USSoccer

It looks like I will be getting the PSV-Liverpool match. Can't wait. I forgot to set my stupid DVR...

What bothers me is the red zone play calling. It seemed like once we went up 13-0, Turner started screwing around with HB option passes and draw plays when Grossman was just picking GB's defense apart. They need TD's when they go up against better teams. 1 TD and 4 FG's isn't going to cut it all year long.

To sum up today's game: Packers=Absolute Pants

absolutely pants? It's a term I'm ripping off from Michael Davies' ESPN World Cup blog. Basically, pants, in England, is a term to describe something terrible, as in "The 2006 Cubs were aboslute pants". It can also be used like this: "In 2005, Derrek Lee turned in a pantsless performance, putting up MVP numbers at 1B." So, to sum up, the scale goes from no pants to absolute pants.

The Bears really should be winning this by more than 16. If I'm the Packer staff, I point out how absolutely pants they were, and yet still they're only down 2 scores.

Juve drew 1-1 in their Serie B debut.

I wouldn't trust Mark O'Neal to treat my cat.

Me too. Go with Moore, EPatt, Ronny, and Lee in the IF; Murt, Pie, and Restovich/Coats/Jackson in the OF, and lets see what happens. I'd trade Lee, too. No reason to keep him if you rebuild.

So we would trade jaque jones, michael barrett, Lee, isturiz, and that's really it. Are those players going to get a large enough return? Jones, Barrett, Lee, Zambrano, Prior, Eyre, Howry, Dempster, Izturis...it's not uncomparable to Beckett, Lowell, Pierre, Castillo, Mota, Delgado, etc... I think you could get a ton for Z, a lot for Lee, a good return on Barrett and Prior, and who cares what you get for the rest.

If Aramis leaves, I'd like to see the enitre roster traded Marlins style.

Why put him through unneccesary wear and tear?

Which is even more inexcusable that they'd value a Cy Young chase to let an already overworked arm-and your last, best pitching asset to boot-go out and throw when something wasn't right. O'Neal should be fired right after the game ends if that's the case, and so should Rothschild and Baker.

Seriously, though, you're absolutely right, but there is no one at any level of this organization that would take action. Hendry won't fire Dusty, and MacPhail won't fire either of them.

Nah. Rick Morrisey told me all the doubting of Dusty is what injured Z today.

Question #1-Rex Grossman. Question #2-Thomas Jones and Cedric Benson are the RB's. Question #3-I dunno. Who was the "offensive weapon everyone feared in 2005"? It's funny. The Bears were the #2 seed in the NFC last year with the same questions. Like the QB or not, they're improved by Orton being the 3rd option instead of #1. The RB thing is completely [expletive]. The Bears are bringing back all 3 RBs, and the entire OL from a team that was 8th in rushing the year before. Who did teams fear for the World Champion Steelers? Parker was a breakaway threat, but Jones had a much better season. Bettis was not even as good as Peterson. Ward is a good, if not great, WR, but he's is more of a possession guy. But Big Ben and the Bus knew how to win and blah blah blah blah blah. I have no problem doubting the Bears, but pick the right reasons for it

So Z's hurt? Wow, it's amazing what gross, negligent overuse will due to the top 3 arms your franchise has ever had. Baker and Hendry will someday be spoken of in the same breath as...I don't know. But they'd better be reviled in Cub history.

Peter King's Bears Prediction: Question #1-Rex Grossman. Question #2-Thomas Jones and Cedric Benson are the RB's. Question #3-I dunno. Who was the "offensive weapon everyone feared in 2005"?

The Fire beat Red Bull NY 2-1, although I came away from the game very impressed with Marvell Wynne.

I'd give him 4/$60 with an option year at $14m.

Is it any wonder why this organization is so incompetent? Middle of the order impact hitters walk. And the Cubs have never shown the slightest bit of ability (nor willingness) to "chisel down" an aggressive hitter. Freaking idiots. I find this a gross misinterpretation of what Zisk is saying. I agree that it only works if the player does get "chiseled down" and that the Cubs have failed in the past with some, not all, players in doing that. But clearly if Zisk is saying the words, then he is aware of the need to "chisel down" the already agressive hitter and is attempting and intending to do so. I've also heard Von Joshua hail the need for plate discipline for Felix Pie. It is prevelent in the Cubs minor league instructors words, so to think that it is not apart of the organization's philosophy is to ignore half of the evidence. The instructors may fail, the prospects may resist. Some certainly have succeeded. But to take Zisk's comment that "Ryan Harvey isn't going to be paid to walk" and turn that into a blanket statement that means the Cubs as an organization don't believe in plate discipline or taking a walk is a good thing is very difficult to support logically. I'd argue to opposite, CW. It's hard for you to argue that this quote shouldn't go in the archives with the countless other examples of Cub coaches and the GM downplaying the importance of walking, and plate discipline. Were this a quote out of nowhere, or one of the first about guys "not being paid to walk", I'd see your point, but it isn't. It's just another drop in the aggressiveness bucket for our coaches...

