I really can’t believe

[RSE]

The Bears are happy about having to play the Eagles.

[royal]

Imagine choosing to face Foles over Cousins in a pressure-filled game.

[bobbyuk]

I'd say that the reason is because the Eagles' lack of a go to guy at RB and they feel their pass rush is superior to the Eagles offensive line. Listening to all the major football programs today, the prevailing theory is that the Vikings offensive line was weak and they were able to exert a lot of pressure on Cousins. However, if I'm not mistaken, didn't Johnson somewhat silence Mack last year when he played for the Raiders? The best way to silence a pass rusher is to run at him and use his aggressiveness against him. That's what they did last year to David Irving of the Cowboys. I expect a heavy dose of running on Sunday to set up play action--even if you don't get much yardage. And as everyone on here pointed out, Pederson seems to run the ball more with Foles than he does Wentz.

The intangible in this one is going to be how Trubitsky plays in his first ever playoff game, knowing a small mistake could kill you and send you home.

[slag]

IDK if they're happy or not at the prospect of facing the Eagles and I hope they regret it, but I had mad respect for them playing hard yesterday.

[art vandelay]

Are they specifically happy about it? They left Trubisky in, but I thought their second string D played most of the 4th quarter. Their top 3 WRs were also out. It seemed like the Vikes just couldn't beat the Bears with vanilla playcalling and backups.

I think "choosing" an opponent is bad karma. It hit the Rams last year. Ultimately the Vikes were bad enough that Chicago couldn't do anything short of laying down to let them in.

[slag]

Uh no ... I watched the game in a bar with the Eagles on the other screen and I didn't think that happened ... and this seems to verify they played their starters all game:

https://www.windycitygridiron.com/20...-jordan-howard

PS - I looked at other games and the starters on the D line seemed to have more snaps in those games but I don't think they took the 4th quarter off

I should also note that I couldn't hear the sound ... I just saw whoever they had out there was kicking Minnesota's offense's ass

[RSE]

I do think they could have played another 60 minutes and the Vikings wouldn’t have scored 24.

[1960]

I think once you start the game playing for a win it would screw with our team to take your foot off the gas just because someone else is losing. They planned on playing hard and did not change tat because of the Rams score. I think you want your team with a win the game mentality.

[art vandelay]

I didn't watch any of that game until the Eagles game was over. There was 4 and change left in the Chicago game at that point, and the announcers said that Minnesota was "basically playing against Chicago's second string defense."

I'm not sure when that began. I thought maybe when it was clear that the Rams game was out of control. But RSE is right that Minnesota wouldn't have scored no matter what yesterday.

[Maniac]

Maybe but the Bears are now my second favorite team this post season. Nagy's got big balls.

[BirdBrawn]

The starters were definitely out for the last 5 minutes

[slag]

Makes sense ... thats about when they went up 14, I believe.

[BirdBrawn]

That's also when the Eagles game was over and the bonus coverage kicked in here