Bears/Packers - what the line tells us

johnnyonthespot

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 6, 2002
1,459
18
38
45
Cottonwood Heights, UT
Anyone who has been into one of my threads knows that I'm a huge Bears fan, so take all this with the appropriately sized grain of salt.

Packers opened as a 3-point favorite; so what does that tell us? It tells that Vegas thinks that the general public is not taking the regular season into account. In week 3, the 2-0 Packers (pre-season NFC North favorites) came into Soldier Field to face the 2-0 Bears, a team that no one was giving much credit to considering the bizarre Chares Johnson non-TD in game 1 and a victory over a suddenly vulnerable-looking Cowboy team. The result was that odds-makers installed the Packers as 3-point favorites. And despite the outcome of that game, here we are 17-weeks later and odds-makers have again installed the Packers as 3-point favorites.

Given the amount of Packer-love I'm seeing on this board (and pretty much everywhere else outside Chicago), they've put the line where it should be. But that doesn't mean it's correct.

To me the bottom line is that in 2 meetings this season, the game has been tied with 3 minutes to go in the 4th. That says to me that these are a pair of evenly-matched teams and, given that, I'll take the team getting over a FG at home any day.

So let's hear about all the reasons why the Bears can't hang with the Packers (even though they've done it twice already this year):

Rodgers is better than Cutler. Yes, that's true; there's no disputing it. But let's not put him in the Brees/Manning/Brady category yet. He beat Cutler to his 1st playoff victory by a week. We've got a 2-1 playoff record in Rodgers vs. 1-0 with Cutler.

The Packers would have won the first game if it hadn't been for all the penalties. Probably true too, but please go back and watch that game and come back and tell me which of those penalties weren't legitimate. At least 3-4 times they got a holding penalty because a Bear (usually Peppers) was about to get a clear run at Rodgers and they held to protect him.

The Packers are a much better team now than they were when they lost to the Bears. Debatable. No doubting they are hot right now, but pull the IR report for the Packers and tell me they're anywhere close to healthy. Yeah, they are definitely the hottest team in football right now and they may be gelling as a team, but I'm quite sure that any Packer fan will tell you they'd rather have the roster they had during that first meeting rather than the roster they have now. But even if you insist that the Packers ARE better now, the Bears have improved at least as much if not more. They followed up the Packers win with a blowout loss at the Giants (where the mighty Todd Collins QB'd the 2nd half after Cutler's concussion), a win over a hapless Carolina team, and then back-to-back losses at home to Washington and Seattle before their bye. But following the bye the Bears went 7-2 over their final 9 games, losing to New England in a blizzard and then to Green Bay the last game of the year.

Three times this year the Bears have been 3-point home dogs (Packers, Eagles, and Patriots). Twice they shocked everyone and came out with victories. I think this Sunday will make #3, but at the very least the Bears will be in this one all the way till the end.

Now I'm just waiting until the Packer lovefest bids this one up to 4, at which point I'll probably throw 5 units on the line and 2 on the ML.
 

ldabdou

Chillaxin
Forum Member
Dec 28, 2004
9,292
51
48
Nor Cal
Anyone who has been into one of my threads knows that I'm a huge Bears fan, so take all this with the appropriately sized grain of salt.

Packers opened as a 3-point favorite; so what does that tell us? It tells that Vegas thinks that the general public is not taking the regular season into account. In week 3, the 2-0 Packers (pre-season NFC North favorites) came into Soldier Field to face the 2-0 Bears, a team that no one was giving much credit to considering the bizarre Chares Johnson non-TD in game 1 and a victory over a suddenly vulnerable-looking Cowboy team. The result was that odds-makers installed the Packers as 3-point favorites. And despite the outcome of that game, here we are 17-weeks later and odds-makers have again installed the Packers as 3-point favorites.

Given the amount of Packer-love I'm seeing on this board (and pretty much everywhere else outside Chicago), they've put the line where it should be. But that doesn't mean it's correct.

