gflore34

he came into the game against one of the worst D's in the league that were playing simple bar tricks on a young, terribly unsystematic QB. He's lucky to have won the game, and I'm not sold on Foles going forward given his past play, but I would have thought he could have more success against a team like Atlanta 3-10, with a TD and an INT on throws over 15 yards, and a lucky break that those numbers weren't 2-10, with 2 INTs. He wasn't masterful out there yesterday, but did the job. I'm not sold on Foles either, and I don't think many are. But when he has had success in this league, it's been with the guys coaching him on the sidelines. Nagy has schemed guys open and made it as easy as possible for Mitch. Maybe he throws more at Foles and he can't handle it. But even then he can always scale back and give Foles the easy reads/throws. Foles historically doesn't miss those, even if the ball does flutter there at times. I believe you can throw more at Foles, what Nagy was attempting with Trubisky is not going work in today's NFL. Trying to get a lead, then have your QB eat up the clock while relying on your defense to get stops doesn't work, not with the emphasis on offense and the amount of holding, etc. that's permissible. Look at the Hill TD yesterday, there were two blatant holds at the line of scrimmage, you could see the Bears' jerseys being pulled. The Bears have to score, score, score, Nagy knows this, think there's a good chance he will be more aggressive and open the offense up with Foles.

Yeah, this is a very important point. I said at one point this offseason that if you made a switch at QB at any point during the season, it would probably be a lost season. Because the typical QB switch involves a bad game by the starting QB. A bad game by a starting QB typically ends in a loss for that team. But 1 bad game doesn't always mean a switch between weeks. Typically, the QB is given another half at least to see if he can get back on track. And if he can't, that typically means a loss too. So, you're talking 2 losses before your 2nd QB gets a full week of starter's reps. That's why I was so surprised a move was made, but it's also as good a reason as any to have made a move when they did. Because losing this and then a bad Trubisky half to start next week would've put the Bears potentially at 2-2 with a short week to get Foles ready. And this team probably wasn't coming back from a 2-3 start. Earl Bennet said it best. https://twitter.com/EarlBBennett/status/1310297281351086081?s=19 The play calling reflected Nagy' disbelief - run on first down to gain some yardage to make second and third down manageable for Mitch. With manageable seconds and thirds Mitch can look for quick slants to Robinson, easy, nothing requiring him to analyze, look off, etc.

Something changed this defense when it went from Fangio to Pagano. It's just not the same. And it's not for the better. How many snaps did Quinn play yesterday? Point being, if he's near 100% and playing nearly ever down, then what we saw out of the defense was the best we can hope for this season? Not good enough. And that's disappointing considering we have Hicks, Mack, Quinn, Smith, Fuller and Jackson as stud defensive players. It's kinda bizarre to see most of the league games in shootouts to see who can get to 40 points first, and then Bears games are battles to see who can get to 20 first. They just aren't playing the same kind of football as the rest of the league where you make due with your defense, but load up on big scoring plays every week. I love defense. But there are arguably 6 guys alone that are near the top of league at their position and they aren't getting sacks at a high enough pace. They did create 2/3 turnovers, but Jones had plenty of time to throw. For the most part, so did Stafford last week, a sack could have ended the Giants last drive, they knew the Giants were going to throw the ball and still nothing.

Money, money, money above all else, put people's lives in danger in pursuit of the almighty buck. While there's great risk for the players, it's greater for the people around them, I hope it ends well. However, given several addresses at MSU, for example, have been quarantined, I do not have much faith in the players adhering to safety guidelines. And you know there's a whole collection of idiots who are going to attempt a tailgate while deliberately going out their way to be horsefeathering fools.

i said it elsewhere, not sure if i said it here, but if he goes back to playing like 2018 mitch (much better than 2019 but not very good), that is not a fun spot to be in. I do not believe that's going to happen, for 3/4 of game on Sunday we saw the 2019 version, he just flat out sucks. There's a good chance he's soon benched, by now, Nagy has to know he's terrible, I can't imagine the leash on Trubisky being very long.

That's right, it was a Sunday night, don't know why I thought it was a Thursday night.

I disagree with this, at least in the first half yesterday it seemed like Mack was in the backfield on every play. I'm still not sure how he didn't get a sack, other then the fact, as you point out, he was likely being held on every play as well. Probably an overreaction on my part, I was hoping to see the Mack we saw on that Thursday night in GB, there's a good chance we won't see that version again.

I definitely tried to do something like that at a very basic level. Looked at seasons 1-6 and 7-12 as two queries and crossed the references against each other to. Include guys who only made one list. Obviously wanted to keep out the 1 year wonders so 5-ish cumulative seasons is probably a decent target to even get into an elite list, but I went with 6 just because that was where Mack was starting at. Also, as mentioned guys like White and Dent who were very strong through 6, I noted that even if they dropped off, they still had strong numbers. So they didn't age well from a comparative point, but did still in an absolute sense. Definitely there could be more sophisticated ways to do it (for one, trying to do a rolling 6 season as you might find a guy who was elite in years 3-8 and made neither of my lists). Also perhaps need my second leg to meet a slightly more generous threshold. For example if a guy went 12, 12, 10, 9, 4, 0 his last 6 seasons, he still aged fairly well (and such a result I think most Bears fans would be happy with from Mack considering the contact), but he'd miss my second list threshold. So, doing this again "properly" and not quick and dirty, I'd probably try something like "best 4 seasons" against rolling average 3 seasons over their remainder of their career, or something like that. Which would probably make me feel better about Mack, but kind of prove the "elite" part is self fulfilling and that Mack just doesn't belong with the likes of truly elite pass rushers (but still very good in other harder to measure areas... But also isn't being paid for his run D). But I do agree with your last point, which is what I suspected when I started this list in my reply to David. It's self-fulfilling and a selection bias issue that created that particular myth. The drop for Mack has been precipitous, he went from someone who could change the outcome of a game to nearly invisible. He had no effect in yesterday' game, they'd won with or without him, and he'll probably make no difference in this Bears' season. I guess its a combination of the items mentioned above, injury and a difference in what constitutes holding. During the game, on both sides, most especially on Mack, I've seen the OL' arm under chin 'block', Mack' essentially by the blocker however, the blocker is using Mack' chin and neck to hold him back. I do not know how the hell that isn't a hold. That "great" Mack stopping former Packer OL, Bryan Bulaga, was expert at that, along with his other holds of Mack.

