raw

I pulled up the Vikings/Chargers on ESPN and on the side it has the division standings for the 2 teams playing. And it's pretty crazy. GB is 7-2 with a +19 point differential Minnesota is 3-5 at +3 Bears are 3-6 at -74. Chargers are 5-3 with a -2 Raiders are 5-3 at +7 KC is 5-4 at -6 Denver is in last place with a +34 Looking at the rest of the league 3-6 Eagles are +9 Saints are +44 and just a game up over the -85 Falcons Seattle is 3-5 at +12 Granted a lot of this is influenced by today's scores, but it's wild how much variance there is this year.

I was just looking at this last night. This may be the toughest schedule anyone has played in the history of football. All the playoff teams. The back and forth home-away schedule. The MNF game on the road before a bye. Playing a team not coming off a bye but only get 2 more days rest than them. Playing a day game the following Thursday after coming off a bye (same thing the Ravens just did and looked horrible the 2nd game). Throw in the fact that the Bears lead the league in the new taunting penalties despite probably having the fewest diva players in the league + the fewest things to celebrate.....and it makes you start to believe in conspiracy theories. #OnlyMyTeams

I haven't really had a chance to look at the offseason yet (was going to do so over the next couple weeks), but off the top, I think you probably still have to cut Quinn. Foles and Trevathan are obvious cuts. I'd probably bring back Nichols, even though he's done next to nothing this year, and probably cut Mario Edwards. While half of them are questionable, Edwards has just had too many dumb penalties and is just generally an a-hole.

Signing is done. I'd imagine he'd get at least a couple starts in a few weeks with Darnold out for a while.

A couple things I didn't agree with JT on. 1. He put part of the blame of that Watt unblocked sack on Fields. While he did blame the play design as well, he got on Fields for not getting vertical enough to run away from Watt and for him thinking he can just break the tackle. Sorry, but that was 100% on the design. You can't unblock a guy like Watt for one. The other issue is the other edge guy completely beat Montgomery and would have been there had Fields gotten vertical, which means a bigger loss of yardage. 2. The Mooney TD, he was going on about Fields should have been the one running the wildcat play instead of Montgomery. But the reason that play works is because you have a RB back there with a 165lb WR. They ran that play before and nobody thinks you're going to give the ball to a tiny speed WR when you have a bruising inside runner and are pulling linemen toward the other side. If you have Fields back there with a RB, the defense has to respect that either could run the ball. Agree with 1. For 2 I think that it was part of a larger complaint about the QB run plays the Bears are calling for Fields. I see what you are saying about that specific play but I think he was saying the Bears read option plays were very basic and low ceiling type of designs Yeah, that makes sense. I also thought of that fact that this is QB School, not offense school. He probably glossed over the other couple wildcat plays, which went to set up that TD run because they didn't have Fields at QB.

A couple things I didn't agree with JT on. 1. He put part of the blame of that Watt unblocked sack on Fields. While he did blame the play design as well, he got on Fields for not getting vertical enough to run away from Watt and for him thinking he can just break the tackle. Sorry, but that was 100% on the design. You can't unblock a guy like Watt for one. The other issue is the other edge guy completely beat Montgomery and would have been there had Fields gotten vertical, which means a bigger loss of yardage. 2. The Mooney TD, he was going on about Fields should have been the one running the wildcat play instead of Montgomery. But the reason that play works is because you have a RB back there with a 165lb WR. They ran that play before and nobody thinks you're going to give the ball to a tiny speed WR when you have a bruising inside runner and are pulling linemen toward the other side. If you have Fields back there with a RB, the defense has to respect that either could run the ball.

