UMFan83

I don't think he can do much but McNabb is clearly a better option than Collins and probably better than Enderle. Did you see McNabb play this year? At least Emberle gives you a possibility of not every pass ending up near his receivers toes. The Collins comment was hyperbole but not by a lot.

Pretty sure I'd rather play Enderle than McNabb. I'd have to think long and hard if I had to choose between McNabb and Todd Collins.

Jeff Dickerson was just on ESPN 1000 and addressed the Cutler situation. While what Cutler said was true, at this point they don't believe Cutler will be done for the season. Internally he is told Cutler expects to be back too. But obviously it all depends on how it heals. The plan is still Jan 1 against Minnesota, with an outside shot at XMas day against the douchebags of Green Bay.

I don't think common opponents is that hard to figure out, even though I originally had it incorrectly (only because I was confused at who the non-common teams were). As I said earlier in the thread, if you are breaking a tie between 2 division teams, whether it be for the division or the WC, there are 14 games that are common and 2 that are not. That is how the NFL schedule works. You don't need to bother adding up wins and losses throughout the season. All you need to do is determine how each team fared in the 2 non common games. If the Bears go 2-0 against non-common opponents, and the Lions go 1-1, then obviously the Lions record against common teams is going to be better if the teams finish the season tied. The Bears might currently have the tiebreaker, but no matter what they are going to both play 16 games, 14 in common.

That is awesome! Great find

That's placing a ton of emphasis on conference games, as in a regular season a team will play 52 conference games and 30 non conference. Weighing the season towards a high proportion of conference games is a way to cut down on travel when you consider that there will be more games scheduled per week. Yeah, I am all for the extra conference games, and I would have gone that way if it was my decision. Just pointing out that it will almost be a normal season in terms of playing conference foes, while the majority of the games taken away will be against the opposite conference.

The Bears beat Atlanta something like 30 to 12 in week 1. That's a common game. Dallas is the team Detroit played that the Bears don't. [expletive] I feel like a moron now. Thanks. OK, so the Bears can still tie that tiebreaker, but they'd have to lose at home to Seattle to do so. So, I'm confused. Since you were wrong, doesn't this mean the Bears get in in all 10-6 tiebreaker scenarios over the Lions or Falcons? Edit: not all, still be screwed if the Bears lose to Minnesota or GB and the Lions win 1 of those because of better division record. No, what I said before is still true unless the Bears lose to the Seahawks. If the Bears beat Seattle, the common opponents tiebreaker is a virtual loss to Detroit. However, division record is still the higher tiebreaker, and the Lions and Bears are tied at 2-2. Unfortunately, the way it most likely plays out is that the Bears and Lions both beat Minnesota and lose to Green Bay, which would send the tiebreaker to common opponents. If the Bears do in fact lose to Seattle, there is still much to be decided. The Bears hold an edge in conference record (Bears: 6-3 with conference games between SEA, GB and MIN, Lions: 5-4 with conference games between NO, GB, MIN), and even with the Bears losing already to Seattle to get to this point, and the strong possibility of the Bears losing to GB to tie the division records w/Detroit, they would finish 7-5, which means the Lions have to beat NO this weekend to still be alive in that tiebreaker. (because they will lose to GB to tie the division record to make it to this point). So look at it this way: Tiebreaker #1 (Head to Head): The is guaranteed to be tied Tiebreaker #2 (Division record): This is likely to be tied 3-3 unless either Chicago or Detroit beats GB or loses to MIN) Tiebreaker #3 (Common Opponents): The Lions will win this unless the Bears lose to Seattle and otherwise remain tied in overall record. Tiebreaker #4 (Conference record): Still up in the air, but likely edge to Chicago if Detroit loses to New Orleans this weekend (because they likely will need to suffer another conference loss to GB in order to tie the division record tiebreaker). Tiebreaker #5 (Strength of victory): Way too many variables at play to tell who has the edge here. But what we know is that Chicago's victories have come against teams with a 31-46 overall record, while Detroit's have come against teams with a 32-46 record, so they currently have the slight edge with Chicago having the easier remaining schedule of the 2 teams (only GB and DEN have winning records, DET has NO, GB, OAK left).

Not sure who all these people are but Brent Jamison, Chris Caroselli, Illini Iceman, Joe Hansman, Lance Richie, Nick Zambole, onvettabo, Peter Garcia, pitchcs, and shilzzz all picked DeJesus to the Cubs. I do not believe that Broxton was a person you could predict in the contest.

The Bears beat Atlanta something like 30 to 12 in week 1. That's a common game. Dallas is the team Detroit played that the Bears don't. [expletive] I feel like a moron now. Thanks. OK, so the Bears can still tie that tiebreaker, but they'd have to lose at home to Seattle to do so.

Not according to the Playoff Machine on ESPN. There are several scenarios where the Lions, Bears, and Falcons are all 10-6 and the Bears are left out due to strength of victory tiebreakers. If it's just us and Atlanta at 10-6 and the Lions even at 11-5, it's better for the Bears. We have the tiebreak on ATL head to head, but when 3 teams are in it, there's some weird scenarios. If the Lions and Bears both finish 10-6 (and Atlanta better than 10-6), it is very likely that Detroit wins the tiebreaker with the Bears. The only way the Bears win it is if they can somehow beat GB or Detroit somehow loses to Minnesota. The most likely scenario is that the teams both split their remaining division games, both losing @ GB, and both winning @/vs. MIN. In that scenario, the Lions make it due to record vs. Common teams, which Detroit has already clinched. Explain to me how the Lions have clinched record vs. Common teams, considering two of the Bears' losses have been to teams Detroit hasn't played yet, and the Bears beat Atlanta. Or do you just mean that the Bears and Lions can't tie without the Lions winning the tiebreaker for common opponents? Because the Bears and Detroit can tie both if the Bears lose to Seattle and the Bears and Lions have the same record. They havent officially clinched it but they virtually have. The way I determine common opponent records between division teams is by looking at non-common opponents, because there are only 2 for each. The Lions have lost both of their non-common games (Atlanta and SF), while the Bears have won their first (Philly). This means that if the Bears and Lions finish tied at 10-6 for instance, the Lions will have a 10-4 record vs. common opponents, and the Bears either 9-5 or 8-6 depending on whether they beat Seattle. Unless I am missing something, there is no way that the Lions can lose or even tie a common opponents tiebreaker to the Bears.

