Chisoxfn

No way. competition imo.

Eh - don't love Foles (vs. Dalton or Newton) but they have a better back-up.

This is getting interesting.

My gut is we will be close to that by end of this week / middle of next week. We have at least a 2 week window where we will likely have more good vs. bad news and thus the continued overreaction (within the markets) to this virus will continue. The best thing that can happen is we stop moving/reacting to the day by day and get people to have the bigger/broader picture that this is going to be a 2-3 month journey. I personally think the market has already corrected for that and than some...but with so much uncertainty, we will see more and more heart. For those who aren't faint of mind...there are a lot of opportunities within this market as well.

The market will absolutely rocket back. I have been saying for 3 weeks that we should expect a roughly 40-50% correction driven by this...but we will also see a pretty quick rebound as there are no structural issues underlying the economy. We will come out of this and get the engines roaring on all cylinders, but it will take good infrastructure/government stimulus packages to help get the engines fired up. I expect markets will rebound by end of next year and in general this will be a much shorter recession. All that said, it is going to get a bit scarier before it gets better and for some industries it will be really bad. Fed and Government are going to have to manage the bail-outs and stimulus packages efficiently and effectively. Jobs will definitely be lost, most notably within the service and hospitality sectors, but the retail sector which has been hammered for years, will continue to struggle as well (obviously not grocery stores...but every other retail store). The stimulus packages will likely be targeted around infrastructure and things to get people back to work. Manufacturing and production will also pop off as we try to launch back and quickly.

They had a massive hole at TE, but Graham has proven he is a shell of the former player he was. That said, there weren't a hole lot of options at TE. I certainly would have preferred Enron, who despite some drop issues, is young and athletic. I guess the bright side, they can largely walk away from him in a year. They also completely backloaded the Danny T deal, another example of where I don't like Pace (he consistently kicks the can down the road and I just think that is a flawed approach, with very rare exception...I.e, you have a great team you are trying to put across the top). I don't think I've ever seen Bill B and the Pats kick the can down the road though and I never get how so many franchises do it. Bill B builds a surplus / war chest so he can always be nimble without ever having to worry about kicking the can down the road.

Technically, Friday the market returns doubled while he was talking. So I will at least give him that.

This is the part I do agree with you on. We should be seeing the uptick in ER visits and the only thing I could see masking it, is everything hit us far earlier than we thought and we just thought it was a very bad flu season. I know in our area, starting about a month ago, the flu was "exploding" and causing much larger ER visits vs. normal flu season (I should caveat...I limit this to the specific offices I took my daughter to about 2-3 weeks ago when she was down with something and signs they had posted noting the # of cases vs. last year (by week and month). The thing I don't know is, do they actually test all those people for the flu or just people for the flu who could actually benefit from tamiflu (don't you basically need to take that like the 1st day for it to do much)?

And demographics on a cruise ship likely would magnify the situation (i'm going to presume avg. age of cruise is much different than avg. age of US).

I read some stats that S.Korea had the highest population testing positive for the virus as 20-29 year olds and it appears most of them were asympomatic. Not sure if that was accurate or not (can't find the link but it looked like it was linking to a S.Korea government website). That is where I am going with all of this. Has this been around longer than we thought and more masked from the fact we already saw what was thought as a bad flu season as being partially driven by early instances of medical jam ups on this? What I don't know is how much they actually test for Influenza when you go in for the flu or not? At all points I get confused at everything going on out there and presume there is a data point none of us know about. And by all means debunk away (can't remember...for all I know it was a chart I read here).

This is why I made the statement I did. The good and bad of it is...the vast majority of the populate might be like Donovan (which is good in the sense that symptoms are minor and those individuals will not even need any medical assistance)...the bad is...they literally don't even know they are sick and thus they can infect those who do have impaired immuned systems (and if a much larger chunk of the population is already carrying it...than it means things are even more risky for those at risk).

I am not a big Nick Foles fan. I think Bridgwater has shown he's a pretty solid QB and has never been not solid. Foles on the other hand has had plenty of runs where he has been a lousy QB. To that point, he had one fantastic hot streak.

