The bears game is pretty much meaningless

[flv2]

Not counting ties, there are four possible scenarios in our division in Week 17:

1. Hawks and Rams both win. 2. Hawks win, Rams lose. 3. Hawks lose, Rams win. 4. Hawks and Rams both lose.

Scenario 1: The Hawks are currently 8-7, the Rams 9-6. We both win in Week 17, we go to 9-7, Rams 10-6. We could tie the Rams if we beat them in Week 18 as both teams would finish 10-7, both would be 4-2 within the division, and both of us would have 6-6 conference records, which would throw the tiebreaker to the strength of victory.

Scenario 2. If we beat the Bears and the Rams lose to the Cards, we will go to 9-7 while the Rams would be drop to 9-7, putting us in a tie. That would make Week 18 vs. the Rams for the divisional championship.

Scenario 3. If we lose to the Bears and the Rams beat the Cards, we drop to 8-8 while the Rams would go to 10-6, a two game lead with one to play. They clinch the division.

Scenario 4. If we lose to the Bears and the Rams lose to the Cards, we drop to 8-8, the Rams drop to 9-7. That would make Week 18 relevant as if we were to win, we'd both finish with 9-8 records and the tiebreakers would apply.

The Bears game is relevant to the playoffs. I don't understand why this is an issue.

This is correct. However, in scenario 1 the Seahawks need 10 or 11 other results to go their way for them to win the tie-breaker. It's statistically less than a 1% chance.

Realistically scenarios 2 & 4 are the only ones that matter.

 

[Rat]

Not counting ties, there are four possible scenarios in our division in Week 17:

1. Hawks and Rams both win. 2. Hawks win, Rams lose. 3. Hawks lose, Rams win. 4. Hawks and Rams both lose.

Scenario 1: The Hawks are currently 8-7, the Rams 9-6. We both win in Week 17, we go to 9-7, Rams 10-6. We could tie the Rams if we beat them in Week 18 as both teams would finish 10-7, both would be 4-2 within the division, and both of us would have 6-6 conference records, which would throw the tiebreaker to the strength of victory.

Scenario 2. If we beat the Bears and the Rams lose to the Cards, we will go to 9-7 while the Rams would be drop to 9-7, putting us in a tie. That would make Week 18 vs. the Rams for the divisional championship.

Scenario 3. If we lose to the Bears and the Rams beat the Cards, we drop to 8-8 while the Rams would go to 10-6, a two game lead with one to play. They clinch the division.

Scenario 4. If we lose to the Bears and the Rams lose to the Cards, we drop to 8-8, the Rams drop to 9-7. That would make Week 18 relevant as if we were to win, we'd both finish with 9-8 records and the tiebreakers would apply.

The Bears game is relevant to the playoffs. I don't understand why this is an issue.

The only one of those requiring a win over the Bears is an insane one in a million scenario involving like six teams, several in the AFC, having their remaining games fall in an exact way. That's like if I'm $100K short of buying something I want, the bidding is about to end and I say, "I'm not sunk yet, I can buy a scratch off at the gas station". In any realistic scenario, the Bears game is not a factor in actually making the playoffs. If the coaching staff plays a critical player that they wouldn't have without that .001% chance, they're complete morons.

 

[GemCity]

The Rams aren’t losing to the Cards…

Let’s be realistic here.

 

[bigskydoc]

The Bears game is relevant to the playoffs. I don't understand why this is an issue.

If the Rams lose both games, then the Chicago game doesn't matter. If they beat us, the Chicago game doesn't matter. The only scenario where the Chicago game could possibly matter is if we both win week 17, and then we beat the Rams in week 18

In that scenario, in order for the Chicago game to matter, the Bears would have to beat the Packers, AND the Packers would have to beat the Vikings, AND the Bills would have to lose to the Jets an the Patriots, AND the Broncos would have to beat the Chiefs and the Bengals, AND the Dolphins would have to beat the Jets and the Browns. Along with a couple of other games to break our way.

It's irrelevant because there is no way that all the things that would have to somehow simultaneously break our way to make it relevant are going to break our way.

 

[Rat]

The Rams aren’t losing to the Cards…

Let’s be realistic here.

I'm willing to be hurt again. The Rams offense has been mediocre the past two games against poor teams and the Cards beat them 41-10 earlier this season. I doubt it would rank even among the top 30 upsets of the season were it to happen.

