goonys evil twin

You know, almost everything you just said can be said about Cedric Benson as well. Only differences is that Jones has run for 1200-1300 yards (granted Benson doesn't have the carries that Jones does), and Benson doesn't dance in the backfield because they have different running styles. Actually none of that cant be said about Benson.

I'm guessing that was talking about Sunday NFL Countdown. ESPN had the 3 et start time listed almost immediately after the Bears game.

http://www.chicagobears.com or you could always glance at the thread title. YOU KNOW WHAT................... When you look at something so many times, you tend to not read what it says. That may sound really stupid, but it makes sense. But thank you and good bye. Where in the world did you hear 11 eastern?

They tried that, but the veterans reportedly revolted. I think Jones' playing time might be more about team chemistry than best player. Jones isn't the guy who got you there. He's just the guy who has started at RB most of the games. He hasn't been anymore productive than Benson though. And you wouldn't miss anything if Ced took more of the touches. I cant believe this crap!!! I love Benson, but this "Jones is average, and didnt get us there" is absolute garbage with almost no statistical backing. This is same Griese is better than Grossman mentality. Everyone thinks the guy that isnt playing is better. Why cant we be excited for how Benson is progressing without bashing the only stable offensive production this team has had in the last three years? PS- I have a man crush on Benson, so im not saying Benson isnt great. I'm saying Jones is outstanding as well, and with all the talk about Duce and Bush, I truly believe the bears have a better running attack than NO. PSS- On everyone's logic, where is the call for Adrian Peterson to start? He has played very well when given the chance. See the lions game. Crap? Jones is average. Nothing more. He's not a special back, nor is he even close. He's a 1200-1300 yard back. He's a 4.0 AVG kind of back. He's underachieved significantly in his career, given his draft status. He's not fast, he doesn't break long runs and he's nowhere close to dominant. He hesitates at the line and dances too much. But he's not terrible. I'm not bashing. You just aren't reading. That wasn't crap, it's called an opinion and it's shared by the vast majority of others. This has nothing to do with Griese/Grossman, and it was quite stupid to bring that up. Jones isn't anywhere close to outstanding. Nobody wants Peterson because because hasn't come close to showing he's a possible franchise back.

They tried that, but the veterans reportedly revolted. I think Jones' playing time might be more about team chemistry than best player. Jones isn't the guy who got you there. He's just the guy who has started at RB most of the games. He hasn't been anymore productive than Benson though. And you wouldn't miss anything if Ced took more of the touches.

The OLine has been my biggest worry for 2 years. I'm really disappointed that they've more or less ignored it since the Tait signing. The starting RT was cut by his last team and considered to be toward the end of his career. The starting LG is another really old guy who was let go by his previous team.

I think it's just standard, trust the veteran stuff, that sticks with guys.

Incorrect!!! [-X I think he's correct, I think most people here think Benson should get the bulk. I definitely think he should. He's been the better back. Indeed, he is. Based on what? Their stats look pretty even when you divide them per carry. And while Benson may have improved his blocking, Jones is still clearly better in that category. Well, he is correct by saying most people think Benson should start, based on the poll somebody put up where Benson won in a landslide. And I believe he's correct is saying Benson is better. The avg is the same right now, but I believe Benson gets hurt by never getting the chance to get on a roll like Jones gets. Benson has as many TDs in half the carries. It's hard to break it down via stats, and I know this is a cop-out, but going by what I see, I think Benson gets a lot more tough yards, and a lot more meaningful yards. Defenses seem to key on Benson more when he's in, making his job more difficult. I don't really buy much of the pass blocking talk, but at this point, I think it would make a lot more sense to start Benson and use him in most situations, when the defense isn't sure if it's run or pass. And then bring in Jones for obvious passing downs, when teams are going to be going all-out at the QB. I think Jones is nothing more than a decent back. He's not a franchise guy. I think Benson could be a 1500-1600 yard back. Maybe he'll never compete for the rushing title, but I think he'd have a much better shot than Jones. Given their individual skills, I think it would be a lot smarter to pound the defense with Benson 20-25 times a game, then give Jones 10-15 touches as the change of pace back.

