SpongeWorthy

I thought Farmar was going to look like a bonehead for forcing that break so much. Hell of a shot, though. In other news, Kobe Bryant is way too good at basketball.

As much as Coleman is ripped the guy had a surprisingly long and productive career.

Heh, didn't Jordan eat a 22 oz. porterhouse and a baked potato before every game? I think Rose will be fine. I watched a lot of Beasley this past season and while I think he'll get his rips I don't see him as a true glass eater in the pros. He's a lot more athletic than other bigs in college and he has a quickness advantage that won't necessarily translate to the pros. I would be surprised if he puts up a Horford-esque rebound rate, or even Noah for that matter. You get him because he has the most developed inside-outside game of any prospect since at least Melo. He truly has an amazingly refined offensive game for a freshman. His perimeter skills aren't up to Durant or Mayo's level but he's a lot better around the rim than Anthony was. I kind of like our big situation as it is and I love it with the addition of Rose. Noah and Ty are on their way to becoming very formidble on the glass and shutting down the paint. Gooden is a decent enough post threat. But Rose opens up Noah and Ty offensively in ways that Beasley won't.

I don't see a lot of negativity. I see people really high on Rose because he's an outstanding talent and fills a great area of need for the Bulls. I think most people expect Beasley to be great and would be the clear cut #1 selection--for the Bulls, or most any other team--if Rose weren't in the draft. But calling him a sure 20-10 guy in the pros is ridiculous. Even Duncan and KG aren't doing that any more--few do. Also best college player does not equate to best prospect. How'd Michael Bishop's pro career turned out? I'm pretty sure Beasley will be a 20-10 guy, pretty much right off the bat, and that's without the luxury of going to a team where he will be the defacto #1 option (Bulls, Heat) unlike Durant. It's very possible but by no means a slam dunk (no pun intended). Only Howard, Boozer, Jamison, and Jefferson did it this year. All of those players outside of maybe Jamison are going to play around the basket much more than Beasley will. Durant's rebounding rate fell a lot once he turned pro--mainly because he's a 2 guard and I expect Beasley's will do something similar. 20/10 for a rookie is very rare. Who has done it since Brand?

I don't see a lot of negativity. I see people really high on Rose because he's an outstanding talent and fills a great area of need for the Bulls. I think most people expect Beasley to be great and would be the clear cut #1 selection--for the Bulls, or most any other team--if Rose weren't in the draft. But calling him a sure 20-10 guy in the pros is ridiculous. Even Duncan and KG aren't doing that any more--few do. Also best college player does not equate to best prospect. How'd Michael Bishop's pro career turned out?

I think the answer to both is unquestionably yes. I have little doubt that Beasley is going to be much better than Gooden and plays a different game altogether. Gooden would dream of having Beasley's touch, handles, and face up game. I think the real question is whether Beasley provides higher value given our current front court mix than Rose does given our current back court mix. I say no, barring any trade scenarios.

Brand was a producer on Werner Herzog's Rescue Dawn starring Christian Bale. Good flick. I'm sure he's going to keep the Hollywood gig up but is playing for the Clippers and The Donald enough to keep him there?

Someone is going to have to do a great job convincing me that Rose isn't the right pick for this team. Beasley is great but we have the weapons to absolutely thrive with Rose running the show.

I'm erect.

Have fun blocking for AP. Peterson will really help him because defenses will have 8 players in the box all the time. If Tavaris has a decent year, Berrian will have a big year. I'd rather have Rex than Jackson. I find it extremely humorous how people jump all over Grossman, but Jackson gets a free pass. So what, he had a stretch of like three or four decent games last year. Grossman was much better for a longer period of time the year before that. Again, we'll see how well Jackson does. He has an easier job to do than Grossman does seeing how the box will be overloaded on almost every play. I still don't think he's a very good QB though. How is Jackson getting a free pass? It's not like he has an iron clad grip on the Vikings QB job. I suppose you could say he's getting a free pass because he hasn't melted down for one of the very best teams in football in front of a national audience. If the Vikings defense performs and the running game remains stellar but Jackson loses games for them he'll get yanked fast.

