adam

Massie has been horrible of late and his ankle got rolled pretty bad, so I don't expect him to play. Compton is fine and Sowell actually played well against Cleveland.

Correct, the assumption with the Rams was they expected the home teams (3 and 4) would win. You' re right though, if 6 wins, Rams at 4 would play the Vikings.

Papa John's for everyone.

I am fine with Sanchez as the backup or #3. With Trubisky still learning, we need backup who is willing to help with development. Sanchez can still play if need be. If there are better options out there, let's get them.

For 2018, that's $60mil tied up in Rodgers, Adams, Cobb, and Nelson alone. There is talk about cutting Nelson or Cobb, which would put them back in their same cap situation but to me it just seems like a lot of money. On Adams, he had two concussions this year and only seems a hit away from missing a lot of time.

I thought this was kinda high for a guy who has never eclipsed 1,000 receiving yards in a season. With Rodgers deal, they have a lot tied up in QB and WR.

There is the Ernie Accorsi connection too. Also, Gettleman was on the Giants staff with Fox from 1997-2001 (which included a SB appearance). So there is familiarity there from multiple angles.

The Rams cannot get the #2 seed, and the only way for Minnesota to lose the #2 seed is if the Bears, 49ers, Bucs, and Panthers all win this weekend (which would give the #2 seed to the Panthers). They can only be the #3 or #4 seed, but that is dependent on their game, the NO/TB game, and the ATL/CAR game. I saw an article that said the Rams actually prefer the #4 seed since regardless of first game at home, the 2nd game would be away. The #4 seed would play the #1 seed (which is Wentz-less Philly), which is the easiest path to the NFCC. The winner of the #3/#6 seed game goes to Minnesota. On the AFC side, JAX and KC both locked into #3 and #4 seeds, so losses are likely. The late games are going to be action packed with so many scenarios coming to a head at the same time. Here is the best scenario breakdown I have seen (sorry for big images):

Yeah I agree on Sitton, I just think he is solely a health based decision. If healthy, he stays, if not, I think they move on. Massie? He is arguably the worst RT in the league. He has accounted for more sacks than any other OL on the team. A tackling dummy is harder to get around.

Dude, this is just the lighter side of things. Sanchez has played a pretty big role in the development of Trubisky. There are a ton of articles all year on how Sanchez is always there helping Trubisky. Here is one from November where Sanchez helped Trubisky and then Inman after he got signed: https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/mark_sa..._chicago_bears/ I think Sanchez gets a bad rap. He was a really good young QB and got stuck on some bad teams. At this point, he is not here to play. He is here to mentor Trubisky, and there are not many 30-something QBs with a winning record available as a backup. He also has deep playoff experience (2x AFCC's) where he was pretty solid (4-2 record, 94.3 Passer Rating, 9-3 TD/INT, and only 4 sacks). I have no problem with re-signing him. The clip was just showing what he is reiterating to Trubisky before going onto the field. He just did it as Gruden, which lightens things up. I have no problem with it and thought it was pretty funny.

2018 Cap Space $47.8 Cap Savings cuts $11.5 Glennon (no point paying him this much for a coin toss) $8 Sitton (depends on health, but I think $8 mil in cap space will be spent better elsewhere) $7 McPhee (injuries limit him too much) $5.6 Sims (I know some like him, but he is not worth over $5mil as a blocking TE) $5.6 Massie (can't imagine paying Massie to whiff on anymore DE's) $5 Wheaton (basically a million per reception) $4.5 Cooper (a FA bust, I had high hopes, but he was horrible and that TD blunder was icing on the cake) $3.2 Demps (with the emergence of the dynamic duo, I would only keep him for his veteran presence, cap hit is not too big) $50.4 Potential to have $98.2 after cuts Can't see why we would not lock up Fuller and guys like Wright and Acho. We have a ton a space to make some huge FA acquisitions.

Looking at moving to the #7 pick, that adds 150 pts to our draft value compared to #9 (equivalent to a late 3rd round pick). Trades would look like more this: #7 = #13 + 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th rounder - deal w/ Cards #7 + 6th rounder = #14 + 2nd rounder - deal w/ Redskins #7 = #17 + 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th rounder - deal w/ Bills OR #7 = #25 + 2nd Rounder and 1st Rounder in 2019 - deal w/ Bills #7 = #29 + 2nd, 3rd , 4th rounder and 1st and 3rd Rounder in 2019 - deal w/ Steelers To me, the Steelers deal is too rich for them. So I think they are out. The Bills look like the most likely to move up since they have KC's first rounder which is currently projected at #25. So they could move up to #7 (to get in front of Denver) to get their QB, give up #17, but then trade out of #25 to recoup picks they lose to move up. A second option is for them to keep #17, but give us #25, their 2nd rounder this year, and their first rounder in 2019. I think they would be better off going with their first option.

I would re-sign Sanchez on a 2-3 yr deal as a backup just for this: https://www.instagram.com/p/BdNyCZXnB7Y/?ta...by=chicagobears

1. Browns 0-15 2. Giants 2-13 (WAS) 3. Colts 3-12 (HOU) 4. Texans 4-11 (IND) *to Browns 5. Bucs 4-11 (NO) ----------------------- 6. Broncos 5-10 (KC) 7. 49ers 5-10 (LAR) 8. Jets 5-10 (NE) 9. Bears 5-10 (MIN) ----------------------- 10. Bengals 6-9 (BAL) 11. Raiders 6-8 (LAC) 12. Dolphins 6-9 (BUF) So going into Week 17, based on the latest news (KC starting Mahomes and LAR resting starters), we actually have a great chance to slide back to the 7th pick (with SF and DEN passing us). I just checked and even if TB wins and we lose, we still would have a better SOS than them and lose the tie breaker. So it looks like our best realistic slot is 7th. So a loss is really more important than a win for us at this point, we just need to play competitively, and get more reps for Trubisky. The 7th pick and passing Denver puts us in a better position to trade down. Also, think of it this way, if 3x QB's and Barkley go before we pick, we can technically get the 3rd best positional player outside of RB/QB, which would be sweet.

