Chicago Bears

Not to get pedantic, but isn't just about every team's roster better than its record? I read the question as another way of asking "absent injuries and poor coaching and scheming (i.e. if the full potential of each player was maximized), would the Bears have a better record?" I think the obvious answer is yes, and that's the case for most teams.

If the Bears had their starting O-line and Secondary healthy all year, and if they had better game plans and schemes to do things like create pressure on opposing QBs, open up the downfield passing game, and do creative stuff on special teams, they undoubtedly have a few more wins.

At full-health and with optimal coaching, this is a middle-of-the-road team. They're not dreadful. But they have a long way to go before being in contention for anything. Their record is a reflection of abnormally high numbers of injuries with sharp dropoffs to backup players, and unimaginative coaching and scheming (not to mention all that internal drama with their DC and now RB coach) - to go along with an overall lack of elite talent at enough positions.

They're still very much a work in progress. Poles's leash is getting tighter. With the cap space and upcoming draft positions, if next year doesn't show dramatic improvement, Poles could be gone-zo (or at least probably should be).