To me the bottom line is that in 2 meetings this season, the game has been tied with 3 minutes to go in the 4th. That says to me that these are a pair of evenly-matched teams and, given that, I'll take the team getting over a FG at home any day.

So let's hear about all the reasons why the Bears can't hang with the Packers (even though they've done it twice already this year):

Rodgers is better than Cutler. Yes, that's true; there's no disputing it. But let's not put him in the Brees/Manning/Brady category yet. He beat Cutler to his 1st playoff victory by a week. We've got a 2-1 playoff record in Rodgers vs. 1-0 with Cutler.

The Packers would have won the first game if it hadn't been for all the penalties. Probably true too, but please go back and watch that game and come back and tell me which of those penalties weren't legitimate. At least 3-4 times they got a holding penalty because a Bear (usually Peppers) was about to get a clear run at Rodgers and they held to protect him.

The Packers are a much better team now than they were when they lost to the Bears. Debatable. No doubting they are hot right now, but pull the IR report for the Packers and tell me they're anywhere close to healthy. Yeah, they are definitely the hottest team in football right now and they may be gelling as a team, but I'm quite sure that any Packer fan will tell you they'd rather have the roster they had during that first meeting rather than the roster they have now. But even if you insist that the Packers ARE better now, the Bears have improved at least as much if not more. They followed up the Packers win with a blowout loss at the Giants (where the mighty Todd Collins QB'd the 2nd half after Cutler's concussion), a win over a hapless Carolina team, and then back-to-back losses at home to Washington and Seattle before their bye. But following the bye the Bears went 7-2 over their final 9 games, losing to New England in a blizzard and then to Green Bay the last game of the year.

Three times this year the Bears have been 3-point home dogs (Packers, Eagles, and Patriots). Twice they shocked everyone and came out with victories. I think this Sunday will make #3, but at the very least the Bears will be in this one all the way till the end.

Now I'm just waiting until the Packer lovefest bids this one up to 4, at which point I'll probably throw 5 units on the line and 2 on the ML.

Its telling me that they want u to take packer, know they will be getting $ on packer and have to put that line out like that. Does a Bear shit in the woods??
 

bleedingpurple

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 23, 2008
22,384
222
63
51
Where it is real F ing COLD
The Packers would have won the first game if it hadn't been for all the penalties. Probably true too, but please go back and watch that game and come back and tell me which of those penalties weren't legitimate. At least 3-4 times they got a holding penalty because a Bear (usually Peppers) was about to get a clear run at Rodgers and they held to protect him.

[I.

I hate the Packers more than most... The TD pass to Finley to put the pack up 17 - 7 was nullified by a bullshit hold Tauscher in my opinion..

Hope Chico wins but I think the Pack gets em.
 

johnnyonthespot

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 6, 2002
1,459
18
38
45
Cottonwood Heights, UT
I remember that play because Finley was on my fantasy team, so I was kind of hoping it would stand. Thought the penalty was legitimate at the time but of course without having the footage now can't say for sure so you may be right.

Funny thing is that I was actually more worried about last week's game (see my thread from then where I made the ill-advised case for Seattle +10). Don't like it when the Bears are expected to win (felt the same way in 2006 when they hosted the Saints in the NFC championship game), but now that they're back to being the team everyone expects to fold I'm much more comfortable.

Not saying that the Pack won't win; really think it's 50-50. Just can't see them running away with it unless Cutler plays like he did in the 2nd half of the Redskins game earlier this year (the DeAngelo Hall 4 picks in one half). Short of that the D will keep them right their till the end like they have all year.
 

bleedingpurple

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 23, 2008
22,384
222
63
51
Where it is real F ing COLD
Well I will be rooting for the Bears 100% They are the less of 2 evils and that is barely..:0074

If Green Bay wins the SB, I will have to hide for a couple months. Won't hear the end of it..
 

JMoney

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 14, 2006
288
1
0
I agree with part of your post. QB play and defenses win playoff games. Defense is a push and Rodgers gets the nod at QB play. I also factor in Cutler is too inconsistent and like Matt Hasselbeck, cannot be counted on to perform great back to back.