I think I talked about this before, but this is definitely the most interesting decision the Bears have this offseason. The Bears need to build a strong OL. Borom has shown enough in just 2 starts that he's got a spot for the near future. Jenkins has the draft status and pedigree that he's got a spot in the near future. Whitehair has the contract that says he's going to be here. That leaves Mustipher and Daniels as the only guys who can logically be replaced. Mustipher is bad. You can replace him with a better C, but the issue here is that you can't really draft a C to fill this spot. Daniels was supposed to be the C of the future, but couldn't handle certain things at the position. Mustipher is also young, so I don't think young C is going to be the answer. You can move Whitehair back to C and go out and get another guard, but the only thing that really moves the needle is a stud. Whitehair is what he is. Solid, not a stud. You can hold out hope that Jenkins and/or Borom becomes a stud. But what complicates things is Daniels is a FA. Daniels isn't quite what he is, though he's probably never going to be a stud, pro bowl level OG. But he's also going to be literally the youngest FA in the league this offseason. And due to his age, solid performance the last 2 years when healthy, and still having a bit of upside; it makes this an either/or proposition. Either you sign Daniels OR you get a true stud on the OL. Probably can't afford both, unless you go really cheap at WR and get no CB help (remember no draft picks either). Given that a couple studs in Cleveland just got taken off the market, combined with the fact that it's very few studs in general out there, I think you have to re-sign Daniels. The whole "bird in the hand". They'll probably have to develop a stud OL between the rookie OTs and any future draft picks on the interior, but that's probably the way to go.

Hate Mushmouth Perkins. He's terrible. I used to watch him argue with Max Kellerman just because I could feel that one day he would call Max an MF'er or say the N-word on TV (trust me, Perkins uses this word a LOT, based on several factors). I did hear him say "God damnit" on the air once with no repercussions.

This all sounds good to me.

That last part of your last sentence gives him the edge for me right now. He has run a top 3 offense in 2 of the last 3 years. He has some ties to the Fangio defense. And the Ravens are simply the best run franchise in the sport right now. I trust him more to build a great staff than Daboll at this point. The one thing I do worry about with Roman though is he puts a TON on his QB. I know the Ravens RB situation is a mess, but Lamar has almost twice as many carries as anyone else on that team. He had the most carries on the team last year when they had 3 legit and healthy backs. I mean Daboll is probably still top 3 for me, or top 5 at worst. Roughly speaking its probably Roman Daboll Bowles Morris Toub Those would be my top 5 if I was broadening it past just Offensive guys, which I think they should. Moore has some intrigue, but I do worry he's too green. Hackett has some intrigue. Pick another name out of the Shannahan/McVay hat if you're feeling trendy I guess, but I guess its no accident my top two offensive choicess are serving under D head coaches. There's zero doubt they are running their show currently. Didn't mean to apply I don't like Daboll. Because he's probably a close 2nd to Roman right now, for me. Roman Daboll Morris Moore Bowles That would probably be my top 5. Kevin O'Connell (former NFL QB and current Rams OC) would be interesting, but he only has 2 years as OC and hasn't called plays. Not too worried about Moore being raw. I think if you're going for the next McVay, he's probably that guy. There's rumors than Shanahan could be gone if the Niners don't do anything this year. I'm not even a huge Shanahan guy, but I'd take him in a heartbeat.

I'll admit I don't know much about the president of football operations role but how does the potential move stuff apply? Seems like that would create a unique type of role to deal with all of that stuff.

I think it's TBD if theyre a package deal. I could easily see where Pace is back, in which case I'm sure he'll have full authority to make a move at HC, and I'm sure he would. It's just hard to envision any scenario where Nagy is back. Whether they wait it out til the bitter end or not though, is unknown. I know decisions certainly not made using logic at Halas Hall but I cant believe they would keep Pace. It's his 6th year and the team has holes all over, is cap strapped and little draft capital. It's great that he got Fields, but you need to take advantage of his rookie contract and the guy that wastes ridiculous amounts of resources is not the guy to do that. One rumor going around is that the Bears move Pace up in a director of football operations type of position and potentially hire a GM from within underneath him (Champ Kelly is a popular name here). Part of me really likes this idea. The Bears do actually have a decent scouting department and Kelly is well respected around the league and probably gets some GM interviews this offseason. If the Bears clean house, he won't be jobless for long. Part of me really likes this move. With all going on with a potential new stadium and all Pace has done for the off-field product (Halas Hall), I think some continuity could be a good thing. But also, wouldn't have him as the primary guy selecting his 3rd coach.

