jason

YOU SHUT YOUR MOUTH! Fangio is the main coach I don't want to see leave. Without Fangio the Bears team would likely be picking top-5 in my opinion. He turned chicken shit into edible chicken salad. If he gets a year with some defensive pickups and draft picks to fit his needs/system, I think he could easily make this defense top-10 without having to spend top-10 money.

I think it's unpredictable. I think he has a shot of going elsewhere, but it's just as possible he stays in my opinion. It'd be different if the Bears were top ten in offense. I think it'd be a guarantee that he would leave.

Dead on. If, unfortunately, Gase leaves, I think you've nailed it.

Yeah, I agree. Acho was a guy that looked great in the preseason, and did well at times, but he's nearly non-existent rushing the QB. That's something you absolutely can't have at OLB in the 3-4. McPhee is a given. Young and Houston have done enough, and the trio leads the team in sacks.

I think Gase stays. I don't think he blew the doors off in Chicago. He's highly respected; we all know that, but if he were that incredible the Bears offense would have done better than 22nd in offense. In fact, most of us found several questionable tendencies in his offense, namely the WR screen that was used so often it reminded me of Crowton at times.

Exactly. I haaaaaaaaaaaaate the move if it's true. It makes no sense to take someone from a position where they are one of the best OGs in the NFL unless it's an injury situation. I hope it's a smoke-screen. That being said, there appears to be a decent amount of OG talent in the 3-4 round in the 2016 draft.

No way in hell the Bears should pick Fuller. Those dice have been rolled, and they are not worthy of a first round pick.

Agreed with all of the above. Don't go top 5, but put in lots of incentives. And players looking for loyalty from a club, whether that's something that should be given in today's NFL or not, are probably not pleased with how the Bears handle things.

This is something specifically studied before. It's been quantitatively analyzed, and posted on this website more than one time. I'm sure the difference is minimized, but there is still a difference.

Yeah, I figured that, but I was more asking about the roster limits, sizes, IR numbers, etc. That kind of front office, puzzle piece moving. Or if there are any salary implications at all to late-season IR moves.

Is the only purpose to this move to pull in a few bodies and see what they have? Any other advantages to it?

And you're ignoring two things: 1. Higher picks have better odds of being successful. It's been proven. This is not debatable. And even if it were, pure gambling odds favor a higher pick because more players are available. 2. The Patriots are a horrible comparison. They have succeeded for a ton of reasons, and, sure, they did well the year with Cassell, but it is just a bad comparison. Brady is one of the best QBs ever, and the one year he was out they just happened to have a top-5 WR of all time, one of the best possession WRs of all time, and a top ten defense.

Patriots. LOL. Revisit this a few years post-Brady. Easy to win with one of the best QBs in NFL history. Alternate speech: "Fight to win today! You are all playing for jobs." Fox knows he is coming back next year and will be coaching the same regardless. I am sure he would rather have a higher draft pick so he can pick his guys rather than playing with the previous regime's guys. The winning mentality thing carrying over to the next year thing is just BS in today's NFL. The team personnel changes far too much, the team parity is far too even, the player preparation far too similar, the schedules alternate yearly, and the coaching changes far too much for the carry-over to be that signicant. If it is that significant, prove it.

So much truth in this post.

The problem for Cutler haters is that each year there is an excuse. Now, in my eyes, the excuses are almost entirely legitimate. Changing coaches, atrocious OLs, iffy WRs, etc., and he was just never really set up for sustained success. The Bears have been a failed franchise, and haven't been able to put it all together in one year since Cutler has been in Chicago. Cutler has not disappointed this year by any means.

And even then, the defense lost that game more than Robbie. Sure, he screwed up that last second kick, but the defense let the Niners drive 64 yards in 1:35 with a culminating 44 yard TD run by a first round bust, backup QB, who is actually the second best running QB on the opposing team. Robbie didn't lose that game. Robbie just screwed up in that opportunity. The defense lost that game on the Niners' final, ridiculous drive.

That's interesting information. It shows this team has overachieved for sure. The likely source is much better coaching and a great rookie infusion. If White pans out, that's a pretty great draft class. Back to your post, I think it points to the Bears being a "surprise" team next year, especially when paired with next year's lighter schedule. And we'll be able to look on at the prognosticators and say, "How did you not see it?"

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.