I'm pretty sure you're missing the point completely. No im not missing the point. He said he thought Kendall's Ab was the only good one in the inning. Which is completely false. Not everyting has to be about stats. Stats aren't useless, but stats are so subjective that one must really pay extreme attention to other details of the game that stats don't record. And his point is that Johnson's AB should only be considered a "Good AB" or "Doing His Job" in the context of a completely different game situation. In THAT particular game situation, it was a failed AB. His out is worth more than that 1 run in a 2 run game. His point has nothing to do with "stats". Getting on base is not a "stat". It's being smart about a game situation and recognizing that, in Johnson's case, a sac fly is worthless. Losing by 1 is still losing. He should have done everything possible to get on base. His making an out is letting his team down.

I think this game is going to be much, much closer than anyone thinks, and I wouldn't be shocked at all to see GB win. The Bears D didn't look all that impressive, and Thomas Jones didn't look all that great Thursday. Benson hasn't seen any game time action, and the Bears WR's continue dropping catchable balls. Factor in a frenzied Lambeau and the fact that it's Week 1, and I can see a 24-14 GB win.

Just because Girardi is a former Cub will not make him a perfect fit. Just because he's not Dusty won't make him right for the job. I'm not comfortable with hiring Girardi just on those 2 reasons, and I've yet to hear anyone justify it outside of those 2 reasons. Yes, Florida has had a good year, but they are an NL team, and have a ton of talent. It doesn't take much to be in contention for the WC this season.

I have no ND bias either way, but is it me or is Zbikowski or whatever the safety's name is a really good football player? I was very impressed by his play.

Hitting 12 HR's in only 32 games is a pretty good level of contribution. How often does a front office pull out the chemistry card in order to justify a decision? Should it matter than Guillen hated Thomas from their days of playing together, and would have found a way to throw him under the bus no matter what? Ditto for Williams, who might be the most immature GM in baseball. How stunning that they would cite chemistry in a city like Chicago to justify not bringing back a HOF player. Also, for all your talk about chemistry, the 2005 White Sox managed to win a World Series with Frank Thomas in their locker room, despite him being a giant jerk. Baseball isn't as much of a team sport as the other major sports are. I'll say it over and over and over. You may think it's ignorance, but it's the truth. I don't care about the romaticism of baseball or it's myths about whatever. Whether or not you like a guy in your locker room is not going to affect your ability to call him off of a pop fly in the infield, or call for a slider low and away on a 1-2 count. If you and your coach have differing opinions on stem cell research, or if your catcher is a prima donna, you're still going to execute a pitch that's called, because you're a professional, and that's your job. Outside the lines, whatever. If Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez don't hang out, or never talk to each other outside of on the field, does that make the team worse? If Jacque Jones stands up for Sean Marshall's wedding, is he going to play harder for Marshall than he would for Zambrano? Zambrano rips his teamates all the time for bad defensive plays; does Matt Murton tank plays on Z in LF because of it? No. Why? Because professional athletes don't have to be best buddies in order to compete and win together. There are enough people who contribute to this site who have been athletes at the collegiate level, or in some cases, higher than that. Collectively, they're able to form opinions based on their direct experiences as athletes. Pulling out the "They've been around the game" line is a poor argument. An out is an out. Productive outs are still outs, and being excited about advancing a runner should only happen in very limited circumstances, and even still it's not as good as not making an out. Please. Just because most fans don't get to go inside a clubhouse doesn't mean they aren't equally capable of evaluating a situation. That's another tired, baseball old-guard argument that seems to think you must have played or been around the game to understand it's mythos. It's wrong. I can pick 15 posters from this website that, if they were given a $95m payroll and 3 years, would have produced results better than the Chicago Cubs from 2004-2006. You don't have to have been in a clubhouse to be able to tell a productive player from a terrible player. Chemistry does not breed winning. Winning creats on-field chemistry. I've been on teams that got along and were terrible, and some of the best teams I've been on featured guys who hated each other. I've seen co-captains get in fistfights on teams that won conferences and Cups. Chemistry does not begat winning no matter how romantic the notion may be.