That last part of your last sentence gives him the edge for me right now. He has run a top 3 offense in 2 of the last 3 years. He has some ties to the Fangio defense. And the Ravens are simply the best run franchise in the sport right now. I trust him more to build a great staff than Daboll at this point. The one thing I do worry about with Roman though is he puts a TON on his QB. I know the Ravens RB situation is a mess, but Lamar has almost twice as many carries as anyone else on that team. He had the most carries on the team last year when they had 3 legit and healthy backs.

I see a lot of people saying this but he was clearly reaching to grab his flag before the contact. Unless you are saying he initiated contact to make the flag he threw more justified? The taunting rule is horsefeathering stupid and should not be used to alter the outcome of games. Yes, he was grabbing for his flag before the contact, but he didn't throw it until he initiated the contact. That says to me he threw it to more justify it. I think he was going to let the sideline stuff go. And I don't really buy that certain calls shouldn't alter the outcome of games. Been 9 weeks, players know the taunting rule. Can't do it with the game in the balance and give a team an automatic 1st down. That being said, I agree in general that the league needs to have as few "judgement call" rules as humanly possible.

Was a fun game to attend. I knew the game was officiated poorly (aren't they all at this point?), but oh man seeing some of the highlights. Bears got screwed. I did catch the Daniels BS penalty. I was screaming "what is illegal about that?" You can block low in the TE box, which he was in. Secondly, he didn't even tough him! That's literally a 4-point swing in a 2-point game. I caught the BS DPI call. Johnson turned his head at one point to look for the ball, but then faced the WR but the WR was the aggressor and making contact. That was a big reason the Steelers scored 3 points....in a 2-point game. I didn't catch the roughing the passer call on Fields, though the hit on the sidelines I was screaming for a flag. Didn't lead with his head, but hit Fields in the head with his hands. The offsides calls on Quinn were iffy based on still photos I've seen. His head looks to be right at the ball, not over it. And we were told this was not a penalty in the GB game when Fields threw an INT on what should have been a free play. But one thing I will say is that I think the taunting penalty was the right call. I thought they called it for the kick. But Corrente said he called it because Marsh stared down the Steelers bench and lingered on the field.....which he did. The punter had to wait for him to leave the field to get in position to kick. That being said, Corrente very clearly and obviously didn't throw the flag until after contact that HE initiated. If the call was because of the stare down, then the flag should have been out long before the contact he made. But hey, Justin Fields is probably good. Larry Borom is probably good. Cole Kmet had a great game. Jaylon Johnson and Roquan Smith are good. Eddie Goldman dominated in the run game. The Bears actually look to have some good young pieces, especially from the last 2 drafts. I'm excited for this team with some of the dead weight gone and a better coaching staff (please choose a better coaching staff).

This has been one of my favorite Twitter days in my 9 years on the site. You done messed up A-A Ron!

Build around Lance and Chase. Maybe Hockenson, but I subscribe to that TEs aren't that big a deal unless you get one that gives you WR value (Kelce, healthy Kittle, Waller like a #3 WR). So, if someone is TE needy, I'd definitely see if they'd give something of solid value for Hock. AJ Brown is your big trade piece. I'd get all the picks/players (RB/QB) you can get for him. Herbert is an interesting sell high candidate with Montgomery due back soon, but you can also keep him if you feel Herbert can be the Hunt to Monty's Chubb. I said build around Lance at QB, but don't shy away from getting another QB and put all your eggs in the Lance basket. He may start late in the year and then you can have a side-by-side comparison to decide who leads your team in the future. **** this is assuming 1 QB, PPR league****

Yeah, plus the documentary was always framed/marketed that it was about Jordan first, and that last season/the Bulls second. The dude acting like he thought it was going to be equally about all of them is practically delusional, and, more likely, is just a straight up lie. Maybe it's just me, but I didn't expect it to be so Jordan heavy going in. I legit expected it to be about the entire team. Obviously, Jordan was always going to get the most face time, but I expected a lot more Pippen, Phil and Rodman at the very least. But I agree, it kinda is what it is at this point. Scottie's career is in no way diminished by playing with Jordan. He's a top 50 player of all time. A Dream Teamer. You're a legend Scottie, it's OK.

