Teeny is the epitome of a goat brought to the final 3...left out of every major play and playing catch-up all the time. Should get zero votes (but may get a couple out of sympathy because, as mentioned above, the jurors can be bitter).

Sue has done little and been in no danger. She had an idol and never used it (last vote doesn't count as she was completely safe and knew it) when she should have for Gabe or Caroline (show want in touch enough to know to use it). She has never once been perceived as a threat. I don't see anyone other than Gabe or Caroline voting for her, and if either of them do it shows they're not voting for who played the best game.

So really neither of them should get a vote. I don't think either has had their name written down more than once at tribal the entire show, which shows that they are just not regarded as a threat. But there's a good chance both make it to the final three.

Between Sam or Rachel, if only one is left standing after fire that person should win unanimously. It will be interesting to see who builds fire; if Sam or Rachel or Teeny is picking, it should be Sam or Rachel. If Sue decides, she may pick to build against Rachel.

That said, Sam can make a few compelling points to the jury that should give him the nod over even Rachel. For example, one (of several) is:

If asked by a juror "what decision did you alone make to change the game?" Sam can leverage Operation Italy in a way that no one else can. Although the plan was Andy's idea, Sam can make the argument that him winning that reward challenge was like winning an immunity challenge for 2 people. Sam knew that Genevieve or he was going home next, and whichever one survived would be gone the next vote. So it wasn't just a matter of winning immunity on that vote. Sam chose to bring Andy to that reward challenge to flip him and prevent the otherwise inevitable back-to-back eliminations of he and Genevieve. So he gets credit that the plan even had a chance.

And then he can exponentially build on that by claiming that in the subsequent immunity challenge - which jury didn't see and the other contestants have no way of noticing because they were involved - Sam purposely threw it because if he had won it would have blown Operation Italy up. And here's the case he makes for saying he threw it: he was the first contestant to the final obstacle of landing the balls on the tall stands and had already landed the first one before the next contestant even got there. But then, despite being a tall, athletic guy he suddenly "struggled" to land the second ball. If I'm him, I boldly make the claim that I purposely lost that immunity challenge because I knew of the plan I was willing to sacrifice my own immunity for that vote in order to pull that blind side off could protect me for the next two votes. It was a massively calculated risk - Andy could've flipped back - but it had to be made or it was just a matter of time he was gone and it resulted in a massive shift in the game.

Because after that vote if Sam or Genevieve goes home, there's no way the other survives with the remaining four women (Rachel, Teeny, Caroline, Sue) who will waltz to the final four after subsequently taking out the remaining one of Sam or Genevieve and then Andy*. They would have to win the next two immunity challenges as well or be gone, and Dam knew that was a longer shot then carrying out this plan. Operation Italy might have been the best executed blind side of the season, but Sam not getting immunity had to happen to make it work, and he had immunity in his hand but gambled and passed it up. At least that's the claim he should make, because usually the jury respects calculated risky play.


*I think Andy might have been perceptive enough to realize that he would be gone at 5, and that's why he was willing to offer the plan amd make the move even, though that specific reasoning didn't make it into the episode.