USSoccer

Oh, they'll crucify him and run him out of town. And they'll cement the fact that Bear fans are the dumbest fanbase in the city. Rex Grossman isn't why they lost. He might not have helped, but he didn't kill the team tonight. The run game was bad outside of one run, the play calling was bad, and the defense played tentatively. His turnovers were the nails in the coffin, but not the determining factor.

Oh well. Rex had 2 bad throws, played ok other than that, but the Colts were better tonight. Hopefully the media and fans don't cricify Rex and he comes back next season better for this performance.

need a 3 and out. defense needs to do its job

should habe rtun that. come on rex. points on the board. defense needs to step up and actually stop them.

turner needs to do a better job in the 2nd half. No playaction? This game is still winnable, but the offense needs to step up.

Got to hold them to at most a FG here...

I thank you for your contribution. I'm just trying to stay consistent with my superstitions

Bears 27 Colts 24. Reverse reverse jinx.

Its good to see that he can take time off from beating his wife to play for Mexico again. What is he 40 now? Although I would not mind seeing him with his little jump move he was able to pull off a bunch about 4 years ago :-). He's 34, and I cannot wait to see him try and pull some crap with Dempsey in the midfield that he used to pull with Reyna. Since we're not playing Mexico at the top of their stupid mountain stadium, and since I don't think they're going to pump smog into University of Pheonix Stadium, I think Blanco's going to be a bit dissapointed in the end result.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=406395&cc=5901 As expected, Dempsey, Convey, Bocanegra and Howard added to the roster for next week's beatdown of Mexico in Glendale, AZ. Also, Cuauhtemoc Blanco is back on the Mexican team's roster.

John Clayton's article today pretty much says Harper won't play. He said that he's only been able to get about 10 min of running in this week, and that he's wearing a boot. While that bodes well for us, I hope that Grossman just doesn't key on whoever is replacing Harper and go after him...I want Rex to go through his reads as he normally would. Clayton's article also says Rex has been bad more than good this season. Which is plain wrong any way you try and look at it.

FAT.

Sorry to society? What? Did Tank kill someone or something? How did the charges against him adversely affect society? Wow. What a complete and total moron. just wait until around the horn when plaschke likely takes 30 seconds to talk about what a horrible person tank johnson is Or writes a column titled "There's Malice and Evil in his Soul"...

Sorry to society? What? Did Tank kill someone or something? How did the charges against him adversely affect society? I've never liked Plaschke. He comes off like a windbag. I dunno.....like he's desperate for someone to listen to him. I understand he's won several journalism awards though. Not my kind of sports journalist I guess. Tank handled this appropriately. It was a stupid question. Nobody but this guy has ever suggested Tank has "harmed society" by failing to register a few guns in Illinois. There hasn't been a single crime that I know of where Tank has harmed another human being. Well, to be fair I thought he had a prior assault charge or something, but I'm not sure if that was verbal or physical. Plaschke, though, asks this question as if he's the morality police. I thought Tank's response was perfect. If only the whole world could turn their backs to Plaschke...

God, Bill Plaschke is such a stain on sports journalism: Sorry to society? What? Did Tank kill someone or something? How did the charges against him adversely affect society?

What are the odds Manning will get asked a question about going against a bunhc of Florida Gators?

Hahahaha. Stupid media.

This article just proves that Scoop is a terrible writer. It's heavily biased towards the Bears obviously, and the entire article is garbage. I'm also fairly certain Rex never said "When it's all said and done, I will have multiple Super Bowl rings." I'm pretty sure what he said was "If I have multiple Super bowl rings, I will be satisfied with my career," or something to that effect. No, he actually said it.

I disagree with you for yet another reason that you can't quantify. Bone headed plays, even if irregular, lead to your club being the 2006 Cubs. Maybe, but 10 plays over the course of 162 games isn't going to affect a team's overall defensive efficiency, as opposed to 20 plays, or 1. You're talking about hundreds of balls in play over the course of a season.