OK, it won't happen this way because "any given sunday" but check out this scenario: Week 13: Bears over Chiefs (8-4) Saints over Lions (9-3 and 7-5) Falcons over Texans (8-4) Week 14: Broncos over Bears (8-5) (Bears could easily win, it's gonna be hard with their defense in mile high though) Falcons over Panthers (9-4) Lions over Vikings (8-5) Saints over Titans (10-3) Week 15: Bears over Seahawks (9-5) Raiders over Lions (8-6) Falcons over Jaguars (10-4) Saints over Vikings (11-3) Week 16: Packers over Bears (9-6) Saints over Falcons (12-3 and 10-5...Saints clinch South) Lions over Chargers (9-6) There are a couple of closer calls there. Bears could easily beat Broncos, Lions could beat Raiders are 2 of them) That sets up these week 17 scenarios: 1) Bears over Vikings, Lions over Packers backups, Falcons over Bucs. Result: Falcons (11-5) 5th seed, Lions (10-6) 6th seed, Bears (10-6) out 2) Bears over Vikings, Lions over Packers backups, Bucs over Falcons. Result: Falcons (10-6) 5th seed, Lions (10-6) 6th seed, Bears (10-6) out 3) Bears over Vikings, Packers over Lions, Falcons over Bucs. Result: Falcons (11-5) 5th seed, Bears (10-6) 6th seed, Lions (9-7) out 4) Bears over Vikings, Packers over Lions, Bucs over Falcons. Result: Bears (10-6) 5th seed, Falcons (10-6) 6th seed, Lions (9-7) out 5) Vikings over Bears, Packers over Lions, Falcons over Bucs or vice versa. Result: Falcons (11-5 or 10-6) 5th seed, Lions (9-7) 6th seed, Bears out. So basically the only way the Bears make the playoffs in this situation is a Lions loss followed by a Bears win. If the Falcons finish 10-6, it looks like they are going to win all tiebreakers, unless Detroit finishes 11-5 or better.

On an unrelated note, I somehow created a great possibility using the playoff machine. I haven't finished filling in the season, so hopefully this stays put. http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/9595/hahda.jpg Not sure if it's a good idea for the Bears to play 2 days in a row, but it will be nice for the Bears to have 2 chances to advance to the next round.

Not according to the Playoff Machine on ESPN. There are several scenarios where the Lions, Bears, and Falcons are all 10-6 and the Bears are left out due to strength of victory tiebreakers. If it's just us and Atlanta at 10-6 and the Lions even at 11-5, it's better for the Bears. We have the tiebreak on ATL head to head, but when 3 teams are in it, there's some weird scenarios. If the Lions and Bears both finish 10-6 (and Atlanta better than 10-6), it is very likely that Detroit wins the tiebreaker with the Bears. The only way the Bears win it is if they can somehow beat GB or Detroit somehow loses to Minnesota. The most likely scenario is that the teams both split their remaining division games, both losing @ GB, and both winning @/vs. MIN. In that scenario, the Lions make it due to record vs. Common teams, which Detroit has already clinched.

where's the source of that quote? Bruce Levine wrote the article: http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7294530/chicago-cubs-sign-david-dejesus

NEW MARKET INEFFICIENCY: forcing 32 year old players to switch hit whether they like it or not Wait, does Hoyer really think he just signed a switch hitter? That's concerning. Maybe he just means that Dejesus has some appeal for their neighbors to the East of Wrigley.

Dante Hall

That would mean only missing Chiefs, Broncos and Seahawks games. If Cutler was coming back for the Packers and Vikings, we could probably go 2-1 in those games and have a pretty good shot.

I like Jebadore. The best one I came up with was Theoyer

Who is David TheTebow? Seems like a prototypical Epstein like move on the surface. Probably underrated because of his good defense and decent patience plus coming off a down year that I'm sure someone will tell me is because of an unlucky BABIP or LD% or something. He's not someone that's gonna make me rush out and buy tickets next season, but I think its a solid signing representative of some of the moves Epstein made in Boston. Some of them worked very well and some of them did not (Lugo, Cameron).

Now really sure how Martz managed to revive his career with the Bears. I mean it hasn't been a disaster, and he's working with less than optimal talent, but nothing he's done here, to me at least, screams "I deserve another chance at head coaching" Prior to taking this job, I got the impression that his career was at an all time low and it was almost a favor that we hired him.

It's like the world of professional sports decided to get together and screw Chicago sports teams with new CBA's

So wait, you say they will have something like $60 million available, but then you propose almost $100 million in additions. Do you expect a $200 mil payroll?

How bad has Corey Crawford been lately? Last 13 games including tonight (Since Oct 31): .884 SV% 3.32 GAA To put those numbers in context, if that was his whole season performance, his goals against would rank 33rd of 35 qualified goalies, and his save percentage would rank 34th of 35 (thanks Steve Mason)

This team is quite frustrating lately, and yeah Corey Crawford step it up bro. Maybe it's just the "dog days" or maybe its the team's lackluster performances, but I havent had a lot of excitement for the Hawks over the last couple of weeks.

Damn come on Michigan. How you gonna lose to Virginia?