SpongeWorthy

I think Buff was at 33/1 the other day but I didn't jump on it.

Funny Landycakes Sportscenter commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J19-ROSfwY8

I don't have a problem with it. An outdoor Super Bowl in weather every few years is no big deal. Southern California isn't going to have a Super Bowl for a long, long time now so they need a new venue anyhow.

At 35/1 I'm almost willing to just assume the risk that Toews will be hurt/ineffective and Hossa will be the best player on the team. NOT THAT I'M HOPING FOR THAT

It rained during nearly all of the Bears-Colts Super Bowl. A warm rain in Miami is not nearly the same as a cold, rainy, windy February night in NJ. But it was a factor, which you are unhappy with. Are you upset that the conference championships are in potentially bad weather locales and could favor one team or the other? Well everyone knows the Super Bowl is a neutral site game from day 1 while you play to earn the right to host the conference championship throughout the year.

Odds to win the 2010 Conn Smyth Trophy: Antti Niemi (CHI) 5/1 Chris Pronger (PHI) 25/1 Danny Briere (PHI) 18/1 Dustin Byfuglien (CHI) 25/1 Jonathan Toews (CHI) 4/9 Marian Hossa (CHI) 35/1 Michael Leighton (PHI) 8/1 Mike Richards (PHI) 7/1 Patrick Kane (CHI) 19/2 Patrick Sharp (CHI) 30/1 Simon Gagne (PHI) 25/1 Field (Any Other Player) 20/1 Hossa at 35/1 has to be good value right?

Is there anything stopping the new Nets owner from paying Jackson 15 million or more a year?

Not when you pick and choose to compare just the "good" offenses, and forget about the other phases of the game. Not when you consider that even if we are just talking offense that the best offenses don't always have great years. Not when you consider that the most talented team doesn't always win. If you want to be good in any phase of the game it makes sense to compare yourself to the best teams in those phases. I'm fairly confident that we can have a good offense relative to the Lions, Rams, and Raiders but that gets you where exactly? For what it's worth I do think the front 7 on D has a chance to be one of the best in the game.

It doesn't matter what a team's talent level is relative to the talent level of its competitors?

In the context of the league, Earl Bennett really isn't any good. He's below average. You can get away with below average if the rest of your team is above average. Well we know that isn't the case either. Quickly scan the depth charts of good NFL offenses and tell me how many skill players we have that would start on those teams. It literally might be 0. Edit: I'll say a healthy Matt Forte MIGHT start over someone like Ryan Grant and Olsen, as overrated as he is, would get a starting job for New England or something.

Ok, but you're criticizing the WR's, not the line. Would Faulk have been as good with the line the Bears had last season? How about Bruce or Holt? Would Warner have been rushing passes? If not...he'd have been taking sacks. None of us are saying that the Bears are going to have the Rams offense from the "best show on turf" days. We're saying that if we don't have that, it's not necessarily due to bad receivers. It's much more likely to be because of a bad line. Not as good, but better. I'm hoping a healthy Forte would've been better than Forte was last year. He was pretty slow and tentative. I dismiss the notion that you can just plug and play if you've got the QB and line. You need play makers. And jersey, Holt is basically the less hyped version of Marvin Harrison. He put numbers well into the Bulger years. He was also a top 10 draft pick. He's not Pierre Garcon or anything. Bruce put up numbers in St. Louis that have never been done by a Chicago Bear before (excepting that one weird Marcus Robinson year maybe) Warner and Vermiel ever got there. That has a lot to do with playing in a dome during the peak of the greatest show on turf. I don't really get your point in whining about the Bears WR not being what STL had. Nobody thinks they are the greatest show on turf, but they don't have to be. They have multiple guys who can make big plays, who have made big plays. But what matters is whether the line and QB will allow anything to happen. Again, WR don't make or break teams. Isn't the point to compete for a Super Bowl? You don't do that by having a bunch of units that are just good enough. Somebody, somewhere, needs to be elite. And I totally disagree that we have a bunch of guys who can and will make big plays. Knox makes big plays to the extent that the only plays he makes ARE big ones. Hester's good for a big play every now and then. Olsen might but you have to target him an outrageous amount of times. Forte is no home run hitter. So where does that leave you? And there still isn't a reliable red zone target. Maybe that'll be Devin A. We can only hope. The most immediate thing the Bears can do next season to improve is not be an abject failure in the red zone.