Bears are 13 pt dogs. I think we lose, but it is closer than the spread due to a late garbage time TD and the weather You like the cold, game time temperature is projected to be -7 with the entire game played below zero. Viqueens 20-13

This one may be challenging. We opted out of his 5th year option, which now looks like a bad move. No one was questioning it when it happened, and you can't blame Pace for doing it as it at the time. Fuller under-performed for most of his first few years and has only came on this year. I would say you need to lock him up if he is willing to stay here.

Yeah, I didn't include any playoff teams as we don't know where they will draft. If Pittsburgh even wins one playoff game, they are looking at picking 29-32. They would have to give up more than what KC did to move to #9. That's why I think if teams are looking to move up, they will do it to get in front of the Jets or Cards. So the #9 spot is not really ideal for either of those scenarios. Also, Rosen's decision will have ripple effects on this as well. If he doesn't come out, then that is one less QB going in the top 10.

Congrats to Brad for winning this year's championship, and a big thanks to Ary for his work as the commish.

The savior thing was a joke. I agree on everything you said. If there is an intriguing pick in the later rounds, why not. Hundley is definitely not the answer, and yes, they technically violated the rule and he should have to clear waivers. It won't happen, but definitely something they need to crack down on.

Yep, tore ACL in 2014 and now in 2017. Eventually, that is going to limit your mobility, which is his greatest strength. I still like him, but he seems more boom/bust than Trubisky.

Crazy to think about how the 2017 and now the 2018 draft will play out. Cleveland passes on Trubisky and Watson, but gets the Texans 1st rounder this year. No way they envisioned the Texans would be worse and their rookie QB lost for the year with an injury. The Texans look to be in bad shape. They do not have a 1st rounder, and who knows what Watson looks like after injury. Cleveland looks bad on one hand (for passing on Tru and Watson) but brilliant on the other hand, now having two top 5 picks (which they will ultimately mess up). So they could end up with Garrett, a top tier QB prospect and another top tier prospect (like Barkley). So who needs a QB? 1. Browns - Yes 2. Giants - Yes 3. Colts - No (assuming Luck is healthy) 4. Bucs - No 5. Browns - No (assuming they took one at #1) 6. Broncos - Yes (but hopefully in the Cousins sweepstakes, or they like Osweiler) 7. 49ers - No (unless they don't re-sign or franchise Garappolo) 8. Jets - Yes 9. Bears - No (we have our savior) 10. Bengals - No 11. Dolphins - No (assuming Tannehill is healthy) 12. Raiders - No 13. Cardinals - Yes 14. Packers - No 15. Redskins - Maybe (depends on Cousins) 16. Lions - No 17. Cowboys - No 18. Bills - Maybe Teams that will be in the hunt for a QB drafting before the Bears: Browns, Giants, Broncos, and Jets. So there is potential that 3x QB's go before the Bears pick and Barkley to either Colts, Bucs, Browns, or 49ers. At the 9th pick, we could have the 5th best player available (other than QB/RB), which will be sweet. I don't know if we trade down from there. Also, the 9th slot seems too late (following the Jets pick) to pick a top tier QB. The teams that need one have already picked, so I don't know if jumping to 9 will be beneficial to anyone below (Cards, Skins, Bills). This would obviously change if the Jets didn't go QB, leaving one on the board, but again, all teams would need to do is get in front of the Cards. So #9 still seems like it wouldn't be a likely trade destination for a team looking for a QB. Rosen's decision will also play into this. Just for fun, here is what some trades would look like if we moved down, are any of these worth it? #9 = #13 + 3rd rounder - deal w/ Cards #9 = #15 + 3rd, 4th, and 5th rounder - deal w/ Redskins #9 = #18 + 2nd, 5th, and 7th rounder - deal w/ Bills

Updated with the late games, and the 49ers win. If they can beat the Rams next week (who knows), we could go as low as 7th (w/ 49ers and Broncos wins) and we lose. If we somehow win, we are looking at 11th or 12th. 1. Browns 0-15 2. Giants 2-13 (WAS) 3. Colts 3-12 (HOU) 4. Bucs 4-11 (NO) 5. Texans 4-10 (PIT/IND) will move to 4th with loss (Browns own pick) ----------------------- 6. Broncos 5-10 (KC) 7. 49ers 5-10 (LAR) 8. Jets 5-10 (NE) 9. Bears 5-10 (MIN) ----------------------- 10. Bengals 6-9 (BAL) 11. Dolphins 6-9 (BUF) 12. Raiders 6-8 (PHI/LAC) will move to 11th with loss tomorrow

Very true, if they have nothing to play for, they might as well use next week as their bye. So 8th or 9th, unless we win

Somehow the Bengals beat the Lions, which makes us only slide to 9th. 1. Browns 0-15 2. Giants 2-12 (ARZ/WAS) 3. Colts 3-12 (HOU) ----------------------- 4. 49ers 4-10 (JAX/LAR) 5. Texans 4-10 (PIT/IND) 6. Bucs 4-11 (NO) ----------------------- 7. Broncos 5-10 (KC) 8. Jets 5-10 (NE) 9. Bears 5-10 (MIN) Barring any crazy unrealistic games, it looks like we will finish 9th with a loss against Minnesota next week.

Bears up 20-3 after another Red Zone turnover. This time Trevathan and Goldman team up for the forced fumble. Bears don't do anything on offense, but flip the field on a punt.