goonys evil twin

But they do play all 3 of the big 3. Being....OSU, Michigan and Wisconsin? Yes. That's not really up to them. The Big 10 sets the rotation of who does/doesn't play. It does, however, set up for a non-controversial title situation in the conference (assuming someone like Iowa doesn't suddenly decide to be good) I'm not saying they chose to play them, I'm saying at least they play those 3, so the OOC weakness isn't as big an issue. If PSU played that OOC schedule, then failed to play 1 or 2 of those big three, there's a chance they could be an undefeated conference champ without having done much on the field. They play Iowa as well. Northwestern and Minnesota are the two they skip.

But they do play all 3 of the big 3. Being....OSU, Michigan and Wisconsin? Yes.

This would be the only reason I would be upset about Turner leaving. I'm just really underwhelmed by his playcalling. I'm not enamored by it, but there's still a part of me that's astonished everytime they complete a 20 yard pass. Turner has brought in the only legit NFL offense for the Bears since the 80's.

But they do play all 3 of the big 3.

Your acronyms confuse me. I just saw PSU starts a series with Alabama in 2010, that should be pretty cool.

I'm fine with Turner. He's nothing special, but then again, special OC's don't spend much time as the OC. The trouble with letting him go is two-fold. First, the stability with him and the QB position is important right now. I wouldn't feel comfortable having Rex going into next season with a whole new gameplan. But second, and perhaps most important, is I don't trust them to come up with a better option. I really don't envision Wade Wilson as an innovative quality OC right now. There isn't a Bob Babich type waiting in the wings as a Lovie disciple poised to take over the job. Nor is there a Mike Singletary. I think Hiestand, who has worked with Turner for several years, would probably go with him wherever he went. The internal candidates would then be Drake, Boras and Spencer, and I don't think any of them are obvious coordinators. I feel comfortable losing Rivera, because the system in place is Lovie's and he is the key. Turner is the offense though.

No, but when he's really expensive, counts double because of the luxury tax, is very old and brittle and coming off two down years (no matter how unlucky they may have been) - including poor postseasons, hearing that he's not 100% committed to your team could easily be justification for getting rid of a guy. Oh sure. And the fans don't like him either. It'll actually be a popular move when he is traded. I'm not sure how much luxury tax relief NY will get, though, as the rumor is Arizona will demand NY pay a big chunk of Johnson's salary this year if they give up two prospects. Does anyone know whether NY would have to pay the tax on that amount? I don't know, but I'm guessing they would. Even if they pay $10m of $16m, that's $6m in savings, and an additional 40% ($2.4m) in luxury tax. If they are paying the vast majority of the contract, then it's really stupid.

No, but when he's really expensive, counts double because of the luxury tax, is very old and brittle and coming off two down years (no matter how unlucky they may have been) - including poor postseasons, hearing that he's not 100% committed to your team could easily be justification for getting rid of a guy.

Short-sighted was going for all the old guys in the first place. This might not turn out great, but it's definitely not short-sighted. Myopia isn't confined to the near future; it's possible to be short-sighted about the past as well. The Yankees are looking at one bad year and trading away a guy who could put up a 4ish ERA in the AL East for a couple of prospects, neither of which is rated higher than a B. If the Yanks were rebuilding, I'd be all for it, but they should be in a position to win it all in 2007. We'll see how he does next year. You're right that his age makes him risky to project because there are so few comparables, but he should be at least Arizona's #2 in 2007. I don't disagree with you, but it is my understanding that Johnosn didn't much care for NY and the media attention. He's been hounded since his first day in NY when he swore at a news reporter and camera man. When the NY media turns on you NY can be a very unfriendly place for a high profile athlete. Maybe Johnson asked to be dealt? The story in NY is that Cashman called Johnson to give his condolesences about somebody who died, and in that conversation Randy mentioned he wouldn't mind being traded. Also, he isn't being dealt solely because of last year. NY soured on him almost from the start. And George felt letdown by Randy in 2005, including his 6+ ERA. Basically, he wasn't nearly as dominant as they expected him to be. Last, but not least, I'm disgusted in cheapseats concerns about NY not making smart moves.

My wife decided to schedule it around a weekend where I had some family in from out of town. Problem is, no one consulted me when it came to this whole thing. When it finally dawned on me that they were potentially on the same date, it was too late. I've done everything I can to try and minimize the chances that I'm going to either miss part of the game, or having to DVR it and risk some goof telling me the score, but it's really going to hinge on the date and time of the game. divorce That's cold as ice, Goony. :D I'm willing to sacrifice.

