jason

Keep in mind, I do not condone outright throwing a game. Never have. But you're right. The brass of the franchise almost certainly hoped for a good showing and a loss. Same for next week. They know it benefits the future of the team. And they also know that it doesn't matter financially for this team if the Bears win the last two or lose the last two; fans are still going to sell out the stadium.

Yeah, because the 12-team NFL 50 years ago is totally the same as today. There are many more factors involved than back then, namely free agency and expansion. Maybe next you'll tell me about how he scouted via youtube and hudl. Sorry, but drafting higher picks yields better players. It's not about building through losing. It's about avoiding Pyrrhic victories at the end of the season.

Don't quit. I listed each season, the final "streak" of the season, and then showed the next season's results. That's directly connected to your theory. Either they learn to win or they don't. Which is it? And if it's not the final streak of the year, then it's pretty hard to defend the idea because of the up-and-down of the records over the years.

Cutler went 20/27 on the day, dinking and dunking his way all over the field for 74% completion percentage.Cutler's completions this game: LEFT MID RIGHT SHORT 7/8 2/3 10/14 LONG 0/1 1/1 0/0

Call BS all you want, it happens every season. It's so common that it's a cliche, "Next year is our year!" It was a key theme to the movie "The Program", a movie about football cliches! In fact, I think the concept you're promoting is BS. It's ridiculous when you really think about it in the structure of today's NFL. Winning often becomes a habit because there are great players on teams. I don't care how much really bad players want to win, it has nearly nothing to do with whether they gain confidence from a random win. They're still bad players and they will most likely lose more games than they win. With the current NFL, with players and coaches bouncing all over the place, and the extreme parity, it more often comes down to a few superstars than it does any concept of a streak, or habit. Just look at the Bears for the last decade and you can see this is true. 2004 5-11 Lost last 4, so next season should be worse, right? 2005 11-5 Lost last 2, so next season should be worse, right? 2006 13-3 Lost the Super Bowl. Clearly a team on the downfall. 2007 7-9 Won last 2. I guess that SB loss led to this, and not the QB carousel. 2008 9-7 Lost last 1. Orton rode the last 2 games in 2007 to lead this team. 2009 7-9 Won last 2. Things went south, must have been that last game, and not the 26 Cutler INTs. 2010 11-5 Lost last 1. Good thing Aromashodu turned into Randy Moss at the end of 2009 and led this team to offensive power the next year. Wait, he had 10 catches and it was a top 5 defense that led to success? 2011 8-8 Won last 1, so that last loss to GB in the playoffs spelled doom for the Bears this year. Nevermind the injury to Cutler and the two replacements playing like hot garbage. But they won their last game against a shitty Minnesota team - directly following two ass-whoopings from actual good teams - so you know next year will be good. 2012 10-6 Won last 2. That last game in 2011 had them riding high! Gotta be why they did well in 2012, and not the 24 INTs the defense got, or the 26 FFs the defense got. But a 10-6 team that won the last 2? Here comes a monster 2013! 2013 8-8 Lost last 2. What happened? Oh, new coach, drastically new system, QB injury/controversy, dumping of the heart of the defense, a role reversal for Hester, etc. 2014 5-11 Lost last 5. This team got worse. Must have been those 2 losses. Never mind the team completely quitting and the coach losing the locker room. The "winning is a habit" concept just doesn't fly.

I've seen just as many who lost at the end of the season, just missed the playoffs, felt they were better than their performance, and used it as a chip on their shoulder the following season.

I don't see TEN, CLE, SD, DAL, SF, MIA, BAL, TB, or PHI winning the last week of the season. New Orleans is beating Jacksonville handily, so that puts them as 6-9, and 5-10 respectively. They will both likely lose their last game. If Chicago loses the last game of the season, there is a 6-10 logjam. NO: 6-10 PHI: 6-10 TB: 6-10 CHI: 6-10 Do the Bears own the tie-breaker against any of those teams?

I've played on many winning teams and many losing teams. I have obviously never played professionally, but I played and took my job in various sports professionally. These guys are professional and will prepare hard regardless of whether they win or lose. I don't believe meaningless, end of season games do anything for this team in 2016. These guys are playing for contracts, for jobs. If they don't, their asses get cut. There isn't a single guy on the team who will be thinking in 2016, "Hell yeah, I remember those last two wins from last year, and I'm totally hyped as a result. We can ride that wave! If we win game one, it's kind of like being 3-0!" Meaningless game. I love to watch the Bears win, but it's better for the future of the franchise if they lose.

I hate that you mentioned the packers. I was thinking earlier this season he'd be excellent in their offense, and would absolutely kill in their screen game.

Typical Lovie...he's not with us and he still screws us at the end of the season with draft positioning.

