The suggestion that the Bears did not play to win in Week 17

barristerMember

Can someone please explain this argument to me? If the Bears were not interested in winning, why keep all of your starters in there until the end? Cutler was getting killed out there. Why risk injury?

Bears fans can critique the playcalling all they want, and argue that the Bears were vanilla in that respect. I'm not buying it. Either you play to win, or you don't. Any suggestion that the Bears to not play to win is clearly refuted by the fact that their starters played the entire game, despite some of the key players (e.g., Cutler) taking a number of shots. If they were not interested in winning, they would have taken those guys out of harm's way.

The Bears wanted to win because they wanted to avoid meeting us in the conference championship. They failed, and now we are here.

It's almost as if Bears fans think that if they keep telling themselves that they weren't playing to win, it might be true. It isn't.

We beat them in a meaningful game in Week 17, and we're going to beat them in a championship game on Sunday.

I know this: our march to the Super Bowl goes through Chicago. And I couldn't be more thrilled.

1/21/1112:37 PM

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

gblindaMember

They could have had home field advantage throughout if they won that game, so bullpoopy that they didn't care if they won or not...

1/21/1112:41 PM

ChilliJonI hate the Vikings!

If you caught the week 17 game on NFL Replay, there's a shot and video of the Bears gathered around Cutler. And the rally call was "60 minutes!!! We end their season today and knock them out of the playoffs". The Bears can say whatever they want now. They were all in to end our season and couldnt get it done.

1/21/1112:42 PM

barristerMember

True. That certainly suggests that they went into the game with the mentality that they needed to win and a gameplan to do it. By the end of the game, they knew that HFA was out of reach, because of Atlanta's score against Carolina, and they still had their starters in there.

1/21/1112:44 PM

DeepChicagoDa' Bears

They did play to win, they just went with a vanilla playbook. You really think we're going to run Forte over 20 carries in a "meaningless" game before the playoffs???

Bears brass would have loved to beat you for the rivalries sake, and I have no doubt the players were trying as well.

The playbook and the plays were vanilla because if we didn't win, we knew we might see you again. Obviously, I'm speculating here, but if you watched the game and looked at Fortes carries, it makes sense.

1/21/1112:46 PM

atticusMember

I'm tired of hearing the "vanilla" game plan nonsense also. Really, that concept only applies some in the preseason. There's no such thing as a vanilla game plan with 15 games already on film, including one against the opponent you've already played once earlier in the season. The Bears were playing to win, and it blew up in Lovie's face.

1/21/1112:47 PM

The GBP RulesMember

It's a crock. As you said if they didn't care they would have pulled Cutler. There was a 3rd and 19 where he went out of bounds and got tackled from behind by Walden I believe. I really thought he got injured on that one. It wasn't a sack, because he gained 1 yard. Cutler was getting hit hard and often in that game.

1/21/1112:47 PM

PoHarryMember

There was no chance of home field wth a win in that game. Falcons had that wrapped up by the start of GB V Bear game.

What I will say is this. Lubbie played his starters the entire game. The team played hard, no doubt. What one cannot asnwer is this, knowing nothing could be gained from winning, where were they at mentally.

I totally disagree with any Bear fan if they say the offense went vanilla. IMO Mad Martz went the other way. The Bears threw 39 times compared to 20 rushes. Absurd as hell. Forte avg 6 yds a carry and they quit feeding him. Instead Martz went back to his pre-bye 5-7 step drops and Cutler paid. Ridiculous. In the previous 7 games the Bears avg 29 rushes to 26 passes, then to come into this game and revert to pass happy? Unbelievable. Not predicting a different outcome but just the change in play calling was way out of line for what was working.

1/21/1112:47 PM

FedyaMember

quote:
They could have had home field advantage throughout if they won that game, so bullpoopy that they didn't care if they won or not...

Actually, once Atlanta won, Chicago was locked into the #2 seed.

1/21/1112:47 PM

IL_Pack_FanMember

I've seen a lot come out over the week that they threw Green Bay some defensive looks they hadn't shown all year, particularly a lot more press coverage on the receivers.

I suppose one could make the argument that they were using that as a pre-season game, but I'm not buying the "vanilla" argument for defense.