I think this would significantly decrease his chances to ever sniff the major leagues as a pitcher.

Nice try, but not a chance on Jones for Kottaras/Pedroia. Nixon is arguably as valuable or more valuable than Jones. Nixon is also a free agent, not unloadable.

Incorrect!!! [-X I think he's correct, I think most people here think Benson should get the bulk. I definitely think he should. He's been the better back.

I don't think anybody is using either as evidence. This isn't the court of law. People respond to thinks that happen outside the normal range. A great player that suddenly falls apart, or an old player that gets really good really late in his career are red flags. You'd be a moron to ignore those red flags.

So, that clears a good deal of confusion up. It also explains why a ton of other sources were reporting the $7.25m deal. I thought we heard almost right away that he never actually signed that big deal, and really only signed a one year contract. I'm guessing the Cubs told him that if he goes just to baseball, they'll give him a much bigger contract later. It would be interesting, however, if a new regime came in before he signs anything big, and he drops in the NFL draft. He'll basically have no leverage for a big deal.

so which is it? do steroids decrease the length of your career or extend it? yesyesyes. if a player can't stay healthy, people say the steroids killed him. if a player never gets hurt, they say the steroids make him super strong. it seems unlikely that both would be true. Seems quite likely that not all users are taking the same thing, and not all bodies respond exactly the same way. "Steroids", in the general sense, can lead to your body breaking down, but they can also help you recover from normal wear and tear, and prolong your peak.

figgins blows Thames would be a decent platoon option with Jones if they both played a corner spot, but what's the point now?

Not only is it possible, I think it's perfectly normal, and how it should be. It's football, there's no telling how the game will end. Lots of people thought Indy could lose to the Chiefs, and pretty much everybody thought Baltimore would run all over them. Half the football world seemed to think the Bears would fall to Seattle. Going into the playoffs, Baltimore and Philly were the hot teams peaking at the right time. The only thing we know about this game is either team could win. Grossman could put up a 100+ rating game, or crap the bed. New Orleans could score at will, or wilt in the cold. Chicago's defense could force 5 turnovers, or get pushed around. Or none of that stuff could happen, and we could end up with a game that includes mediocre performances from just about everybody and a 13-9 type score. I'm just happy as heck that the Bears actually have a legit Super Bowl contending team, and they have enough good young talent that they can stay that way for the foreseeable future.

3.7 YPC is not decent. It's well below average. It's crap when talking about team's in the playoffs.

Definitely not overall. The Bears D is a beast. But the second half of the season y'all played poor offensive teams and gave up a ton of points. I showed you stats that showed that during OUR second half we played good offensive teams and gave up few points. Right now I think the Saints D is better. The stats prove that easily. no they don't. but your belief that they do prove you don't know much about football. How do the stats not prove this??? Look at your last 3 "real" games: You gave up 31 points to the 29th ranked offense in football! Then a week later gave up 21 points to the 22nd ranked offense. Then last week you gave up 24 points to the 19th ranked offense. Our last 3 "real games: 16 points to the 13th ranked offense, 7 points to the 14th ranked offense, then 24 points to the 2nd ranked offense. You clearly don't understand what was happening in those Bears games. They were playing with back of the roster filler. They were going out to big leads is meaningless games and allowed a couple teams to come back late (yet they still won, unlike the Saints that couldn't beat a terrible Redskins teams when things still mattered). They were playing with guys in the secondary who will not sniff the defensive side of the ball in this game, and they were playing extremely soft, almost prevent style defense the whole time. The coaching staff was setting up for the playoffs 2 months ago. The fact that they gave up some yards and points to weak teams in the 4th quarter of meaningless games they still won really means nothing as far as how good the team actually is. The Bears also pulled most of their defense starters about halfway through the 3rd quarter in the Lions game, as well. The Bears were spanking Detroit, STL, and Tampa earlier in those games, then went soft late, both via scheme and personel (and very likely, individual intensity of play). They were playing without Tank Johnson, Vasher/Tillman and Todd Johnson for that stretch as well. Despite all the yards they gave up to STL late, they still won by 15 freaking points. The defense was the reason they won the Minnesota game, the reason they were in the New England game, and the focus of the Jets win. They gave up some points to the Giants, but largely shut them down. Mike Brown went down early, while Tommie Harris became a non-factor much earlier in the season, when there were concerns about some sort of leg issue hobbling his play. The defense is not close to the 85 Bears, but it's clearly the best defense alive in the playoffs.

