Bears Game Matters...Titans not so much...

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
5,259
Reaction score
481
Ty is that true for the Hags? If GB and Seattle each finish 12-4, who gets the tiebreaker? Thanks.

Honestly the way the article was penned that started this post it seemed Bears game is all that mattered...but IF both Seattle and Green Bay end with 12-4 being their records - Seattle may win the tie breaker if it is just the two of us (them and us).

In the end we just need to win baby, for multiple reasons...

The order of tie breakers are as follows:

Two Clubs
  1. Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games between the clubs).
  2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division.
  3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games.
  4. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
  5. Strength of victory.
  6. Strength of schedule.
  7. Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
  8. Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
  9. Best net points in common games.
  10. Best net points in all games.
  11. Best net touchdowns in all games.
  12. Coin toss
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
22,790
Reaction score
2,693
Location
Madison, WI
Agreed. If they get the bye, as looks likely, they'll get a week off anyway. "Resting" guys in the last regular season game is a good way to stop or slow momentum. At worst, play the starters for the first half, and then give it to the JV for the second half.


I think its more than just rest you are hoping for as a reason to sit your starters. For me the #1 reason is to protect them from injury. The last thing you want is for Aaron Rodgers or another very important player on the team to go down with an injury in a meaningless game. Also, not a bad way to give some other guys valuable reps and experience that could potentially improve their play in future meaningful games.

Some people will say "play Rodgers, just don't take any chances". Well what kind of offense are you running to do that? Is that "safe mode" really that good for the offense? Feels more like an exercise in futility than giving the starters valuable snaps. I would rather see mostly backups playing their ***es off like their jobs depended on it.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
22,790
Reaction score
2,693
Location
Madison, WI
Honestly the way the article was penned that started this post it seemed Bears game is all that mattered...but IF both Seattle and Green Bay end with 12-4 being their records - Seattle may win the tie breaker if it is just the two of us (them and us).

In the end we just need to win baby, for multiple reasons...

The order of tie breakers are as follows:

Two Clubs
  1. Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games between the clubs).
  2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division.
  3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games.
  4. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
  5. Strength of victory.
  6. Strength of schedule.
  7. Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
  8. Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
  9. Best net points in common games.
  10. Best net points in all games.
  11. Best net touchdowns in all games.
  12. Coin toss

If just the Seahawks and Packers tie for best record, it goes to your #2. Which right now the Packers have only 2 losses against NFC opponents and the Hawks have 3.

If the Packers lose to the Bears, and tie just the Hawks, it goes to #3. Which is best record against common opponents. Unfortunately, right now the Seahawks lead us in that, with their win over the Vikings. However, they still have to play San Fran next week. So it could get complicated and drop to #4 or even #5.

Go Rams!
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
167
Honestly the way the article was penned that started this post it seemed Bears game is all that mattered...but IF both Seattle and Green Bay end with 12-4 being their records - Seattle may win the tie breaker if it is just the two of us (them and us).

In the end we just need to win baby, for multiple reasons...

The order of tie breakers are as follows:

Two Clubs
  1. Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games between the clubs).
  2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division.
  3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games.
  4. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
  5. Strength of victory.
  6. Strength of schedule.
  7. Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
  8. Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
  9. Best net points in common games.
  10. Best net points in all games.
  11. Best net touchdowns in all games.
  12. Coin toss
Thanks Ty. Yeah for some reason I thought the Pack would lose a tie breaker with the Hags. Well, let's make it east with a Rams victory this afternoon and a Packer victory tonight!
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
167
I think its more than just rest you are hoping for as a reason to sit your starters. For me the #1 reason is to protect them from injury. The last thing you want is for Aaron Rodgers or another very important player on the team to go down with an injury in a meaningless game. Also, not a bad way to give some other guys valuable reps and experience that could potentially improve their play in future meaningful games.

Some people will say "play Rodgers, just don't take any chances". Well what kind of offense are you running to do that? Is that "safe mode" really that good for the offense? Feels more like an exercise in futility than giving the starters valuable snaps. I would rather see mostly backups playing their ***es off like their jobs depended on it.
All good points and agreed that the primary reason in not playing someone is injury prevention rather than rest. Let's just hope MLF has to make that decision after today with wins by the Rams and then the Packers. It will be interesting to see what MLF's game plan is for tonight.
 

Favre>Rodgers259

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
2,119
Reaction score
113
I'd love to see Love in a meaningless week 17 game. But he isn't good enough to be the backup this year.