But even if you knew as a team that you went out and gave them two scoops of vanilla, wouldn't you just say to the media "they got the best of us in a close game, we'll try to get them at home on Sunday" and let your play do the talking? Why get so defensive over the game if you know how you approached it and you have a chance make a statement on the field in a game that counts?

1/21/1112:48 PM

DeepChicagoDa' Bears

Either way, who cares?

According the the media and the bookies, the Packers are going to win. You have that going for you.

1/21/1112:48 PM

TdogProspective Member

TBSS

1/21/1112:49 PM

The GBP RulesMember

quote:
They did play to win, they just went with a vanilla playbook. You really think we're going to run Forte over 20 carries in a "meaningless" game before the playoffs???

Forte averaged 18 touches/game in the regular season.

The game against GB he had 23. You make this too easy.

1/21/1112:49 PM

chickenboyTic Toc

Forte had over 20 carries only 3 times all season. His low in carries was 8 vs. the Hags and his high was 25 vs. the Fins. He averaged 14.8 carries per game. He carried the ball 15 times at GB.

1/21/1112:50 PM

ChilliJonI hate the Vikings!

So the Bears plan was to take a shaky QB on the Road, tie his hands behind his back with a stripped down playbook, let him get hammered on and sacked 6 times, and subject him to that for 4 quarters?

Good plan.

1/21/1112:50 PM

DeepChicagoDa' Bears

quote:
Originally posted by The GBP Rules:
quote:
They did play to win, they just went with a vanilla playbook. You really think we're going to run Forte over 20 carries in a "meaningless" game before the playoffs???

Forte averaged 18 touches/game in the regular season.

The game against GB he had 23. You make this too easy.

Don't be a goofball. He had only 15. A simple check on espn.com will help you.

In a close game like that, one would think he would have gotten more carries. Perhaps Mike Martz just wanted to try out some new formations. Either way, we lost. Excuse me, the Bears lost. The players tried and they lost. Congrats.

Why do all of you have your panties twisted up? Get over it!

1/21/1112:54 PM

chickenboyTic Toc

Seattle was close and he only had 8 carries and 3 receptions.

Face it! You were chocolate!

1/21/1112:55 PM

TimpranilloMember

quote:
Originally posted by DeepChicago:
quote:
Originally posted by The GBP Rules:
quote:
They did play to win, they just went with a vanilla playbook. You really think we're going to run Forte over 20 carries in a "meaningless" game before the playoffs???

Forte averaged 18 touches/game in the regular season.

The game against GB he had 23. You make this too easy.

Don't be retarded. He had only 15. A simple check on espn.com will help you.

15 carries
8 receptions
23 touches

Just like The GBP Rules said.

DerpChicago strikes again.

1/21/1112:58 PM

DeepChicagoDa' Bears

I was talking about carries you friendly rivals .

1/21/1112:59 PM

TimpranilloMember

1/21/111:02 PM

The GBP RulesMember

1/21/111:04 PM

Scott CatronMember

quote:
Originally posted by DeepChicago:
I was talking about carries you friendly rivals.

Why is this tool allowed to post?

1/21/111:06 PM

H5Keyboard Warrior, troll hunter

quote:
Originally posted by DeepChicago:
quote:
Originally posted by The GBP Rules:
Forte averaged 18 touches/game in the regular season.

The game against GB he had 23. You make this too easy.

Don't be a goofball. He had only 15. A simple check on espn.com will help you.

15 carries
8 receptions
===============
23 touches

1/21/111:13 PM

Satori"...going where the climate suits my clothes"

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Catron:

Why is this tool allowed to post?

Its Tool Variety Week at X4, a unique opportunity to view tools from outside Packer Nation

1/21/111:19 PM

fightphoe93Member

You don't keep guys like Cutler and Hester out there and exposed to potential injury the entire game if you aren't playing to win. It wasn't like they pulled them in the 3rd quarter, they were out there the whole time.

That said, I think it's pretty obvious that the Bears will come out with some different plays and a different game plan this week. That doesn't mean it will be a good thing for the Bears though. Maybe they actually had the perfect game plan and they just weren't good enough to win that day. Maybe changing things will actually make things worse for them....

Time will tell.

1/21/111:23 PM

CUPackFanMember

If the Bears weren't playing to win, they would have pulled their starters. It's dangerous to play in the NFL if you are on the field and not putting forth your best effort. Can you imagine if the offensive line wasn't trying? Cutler would have gotten killed. Same with the WR's if Cutler wasn't trying.