Definitely not overall. The Bears D is a beast. But the second half of the season y'all played poor offensive teams and gave up a ton of points. I showed you stats that showed that during OUR second half we played good offensive teams and gave up few points. Right now I think the Saints D is better. The stats prove that easily. no they don't. but your belief that they do prove you don't know much about football. How do the stats not prove this??? Look at your last 3 "real" games: You gave up 31 points to the 29th ranked offense in football! Then a week later gave up 21 points to the 22nd ranked offense. Then last week you gave up 24 points to the 19th ranked offense. Our last 3 "real games: 16 points to the 13th ranked offense, 7 points to the 14th ranked offense, then 24 points to the 2nd ranked offense. You clearly don't understand what was happening in those Bears games. They were playing with back of the roster filler. They were going out to big leads is meaningless games and allowed a couple teams to come back late (yet they still won, unlike the Saints that couldn't beat a terrible Redskins teams when things still mattered). They were playing with guys in the secondary who will not sniff the defensive side of the ball in this game, and they were playing extremely soft, almost prevent style defense the whole time. The coaching staff was setting up for the playoffs 2 months ago. The fact that they gave up some yards and points to weak teams in the 4th quarter of meaningless games they still won really means nothing as far as how good the team actually is.

There is a difference in a throwaway game and another game. I didn't factor our throwaway game (where our starters played ONE series) just like I didn't factor your throwaway game into the stats (which in my opinion was hardly played like a throwaway game, given that Jones and Benson had over 20 combined carries and Hester returned 6 times) What do either of those things have to do with the defense? You really don't know much of anything about the Bears. That much is quite clear. I'm liking how much people are overlooking them and focusing on the supposed really hot Saints. They lost to the Redskins late in the season when the playoff seedings were up in the air. They lost many games during the season. Yet, for some reason, it's the Bears that have to prove something here. It's amusing.

Definitely not overall. The Bears D is a beast. But the second half of the season y'all played poor offensive teams and gave up a ton of points. I showed you stats that showed that during OUR second half we played good offensive teams and gave up few points. Right now I think the Saints D is better. The stats prove that easily. no they don't. but your belief that they do prove you don't know much about football.

11th in the NFL is pretty good. Over their last 7 games, including the Eagles playoff win, but not including the throwaway Panthers game, the Saints D are only allowing 14.5 points. Over that same span, not including the throwaway Packers game, the Bears D is giving up 22 points. In that span, the Bears D gave up 31 points to the 29th ranked offense in the league (TB), gave up 22 points to the 21st ranked offense(DET), and then 24 points to the 19th ranked offense(SEA). In their last 7 game span, Saints gave up 13 points to the 12th ranked offense(ATL), 17 points to the 5th ranked offense (DAL), and 7 points to the 13th ranked offense (NY), and 24 points to the 2nd ranked offense (PHI). Again, this is an asinine comparison. The Bears were playing throwaway games for a months. New Orleans had something to play for before that last week.

A prospect that turns into an average big leaguer has significant value. But once that average big leaguer turns into a free agent, and starts getting paid more than the average big leaguer, his relative value plummets.

Yes. Whether that market would result in a contract that Bonds would see as worth working for is another question.

You're right. I had no idea New Orleans was devastated by a hurricane until the Saints starting winning football games. Again, why the cynicism? This country has a long history of people reacting strongly to the initial news event, but then letting the story disappear. The damage caused by Katrina is something that cannot be fixed by a flood of water bottles and canned goods to the area. It is an ongoing struggle. Causes that constantly have attention brought upon them are the ones that receive the most effort, both in man hours and financial assistance, and that is often the difference between solving a problem and letting one fester. Yes, we all know Katrina happened. But everytime a story is written about what people are still enduring, and what still needs to be done, somebody somewhere is probably reminded, and inspired to do some good.