goonys evil twin

The Bears are not a wet track team, never have been. Cold and a little snow is helpful, but a wet track is not good for a speed team.

I know that's going to be the official accepted story, but I refuse to believe that to be true. A 70+ completion percentage, a 68.3 rating. That's not taking a dump. That's not disaster Rex. That's better than what Roethlisberger did while winning last year's Super Bowl and he doesn't face anywhere near the scrutiny Grossman does. Rex did not have a good game, but he did not crap the bed either.

I find it absolutely hysterical the absurd stance guys like Mike and Mike were taking this morning, saying they would absolutely go with Eli Manning over Grossman at this point. These guys are all about wins over stats, and they would always take the guy who has won more when stats are close. Eli and Grossman have similar numbers, but Grossman led his team to the NFC title. He was not god-awful in the super bowl, although he did make some bad throws. He's nowhere near a lock to be great, but there is absolutely no justification for throwing aside his positives. I'm pretty confident in saying that the Bears would not have gone as far as they did without Grossman this year. He is not at the "mature stable QB" age yet, either in numerical years and especially not in starts made. Prior to his breakout season, Drew Brees ammassed 28 games of mediocrity. Rex has now gone through the learning time of his career. Next year is when we should expect stable productivity. 24 regular season games, 4 playoff games (2-2 record in those games). I think he's got his base for becoming a solid veteran, this offseason will be extremely important.

They need to do a lot, but clearly have a solid core to maintain their dominance of the division at the very least. I think they should go into next season with the same three QBs. Rex should remain the starter, but with the understanding that a lack of improvement will lead to Griese or Orton getting the job. Lovie should be resigned. I could care less if Rivera stays or goes. I wouldn't miss Turner either, but if he stays, at least it offers a chance for consistency from the offense. Going into this season I thought the team had a good chance of going to the super bowl on the back of a dominating defense and an okay offense. I believe the offense did it's part, but the defense was not as dominant as it could have been. I'd like to see them keep Brown around, perhaps at a renegotiated price given all his injuries. I just don't see anybody who would be likely to be better than him next season. And even if he only plays 8 games, that's 8 games of better safety play than they would get with the other guys. The Bears are going to need to bring it early and often next year, with a challenging schedule. Away games at Philly, San Diego and Seattle are going to be as tough as the NYG/NYJ/NEP trip this year. I'm not that concerned about the Cowboys, Giants, Broncos, Chiefs and Saints home games though. If they can keep Briggs fine, but I don't really think he's a must. I've been disappointed in a few too many of his games this years. If they lose him, then they absolutely must get a LB early in the draft. But the return of Harris and Dusty should go a long way toward boosting the d line. Offensive line is a must, either through the draft or free agency (or both). They need to get younger there, and more effective. The big question is Jones. Maybe it's a bit reactionary, but my opinion of Jones has changed since the playoffs began. I respect his game more now than ever. But I'm not interested in breaking the bank to keep him. If Rosenhaus plays hardball with him, and has him holding out come summer camp, then they should trade him. If they get 2007 draft picks for him, I'd be fine. But Benson's no-show in the Super Bowl really bugs me. I feel a lot less comfortable giving him the full-time job than I did before. A mid-round RB might be necessary.

Okay, now I'm getting excited about spring training.

Jim Nantz and Phil Simms. Unlness you're at my place where you'll just hear a bunch of incoherent drunken shouts.

He's in a walk year and they probably don't want to resign him next offseason when he's 34. But his numbers from his age 31 and 32 season were down from his peak seasons, as expected. And they will probably continue to decline.

I'd have to ask why. The Cubs need OBP and Ichiro provides a lot more of it than Jacque.

Can I get the guy that Ichiro was? And then guarantee he won't regress as he plays into his mid-30's?

sophomore slump

That would be an interesting deal to say the least. I have to wonder if we'd be given up too much depending on the ptbnl. If we get Ichiro, does Soriano play right and Ichiro CF or is it Soriano in CF and Ichiro in right? I think Ichiro would play CF in that scenario. This deal certainly seems plausible. Seattle was rumored to let him on the market, and Ichiro seems like Hendry's model for a top of the order hitter (a good OBP player fueled by an exceptional average with great defense as well). I'm with Vance-if the PTBNL is a very good prospect, then no. But if it's only a decent prospect, I'd pull the trigger. Ichiro has the potential to make the top of the order dynamic-even if they bat him 2nd. Soriano Ichiro Lee Ramirez Barrett Murton That first 6 especially would score a lot of runs. That would be an incredibly interesting deal, and lineup. Ichiro is a bit overhyped by some, and I have a feeling he's going to end up being terribly overpaid when he signs his next contract, but he could be a tremendous addition to this lineup near the top.

