rawaction

Everyone knows these are 2 of the top 5 scoring defenses. Most might know they are 1-2 in point differential. But how many people realize these teams are 2 and 3 in points scored per game? The Bears have had a lot of help from the defense, but maybe this game isn't going to be 2 teams that can't move the ball as much as I thought it would be.

If the Cubs are signing 3 somewhat high priced FA starters, they better be contenders. No reason to spend that much money NOT winning and not building for the future. As opposed to what though? If things clicked, that group of 3 could help turn the rotation into something formidable and if the offense improved a bit, who knows? Maybe we're in the Wild Card hunt at the ASB. But, it's likely those things won't happen, and we're selling off. I guess Villanueva gets a 2-3 year deal. McCarthy and Liriano? One and an option? If we want short term guys, may as well get the best we can get, right? If one pitches his ass off, maybe we get a nice haul in return. But with as low as the payroll is, those 3 could be added and we'd still likely have 10-15 mill to use just to make it to a 100 mill and that(hopefully) isn't an issue, even if we ARE rebuilding. Frankly I think this approach would set the Cubs back a year. This isn't the Pirates who are desperate to compete and don't have long term resources to do so. You can't preach building for the future and spend on 3 pitchers who won't be around when u realistically can win. Gotta have retreads to field a team, but for every DeJesus there needs to be a Rizzo. I like Liriano but he is not going to help lead this team to the playoffs ever. The Cubs need to add future pieces while still being respectable as a franchise.

If the Cubs are signing 3 somewhat high priced FA starters, they better be contenders. No reason to spend that much money NOT winning and not building for the future.

Can't imagine that trade with Cleveland would take too much. And it would give the Cubs an arm that's still on the right side of 30 and some value to the Cubs or to a contender if he turns it around. Chisenhall is a potential piece for the future, he has a better chance to be a league average 3B than I think Vitters does, though he probably won't be much more than that.

How do u allow a 69 yard TD run with under 30 seconds left in the half on 3rd and 16?

He's also not a "grind out yards" type of RB like Foster can be. If Forte gets 135 yards on the ground, it's because he probably broke one for 60 and it's on like 15 carries. If he gets 35 carries, the Bears are winning comfortably and Michael Bush is probably dead.

Creek looks good. Yogi looks amazing. This team is all of sudden not very deep upfront. Hollowell looks a lot more sluggish moving than I thought he would be. Don't have the benefit of playing him at his comfortable 3 spot though. Someone's going to have to be a consistent 3rd big and a 2nd consistent shooter if this team wants to live up to the #1 ranking come March/April.

Yeah if the Cubs add 2 arms, one of them needs to be a long term solution. One to trade for farm system purposes and the other for the future. A guy like Bauer, the A's arms, Tampa's arms is a must have...just like Rizzo was last year. Not realistic to expect major pieces of a team all put in place in one off-season between minor callups and FA signings. I think an arm and bat need added to the nucleus of Castro, Rizzo, Shark, etc.

That's almost exactly how I feel. I feel very confident about the Bears right now, but at the same time I wonder 'should i really be this confident?' I see the team built on an absurdly abnormal amount of turnovers against mediocre to bad teams and I feel like I should be a little scared. At the same time, we throttled those teams, what a great team should do. So I am outwardly confident right now, but losing this game will definitely cause me and other Bears fans to look behind us and see the Packers 1 game behind with the 49ers come up. I'm not saying that even if we lose both of these games, I will give up on our chances to make the Super Bowl, but I'll be a whole lot more worried that's for sure. Also.....everyone points out that Green Bay apparently destroyed us in week 2. No we didn't play well, yes they played better, but I don't think it was the blowout people make it out to be....We were down 3-0 just before halftime when a fluke fake FG put us down 10-0. But even then, it was a 10 point game (13-3....really 6-3 without the fake FG) until midway through the 4th quarter when they kicked another FG to make it 16-3 (9-3) and then broke our backs with a TD after yet another Cutler TO. I dunno, obviously they dominated our offense, but it almost seemed like it was their scheme and plan against Marshall that killed us, not because they were all that more talented. Defensively I thought we were great, and held the offense to 16 points (and who knows how many were short fields because of Cutler INTs...dont feel like going back and remembering). Anyways, the Packers deserved to win, no doubt, but I'm not necessarily looking at the Packers like a team we can't beat. The Packers game was also on the road on the first short week of the NFL season. The team had gone from practicing to half the team playing 2-3 drives in the preseason opener, to playing a quarter in the 2nd preseason game, to playing a half in the 3rd preseason game, to a week off (4th PS game), to a home opener where starters got to either sit (Urlacher) or take it easy late, to playing 4 days later against one of the best teams in the league in their house. That's not to excuse the loss at all. I was still pissed about how poorly they played. As for Simmons' point..... At some point, everybody has to get over the eye test with the Bears. Sure the offense struggles at times, but they have more often than not performed when they've needed to and enough to win. It just so happens that the big offensive meltdowns (and there have not been that many) have come with everyone in the world watching (SNF vs. Giants, Playoffs vs. Packers, TNF vs. Packers). This may be a game where they play poorly again, against a very good defensive team, but it's not the end of the world. And I'd take the chances that the team will at least have a shot to still win, just like they did in those 3 disaster games I mentioned until late. And easy schedule or not, they all count. Teams that beat teams they are supposed to beat, usually keep winning them....ask the Colts. They aren't going to lose every game against other good teams.

2 of those td's have come in garbage time in the lions and cowboys games this year. Conte wasn't on the field for either of those. Wright was on for the Dallas one, I believe, but was playing really soft coverage.

With Wright and Conte as starting safeties the Bears have allowed 10 td passes in 14 games...over that same time the Bears D has scored on 9 td passes.

