure and you need to do everything possible to prepare for next seasons success.

 

You could save yourself a whole lot of time by saying 'you don't play to lose, just to give your "bubble" players exposure/playing time' and gotten the point across.

 

And that is my point, if you are wishing to lose then I question why.

 

And for the record, you know nothing of what did or didn't contribute to Urlacher's career. He easily could have said he wanted to play and just as easily gotten hurt in a 'garbage game' by his own volition. It is just convenient to place blame on Lovie.

[Lucky Luciano]

You could save yourself a whole lot of time by saying 'you don't play to lose, just to give your "bubble" players exposure/playing time' and gotten the point across.

 

And that is my point, if you are wishing to lose then I question why.

 

And for the record, you know nothing of what did or didn't contribute to Urlacher's career. He easily could have said he wanted to play and just as easily gotten hurt in a 'garbage game' by his own volition. It is just convenient to place blame on Lovie.

 

Alaskan Grizzly: I have disussed many a times on whether the Oline was deficient in protection or was it Cutler's need for being mobile that caused him to be hit so much. I said that he has always been a mobile QB

 

yup, that says it all

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

yup, that says it all

 

So your point is??? Please expound.

[Connorbear]

this is my thought on it as i have stated this in the past and maybe yours also...

 

if you are mathematically out of the playoffs there is NO sense to me to play older veterans or your franchise type players (other than offensive line for obvious reasons and you could even add one spot per game there) in the last game or three of the season. it is just plain stupid.

 

lovie smith virtually took 3 years off of urlacher's career doing so for absolutely nothing. it not only prematurely led do url's retirement it hurt us in MANY ways the following season and limited our potential to achieve the ultimate goal.

 

if winning a superbowl is paramount over any other consideration, and it sure as HELL should be, you do this:

 

you play your younger players or your veteran players on the bubble for the following season's cuts.

 

you do this so your GM and coaches can really evaluate the existing talent and future young players they have under contract this season OR the veteran players whose contracts are up and gives you real data on whether to resign them or not.

 

this certainly is not game planning to lose or tanking a game or season's end. the results will 'probably' be losses but at least you will get valuable information you need when the season is over to make your team better for next season's superbowl run.

 

i will state this again... if you do not win a superbowl your season is a failure and you need to do everything possible to prepare for next seasons success.

 

This 100%. Whether you finish 9-7 and out of the playoffs or 1-15, the result is the same - you failed to win the Superbowl which should be the goal.

 

Peace

[adam]

i will state this again... if you do not win a superbowl your season is a failure and you need to do everything possible to prepare for next seasons success.

That is not necessarily true. Some teams realistically know they are not competing for a championship every year and have other goals to achieve. I would say making the playoffs after a regime change would be a success.

[jason]

You could save yourself a whole lot of time by saying 'you don't play to lose, just to give your "bubble" players exposure/playing time' and gotten the point across.

 

And that is my point, if you are wishing to lose then I question why.

 

And for the record, you know nothing of what did or didn't contribute to Urlacher's career. He easily could have said he wanted to play and just as easily gotten hurt in a 'garbage game' by his own volition. It is just convenient to place blame on Lovie.

 

2011 is the year being referenced. And while Urlacher could have demanded to play by his own volition, a good HC would have said, "You know, Brian, it's not getting any easier. Your getting up there in years and you've had several injuries. Let the young guys play, get some experience, and it will help us next year. That will help the team more than you playing in a meaningless game. We're mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, and you have nothing to prove since you're one of the best defensive players in the league. On top of that, if we happen to lose with the younger guys - it's more likely - we get a higher draft pick, which will also help us more."

 

Or something like that.

 

BTW - That potential loss would have had three positives or potential positives:

1) Urlacher doesn't get injured

2) The Bears move up about 10 spots in the draft

3) The Bears probably don't select SMC that early (my guess because of how bad of a reach it would have been)

[CrackerDog]

3) The Bears probably don't select SMC that early (my guess because of how bad of a reach it would have been)

 

Amen to that.