 

[rjdriver]

The Rams aren’t losing to the Cards…

Let’s be realistic here.

The Cards have a precedent of ending our best players careers. They’ll have no problem laying an egg to end our playoff chances.

 

[strohmin]

We absolutely need to win our next two games. Im not upset with losses against 2 pretty good teams especially for a first year head coach but the team needs to be able to beat up on scrubby ass teams and division rivals if they are going to become contenders. Beat the Bears and Rams and go into the offseason with momentum.

 

[FrodosFinger]

The Rams aren’t losing to the Cards…

Let’s be realistic here.

Cards are hammering the Rams you can book it. Horrible matchup for LA as we noticed in their first game

 

[Bear-Hawk]

Meaningless?? For @Bear-Hawk, this matchup is the Christmas gift that keeps on

Bears need to lose this game to get too-10 draft pick. It may also help get Poles fired. 2/3 of my Bears forum wants Poles fired for neglecting the offensive line. Um, where have I heard that before?

 

[andyh64000]

If you really want to be pragmatic about it, it is actually better if the Seahawks lose to the bears to improve their 2025 Draft Pick in case the Rams beat the Cards (or us).

 

[stack55]

Yeah, but if that happens, it doesn't matter whether we beat the Bears or not.

Yes it does, there a game up on us.

 

[stack55]

It really doesn't. Whether our week 18 game is for the division is 100% dependent on what the Rams do. If they lose, we're in the exact same situation whether we beat the Bears or not.

Yes it does, we’re a game back unless we win both and they lose both.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

Games are not meaningless. I guarantee every player on that team would never think that way. You play to win.

They play to win, But could we get a shot at Howell being in as a starter? Please.

 

[RiverDog]

If the Rams lose both games, then the Chicago game doesn't matter. If they beat us, the Chicago game doesn't matter. The only scenario where the Chicago game could possibly matter is if we both win week 17, and then we beat the Rams in week 18

In that scenario, in order for the Chicago game to matter, the Bears would have to beat the Packers, AND the Packers would have to beat the Vikings, AND the Bills would have to lose to the Jets an the Patriots, AND the Broncos would have to beat the Chiefs and the Bengals, AND the Dolphins would have to beat the Jets and the Browns. Along with a couple of other games to break our way.

It's irrelevant because there is no way that all the things that would have to somehow simultaneously break our way to make it relevant are going to break our way.

We're not communicating here, and I'm not sure why. Are we talking about two different things?

I'm not talking about what importance this game may or may not hold on January 6th, the end of the regular season. I'm talking about the importance this game holds on December 26th. In order to advance to the playoffs, all we need to break our way is for us to beat the Bears and the Cards to beat the Rams in Week 17. If that happens, then both us and the Rams would have identical 9-7 records and the Week 18 game in LA would be for the NFC West championship.

That means that our game with the Bears is critically important since as you noted, things get a lot more complex if we lose that game.

 

[DarkVictory23]

The Rams aren’t losing to the Cards…

Let’s be realistic here.

If the Cards still had something to play for, they'd be the favorite in this one. We'll see how they approach the game.

They play to win, But could we get a shot at Howell being in as a starter? Please.

So in other words, don't play to win?

 

[Seahawkfan80]

If the Cards still had something to play for, they'd be the favorite in this one. We'll see how they approach the game.



So in other words, don't play to win?

Always play to win. But we dont know what we have. So Learn what we have now not next year.

 

[sutz]

Lose for a better draft pick.

 

[RiverDog]

Yes it does, we’re a game back unless we win both and they lose both.

Well, at least someone gets it.

 

[DarkVictory23]

Always play to win. But we dont know what we have. So Learn what we have now not next year.

Learn what you have in Week 18 in the unlikely event we're actually eliminated from the playoffs in Week 17. 'Learning what you have' is by definition not playing to win. (And this is taking the argument that we 'don't know what we have' at face value, which is dubious at best.)

Lose for a better draft pick.

There is no way what little value we get from moving up 1 or 2 spots in the draft would overcome the damage that would be done to the locker room if Macdonald appears to have given up on this season with playoffs still a realistic possibility.

 

[RiverDog]

There is no way what little value we get from moving up 1 or 2 spots in the draft would overcome the damage that would be done to the locker room if Macdonald appears to have given up on this season with playoffs still a realistic possibility.

This.