rawaction

I've always sworn I could hit Jeff Suppan.

if they get Halladay, they will be repeat champions.

The Cubs haven't won the season series from them since 2001. 16-29 v. the Phillies since '02. I go every year. For a while I think Chicago won every time I attended. I'm on a horrible losing streak stretching back to at least the day of the Nomar trade. The only recent win I remember was the cheap one they got thanks to a really bad homerun call off a Mark DeRosa foul ball. At least Pat Burrell isn't there any longer to kill them. Heh. Last year, the Cubs went into Philly after sweeping a bad team on the road (Pirates), and proceeded to lose the first 2 of the Philly series. In fact, every time except the 4-game series at Wrigley last year, they have played the previous 3 years, the Cubs have come off of a series win, only to have Philly win the series 2 of 3 or 3 of 4.

ERA of 1.13 and Whip of 1 in July. He's been throwing the ball a lot better as of late.

I wonder who Lou doesn't trust. Guzman, Marmol, and Gregg all seem to be doing pretty good recently. Heilman has been bad, but Lou doesn't seem to notice. The Cubs have been rumored for a couple closers (Heath Bell). I wonder if this is more of a move for next year with Gregg and Heilman possibly not being back.

Can't beat a near 8:1 strikeout to walk ratio.

The best thing about the series is HOW they did it and WHO they did it with. Again it's the Nationals and you gotta take it with a grain of salt until they show they can play like this against other teams. But this series featured a great outing from Harden. Big go ahead HRs by Soriano. A big Aramis HR. Fontenot starting to hit. Fukudome getting on base at will. A couple good performances from Marmol and Gregg. Even Zambrano and Wells won without having their best. The Cubs pitching has been pretty dominant since Harden's disaster on the 4th. The bullpen has been getting better each month. If the last 2-3 days mean anything and Soriano, Fontenot and Ramirez start hitting, as Lee, Theriot and Fukudome continue what they've been doing....this could still be the team many people thought it would be. Bradley and Soto would be icing on the cake.

Hopefully, he's done in the rotation. With the off day Thursday, the Cubs can skip Hart next time through the rotation. With any luck, Dempster will be ready to go the next time the Cubs need a 5th starter on July 28th. If not, I'd probably rather have Szamardzija start anyway.

Just a routine off day for Ramirez I hope? I'm sure. So, Fox does NOT catch this series? I think last night would have been a good time to get him back there. You don't really want him catching Zambrano, because that's a fight waiting to happen. Harden has had control issues. One of the inexperienced guys and against a bad team would have been a great chance to see if Fox can make it 9 innings behind the plate.

I do agree that the Bears WR will have a tough time vs. GB. Granted, we all know the Bears QB situation last year, but in 2 games vs. GB last year, Bears WRs caught 7 passes for 88 yards, 36 of those yards came on a catch by Rashied Davis. Unless GBs corners lose another step (which is possible), they are probably too physical for the Bears small and inexperienced WRs. That being said, I think the Bears will be able to run against the developing 3-4 defense of the Packers. I think Cutler will be able to hit the TEs and RBs at will, as Orton pretty much did in the games last year. Overall, I don't know what to expect from the Packers. I could see them winning anywhere from 5 games to 10. They really have a tough finish to the schedule, going to Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Arizona, with Baltimore going into Lambeau in the last 5 weeks.

It doesn't matter what your musical tastes are. Elvis is much more of a cult icon than MJ. Think of all the merchandise you see that has Elvis on it, etc. He also had a bigger fanbase as well because of the different genre that he recorded under. I'd have to think that Elvis also had more of an influential impact on music. All of the early rock bands like The Beatles, Stones, etc were influenced by his stardom. There's a famous story that John Lennon always told about going to see an Elvis movie when he was 14 or 15 and going "oh my god...THAT would be a good job!" and thus getting into music hard and heavy because of Elvis. My choice is not to denigrate MJ's impact at all, because I think he was massively influential and certainly is among the biggest superstars in modern music history, right alongside Elvis and The Beatles. Personally, I'm not an Elvis fan and have only ever owned his greatest hits, however, I just think the cultural impact that Elvis had on the country is hard to even come close to measuring. Ever pop artist the last 30 years has been influenced by MJ. NKOTB, New Edition, Backstreet Boys, NSync were all huge groups...would not exist without the Jackson Five's success. MJ's stage show also made pop artists step up their game (Madonna, Britney, Janet Jackson, etc). Chris Brown, Usher, Timberlake, are all MJ clones. MJ had the best disco album ever made and the best 2 pop albums ever. On top of that, he still has bonafide R-n-B hits. Elvis did span rock-n-roll, the blues, and gospel, but he didn't spawn any of those, the way MJ did to pop. If Elvis has any advantage it's his movies. But the international appeal of MJ gives him the edge, IMO.

Black people didn't like Elvis. MJ wins.

If it was something relatively simple, I'd think Lou would have said what it was. Does he live in Chicago? Maybe he's having family problems and getting away from them (read: her) helps ease his mind to pitch better.