That and him figuring out the whole being a decent WR thing Yeah yeah, I know I know. He's not a WR, blah blah. Except that's the position he's playing, and occasionally he does catch a long TD. It doesn't happen as often as it should, but it happens, and with Alshon out and Marshall likely to be double covered by a good defense, this would be a great week for it. Yeah, I was being a bit facetious. I know all it takes is one deep ball to change a game with Hester, but I just hate him as a WR. Not having Alshon and/or a decent 2nd WR option is killing the Bears right now and playing against two good defenses the next two games is/will likely really hurt them. Hopefully they can get creative with Forte and get him the ball in space a lot. Marshall is so good that even if he's double teamed I still expect Jay to get him the ball 7+ times, Jay's ability to not give a [expletive] about throwing a ball into coverage and Marshall's skill is too much to completely shut him down. I wouldn't say not having Jeffery is "killing" a Bears team that has not lost a game without him and scored 37ppoints without him last week.

FWIW re: the no-huddle offense. Based on ESPNs play-by-plays the Bears have run about 10 plays in the no huddle. 6 passes, 4 runs with a couple holding penalties negating 2 of the best no-huddle plays. GB, Detroit, St Louis and Dallas almost ran exclusive no huddle. So the Bears have done pretty well against it.

Yep.

Doesn't have the elite level potential (ala AJ Green, Julio Jones, Calvin Johnson of recent years), but is pretty good. He has good size (6-2, 215 ish) with ability to get bigger/stronger. He's a pretty good route runner for his size aka runs like a smaller guy. He uses his body well enough to shield defenders and be an outside WR. He's good enough out of his breaks to play in the slot. Not great straight line speed, and actually appears to be better running crossing routes in the middle of the field. Not afraid of contact. Good after the catch. I think he's a "rich man's" Michael Crabtree.

Going to be interesting to see how both teams try and move the ball. Quick passes sound good for the Bears but Watt is like Mutumbo in there. I think they are going to have to move the pocket a bunch. Screens haven't really worked much against Houston either. Ray Rice caught 5 but only for 14 yards. Spiller did break a big one last week but he's incredibly fast. Fred Jackson also caught 5 for little yardage.

An Andrus/Olt package might be the trump card, but I think we could match it or top it if we offered Baez/Samardzija/Barney for Bauer and Upton. Not that I'd do that trade, but if we were to make nearly everyone available and Theo really wants Upton/Bauer I'd do that trade (assuming Upton doesn't have some sort of degenerative shoulder issue). As much as I like Baez, if they think his plate patience issues may never resolve themselves, it might be worth trading him before he's further exposed. Getting Bauer and Upton would be a perfect example of the type of undervalued assets Theo/Jed are always talking about. I'd hope to get another prospect arm in there though. Feel like the Cubs are giving up slightly more in terms of pre arb years.

Yeah I'd trade Shark in a heartbeat if it means further strengthening the upper levels

Backs need SS/3B help. While Baez and Villanueva would be a nice package for them, there's no way that's better than the Andrus/Olt package Texas can certainly offer without hurting them in the long or short run

Dallas Thomas is a Senior. Werner is a high motor, tenacious edge rusher. I think he's a little overrated, but may be one of the safer picks in a draft full of freak pass rushers. If those are the positions the Titans need, they are in luck. Probably my 3 favorite positions in the draft as far as potential elite players and depth.

Posted my Game preview on my blog. You MFs should read it. Good stuff. Cody being out could be huge. Because Garza's terrible and Cody's pretty good. If Owen Daniels is out (he won't be) and Tillman does play, I believe he can shutdown Andre Johnson and Daniels is their 2nd leading receiver, by a good margin. Houston has a problem without those two. That's crappy analysis but all the good stuff is on the blog. http://www.mr-irrelevantpgh-chi.blogspot.com/

They are ranked, and Ali standing over Liston should be much higher, maybe even #1.

Personally, I thought it was the fact that they used the quick slant over an over again. The hurry up was a huge part too though because the Panthers weren't able to change their coverage to adjust to the play though. I just don't think the Bears use the quick slant enough, especially when it's the best weapon against a blitz happy team. I was screaming for a quick slant agains the Packers. Whatever it takes scheme-wise to punish them for the pass rush. Everybody comes hard after Jay on the first play of the game. I heard this morning that the Bears have started the game off with a rush 5 times, and with a pass 3 times, and on all 3 pass plays, they resulted in a sack. There has to be a way to take advantage of that over-eagerness by the opposing defense. In theory, a screen is a great option. I don't see the Bears going with hurry up as much as they may go with no huddle. They want time of possession. With a defense that is about patience and opportunism, and which often spends a lot of time on the field (including after scoring themselves), I think it could be very risky to go with a hurry up. You know, I was equating no huddle and hurry up as the same in my head, but you're right. It's more the no huddle that I'm interested in seeing. I wonder if Tice has been kinda saving the no huddle for the "good" teams. The word is they put a lot of work into the no-huddle during the bye. And Jay has been pretty clear that he likes it. I'm guessing we might have seen in more vs. Detroit if Cutler wasn't hurt.

I feel like analysts and announcers usually pounce all over stuff like this and talk about it often. I've never heard anyone talk about this stat other than people on message boards. Not only that... Cutler is 25-9 in the past 3 years in the games he started. Good for a 73.5 winning %. Not sure how many QBs in the NFL have a better % than that in the past 3 years, but Cutler only played 33 games out of 48. Your math is messed up somewhere. Cutler hasn't missed anywhere near 15 games. He missed 6 games last year, the Carolina game the year before and nothing else. Looks like you're counting games that haven't even been played yet (only 40 games from start of 2010 to now). And if you take out the first 6 of 2010 (won first 3, lost next 3), Cutler is 21-6 in his last 27 starts.