 

But let's not forget, there are early Round 1 busts just like there are middle and end of Round 1 busts every season. I think it may make sense to target an early pick when there's a "can't miss" player projected at a position like QB or RB and you're looking for a 10 year guy at that position to plug in for the next decade. But just saying lose to better your position in the draft is an oversimplification and often has just as many negative impacts as positive. Playing second string guys could get your first stringers injured, for example. It could also hurt team morale and/or send the wrong message to free agents you're intending to chase in the following off season. Winning is contagious, etc. There are obviously two sides to this argument, just like whether a team should "rest" their starters once they have their playoff positioning settled. I'm not a fan of that either.

[Mongo3451]

2011 is the year being referenced. And while Urlacher could have demanded to play by his own volition, a good HC would have said, "You know, Brian, it's not getting any easier. Your getting up there in years and you've had several injuries. Let the young guys play, get some experience, and it will help us next year. That will help the team more than you playing in a meaningless game. We're mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, and you have nothing to prove since you're one of the best defensive players in the league. On top of that, if we happen to lose with the younger guys - it's more likely - we get a higher draft pick, which will also help us more." Or something like that. BTW - That potential loss would have had three positives or potential positives: 1) Urlacher doesn't get injured 2) The Bears move up about 10 spots in the draft 3) The Bears probably don't select SMC that early (my guess because of how bad of a reach it would have been)

Amen x2. And I'll add Lovie was in job saving mode, again. That win allowed him to throw Martz under the bus and promote his next savior in Tice.

[jason]

Amen x2. And I'll add Lovie was in job saving mode, again. That win allowed him to throw Martz under the bus and promote his next savior in Tice.

 

Good catch. I forgot about that one.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

2011 is the year being referenced. And while Urlacher could have demanded to play by his own volition, a good HC would have said, "You know, Brian, it's not getting any easier. Your getting up there in years and you've had several injuries. Let the young guys play, get some experience, and it will help us next year. That will help the team more than you playing in a meaningless game. We're mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, and you have nothing to prove since you're one of the best defensive players in the league. On top of that, if we happen to lose with the younger guys - it's more likely - we get a higher draft pick, which will also help us more."

 

Or something like that.

 

Similar to how going into Detroit game 2 this year, Trestman could have said 'you know Jay, it was only a few weeks ago that you were hurt pretty good against Washington.' 'If you look like you're struggling, I'm going to pull you so Josh can go in there.' 'He's been doing good in helping out, so there is no need for you to make your injury worse'. But instead and when the second half started (it was obvious to anyone watching, Jay was in fact physically struggling) we hear: “I didn’t want to take (Cutler) out unless he felt he couldn’t do the job. I thought it was a very courageous performance throughout. And then at the end I took him out (only) because I knew he would have to run around in the two-minute drill.” (source: Toronto Sun). Yet this was after Cutler admitted that his play faded from the hot start that he had. Yet he wouldn't admit to it until almost 2 mins left in the game.

 

I might add, dissimilar to your example, the team did/does have something to play for...this year. Which is that much more painfully obvious now that the Bears are tied with Detroit for playoff viability.

[jason]

Similar to how going into Detroit game 2 this year, Trestman could have said 'you know Jay, it was only a few weeks ago that you were hurt pretty good against Washington.' 'If you look like you're struggling, I'm going to pull you so Josh can go in there.' 'He's been doing good in helping out, so there is no need for you to make your injury worse'. But instead and when the second half started (it was obvious to anyone watching, Jay was in fact physically struggling) we hear: “I didn’t want to take (Cutler) out unless he felt he couldn’t do the job. I thought it was a very courageous performance throughout. And then at the end I took him out (only) because I knew he would have to run around in the two-minute drill.” (source: Toronto Sun). Yet this was after Cutler admitted that his play faded from the hot start that he had. Yet he wouldn't admit to it until almost 2 mins left in the game.

 

I might add, dissimilar to your example, the team did/does have something to play for...this year. Which is that much more painfully obvious now that the Bears are tied with Detroit for playoff viability.

 

Yeah, I don't think that's the point at all. There is a minor comparison, but the point to the original 2011 gripe held by many is that there was nothing to play for. The season was over. You can't even compare that to an early enough in the season that no team had even clinched a playoff spot.