Short-sighted was going for all the old guys in the first place. This might not turn out great, but it's definitely not short-sighted.

I've been wondering when Turner's name would come up. I doubt he gets a gig. But if it wasn't for the Grossman setback games this year, he'd be a big time candidate. His failures at Illinois will hurt him, as will his brother's troubles as a head coach. I think both Turner's are probably best as coordinators.

But it's very likely he will be. The Yankees are giving up a guy who projects to be their #1 pitcher next year. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=119 At his age, and with his health history, I really can't believe anybody could have any faith that Johnson will be an ace next year. There are far two many variables that can bring him crashing down. Plus, for every dollar the Yankees don't have to spend on him, there's extra luxury tax dollars they don't have to spend.

Baseball has guaranteed contracts, but to get the big money you have to make it through the minor leagues with those long bus rides and staying in less than luxurious hotels. With baseball, if he makes it, he'll probably make more money in the long run without as much wear and tear on his body. On the other hand, he's closer to the "big time" by choosing football. His 7 million or whatever it is from us is guarunteed though isnt it? Your right on his being closer to the big time playing football. What $7m from us? I was under the impression that he signed a relatively small 1-year deal with the Cubs. They still own his rights, and he has leverage to negotiate for more to get him to quit football, but if he is drafted high enough he'll get a big guaranteed bonus check, and be in-line to make much more much sooner in football. As vance points out, aside from deciding for himself which sport he prefers, the financial aspect of the decision comes down to more up-front, but much lower total potential for earnings in the NFL, over less up-front, with a potential much bigger windfall down the road. There's also the issue of burnout among young pitchers. The odds of making it as a pitching prospect are much less than a WR prospect. If you are good enough to be drafted high in football, you will be given every chance to stick in the NFL. With baseball, there's no guarantee he'll ever see the big leagues.

My wife decided to schedule it around a weekend where I had some family in from out of town. Problem is, no one consulted me when it came to this whole thing. When it finally dawned on me that they were potentially on the same date, it was too late. I've done everything I can to try and minimize the chances that I'm going to either miss part of the game, or having to DVR it and risk some goof telling me the score, but it's really going to hinge on the date and time of the game. divorce

I believe the speculation is that if the Giants win on Sunday, the Bears game will be Sunday. But if they lose, the winner of Seahawks/Cowboys will play the Bears on Saturday. This kinda sucks because the Bears might only have 6 days to prepare for their opponent. I really hope that they play Saturday. I don't want to miss chunks of the game. I can blow off what I'm doing Saturday, but Sunday will be trickier. I'm hoping it's Sunday, because that's when football should be played. Hoping for the 4:00 game too, because my house should be empty then. 4pm on Sunday would be slightly better than the early Sunday game. My daughter's baptism was stupidly scheduled for Sunday at 3pm. What are the times for the weekend games? I'm with raw, hoping for Sunday. What kind of Bears fan allows their kids' baptism to be scheduled on a potential playoff day?

Like I said, in their minds it's probably something else. But in reality, what they are after is average. They think 88/89 win seasons are great. They think contending within the division is admirable. They think Soriano is a whole lot more than he is. What is average in reality appears to be gold in the eyes of the Cubs.

Well, he has a good eye for talent then. Seriously, Hester needs to be a kick returner and occasional offensive weapon. Having him on defense is really bad. And they need to draft defense this April.

They may "seem" to bring it, but I don't think they necessarily do. San Diego came as close as anybody to bringing it every week, but they were playing for homefield advantage up until the very last game. And they didn't exactly play perfect football down the stretch (although their record was perfect). Their QB had some 2nd half stinkers as well. New England, the ultimate professional team, suffered an ugly midseason home loss to the inferior rival Jets, and then a humiliating road loss to the bad Dolphins. New Orleans lost to the crappy Redskins and a blah Carolina team down the stretch. Philly had a great stretch run, but they sure didn't bring it every game. Dallas? Uh-uh. NYG? Obviously not. Seattle? No. I think the Bears should have, and could have done a better job this regular season, and so should Rex. But I don't think the Bears, nor Rex, suffered anymore down games than most teams. It's just that when they were ugly, they were really ugly. I don't think you can have a problem with the good/bad game ratio. I do understand having a problem with how bad he and they were in those bad games.