And as far as vanilla defense, you guys have covered that. You play vanilla in the preseason rather than introduce the NFL to any new schemes you have implemented in the offseason. After 15 regular season games, I'm sure the Bears have shown 99% of anything they'll do on Sunday.

1/21/111:27 PM

Dave in GASay my name!

quote:
Originally posted by DeepChicago:
They did play to win, they just went with a vanilla playbook. You really think we're going to run Forte over 20 carries in a "meaningless" game before the playoffs???

Bears brass would have loved to beat you for the rivalries sake, and I have no doubt the players were trying as well.

The playbook and the plays were vanilla because if we didn't win, we knew we might see you again. Obviously, I'm speculating here, but if you watched the game and looked at Fortes carries, it makes sense.

Case made...

1/21/111:30 PM

gblindaMember

Sorry, got confused with the saints beating them...

1/21/111:30 PM

GoallineLarge Antenna

quote:
Originally posted by DeepChicago:
They did play to win, they just went with a vanilla playbook.

Err, they did that in the other 15 games. Bears = Vanilla.

1/21/111:50 PM

PoHarryMember

a 2:1 pass to run ratio is not the perfect game plan, it is ridiculous.

1/21/111:51 PM

gbIdahoMember

I tend to give credence to Deep Chicago's first post in this thread. Though, it is curious as to why would Martz and company open more of the playbook in Week 17? Playing it safe logic seems to say you would not show the Packers (or playoff teams) any new options in store.

1/21/112:02 PM

Satori"...going where the climate suits my clothes"

quote:
Originally posted by Goalline:

Bears = Vanilla.

where have you been dude, its the playoffs !

1/21/112:12 PM

BrakMember

Yeah. Go back.

1/21/112:16 PM

BearNDesertMember

The Bears played to win, of that there is no doubt, but I also have no doubt that they played it pretty straight from a gameplan perspective.

B-N-D

1/21/112:29 PM

Satori"...going where the climate suits my clothes"

Likely they ran a few plays just to see how they were defended, they also wanted to put a few things on film like they did vs Seattle with the Forte INT

And now we'll be ready for the Forte INT

1/21/112:38 PM

GoallineLarge Antenna

quote:
Originally posted by Satori:
quote:
Originally posted by Goalline:

Bears = Vanilla.

where have you been dude, its the playoffs !

PLAYOFFS!?!?

What happened to the BCS? I thought the next game was a month off.

1/21/112:39 PM

Rusty42 inch pythons brother!

quote:
Originally posted by Satori:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Catron:

Why is this tool allowed to post?

Its Tool Variety Week at X4, a unique opportunity to view tools from outside Packer Nation

1/21/112:43 PM

oldnavyMember

It's not hard to say the bears played a vanilla offense in the game. They are a vanilla offense.

I heard Matt Millen talking about having watch the game again this week. He noted that the bears had amped up their defense in that game showing AR on at least 15 plays looks they had never shown previously.

My guess is that they were testing things out that could be expanded upon in the playoffs (possibily) but were hoping things confuse AR enough to make mistakes and turn the ball over.

I doubt they go the same route again this week, AR has now seen it and will be prepared.

I said after that game something that concerned me and still does. Cutler got great experience in running a late game drive against a team that was backed into a corner. Yeah, it failed in the end, but the experience he gained is invaluable.

Hope Capers has plenty off different looks for Cutler that just leaves him baffled.

1/21/112:51 PM

GoallineLarge Antenna

They played a lot of man against the Pack on Wk 17 and played it quite well. My guess, that's why they played so much man against the Seahawks last week.

This will be one tough game. The Packers have to be really freaking sound, fundamentally, to win this one. They did that at Atlanta. It was a pleasure seeing the receivers fully securing the ball before they attempted to run with it. Usually, they are turning to run before the ball is secure, and too often they drop the ball.

1/21/113:04 PM

chickenboyTic Toc

quote:
Originally posted by Goalline: It was a pleasure seeing the receivers fully securing the ball before they attempted to run with it.

Except for that one time...

1/21/113:07 PM

Skip to main content

Add Reply

Membership Required

Remove From Your Block List

Manage Follow Preferences

Block

Please wait...