The same can be said of Carlos Zambrano. That he has no secondary pitches and there's no telling how his arm will react to a full season's worth of pitching? There's no reason to invoke Carlos's name. He sits and 91-92 due to great movement.

Just reading the title got me thinking though, I don't think Urlacher has a Hall of Fame spot yet. We'll see. He needs about 3 more really high quality years, and thats never a guarantee in the NFL. If they win the SB and he plays well, he'd get in with nothing else.

And your point is? Obviously local fans can still watch their team, making that claim is absurd, and pointless. The fact is MLB is taking away a previous choice that MLB fans nationwide had. They are limiting options instead of expanding upon them.

Yeah, but they got very little in return. I assume you're talking about the Chiefs. :D Yes, but also the Jets got just a 4th rounder.

Gotcha. I didn't see where you were going with that. Doesn't make me like Hub any more though. :) I shouldn't say I really like him, I just think he's a significant piece of nostalgia.

Yeah, but they got very little in return. I think Jones is just waiting for a chance to interview Ron Rivera. I haven't seen anything but rumors with no credible source that he's really going to try to pry Lovie loose. Though I'm sure he would love to have him coaching the Cowboys, I'm sure there are plenty of teams who would, now that they realize he's capable of coaching a Super Bowl contender. I don't think anything Lovie/Dallas is happening either.

Yeah, but they got very little in return.

I think he's pretty goofy and has a lot of silly thoughts on the game, but I still love Hub Arkush because of how close he's been to the Bears, and his freaking name. Lots of guys have been close to the Bears...Lawrence Holmes for example. Paul Sullivan and Phil Rogers have been close the Cubs, but that doesn't mean that they are fountains of knowledge. I can't dispute the name thing though. Lawrence Holmes doesn't even come close to the same situation. And beat writers/columnists are quite different as well. I'm not talking about being close to the team, as in hanging in the clubhouse. I'm talking about direct affiliation. When I thought of Bears football as a kid, Hub was one of the primary names that came to mind. He was like the Steve Stone of the team. Now that I'm older, I see the flaws in Stone, but I didn't then. Same with Hub. My dad was a big turn down the tv and turn up the radio guy, so Larrivee/Arkush were a huge part of watching Bears games with my dad.

Did the NFL make any sort of rule as a result of that trade, limiting the coach for draft pick transactions? If not, and if the Bears got 2 1st rounders for him, I'd imagine Jerry would turn at least one of them into multiple 2nd/3rd rounders. And I like what he does with 2nd/3rd rounders. Over the next two years the Bears could get 2 1st rounders, 4 2nd rounders and 4 3rd rounders, and if you throw in the possibility that they might end up with picks for Briggs, that would be a ton of young talent on the horizon. Although I'm by no means asking for this to happen. I remember identifying Lovie as the coach I wanted long before he was hired (the opposite of how I looked at the Dusty signing) and I've been very happy with his work.

I think he's pretty goofy and has a lot of silly thoughts on the game, but I still love Hub Arkush because of how close he's been to the Bears, and his freaking name.

Really, it was Hub who was fanning the flames on that one. BTW - I can't say I'd be completely disappointed if Lovie went to the Cowboys for multiple first rounders and Rivera took over as head coach. Of course, I'd love to keep Lovie around. But in the NFL, multiple first round picks are huge. Just for sake of discussion...Imagine adding 4 first round talents to this team in the next two years. Of course, one or more could always bust. How did that work out for the Raiders? I think that's a disastrous idea. It doesn't suprise me to hear Hub Arkush thinks its a good one.....he's another guy who has been wrong about Lovie and wrong about this team the entire time. I'm sorry, but one failed example isn't enough to convince me that it's a bad idea. While coaching in the NFL is more important than in other sports, talent on the field is still the most important factor in terms of winning football games. If you can add premiere talent in exchange for a coach, and then promote a coach out of your own system who you have every reason to believe is very qualified to take the position (Chico), you have to, at the very least, consider it. You'd be doing yourself a disservice not to. Do you mean to tell me you have no interest whatsoever in adding more of that caliber of talent to this team? The head coach in the NFL is far more important than the manager in baseball, but I'd take the talent on the field first and foremost. The Raiders screwed it up because it's a screwed up franchise with terrible personel decision makers. Jerry Angelo has proven to be a tremendous personel man, turning one of the least talented teams in the NFL to the most talented team in the NFC and a top 3-4 team in the NFL.

A glimpse of the difference? He hadn't even given up football yet.

They will. Even if Dungy fades to Bolivian they already have the most marketable player in the NFL (probably NFL history), and with their offensive players' strong ties to the fantasy football world, they will have a ton of people who want to talk to them forever. I see Sanders becoming a media darling from the defensive side.

You can't do that. You can't just assume he'll get better by leaving football. What he threw before is where he's starting from, and we can only hope for improvement.