Ok, but you're criticizing the WR's, not the line. Would Faulk have been as good with the line the Bears had last season? How about Bruce or Holt? Would Warner have been rushing passes? If not...he'd have been taking sacks. None of us are saying that the Bears are going to have the Rams offense from the "best show on turf" days. We're saying that if we don't have that, it's not necessarily due to bad receivers. It's much more likely to be because of a bad line. Not as good, but better. I'm hoping a healthy Forte would've been better than Forte was last year. He was pretty slow and tentative. I dismiss the notion that you can just plug and play if you've got the QB and line. You need play makers. And jersey, Holt is basically the less hyped version of Marvin Harrison. He put numbers well into the Bulger years. He was also a top 10 draft pick. He's not Pierre Garcon or anything. Bruce put up numbers in St. Louis that have never been done by a Chicago Bear before (excepting that one weird Marcus Robinson year maybe) Warner and Vermiel ever got there.

Yeah, but we don't have those either. That St. Louis team had Hall of Famers on every unit now that I think about it. Warner, Faulk, Pace, Bruce, and Holt is absolutely insane.

The problem is that all our guys are far from elite. We have a couple Ricky Proehls and Az Hakims, at best, and no Isaac Bruces or Torry Holts. Martz always had great receivers in St. Louis.

50 catches, 700 yards, 13 YPC in his 1st year of playing indicates he's at least decent. It's almost inevitable that someone is going to put up numbers when you drop back and pass a lot. He's a compiler, not a difference maker. Dude is afraid to get hit.

Earl Bennett isn't any good.

Because I think the handful of Bulls fans that would say Rondo is better than Rose probably just look at the box score and see his incredible stat lines. If they would watch the Celtics play they would probably be unfamiliar with their understanding of proper spacing, pick and roll execution, and long range marksmanship because they usually only watch Bulls games. And I'm not really just talking about Rose. I'm challenging the assertion that Rondo is in the same class as guys like Deron Williams, Chris Paul, and Steve Nash. I don't think he is. Those guys' teams can't win if they play bad and they can't compete with top teams unless they're spectacular. You can't say that about Rondo and the Celtics. Therein lies the difference.

You have to watch the games man. Basketball stats just aren't there yet. The Celtics can win a championship with Rondo merely being good. A guy like Nash or DWill has to play out of his mind just for their teams to compete with the Lakers. Rondo is playing with the greatest off screen shooter in league history, a top 5 Celtic, and probably the best pick and roll defender of all time. It's just easier for him.

A hockey buddy of mine submits that Tom Barrasso vs. Ed Belfour in 1992 was a bad one.

I don't really know what I'm talking about. I do know that I've seen a lot of Penguins and Wings fans gripe about Fleury and Osgood over the years.

Rondo's been atrocious the last two games, BTW. I mean it's good on the Celtics that they can still wax Orlando. The only way you think Rondo is one of the best PGs in the game is to look on his game in a vacuum. It's so much easier for him than it is for Nash, DWill, Rose, Paul, etc. to thrive. To suggest that he has nearly the same responsibility on his shoulders as Rose does on the Bulls is borderline insane. The Bulls wouldn't be up 3-1 on any team in the NBA if Rose had 8, 9, and 11 points in three of the games, let alone the Magic.

And Rondo was integral to that championship team.

Marc Andre Fleury vs. Chris Osgood.

Just Phil trying to force the Lakers to pay him his 12 million a year to coach them. I really doubt the Lakers pay him that much. As valuable as the Lakers are Jerry Buss isn't one of the wealthier owners in the league. Now the Knicks or Nets could be big players for Jackson if the bidding gets nuts.

If you're going with a strict platoon shouldn't it be Baker/Fontenot?