If you look at Cutler's "big wins" they are followed by average at best performances the following game. The same can be said about his terrible games, which are followed by great performances.

If you want to dig deeper into the battle....

1st Game
Rodgers Dominates for 315 yards (1TD - 1INT)
Cutler has good game 210 yards (1TD - 1INT)
Zero running game by either team.

Deciding factor: The fact greenbay was coming off a bad undisciplined preseason and committed 18 penalties. Lost by 3.

2nd Game
Rodgers has average game for 230 yards (1TD - 1INT)
Cutler has bad game 170 yards ( 2INT)
Forte has great game.

Deciding factor: Chicago says they weren't trying and Greenbay had to win. I don't buy it. Cutler was sacked 6 times and that team had no life.
 

yyz

Under .500
Forum Member
Mar 16, 2000
41,830
1,539
113
On the course!
Decent write-up, but it has some holes.


I notice you groused about one of the Bears losses being when Cutler was replaced in the 2nd half?

The Pack had 6 losses this year. 4 of them were games where Rodgers was either knocked out w/ a concussion, playing with one, or the back-up played the whole game.

Was 13-16 OT (Rodgers recieved concussion that game)

Miami 20-23 (Game after the concussion)

Detroit 7-3 (Knocked out of game in 2nd qtr)

NE 27-31 (Flynn played whole game)


Rodgers is better than Cutler. Yes, that's true; there's no disputing it. But let's not put him in the Brees/Manning/Brady category yet. He beat Cutler to his 1st playoff victory by a week. We've got a 2-1 playoff record in Rodgers vs. 1-0 with Cutler.

I'll tell you what. Rodgers has played all three of his games on the road. He has amassed the best first three game stats of ANY qb ever in the playoffs. I'd say that speaks volumes. Maybe if he'd have played defense in Arizona a couple years ago, he could have won that game too?

Cutler beat an 11 point underdog on his field. He looked great doing it! But the Packer defense wasn't in his facemask, either.

As for the 3' to 4 points?

I can't argue your logic at all on that. In fact, I said the same thing. In a game that seems to come down to a FG.......it seems obvious to take the team getting the FG!

But, I think the Packers are CLEARLY the superior team in this game. I would bet all day long if it was a best of 7. But it's not.....is it?

And that shitty excuse for a field just kills me. That is "the factor". With Green Bay's new found run game, I'm not sure they can get the footing needed to move it against the Bears "D". Peppers is just fast enough to give Rodgers a little grief, too. Couple that with the recievers dropping balls in the cold (it seems like it to me!), and I just don't see GB running away with it like "the stats" tell me they could.

Another factor that I hate: Chicago's defense always seems to work the ball out. They will probably do that along the line some place, and screw up a drive. Maybe even be deep enough in Packer territory to get an easy score.

So when I squeeze it all together.........


Green Bay 24
Chicago 17


At this time........Not enough for me to push out a bet on Green Bay, but more than enough to stay away from Chicago.
 

yanno

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 8, 2001
3,282
86
48
Ontario
I'll take the team getting over a FG at home any day..

This is only meant to help you with your money, johnnyonthespot, but the fact is that you woulld NOT "take the team getting over a FG at home any day". You would take Chicago doing that (or any other amount at about a pick) because you are a homer. Nothing wrong with that. BUT...don't be delusional that you are doing this for rational reasons.

Truly, as a real gambler, this game (as you say) is 50-50, tho probably this liine is about right in favor of the Packers because of Aaron Rodgers. This is not a lovefest, it's just reasonable.

I would rather bet on three monkeys in a cage and which two are going to screw each other, if I had a real angle on which two. :0corn

So all I am saying is...make this a recreational bet. That's all it is worth. Enjoy yourself, for sure. And love your team, for sure.

But for real money, there will be better bets in NHL or NBA that day.

Enjoy. :popcorn2
 

johnnyonthespot

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 6, 2002
1,459
18
38
45
Cottonwood Heights, UT
I notice you groused about one of the Bears losses being when Cutler was replaced in the 2nd half?