Foles is very overrated. He's a good back-up who in a pinch can be mediocre at best. Bridgewater and Dalton are both better, with Bridgewater having a bit of upside given the general unknown of him being a LT starter (since his original gruesome injury with Vikings). Dalton I think is a pretty nice approach because you aren't going long-term with him...that is all dependent on not having to give up a bunch of draft capital.

Well...I said Bridgewater made sense if those in the coaching room though Mitch was awful. If they think Mitch is more 50/50 of potentially taking next steps (or even 30 or 40% possible), than I think these two moves make a lot of sense. Foles to me means Mitch is the guy with Foles as a plan B. Dalton would indicate a wide open competition between the two (imo). Dalton is only 2 years older than Teddy.

I would hope we would trade before we cut.

Yeah - I like Brady because short-term you can see how much you can maximize the team, while longer term you haven't tied yourself up. It also gives you a good barometer for the type of offensive mind Nagy really is. If there is one thing evident from the Bears diving deep into QB, they think Mitch is really bad, which means, you probably have to put a huge asterisk on last years offensive performance and how you evaluate Nagy, etc. Of course, I think Brady's best years are far behind him and I don't know that Bridgewater is worse (in fact he's probably better than Brady at all things except for "notoriety" at this point). Hopefully any Bridgewater deal has ways to get out of it without being in total cap hell after 2ish years.

Definitely - If you go after any big name QB, you are saying you are done with Mitch. I'm 100% okay with that approach. At the end of the day, no one knows Mitch and his faults better than the Bears front office. For all we know they literally were spending the whole season shaking their heads trying to figure how they could scheme around all of his weaknesses/faults. None of us know how he recognizes film study, etc, either, than the coaching staff. My whole beef is more in how much do they know someone. But if Pace got a favorable word from Payton and company, I can get on board. The one thing I can appreciate is the Bears under Pace have always been aggressive. I think tying up $30M+ to mediocre QB's isn't smart, but than again, almost every team in the league consistently does it. And if Mitch is really that bad, than getting up to mediocre with this defense and everything else may be all the Bears need.

What did the cards get? Didn't they trade Johnson?

Yeah - The part I don't like is how much money he is going to get. I just don't think Teddy is that good. He's solid, don't get me wrong, but I don't think you pay 30+M for solid (similar to what Tennessee did). I think if I were a team I'd make sure i had a good system and OC and I'd try running through young QB's on a regular basis and regularly go with younger QB's (trade guys to other franchises to keep accumulating enough draft capital).

The new CBA might force the Bears hand on Mitch. This is now the off-season where they need to really decide on Mitch's 5th year option, which might pressure them to make a move on QB faster.

I Don't think paying Teddy a bunch of money really solves the problem. In fact, I think Mitch can be Teddy, although I might be wrong. I think the Bears need to put their money around building all the right parts around the QB...and find a back-up who could pull a Tannehill while giving Mitch T his shot. If things don't work, than a year from now team has a good roster and is either hoping to find a veteran QB who can win with great parts around them or you are leveraging draft capital for a young QB. One guy I would keep an eye on if I were the Bears is RG III. Could he be a bounce back candidate in this type of system? I don't think he'd cost a ton of money either.

I am now convinced a lot of adults and children under 40 have the virus already and in more cases than we think never even knew it because it is so mild. Problem is the fact that is more mild than we think in many makes it more dangerous because how aggressive it can be on select individuals. I have no fact behind this but I am starting to buy more into the Uk approach and ultimately the best approach might be aggressively driving heard immunity while protecting / Isolating those with pre existing conditions. Use the heard immunity in the long run to wipe this thing out. No matter what I think that is the path this ultimately goes. It would have just been better if this happened after flu season because hospitals would naturally have improved capacity to handle this.

Ok- This is the first potential theory I could see for keeping tests low (basically to keep millions of people from running to get tested every time they have a cold). This maybe forces people to be careful and only go in when symptoms are serious (vs. many who would panic and run in for a test).

If that was the case and we just knew that arleady...why would we have shut down everything? I don’t see any rationale for that approach. In general I do agree the current rates are higher than actual but I’d argue the flu probably has some of those same challenges too.

I thought Wuhan had removed its restrictions? Are these your own self imposed restrictions at this point?