Mike from Racine, WI

Was that "deja vu all over again"?

The Bears exorcised a demon from 2013. The Packers revisited one from a year later. I never imagined those two could connect in the same game.

Chuck from Santa Ana, CA

Now we have TWO Games That Shall Not Be Mentioned.

Not on the same scale. Not even close, really. But I get it.

Espen from Fond du Lac, WI

Rodgers did his part to send us to the playoffs this weekend. Like he did for so many weekends. Could end up being the necessary part.

Rodgers and the Steelers' offense were just dominating that second half, and Pittsburgh still ended up barely hanging on. This league, man.

Jay from La Crosse, WI

Detroit forced the refs to make a call at the end of the game…and the refs did! Twice! Good on them for not letting the Lions get away with their envelope-pushing baloney (and I don't mean baloney).

I'll give credit where it's due to Carl Cheffers' crew at game's end with the OPIs. Flags stay in pockets often in those situations, and they got those calls right. But in the same breath, how was the last play ruled a touchdown when forward progress was clearly stopped? That wouldn't have been reviewable if the game hinged on that call. Whatever. Deep breath, need one more, go get it.

Theresa from Sylvania, OH

Vince Lombardi said, "The measure of who you are is what you do with what you have." I had this quote printed on shirts I made for the trip I took with my boys to the draft this year. I did not expect this Packer team to give a firsthand demonstration of this quote this year. I believe we have the players to keep fighting. Yes?

I believe so, too, but it is a valid question how much adversity one team can endure in an abbreviated time frame at the most important stretch of the season. What this team overcame the past week and within that game, to be in that position, was incredible. But when what should've been the season's greatest triumph suddenly morphs into its most devastating defeat, it feels like the pile of adversity just grew tenfold, and there are only two games left to plow through it. I'll be honest, I'm still struggling to make sense of it. I purposely waited about 15 hours after game's end to look at a single Inbox submission, because I needed to process and gather my thoughts. I'm not sure how much good it did, because while writing this I'm still just as mentally and emotionally drained as I was on the flight home in the wee hours. But all must soldier on. There is no alternative.

Ken from Mountain Iron, MI

Shameful performance. From MLF on down. Adversity? Ha! This team surrendered cause a teammate bobbled an onside kick.

It was a near-tremendous performance for 55 minutes until it turned shameful. And I didn't see a team surrender, I saw one collapse, unable to stop a cascade of mistakes. There's a difference.

Jeff from Hagerstown, MD

We kept the Bears out of the end zone for 59 minutes and 30 seconds and still found a way to lose. Somebody talk me off the ledge.

99 and 44/100ths percent of the game proved Jeff Hafley right, that this defense would still play tough, winning football without Micah Parsons. I think the game ends with three minutes left on fourth-and-forever if not for a most unfortunate facemask penalty on a rookie who's just trying to make a play, and then we're talking about maybe the defense's best outing of the season even without its best player. But there needs to be a response when it flips from controlling the game to having the proverbial back against the wall, and instead there was a coverage bust that can't happen on the game's most important play.

Bob from Cedar Rapids, IA

I hope the Packers are out of silver platters on which to hand games to opponents.

Amen to that. Depressingly, this season is becoming defined as much by the Packers finding ways to lose games they have no business losing (Cleveland, Carolina, second Chicago) as by them looking like the title contenders they were rightly touted to be (Detroit x2, Pittsburgh, first Chicago). They haven't won any games they have no business winning because they're legitimately a good team that doesn't play so badly it needs some crazy miracle. But the rollercoaster is running out of track. Whichever way it turns next is probably the last turn.

Matt from Garland, TX

Once again, the Packers fail in a big moment. I'm going to say it must be the coaching. I think it's time for a change.

I understand the sentiment, and it's a common submission to read. If you'll indulge a long answer, those looking to place blame in the most simplistic fashion need to understand in a meltdown like that, the blame lies everywhere. No one gets absolution, and I think different areas fall on coaches and players, while some fall on both. Going 1-for-9 in the red zone the last two weeks, with several plays that just didn't look crisp, is a planning/preparation/play-calling issue. That's where the coaching needs to be better, because too many opportunities are getting away lately to not redouble efforts after being largely successful in that area most of the season. When it comes to individual moments involving veteran, accomplished players, they and they alone have to own the mistake. One of the league's top running backs fumbling inside the 5-yard line on first-and-goal is not on LaFleur, it's on Josh Jacobs. The receiver with the best hands on the team not doing what he's coached, and backing up rather than attacking an onside kick, is not on Bisaccia, it's on Romeo Doubs. Last but not least, there are times it falls both ways. Two experienced cornerbacks, who have seen some version of a basic, hitch-corner route combo in the red zone plenty in their careers, can't bust the coverage. But it clearly needs to be coached better if Keisean Nixon and Nate Hobbs can't communicate and execute in a big spot. So, to summarize, the coaching shortcomings in one offensive area overshadowed an otherwise impressive coaching job under trying circumstances; individual miscues by players being counted on because they've been there, done that, overshadowed a lot of good football by all involved; and in the game's biggest gotta-have-it moment, neither the playing nor coaching was good enough. Bottom line, it's on everybody.

Michael from Novato, CA

Just my random 2 cents here, but I thought that was one of LaFleur's and Hafley's better called/coached games. A few quibbles (of course) but they had good game plans, made adjustments on the fly, took measured gambles, had the penalties under control, and overall masked our injury situation admirably. But none of that matters when players stop executing the basics. We didn't even need to "make a play," just make the play in front of us. Not sure how to fix that, though.

