While contemplating my bets this weekend (I bet but a few dollars on football each week) I was checking the odds for the Packers - Bears game, since Packers are my favourite team and I figured I put something on them.
However, to my astonishment, the odds are 1.18 that Packers win (that is, you get x1.18 the money you bet); and 4.90 that the Bears win! I would have guessed it’d be like, well 1,80 Packers and 2,40 Bears or something.
By comparison the site I’m usually using has 1.50 if Patriots win over Dolphins and 1.25 that Saints win over Bucs. Anyhow, 1.18 is unusually low (I’ve checked other Swedish/European sites, and the odds are about the same.)
What is the reasoning behind this? I thought Bears would be a fairly hard nut to crack for the Packers?
The Bears have already locked up the first-round bye. Therefore you may safely assume that they will empty the bench and rest their starters for the entire game as they have nothing to play for. It should make the game an easy win for the Packers, who need it to get into the playoffs and will play their starters the whole game.
That theory would work against the conspiracy theory put out last year. That the Colts tanked a late season game against the Jets so the Playoffs had team from New York City in the playoffs.
The Packers are fighting the Giants for the final Wildcard spot.
I am not saying the theory is correct, but I do some people that were absolutely convinced that the Colts were payed to lose the game against the Jets late last year, so a NYC team would be in the playoffs.
Hey, I’m as pissed off as anybody about last year’s debacle, but I don’t think the Colts were trying to get the Jets into the playoffs. I think they just quit, on a perfect season no less.
Anyway, Lovie Smith says the Bears are playing to win. I’ll believe it when I see it. The Bears don’t have anything at all at stake except keeping the Packers out of the playoffs, and even that might not be a good enough reason to risk hurting starters. Of course, I know about the huge rivalry that those two teams have and that might be incentive enough, but I’m still skeptical.
The Bears do “have something to play for.” If they win and Atlanta and New Orleans lose, the Bears would host the NFC Championship. It is unlikely that both Atlanta and New Orleans will lose, and the games will already be settled before the Bears play, so the Bears should “have nothing to play for,” but it’s not absolute.
The odds don’t surprise me, but that doesn’t mean they are right. The last week of the season is a crap shoot and Vegas and other oddsmakers can be as lost as the average gambler.
To break down the game a bit. The Bears defense hasn’t played well at all over the last few week and have struggled especially against efficient accurate passers. That’s a traditional flaw of Lovie’s beloved Tampa 2 and the last few weeks have shown it’s exasperated a bit. The Bears run defense is as good as ever but the Packers have largely abandoned that so you might argue that that favors Rodgers and company. The Packers are playing pretty well in general especially on defense so there’s good reason to be high on them.
The game is in Lambeau and for all the piss and vinegar the Bears have spewed they haven’t really owned the cold weather environment this season. They haven’t been terrible aside from that Pats game, but they haven’t shown it to be much of an advantage either. The Pack is tough at home and the Bears barely survived the teams first matchup at the start of the season.
The Packers life is on the line and the Bears have probably nothing to play for barring a Falcons implosion next week. From a motivation standpoint the Packers have it all over the Bears and the Bears may or may not play their starters. Lovie claims they will and I suspect everyone will start but if the Packers get up on them at all I suspect the Bears will rest guys. If they are winning and can eliminate the Packers they’ll probably leave the starters in as long as they can but they won’t sell out to make a comeback if they are trailing at half. The Bears have an opportunity to sweep the division, something no team has done since the late 80s, but I suspect Lovie will talk that angle up as little more than disinformation.
Long story short, I wouldn’t bet too heavily on the game because of the what-if factor but all signs point to an easy Packers win.
Thanks for the input, guys. While I knew that it the game was far more important to the Packers than the Bears for obvious reasons, I admit I missed the fact the the game was close to pointless to the Bears. That’s the problem of being a football fan in Sweden, you’re slightly a bit off. I watch a game or two each week and read nfl.com and sometimes SI.com and so forth, but the whole football information flow is pretty much out of reach here (I don’t even get the halftime shows or any of the kind – bu hu hu).
Yes. We’ve got a little leage here (with very dedicated players and coaches, refs and so forth, about 20 teams overall), which I once were a part of – one heck of a wide receiver ;)), and it sparked what seems to be a everlasting interest.