Picking nits, but Pujols first season with the Angels was the only one where he put up over 3 fWAR, which was 2012. Since then he's had one other season above 2 fWAR, and in the last 5 years before 2020, he was worth a combined -0.2 fWAR. Disaster of a contract. You'd think earlier on they'd gotten the elite Pujols for perhaps, one or two seasons, followed by a gradual decline instead, he forgot how to play baseball, overnight.

Pujols moved to 3rd all-time on the RBI list tonight, he's had some good seasons as an Angel, don't think he played well enough to justify that contract. No where near the elite hitter he was as a Cardinal went from a 5+ WAR in his last season as Cardinal to 4.8, 3.9, 3.0. Seemed to full off the map overnight, I know he had some injury issues and age, I guess that explains his sudden decline.

Yeah, I’d still give him a 6-8 year deal for 150-190 in a second and he should be the guy they extend out of any of outside of Rizzo (who really won’t cost much anyways). I wouldn't be even close to that -- I wouldn't want to make an offer because it would be insulting - but at least by all accounts he's a really good person and obviously a player when healthy, so at least it's the right kind of guy to sign. if he's unable to play what does being the right kind of guy to sign get you? You can't break the bank on Bryant maybe, load it up with incentives?

Love the dude. Hell of a player. Can't stay healthy anymore. Even when he plays, he seems to be fighting off a nagging injury that has people talking about how it's impacting his game. I don't believe he's ever going to really be healthy again. I envision his body continuing to break down. Therefore, as tough as it is, I wouldn't even be interested in making him a "good" offer. I had those same thoughts but, he still young and its hard to think about the Cubs giving up on him.

What's this the fourth consecutive season mired by injury for Bryant? I can't see his trade value being high enough to command extraordinary talent in return. What team is going to give up its top prospect(s) on the chance of them getting a healthy Bryant? I would also think any leverage he had in negotiations with the Cubs is gone. They can approach him with a good offer saying "you've had some bad luck with injuries but, we're still willing to secure you're financial future" or something to that extent. Or, I guess he can go with another year of arbitration in 21, show he can stay healthy, put up the big numbers for FA in 22.

Very true, swinging for the fences every at bat is hot and cold.

Glad to beat those fucks, Bote HR was monstrous, crushed, compared to those cheesy pop-fly HR's earlier.

Its frustrating clowns like Miller have about 10 good games a year, just happens that 2 of those good games are today, of course. Meanwhile the supremely better player, Kris Bryant, can't even manage one good game.

Marlins were out of action for about 9 days, Cardinals are at around 8 days, didn't they more positive tests than the Marlins?

Rea is also exactly the type of player that seemed to work out for the Cardinals in the early 2000's. They struck gold with many of these types of acquisitions, I know it was mainly a product of good scouting. But horsefeathers if everything they touched did not turn to gold or, at least, it seemed so.

Rea === Eckersley for whatever comes of the 2020 season?

I didn’t realize Pedro was decent for a year or two before coming over, I thought he was bad like Jake. But I guess they identified him. I meant Sean Marshall and Theo traded him, did he not? After they turned him in to a bullpen arm full time and he was successful? But yeah the overall track record isn’t great but he’s always built decent pens once they tried to win starting in 2015. 2015-19 Cubs relievers have the 11 most WAR, 3rd lowest ERA, 8th lowest FIP, 7th lowest xFIP. No Marshall was traded in 2011, the offseason that Theo took over, so he never actually played under Theo. You are right though about the overall success of the pen. It just seems like we have so many guys that come up from the minors and have horrific troubles throwing strikes. To bad about Maples, if only he could harness his stuff, would be a shutdown closer.

Underwood with a scoreless inning? Is that allowed of Cub' pen?

Was it tipping pitches or fact he no control? Looks like he threw 34 pitches, 13 of them K's, only 3 of which came on swings, 1 swing and miss, smartly, the Reds were not swinging.

Can he be average? That's all it take for the Bears to make the playoffs, with average QB play they would have won at 11 games last year. Ok. Lets define average and if he hits higher then that I’ll write I hate Foles on a sub and eat it on video, face obscured for security of course 3000 yrds, 2:1 td/int w/min 20 tds and 90 passer rating? That'll do, guess I should have prefaced my question with I to, agree, that in all likelihood Foles will royally suck.

Can he be average? That's all it take for the Bears to make the playoffs, with average QB play they would have won at 11 games last year.

if this has been previously posted I apologize in advanced - RIP Wes Unseld - I remember him and the Washington Bullets beating the Seattle Supersonics in 77-78, lost to the Sonics the next year. Also, RIP - Jerry Sloan - do not remember much of Jerry Sloan, played on some pretty good Bulls teams in the early to mid seventies.