We don't know that....and this isn't about Love being the backup, it's more about after 20+ weeks of coaching, what has he learned? Is he any better than the guy they saw at Utah State? He's not the backup this year but he absolutely NEEDS to be the backup next year. If Tim Boyle is still the #2 QB in 2021, that spells trouble to me.
 

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
642
We don't know that....and this isn't about Love being the backup, it's more about after 20+ weeks of coaching, what has he learned? Is he any better than the guy they saw at Utah State? He's not the backup this year but he absolutely NEEDS to be the backup next year. If Tim Boyle is still the #2 QB in 2021, that spells trouble to me.
If the Packers felt he was good enough to be the backup this year, he wouldn't be inactive on gameday for 16 weeks in a row. Agreed though that if he isn't the backup next year, big trouble.
 

Favre>Rodgers259

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
2,119
Reaction score
113
If the Packers felt he was good enough to be the backup this year, he wouldn't be inactive on gameday for 16 weeks in a row. Agreed though that if he isn't the backup next year, big trouble.

I just think they should at least get some tape on him, even if it's just for the 2nd half. Give him Lazard, MVS, EQSB, Austin, and Jace and see what he does. Dillon and Williams can take the carries. The film could go a long way to his development. He won't get that kind of experience in the 2021 Preseason, especially if they shorten it to 2 games.
 

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
642
I just think they should at least get some tape on him, even if it's just for the 2nd half. Give him Lazard, MVS, EQSB, Austin, and Jace and see what he does. Dillon and Williams can take the carries. The film could go a long way to his development. He won't get that kind of experience in the 2021 Preseason, especially if they shorten it to 2 games.
I can get with this. Let Boyle take the first half. Give Love the 2nd. I wouldn't be mad.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
167
I just think they should at least get some tape on him, even if it's just for the 2nd half. Give him Lazard, MVS, EQSB, Austin, and Jace and see what he does. Dillon and Williams can take the carries. The film could go a long way to his development. He won't get that kind of experience in the 2021 Preseason, especially if they shorten it to 2 games.
I'm not so sure throwing Love in against a good Bears' defense in (for them) a must-win game is a good idea. I'd like to see him in action as well, just don't think this is the time.

And first things first. Let's hope for a Rams and Packers win today, and then we can debate Love playing next week!
 

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
642
I'm not so sure throwing Love in against a good Bears' defense in (for them) a must-win game is a good idea. I'd like to see him in action as well, just don't think this is the time.

And first things first. Let's hope for a Rams and Packers win today, and then we can debate Love playing next week!
I never disagree with you and this is the second time today!

It'd be awful for the poor baby to get a taste of the NFC North. It's not like he's (hopefully) the future QB of the franchise or anything. :coffee: might as well get his feet wet, even if it's a bad experience.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
10,220
Reaction score
1,191
Andy Herman (Packer Report, Andy Herman (@AndyHermanNFL) / Twitter) simulated the remaining 256 playoff possibilities and here is what he came up with:

#1 Seed: 75%
#2 Vs. Bears: 10.9%
#2 Vs. Cards: 4.7%
#3 Vs. Bears: 3.1%
#3 Vs. Seahawks: 2.3%
#3 Vs. Bucs: 2.3%
#3 Vs. Rams: 1.6%
 

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
642
I obviously would have preferred a Rams victory, but in a strange way, I'm okay with the Seahawks winning. Obviously the Packers need a win next week to control its own destiny, but it's good that they will have something to play for.

The thought of going 3 weeks without playing a meaningful game concerned me.
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
4,463
Reaction score
322
Going to be a good one next week. How many times in recent years have both the Bears and the Packers gone into a game against each other with both having a lot on the line?
 

Zartan

Lets Go UGF Pandas!
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
177
I am going to assume the game will be flexed to Sunday night. As I think that would be biggest game that has alot on the line for both teams.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
22,790
Reaction score
2,693
Location
Madison, WI
I am now looking forward to pounding the Bears to secure the #1 spot AND knock the Bears from the playoffs.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
10,220
Reaction score
1,191
If the Packers beat the Bears, they're the #1 seed.

If the Packers lose to the Bears, but the Seahawks lose to the 49ers, they're the #1 seed.
 

Don Barclay

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 20, 2016
Messages
57
Reaction score
9
I'm not optimistic about the defense's chances to hold Henry to minus-2 yards on a single run on Sunday ;)

Hey -- let's give some credit to Kenny Clark for dropping Henry for -3 yds, solo tackle toward the end of the first half! I appreciate/understand your lack of optimism -- might have even shared it a little, cough cough -- but that tackle was a sweet, sweet highlight of a major-league performance against Henry last night.
 
Top