Right, that's the mystery and frustration, and kudos on the succinctness I don't possess today.

H.R. from Henderson, NV

You won't like this question, but it has to be asked. And I hope you have the courage to answer it. How do you feel about MLF's attempt at saying special teams are good? He is gaslighting the media and the fans into believing we aren't seeing what we are seeing. To me, it feels as if he is lying to himself and blaming the fans for it. What say you?

I understand the distinction he's drawing between "singular plays" (blocked/missed/onside kicks) and the overall performance of the return and coverage units. A few plays can indeed leave a "black cloud" over everything. But in discussing the overall picture, he seemed to neglect the high number of penalties that have damaged field position time and again. Those can't be ignored. As an aside, to continue my thread above about fault, coaches vs. players or both … to me, protection breakdowns on kicks are shared, whereas man vs. ball (onside kick in open field, or missed kick with clean operation) is player.

Lisa from Plymouth, MN

Merry Christmas, Chicago! We hope you like the gift we gave you! And that is the heartbreaking thing. Our critical errors are costing us games. On a brighter Christmas note, kudos to Malik Willis for continuing to be the gift that keeps on giving! If Jordan Love isn't able to play, I'm glad Malik will have the opportunity to showcase his talents. Mike and Wes, I also appreciate the honest assessments you present in both the gameday live blog and the game recap articles.

Appreciate the kind words. I can't say enough about how Willis performed, which is why I focused on him in my Rapid Reaction piece. Given the opponent, the stakes and the stage, that was the best performance by a Packers backup QB I've ever witnessed. He never should've been taking a fourth-and-1 OT snap to ruin his night.

Dave from Wheaton, IL

I've been watching the news and still haven't heard anything about why Josh Jacobs wasn't in the game after he fumbled. Is there any update I've missed? BTW, I still hate onside kicks.

LaFleur made it sound as though he deferred to position coach Ben Sirmans on playing time, and they were simply riding the hot hand. Emanuel Wilson was really running hard and keeping the Bears on their heels.

Eric from Durham, NC

As soon as the game started, it seemed like the moment was too big for the Bears. It felt like they were playing out of control and reckless, which led to a lot of penalties and maybe even played a role in the JL10 injury. To their credit, they got things under control at the end of the game when we kept handing them opportunities. I like our chances in a potential rematch, as the pressure will be even higher.

The Bears' reckless approach did cost them the game, Love's concussion notwithstanding, until the Packers gave it away. Maybe played a role? C'mon, the intent was visible throughout the game but the league couldn't care less as long as 30M people are watching at home. Rematch? Gotta earn it first, and that'll be no gimme.

Bob from Covington, KY

Hi, guys. With 1:58 left in the game, I was sitting there mentally composing my apology submission for doubting the team's ability to overcome injuries and stop stupid mistakes. And then … that happened. For all the talk of the team's confidence and "fight through it" attitude, it seems that one terrible play at crunch time is enough to break their collective back. The onside kick this week, the INT against Denver. When is this team going to mature enough to handle in-game adversity?

I'll refer you to my question from way above. How much is too much? I don't think it's a matter of being able to handle it, it's when will it stop, self-inflicted or otherwise.

Bruce from Travelers Rest, SC

So based on the Rams-Seahawks game it seems that when attempting a two-point conversion the offense is incentivized to intentionally fumble if the ball carrier determines he won't score. The only disincentive is that the defense could scoop and score in such a scenario. However, there are clearly game situations where the cost benefit tradeoff would lead to intentional fumbles.

Getting into rules technicalities, a "fumble" on a two-point conversion (or on fourth down, or under two minutes) can only be advanced or count for points if recovered by the player who fumbled. But a "backwards pass," such as in the Rams-Seahawks game, is not subject to those same restrictions because it's technically not a "fumble." A backwards pass is considered a live ball, but not a fumble.

Robert from Schaumburg, IL

Do you think we will ever see a team go for two on the first drive of overtime? It seems risky, but then you can't get beat by the next team going for it.

I doubt it. Going up by seven gives your defense two chances to win the game – stop the drive, or stop the two (if the opponent goes for it).

Heather from Green Bay, WI

After each loss, to preserve my mental health and to keep proper perspective, I turn off the TV and radio and patiently await Mike's 5 takeaways column. I know it will be measured and realistic. It almost always makes me feel better and backs me from the ledge. This time it didn't. Not Mike's fault. Just a tough, tough loss which needs more time to process. We'd be ignorant to think that our 20-ish year run of post Bear-Packer game happy dances was going to continue in perpetuity in our favor.

Maybe I just have a different perspective on the rivalry, but throughout putting together the postgame coverage it was never about the opponent being "da Bears." It was about the magnitude and timing of the game, what it meant to the season, and how it got away. Yes, division rival obviously factored into that, but if fans feel even worse specifically because it was the Bears, I guess I won't argue. But I would've felt the same had the opponent been the Texans or Buccaneers or Chargers.

Paula from Apple Valley, MN

Two "who/whom" corrections in a matter of days. I purposely avoid wording my questions with either, just in case I get it wrong. Can't seem to master that one.

I sincerely hope everyone out there knows I'm just having fun with those. Judging by various Inbox submissions, some think I take myself way too seriously. I honestly don't.

John from Yorba Linda, CA

It's hard to use the explanation "margins are thin in this league" while consistently coloring outside the lines.

I'm going to need some time to work on that one when I'm not so out of it, but I like it at first glance. Happy Monday.

HAVE A QUESTION?