I'd love to see one of those 6-quadrant passing charts, the one where they show deep left/middle/right and short left/middle/right, for this game. Cutler is doing to the Bucs Defense what so many other QBs did to the Bears Defense while Lovie was the HC. It's a huge problem for his defense, and it's something we mentioned numerous times on this board...not to mention the time of possession issues.

If he asks for franchise money, I think you have to let him walk. If he is willing to take a little under that, and he should be, you sign him.

Impressed: Zach Miller - Honestly, he looks fast, has good hands, runs good routes, and makes Bennett dispensable. Disappointed: Martellus Bennett. See above, and he just hasn't been great this year. Dropsies have been an issue, and I'm still convinced he is a bad route runner that screws Cutler on the 50/50 decision routes.

Nice to see Lovie hasn't learned a thing. He's still content to sit passively in the cover-2 and let the opponent dink and dunk down the entire field, just to keep the game close with the hope of pulling something out at the end. Virtually no aggressiveness in his blood at all.

I don't like your projections. Here are mine: TEN - 2W - 5-11 CLE - 2W - 5-11 SD - 1W - 5-11 BAL - 2W - 6-10 DAL - 2W - 6-10 SF - 2W - 6-10 JAX - 2W - 7-9 MIA - 2W - 7-9 NO - 1W - 6-10 (L to JAX) DET - 1W - 6-10 (L to SF) CHI - 0W - 5-11 The Bears draft fourth!

Merry Christmas all. May packer fans get coal in their stockings.

HA! I think any of us could have written it. Ragland, Buckner, Stanley...same players we are all discussing with our first pick. ILB, DL, OL, it doesn't take a genius to see that we have issues in all three places. I do like that Ragland was listed first.

Nonsense. 222lbs is just a tiny small, but could be overcome with speed and instincts if his strength is lacking. Or, he could just be really strong and have great leverage. And with NFL weight training, would it be that hard for him to gain 10lbs? Navarro Bowman - 240 Larence Timmons - 234 D'Qwell Jackson - 242

I don't like the idea. Dude is 6'4", 320lbs. That is not a 5T DE in a 3-4, regardless if he lined up there in college. He is not nearly explosive enough, doesn't have the bend to dip the shoulder and get the edge, rushes on power and not agility. If he were to move outside in a 3-4 in the NFL, he'd be purely an edge-setter who destroys the run. Aside from that, he's done damn well as a rookie NT. Haven't we learned enough from Kyle Long position change experiment?

Other than Wilkerson, that's a fairly ugly list. The more times this is brought up, the less I am convinced about the proper way to approach next season? Maybe 3-4DE in the first is the right route? Then again, the UFA ILBs aren't pretty either. Throw the bank at Wilkerson and see if he bites?

Good idea for a thread, and I like your thought process. Out of the two, I'd rather have Wolfe. Neither excite me, however.

I actually think Young has come on as of late as an OLB. Maybe he just needed to get the OLB experience? I don't mind seeing him and McPhee as the starters at OLB. That has my needs as ILB and DE. Here are the two realistic scenarios I like the most, or that I can see off the bat. 1. Reggie Ragland, ILB, Alabama 2. Scooby Wright, ILB, Arizona 3. Shawn Oakman, 3-4DE, Baylor In this one, Ragland is the thumper, and Scooby is the 100% hustle player who goes sideline to sideline. 1. Robert Nkemdiche, 3-4DE, Ole Miss 2. Scooby Wright, ILB, Arizona 3. Cassanova McKinzy, ILB, Auburn In this one, I honestly think Nkemdiche could potentially drop, but let's say he doesn't. I don't like this one as much.

I like it. And Oakman...yikes (Walter Football has him 3-5 rd)

In one of the other threads I mentioned something similar to the old-school Washington+Traylor combo. The reason that worked so well is that they basically set up a wall and said, "You either have to run around wide, or pass." It was pretty effective in that regard. What if the Bears did something similar in the near future? The way I see it, you need 2-3 components with this idea: 1) The stout DL, obviously 2) Athletic LBs, to chase outside, cover gaps, and go into pass coverage 3) A decent secondary So here is my challenge: Choose a combination of 3-4 ILB, and/or 3-4 OLB, and/or 3-4 DE that realistically could fall into the Bears draft position. Could be DE, DE, ILB. Or maybe ILB, DE, OLB. Whatever. Give the reason for your picks and the players being replaced.

Yeah, for the most part I agree. I've long said LBs, particularly ILBs, can be complimentary and be successful as long as they're smart players. In a 3-4 they're a bit more important in my mind, because they have to be playmakers as the DL is holding things up, but in general the playmakers in a 3-4 are OLBs. Honestly, I hope the Bears try to beef things up on the DL like they did with Washington and Traylor. Get huge, immovable, fairly athletic guys at both DEs, and then get multiple playmakers at LB. THAT would be where ILBs become more important than normal.