The fundamental insight that spurred the development of this metric was the realization that balls in play that turn into outs for every pitcher tend towards the same value. The primary variables are: 1) type of batted ball (gb, fb, ld) and 2) defensive efficiency. #1 varies by pitcher and #2 varies by team. Not every individual ball has the same chance of becoming an out, but over the course of thousands of balls put in play per year, this has been repeatedly shown to average out. What this means is that looking at the efficiency of the defense is a very valid metric. I understand your stance, and your opinion - that's not the problem. I'd like you to answer the question about where overthrowing cutoff men, throwing to the wrong base, Barrett calling 8,000 fastballs (on 0-2 and 1-2 counts) a game, Pierre playing about 10 feet behind second base, etc etc comes into play by numbers? Edit: Meant to type 0-2 and 1-2 :D Barrett's pitch selection has nothing to do with defense.

Isn't that making the assumption that on every possible ball in play, the defense could have a % to record an out? What about after the out is recorded, and you miss the cutoff man by throwing it 5 feet above his head? Where's that written down in numbers? Balls in play would exclude home runs and strikeouts.

You're making assumptions on what the person knows. Just because he has internet access doesn't make him knowledgeable about the Cubs or even baseball for that matter. Maybe he thinks it's possible for the Cubs to lose minor league players by some draft? Who knows what he has knowledge of? Was Peoria part of the Cubs system? Yes. Did Pujols play for Peoria? Yes. Why is that such a stupid question for a fan that may not know that much to ask? Because it's not as if he's asking if a player of the fame of say...JD Drew, or Vernon Wells was a Cub. He's asking about Albert Pujols. Perennial league MVP candidate. Best player in the NL, and a player who plays for the Cubs' principle rival. He's not an obscure name. He's a name the casual fan should know, and casual fans again would pay attention to media ripping the Cubs for not retaining the best player in the league. Again you assume what he knows and what he doesn't. Also, how do you know this media ripping of the Cubs would even be in his train of thought? First off, he knew enough about Pujols to inquire if the Cubs gave up on him, implying that he knows that Pujols is great, and knew the Cubs are now affiliated with Peoria. He uses the pronoun "we", and the word "another", implying he knows about past players the Cubs let go that turned out to be very good. If you're assuming this person is an adult (which is the basis of the argument), in the time it took him to find the Q&A and submit his question, he could have simply asked himself "If Albert Pujols, who I know is great, and plays for the Cardinals, used to be in the Cubs system, why haven't I heard about the fact that we let ANOTHER prospect get away to St Louis?". Simple critical thinking could have answered his question. Instead, he asked a stupid one to the Cubs' Q&A person.

You're making assumptions on what the person knows. Just because he has internet access doesn't make him knowledgeable about the Cubs or even baseball for that matter. Maybe he thinks it's possible for the Cubs to lose minor league players by some draft? Who knows what he has knowledge of? Was Peoria part of the Cubs system? Yes. Did Pujols play for Peoria? Yes. Why is that such a stupid question for a fan that may not know that much to ask? Because it's not as if he's asking if a player of the fame of say...JD Drew, or Vernon Wells was a Cub. He's asking about Albert Pujols. Perennial league MVP candidate. Best player in the NL, and a player who plays for the Cubs' principle rival. He's not an obscure name. He's a name the casual fan should know, and casual fans again would pay attention to media ripping the Cubs for not retaining the best player in the league.

I'm going to agree with Goony on this. It's a pretty stupid question to ask on an internet Q&A. Supposing Pujols had been a Cub at one point, there's no way on the planet even a casual fan wouldn't have known about it. Assuming the casual fan tunes into national games and the playoffs, and considering the best player on a world series team would have been cast aside by the most "cursed" and inept organization in baseball history, don't you think it would be a staple of newspaper columnists criticisms, laments and jabs? Wouldn't it be a constant theme of sports radio? It's not like Lou Brock for Broglio or anything-Pujols has only been in the league for 6 or so years. The freshness of the stupidity would guarantee a constant chorus of criticism and mocking of the Cubs for bailing on the game's best player. It's a stupid, stupid question to ask.

Lansing.