I believe he's guaranteed about $4.5m. The highest paid kicker angle is not overplayed. Just because the cap is going up doesn't mean you have to overpay a kicker who can't kick for a lick from distance. The Bears put a tremendous about of effort into special teams. They have a highly compensated long snapper and more than most teams emphasize coverage units and returns. Gould is the weak link on kickoffs, and they have no faith in him from anything beyond 45. He was fine as an undrafted free agent, but it's a joke to make him the highest paid before he was even a free agent. A lot of this is unprovable conjecture. Can you provide evidence that the Bears emphasize special teams more than other teams or that this is the reason why the kicking game has been excellent rather than Gould himself? Gould is not the mediocre kicker you're making him out to be. You're over weighting the need to be able to kick LONG field goals above the effectiveness of making reasonable attempts at a high clip (which Gould is among the very best in the NFL at). And Gould has been just fine on kickoffs. He's not consistently booming it out of the back of the end zone but our coverage units have been able to make up for it. If he's a weak link it hasn't manifested itself negatively. Throwing around words like "a joke" just reeks of off season histrionics that should be reserved for the fact that we have two dreadful options at quarterback. Gould had a high percentage in 2006. He did not kick a high percentage in 2005 or 2007. Your last point is moronic. I didn't say he's a joke as a kicker. I didn't say his ability was a joke. I said it's a joke to make him the highest paid kicker a year before he even hits free agency. I suppose there's really no point in continuing this discussion if you're just going to ignore the empirical evidence that's been provided. Unless you have some bench mark for what constitutes a high percentage that I'm not aware of. But FG kicking doesn't exist in a vacuum and it's already been stated multiple times that Gould was among the most accurate kickers in each of the last two seasons. You can look it up. But if you have some other metric that is supposed to prove that Gould didn't kick FGs at a good clip, with respect to every other kicker in the NFL, I'm all ears.

"You're as cold as ice You're willing to sacrifice our love You never take advice Someday you'll pay the price"

Marmol is so good he can switch from Ryan style dominance to Madduxesque efficiency at the drop of a hat.

MLS crowds, at least out here in LA, are pretty loyal. Small, but passionate. Now I will say I've never met anyone who has admitted to going to a WNBA game. A funny joke I read about the WNBA, that perfectly encapsulates its place in professional sports, was going up to random strangers and asking them if they'd rather find $5 on the ground or have their hometown team win the WNBA title. I'm taking the 5 bucks every time.

You'd think an 11/1 K/BB ratio would net a better result.

http://theducks.org/pictures/cosmic-rex-excuse-me-wtf-r-u-doin.jpg

Now we get locked in a struggle with the part of the Padres that's actually worth a damn, as a unit, in their pen.

I believe he's guaranteed about $4.5m. The highest paid kicker angle is not overplayed. Just because the cap is going up doesn't mean you have to overpay a kicker who can't kick for a lick from distance. The Bears put a tremendous about of effort into special teams. They have a highly compensated long snapper and more than most teams emphasize coverage units and returns. Gould is the weak link on kickoffs, and they have no faith in him from anything beyond 45. He was fine as an undrafted free agent, but it's a joke to make him the highest paid before he was even a free agent. A lot of this is unprovable conjecture. Can you provide evidence that the Bears emphasize special teams more than other teams or that this is the reason why the kicking game has been excellent rather than Gould himself? Gould is not the mediocre kicker you're making him out to be. You're over weighting the need to be able to kick LONG field goals above the effectiveness of making reasonable attempts at a high clip (which Gould is among the very best in the NFL at). And Gould has been just fine on kickoffs. He's not consistently booming it out of the back of the end zone but our coverage units have been able to make up for it. If he's a weak link it hasn't manifested itself negatively. Throwing around words like "a joke" just reeks of off season histrionics that should be reserved for the fact that we have two dreadful options at quarterback.

Enrique Gonzalez looks like a goblin in his gamecast photo.

Doesn't matter. He's not even close to the best kicker in the NFL now and never should have been close to the highest paid. Whether that lasts a week or a season is inconsequential. It's irresponsible cap management and bad business. For a team that talks about prioritizing contracts and paying their own, it's absurd that they reward a mediocre kicker who skipped voluntary workouts with an inflated contract while they have meaningful players in need of deals. He most certainly is close to the best kicker in the NFL. Maybe our coverage unit is just that good but his kickoffs haven't really hurt us and his FG kicking has been excellent. Among the best in the league over the last two years. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamst.php http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamst2006.php Where Gould is involved, our kicking game has been pretty much undeniably excellent over the last two seasons. FO measures FG efficiency/effectiveness based on the percentage of attempts that are successful from that distance and adjusted for field and weather conditions. If you want to argue about Gould's contract in terms of an opportunity cost with respect to other needs, that's fine. Saying he's mediocre simply isn't valid. Personally I think the whole "highest paid in the leauge" angle is being overblown in light of an ever increasing salary cap and the fact that he's pretty damn good.

