SpongeWorthy

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?

I suppose if Hedo's contract is so bad that they feel the only thing they can do is take a less bad (but still terrible) contract in return then I could see a S&T going down.

Right, that is what I said...... :roll: Hey man I'm on your side.

I still don't see why Toronto would take back significant salary in any S&T deal.

RedFlash thinks we're winning the Cup, signing Lebron and Bosh, and that Cutler is going to go for a 70% completion rate, 5,000 yards passing, and about 45 TDs on top of winning the Lombardi Trophy. And of course we're talking a minimum 8 peat by Bama football.

Hossa's amazing at protecting the puck with his body.

I'm a huge cubheadkev fan already.

WF22 said earlier that the salaries don't have to match in a S&T as long as you're under the cap. The problem is finding someone to take Deng. Who would want him at 3 more years at over 13 million a year?

Really? I guess there are more whiny NCAA moralists than I thought. Big business and honest amateurism cannot coexist.