As much as fans want to beat the Packers, the game was meaningless to the Bears. It's completely understandable why they couldn't beat the Packers. New England couldn't beat Miami a few weeks ago when they had their division all but wrapped up. Good teams can lose games when there is no obvious motivation. It doesn't matter if that is what he said was his number 1 goal. The #1 goal is winning the super bowl. And the result against GB had absolutely zero baring on their ability to win the SB, aside from health.

I'm sorry, but you're an NFL QB. Don't blame New Year's Eve for a reason why you sucked. Some of these excuses are pretty funny. He should've just said he sucked and moved on. Now everyone is going to say how he shouldn't start because, mentally, he might not be "prepared" for the playoff game. Well then everyone is stupid. I heard him say these things. It was much more of a comment in passing than these writers are giving credit for. I knew they'd pounce on that as soon as he said it. But he was really just describing how you move on from a meaningless game. It's pretty easy to say "you're an NFL QB", but the fact is teams have letdown games, especially in meaningless games, and I can only assume the likelihood goes up further when those meaningless games are met with distractions.

I don't know if that's the case or not. But I'd like to address the criticism of Rex for being unprepared. There's a reason vegas has a mantra about betting on the team that's more desperate. It plays a role in the outcome of games. Talent is spread pretty thin across the league, meaning there isn't much difference between the good and the bad teams. There's a big difference between San Diego and Oakland, but the rest of the teams are relatively close. In this sport, when guys can be cut at any moment, people often fight for their jobs, while comfortable teams "take days off". It happens all the time. And it happens at every position. There's something to be said about Rex "relaxing" for some of his bad games, as he was on a roll and the team was more or less coasting in all of those. We all remember the mood following the two NY wins, everything was great, and a loss against NE would be no big deal. We wanted 2 of 3, and got the 2 early. Likewise, people penciled in wins against Arizona and Miami on the road to 8-0. The games that people focused on were GB opening day, Minnesota in week 3, Seattle, NYG, NYJ, NE, and STL on the road. People also focused heavily on the games following setbacks. There were 4 of those (SF - blowout against a team that ended up better than most expected, NYG - started slow then blew them out on the road, MIN and STL). The home game against MIN was the only time when Rex and the team had back to back bad games. They followed that with a 15 point road victory on MNF. I think immaturity and inexperience clearly plays a part with this inconsistency. You'd prefer no down games, but that's not realistic. What is realistic is expecting the down games to not be so awful. Meaningless games are not good for teams. There's little they can do about it. You can't manufacture desire or urgency. Now, the desire and urgency should come natural. And this year, the Bears, and Rex, have shown they are more than capable of stepping up in games when it was urgent they play well.

What's his contract situation? I believe it was very team friendly when he signed, and he didn't have a crazy bonus that would make a trade nearly impossible. Ideally Grossman has a great postseason run, and some team wants both Griese and Jones for a couple mid round picks. Then draft a QB and RB with those picks and save your regular picks for defensive help and O line. It would be funny if Tampa tried to get them both back.

That's hardly an excuse for Dempster's struggles.

Clearly they are. In their minds they might think they are striving for greatness, but to them, greatness is just getting to the playoffs. They thought they were great in 2003 and 2004, when they failed to win 90 games. Hendry has over a decade of "contend within the division" drilled into his head, and that's obviously what they have sought out to do. They see STL won it with 83 next year, and hope they can win 84 this year. Cubs leadership is simple minded, and they rely heavily on a fan base that goes gaga when the team is above average. Be above average two years in a row and the masses will genuflect in your honor. Hendry was embarrassed by a 90 win team last year. His intentions were clearly to not be that bad again. He didn't want to have to rely on young pitchers that could be absolutely abysmal. So, he went out and acquired guys who stood a good chance at being average. If he wins 85 games next year, he'll probably be rewarded with a contract extension, barring a sale to an owner that wants to make a complete organizational overhaul. If he just gets them back to average, he'll be praised for building a team that contends within the division. And he stands a chance of getting the team's overall record under his leadership to .500 with 83 wins this year, back to their original goal of being average. Their motivation is embarrasment for being the worst. They've shown no interest in being the best. They just want to be good enough to not stand out at the bottom of the barrel.