That wasn't my intention at all. The point I was making was that after the Pack W, the Bears went on to lose 3 of their next 4, so they clearly weren't playing their best ball at the time. Was trying to highlight that they have played much better ball since their bye.

But if you wanna talk about backup QBs, dude don't even compare Matt Flynn to the trainwreck that is Todd Collins. We would kill for Matt Flynn. I saw Flynn against New England and except for some piss-poor clock management at the end he looked like a very poised and capable backup. He sports a 60% completion percentage and 3 TDs to go along with 2 INTs. Now Collins on the other hand . . . well the only nice thing I can say about him is that he seems like a nice guy. He of the 37% completion percentage, he of the 5.9 QB rating, he who has strived to complete as many passes to the other team as to his own (5 INTs to go along with 10 completions). So, yeah, if Cutler goes down Sunday the Bears best chance of scoring will be to punt on 1st down and hope for a pick-6 or a Hester PR TD.
 

johnnyonthespot

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 6, 2002
1,459
18
38
45
Cottonwood Heights, UT
This is only meant to help you with your money, johnnyonthespot, but the fact is that you woulld NOT "take the team getting over a FG at home any day".

That's not what I said. I said "That says to me that these are a pair of evenly-matched teams and, given that, I'll take the team getting over a FG at home any day."

Those qualifiers are very important. If I believe that 50% of the time a game will have one winner and 50% the other, then it also stands to reason that a certain percentage of the time where the underdog loses they will still cover, so that means it's the correct side to bet on. Now, you can certainly argue that my hypothesis that these are two evenly-matched teams is wrong but frankly I don't know how anyone who watched both games this year could say that.

As far as being a homer, I'd again remind you that my money was on the Seahawks this past weekend (and I started the thread this time last week to prove it).

And finally my friend, all I do is make recreational bets. I have absolutely no delusions that I'm a sharp and can make a living at this. A unit for me is $25, so all I'm talking about here is $125 on the spread and possibly $50 on the ML. Believe me when I say that should the Bears get trounced this weekend, the money lost will be a far distant concern.
 

3 Seconds

Fcuk Frist
Forum Member
Jan 14, 2004
6,706
16
0
Marlton, NJ
Just wanted to weigh in & say this is a good healthy debate on the game & valuable no matter wat side you go with...

Carry on :toast:
 

Giambi-Juice

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 15, 2010
485
11
18
Amish Country, PA
The real play might be the under....


I was thinking the same thing J.M. Overs were 4 for 4 last week. What the hell, I was thinking of playing both unders on Sunday and worse case scenario being out some juice if only 1 of 2 goes low.

All four teams might play a little tight as the pressure of getting to the big dance settles in right after kick off!:0074
 

Zamo

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 21, 2010
1,642
7
0
just outside of D.C.
Good debate for sure....I have always had a harder time "personally" betting the total than the line...so I cant comment on that

I will say that I do really appreciate YYZ write up on GB losses in games revolving around his DNP's or concussions....thanks YYZ! :0074
 

BobbyBlueChip

Trustee
Forum Member
Dec 27, 2000
20,705
286
83
53
Belly of the Beast
And that shitty excuse for a field just kills me.

I'm already on the Packers because they just look better and Jay does stupid stuff every game, but that field has to have some sort of advantage.

Special teams and playing on partially frozen clay. That's the Bears advantages. . . . and the fact that they don't have to live in Wisconsin
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Money is pouring in on GBay but the line stays the same. I thought bookies wanted equal action on both sides? :shrug: I know the sports mind doesn't go back much farther then a week but on Monday Night 9/27/10 Chicago beat Greenbay 20-17. Gbay had 18 penalties to Chicago's 5. 152 yards to 38. That is the only way this Shit quarterback Chicago team can beat Greenbay and if u recall that game people were up in arms on how badly it was officiated. (of course most of America bet Greenbay that night. Strange how the bad calls always go against the team that is heavily bet) Almost like the refs were told to do anything they could to make Chicago win.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top