Anyone else reminded of John Starks short lived tenure with the Bulls?

Lack of institutional control. Don't tell me compliance, or Pink Floyd or Pom Pom didn't know. Don't tell me you have any reason to be so certain in your own absolutist claims that compliance, Floyd, or Carroll MUST HAVE known other than your own bias. And I'm not even saying they didn't know...but "because I say so" hardly constitutes grounds for certainty. But that game is so easy to play. Dan Guerrero and Radio MUST HAVE KNOWN that Eric Scott was a common burglar. DON'T YOU TELL ME THEY DIDN'T! See how easy that is?

You guys actually consider the Jarret thing an issue? He paid $500 dollars in rent for a bedroom in a place where many other USC students lived while Matt Leinart's dad covered the rest. BFD. He made up the difference to charity. As for Mayo...well I can't say I'm shocked. I'm just wondering what the NCAA missed when they investigated Mayo prior to his enrollment or what the NCAA, Pac-10, and USC missed when they investigated Mayo after he received some Lakers tickets from Carmelo Anthony. I really do think you guys are looking at this through the same lens as booster activity at the past. Ostensibly, these agents in the Bush/Mayo situation (the Bush situation should have zero bearing on how the basketball program is punished, as I believe they will be), are giving benefits to players to get them to LEAVE school. That's an entirely different beast than a booster (boosters were not involved in either case, another misconception) paying players to ATTEND USC. If anything these guys view universities as inconvenient middlemen and would rather have commission-paying, professional clients.

I AM KING OF THE DIAMOND! THERE WILL BE AN ABUNDANT CLUBHOUSE FEAST! BRING ME THE FINEST MEATS AND CHEESES FROM THROUGHOUT THE LAND.

I've seen a variation of the following statements all offseason: The Bears can't win with Rex (or Orton) at QB. Rex has proven he can't compete in the NFL. It's obvious the Bears could never have success in the postseason with a QB like Rex at the helm. While it's perfectly sane and rational to have doubts about the Bears, Rex and Orton, and it is not out of the realm of possibility to imagine the Bears struggling to win 7 games next year, why do people have to ignore the simple facts in this case? The Chicago Bears have won 21 NFL regular season games with Grossman at QB, losing 11. They have won multiple playoff games including an NFC championship game with Rex at Qb. They have won 12 games, and lost 6, with Kyle Orton at QB. When discussing the Bears QB situation it is fairly obvious that they have struggled. There are major questions and no sure things at the position. But the suggestion that it is not possible for the Chicago Bears to enjoy any success with these 2 QBs in charge is simply contrary to any and all facts available. They have enjoyed success under these guys, and therefore, it very clearly is possible for them to enjoy future success. Whether they won because of, or in spite of these two players is meaningless. This is not meant as an endorsement of either player. I would love to get a real improvement over both Kyle and Rex. But it is absolutely ridiculous to go on pretending it's impossible for the Bears to win NFL games, regular season or postseason, with these guys playing. It's happened before and can happen again. Having quarterbacks as awful as Grossman and Orton is an uphill proposition to begin with. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that poor quarterback play (and that's all we're ever going to get out of Grossman--the. guy. can't. play.) is going to scuttle this team's endeavors moving forward. Did we have a modicum of success with Orton and Grossman? Sure, we had a stellar defense and outstanding special teams play. The division being pathetically weak helped a ton too. Green Bay has improved tremendously and Minnesota at least looks quite a bit stronger. Is a strong defense still in the fold? Possibly. We all know how injury riddled it was last year and we still won a decent amount of ball games. The difficutly for the Bears in returning to 2005-2006 levels is that it requires a lot of things to go right. A return of the opportunistic defense, a decent running attack, continued special teams excellence, a string of good luck, favorable divisional conditions, health, coaching staff stability are all going to be necessary. Could we regain all of those things in one season? It's possible, but unlikely and the main components of what made us successful in the first place are all a little bit older with a little bit more tread on the tires. Good quarterback play would help cover a lot of that up. It always does. But we're not going to get it out of Grossman or Orton. I think that's obvious. I do agree with you that proclaiming the Bears as contenders dead is primarily media histrionics at this point. Then again, I'd rather have that as some sort of training camp motivator than have everyone salivating over our prospects. We know how that turned out.