2013 was a fun game as well. IIRC, the Bears got ahead early. The Steelers came back and the Bears needed a score to ice it. Cutler threw a TD to Earl Bennett (I believe) in the back of the endzone. IDK what the original call was, but it was reviewed and ruled a TD. I was at a buddy's house, who is a Steelers fan, and I fist pumped and got a little too close to punching his 70" TV to his liking (I wasn't really that close, he was just salty). The lasting image I have from this game is the Steelers DB thinking Cutler was going to slide on a scramble, but instead Jay just trucked him. And the announcers got all stupid complaining that it's not fair for defenders to not be able to hit QBs and QBs be able to truck them instead of sliding.

Also, I will be attendance at this game. My first Bears game since Neal Anderson played.

Really? Maybe it's because I'm in Pittsburgh, but this was one of the most fun games in recent years. Wore the throwback jerseys with the orange block lettering. It went to OT and Cohen basically won the game with a long TD run in overtime, but it was called back ruling he stepped out of bounds (he actually didn't) and then the next 2 plays were Howard with back-to-back 19-20 yard runs, including one along the left sideline that featured a questionable hold/block in the back that was let go probably to make up for the call that Cohen was out of bounds.

They aren't faceless. But you see it with the Bears. David Montgomery goes out and they lose nothing because they have one of the other 90. Doesn't mean they both are replacement-level, just means they are easily replaced. There's not really a good way to explain it because there aren't any other positions in sports where almost everyone is a "good" player. But it's like a regular profession. You can get an accountant from any of the B-schools ranked from 11-25 and all would be good at their jobs. You can't just get a guy that took an accounting class in HS and expect the same ability. But also there's a few Stanford guys out there that are simply worth the assets it takes to get them. The diference is there are about 300,000 accounting positions to be filled, and there are only 70 or so RB jobs to fill in the world. Similar to how the RBs ranked rom 11-25 aren't much diferent, the guys ranked from 60-80 are even MORE SO not at all different, and you haven't even had to scrape the Div II College barrel yet. I'm just saying the bottom 5 RBs aren't nearly as much poor than the top 5 RBs are good. There's just no way. There's guys on NFL rosters like Jordan Howard, Ryan Nall, Kalen Ballage, and probably Adrian Peterson (just signed to Titans yesterday) at this point, who are placeholders. You can't replace even a 60-80 RB with these guys long-term and expect the same production. And they wouldn't be on NFL rosters if not for injuries. That's what I mean. I'm just talking about NFL talent. Not going down to D2 and all that. But if there are 80 RBs in the NFL, 5-7 are elite (your Derrick Henrys), 65-70 are different levels of "good", and then 5-7 are guys you bring in if you don't have a healthy RB room and only give the ball in certain situations (usually short yardage or rest after your real RB has a long run).

I turned on last night's game it was 46-35 Bulls. I turned it off when it was 87-69 Celtics, and did not turn it back on. When I watched, the Celtics outscored the Bulls 62-23. When I didn't watch, the Bulls outscored them 105-51.

The top 5 RBs matter. The bottom 5 RBs matter in the opposite way. The other 90 are all the same. That doesn't sound right. Replacement-level players are replacement level because there are a lot of faceless duplicate versions of them around. I can maybe buy the top 5 part though. They aren't faceless. But you see it with the Bears. David Montgomery goes out and they lose nothing because they have one of the other 90. Doesn't mean they both are replacement-level, just means they are easily replaced. There's not really a good way to explain it because there aren't any other positions in sports where almost everyone is a "good" player. But it's like a regular profession. You can get an accountant from any of the B-schools ranked from 11-25 and all would be good at their jobs. You can't just get a guy that took an accounting class in HS and expect the same ability. But also there's a few Stanford guys out there that are simply worth the assets it takes to get them.

With him out, that entire division is now officially a complete horsefeathers show I've been told that RBs don't matter, but all of the people that have told me that have been exasperated with Henry's preformances for the past 3 years. The top 5 RBs matter. The bottom 5 RBs matter in the opposite way. The other 90 are all the same.