I know we can't root for either team to win, but is there someone to root for to lose?

If my thinking is correct, if CHI loses things stay bottled up in the division standings. All three teams would have splits with each other with the exception of us having to play CHI. With this scenario, if we sweep CHI, and stay even in the overall W-L, then we are in the playoffs. If we loose to CHI, then it comes down to tiebreakers. If MIN loses, then we have to beat CHI, as a loss would give them the division with the best division record.

Does anyone see this a different way?

How about we root for a tie?

(This would also have the hidden benefit of enabling Minnesota/Chicago quarterbacks/coaches to do a Donovan McNabb the following week and say, "I didn't know you could have ties in the NFL." Giving us yet another thing to laugh about.

I think I see it the same way. Root for Minnesota this weekend. And if it comes down to it, assuming wins along the way by all three teams, with a loss in between by the Vikes, the division will come down to that Bears/Packers contest in December. I'd like to have tickets for that game.

The Vikings have the hardest schedule-- likely to lose a bunch toward the end of the season. I think we finish ahead of them, so I wnat them to beat the Bears and help us out.

Exactly. Unless the Packers win the division, they watch the playoffs on TV, with the rest of us. They should have won the second game against Minny, but, as seems to becoming a pattern, don't have that "killer instinct". And I REALLY don't want to read that MM said this was something else that needed to be addressed!

I'm watching the game for a bit now. Comments : Jared Allen is very good. After watching the 99 yrd touchdown if a reciever taunts the d.b from the 10 yrd line into the endzone, that d.b should be able to pummel said wide reciever until he apologizes or is carried off the field. Or both. Whatever happened to sportmanship?

The Pack needs to run the table.

The Vikings need to lose at least two of these next four games: @ Detroit, @ Arizona, Atlanta, New York (Giants).

That's asking a lot.

It is officially the Vikings to lose.

The Giants, sadly, will have wrapped up playing at home throughout the playoffs prior to their game with the Queens. The game against them will be meaningless. They might rest some key players including E. Manning against the Queens in the last game of the season.

Exactly. That is why we had to root for Chi yesterday. And the fact that we still have a game against Chicago. Then we only needed one other loss for each the Bears and Vikes provided we run the table and win the tie breaker with Minny which we would with NFC North record.

I'm not so sure the Giants will be resting their players. They, perhaps more than any other team, know the importance of playing well heading into the playoffs. Since they will already have a bye week, why do they need two?

At that point, one has to wonder about potential rust.

It really is a damned-if-you do/damned-if-you-don't scenario. If someone gets hurt, people will question why that player was in the game. If the Giants come out flat in the divisional round, people will say they were rusty and should have played the starters in Week 17.

Yeah, I hear ya. But i think you set yourself up for much worse scrutiny if one of your stars gets hurt in a meaningless game. I do think they will play the starters for a quarter or so but most definitely by halftime the studs will be on the bench.

The good news is Tampa and Carolina have to play to win and one could go into week 17 with 3 loses. If the Giants lose just one game in the next three they might need to win that last game.

Not to mention the Giants took a pasting last year in Minnesota. That game was probably the single most important factor in the Giants being overlooked during the playoffs, and during the first part of 2008. Even if it rests a few stars, New York will be motivated for the game.

By contrast, I think the Vikes will outlast Atlanta at the Metrodome. I'd love Detroit to upset the Vikings this weekend but don't expect it to happen. So that leaves the Cardinals: they've done us a favor before (think Nathan Poole, 2003). They're much better in the desert than on the road. Alas, I don't think they're as good as advertised, especially on the offensive line; they're 3-5 outside of the rancid NFC West, with home wins over Buffalo, Miami and a crocked Dallas in overtime. And Warner's traditional half-season of excellence is up.

It may be that Minnesota and New York each has nothing to play for in Week 17.

In any case, I don't see the Packers winning in both Jacksonville and Chicago, and however mediocre the NFC North may be, 8-8 won't suffice.

/ pessimism

If the Packers don't make the playoffs (we know that now) then I would prefer the Vikings make it.

I agree for several reasons. I hate the Bears, Cowboys and Vikings in that order. I wnat to see the best players in The Leauge in the playoffs if the Pack isn't in . Adrian Peterson is one of the leagues best. If my 3rd most hated team can beat my #1 and 2 on the way, all the better.

I 2nd that motion.