I never thought the Bears would lose to Seattle in the playoffs. The game should have never been that close. The Bears were the better team and played better all day.

That's pretty much my list, + the Seahawks game in 06 in October. That game was sort of a national coming out party against the reigning NFC champs. I had a lot of fun watching that one. Yes, I loved that game. Bears looked good, but against some crappy teams. Going on the road to the west coast and beating Seattle pretty good was when I knew the team had a real shot to do something special that year.

I remember the AZ-Bears game in 06 for a few reasons. My dish was screwed up and I couldn't watch the game. So, I was following online. I completely gave up on the game and went to bed. That morning I checked online before I went to work and saw a 24-23. When I went to bed it was 23-3. But I must have interpreted as 14-23, because I still went to work thinking the Bears lost. I just thought, oh the Bears got another FG and a garbage TD with a 2-pt conversion. But when I got to work, people were like "man your team got lucky". I had to go online and check it out again. I don't think I knew the Bears won til 10:30 the next day.

The basic thing is the crowd. I think all sports have an advantage in baseball in this aspect. The crowd can't hype up a baseball team. Even if it does, that extra energy doesn't help them in any way throw a better pitch or hit a ball. You can argue that it doesn't help in other sports either, but there's at least a chance that it at least gets adrenaline flowing more which can increase the ability to make a play. As for the actual playing surface, basketball teams shoot in their own building consistently. Most people will shoot the ball better in a place they've shot a million times, over a place they arrived at 3 hours before the game for a shootaround. In football, a home team is more familiar with the playing surface and can determine (based on weather conditions) what cleats to wear or what end of the field to defend, etc. Baseball has the advantage of hitter being familiar with the backdrop. Hockey, I have no idea.

You guys are right. It's not as hard to be on the field 32-35 minutes per game when you have a core of 23-26 year olds. Now the core defense, while mostly the same for 06, is 27-30 years old. The 09 Bears defense shouldn't have to be the 06 Bears defense to win a lot of games, though. They don't have the ability to spot Arizona 21 points and score 24 on defense and special teams to win in the 4th quarter. Luckily, they don't have to be extraordinary. But they do have the ability to be pretty good. Pretty good should be good enough to win a lot of games with an improved offense.

What a pansy. :D You didn't quote the 2nd half.

Bears were dead even in points allowed 1st and 2nd half. Of course, a lot of that was due to them sleeping thru a 23 pt 1st half vs. Detroit. But the Min, Ten, Car, and Hou losses were clear cases of an offense that couldn't sustain 2nd half drives, keeping the D on the field too long. I think that's Cutler's biggest plus. His abilities will allow the Bears to convert more on 3rd to stay on the field, and will open up the playcalling to the point where 3rd and 6 isn't an automatic run or 2-yard pass.

isn't it pretty much the same people he played against last year in college?

This is a huge misconception. Cutler had a pretty decent running game last year. They were 12th in the league with 1862 rushing yards (more than teams like the Bears, Steelers, and Jags who most consider big run 1st teams). Their 4.8 ypc was tied w/ Carolina for the best in the league. They didnt' have anyone over 350 yards, but whoever they plugged in ran the ball very well behind what was an OL that is better than what the Bears have for 2009. After looking at it, you are right, I fell victim to the misperception. They did, however, have a poor defense, and poor special teams according to the rankings I saw. I'm not going to say the Bears are this great incredible team over the Broncos in everything, but we *should* be better on defense, and I would be surprised if our special teams don't deliver better field position on the whole. Again, none of these factors are even taken into account by the scientist. Despite being 2nd in the league in total yards, the Broncos were 16th in points scored (less than Bears). Their defense though may have been the worst in the league though as they forced a league low 13 turnovers, 9 fewer than anyone other than Jacksonville! Allow the 4th most yards without taking the ball away from the other team is a recipe for disaster. The Bears had better be a ton better than that defensively.

Sarah Nichole has been officially entered in the birth certificate. You are right about the sleep Adam but its so worth it. Brian - I have three sisters. They have 6 kids between them, 2 boys. I have two girls so its 6-2 in the next generation. Meanwhile, my dad has two sisters, no brothers and my mom has 7 sisters and 2 brothers. My mother has 2 boys, 2 girls. My brother has 2 boys, 2 girls. One sister has a boy. One sister has a girl. So, my mother has 3 and 3 grandkids (4 and 4 if you count my stepkids). My dad was also a product of a 2/2 family. My son will offset the balance.

This is a huge misconception. Cutler had a pretty decent running game last year. They were 12th in the league with 1862 rushing yards (more than teams like the Bears, Steelers, and Jags who most consider big run 1st teams). Their 4.8 ypc was tied w/ Carolina for the best in the league. They didnt' have anyone over 350 yards, but whoever they plugged in ran the ball very well behind what was an OL that is better than what the Bears have for 2009.

Man I hope he's right. I admit I'm skeptical though. Happened w/ Ray Lewis, about the same point in his career. He went from a good young LB to the best LB in his prime. He then fell off for a year or two, then went back to one of the best in the league. Hopefully, Urlacher can follow that path.