BigSlick

Belushi's a disgrace to SIU alums everywhere. Belushi's a disgrace to John Belushi.

If that happens, I'm guessing we'll have a very angry and unhappy Lance Briggs on our hands. He already seemed to be unhappy in the offseason and in training camp. Giving Briggs the franchise tag would not suit well with him, at least I wouldn't think so. Why would it not? Wouldn't he be paid among to top 4 Linebackers in football? Possibly, but if they decide to tag Briggs, wouldn't that eliminate any other discussions with any other team? If he wasn't really happy with the team, I don't understand why you would do that to a player. He wouldn't be able to explore FA at all if the tag was placed on him. At least that's how I thought the Franchise Tag went. Guesswork by a Packer fan. :roll: What? Where did you get the notion that Briggs doesn't like Chicago? I mean, i guess he would like the be the number 1 linebacker elsewhere, but he still likes playing with the Bears if he had the pay that Drew Rosenhaus wants for him. (Which is more than Urlacher btw :roll: ) Yay, a post that has not one, but TWO rolleyes. Congrats. Oh, I don't know. Maybe by the fact that he wanted a new deal and he was displeased with how the team was treating him? Also, I was pretty sure that the Bears were going to make Harris their #1 priority in the offseason in terms of getting a new contract worked out. One of my Bears fan friends told me a couple of weeks ago that they would more than likely have to pick one or the other and they wouldn't be able to sign both. I'm not a Bears fan, so I wouldn't know. I took his word for it. Instead of rolling your eyes at me, why don't you tell me YOUR definition of what the franchise tag is? What it would mean to him? It would mean he'd get top 5 linebacker money to play with the best defense in the NFL, with a linebacker who's probably making him look better than he actually is. Heck, it would probably get him a better contract after 2007. You act like he's Randy Moss who is completely displeased with where he is. There have been no quotes (that I've seen, I haven't been hunting down Lance Briggs articles, sorry) that say that. He's shown every indication of enjoying being a Chicago Bear. And if you had to choose between Tommie Harris and Lance Briggs you choose Tommie Harris every time. Sorry for my tone in the earlier post.

I think it was safe to say the Chargers were the best team in the AFC before the Colts embarassing performance today. Bleh, whatever. I still hate them, because they've always played one-dimensional football and people have been praising them for years for doing it. The NFL has taken severe measures to get Peyton Manning a Super Bowl ring, and now that window of opportunity is closed. (I'm still suspicious of that call in the playoffs against the Steelers. ) Enough of that noise. The Colts are done, and the world is right again. You have to be able to run the ball and stop the run to be competitive in football. No more 49 touchdown seasons. I feared for a watered down version of arena football after 2004, but thankfully that didn't happen.

And it might be Rudi Johnson's career rushing game too. :lol:

If that happens, I'm guessing we'll have a very angry and unhappy Lance Briggs on our hands. He already seemed to be unhappy in the offseason and in training camp. Giving Briggs the franchise tag would not suit well with him, at least I wouldn't think so. Why would it not? Wouldn't he be paid among to top 4 Linebackers in football? Possibly, but if they decide to tag Briggs, wouldn't that eliminate any other discussions with any other team? If he wasn't really happy with the team, I don't understand why you would do that to a player. He wouldn't be able to explore FA at all if the tag was placed on him. At least that's how I thought the Franchise Tag went. Guesswork by a Packer fan. :roll: What? Where did you get the notion that Briggs doesn't like Chicago? I mean, i guess he would like the be the number 1 linebacker elsewhere, but he still likes playing with the Bears if he had the pay that Drew Rosenhaus wants for him. (Which is more than Urlacher btw :roll: )

This has been a GLORIOUS day of football for me. The hated Colts fall in completely demoralizing fashion. They have zero shot at the Super Bowl with that run defense. :lol: The Cowboys get routed. Romo's QB rating takes several dips. Excellent. :lol: No more "best in the NFC", plz. Come on Bears. Make it a clean sweep of the NFC West, and make me a happy man with a good Grossman performance.

+48 more. Wow. That was some run by Drew. Didn't even slow down on that tackle attempt and then just burned by everyone. The Jags CAN'T lose this game. They are just RUNNING WILD ON THE COLTS DEFENSE. Even Laser, Rocket Arm can't stop this. SACK ON PEYTON, HAHAHAH! I mean, the Jags are having a hard time stopping Manning, but since the Colts can't run at all, that play action wont be working at all. Come on Jags...turn Peyton Manning into Dan Marino.

Come on Jax, get a stop when you need one. 3rd and 9 and they give up like a 30 yard pass play. THAT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN.

2 negative rushes and a pick in the endzone. :?

The Jags are playing inspired football, Fred Taylor nearly has 100 yards in the first quarter. :shock: One reason? The Jack Del Rio Suit. He's got magic in that suit. I'd love to see the Colts drop this one. Keeps my faith in Peyton Manning never winning a Super Bowl alive. :lol:

SOUL AREHGHHGHASDFLKJSADLFJSLDAJFLKJASDF You don't have to be a moneyball "guy" for me to want you to be on my radar for Gm...BUT YOU BROUGHT UP SOME BAD EVIDENCE HERE. Kenny Williams is a terrible Gm, come on now, even morons can see that.

:shock: And the guys under 27, right? Christ.

Sounds like a bad first half on Monday night and Rex could be out. Well we're sure going to need some offense. Because with those starters out Monday? You can bet the Rams are going to put up some serious points. I'm worried we aren't even going to have the ball enough to score. SOUL JESUS CHRIST ENOUGH WITH THIS KINDA CRAP Its getting to the point where you start "OH my god, I'm afraid of Alex Smith and his tiny hands, OUR DEFENSE CAN'T STOP HIM" I'm not worried about our offense getting the ball at all. We just have to score with it.

Lets not get crazy. I don't think Griese can save us from having no Tommie in the middle, either. We get into the playoffs, where there will be good teams pounding the ball up the middle-------we're in deep crap without Harris. I think we just watched our Super Bowl dreams go down the toilet. a team capable of pounding the ball up the middle would have had success against the bears even with Harris. Maybe, but even more so without Harris, who has consistantly been drawing double teams from the O-Line all year long. Not to overreact more, but the entire D is likely to feel a ripple effect from losing Harris We may end up coming out of this with an improvement up front against the run. Ian Scott is a run stuffing specialist, and with him in on many downs now, we may help in that area. I'm also kind of excited with the prospect of seeing Alex Brown in at DT and supposedly Mark Anderson replacing. That would be some sick pass rush right there.

I cheer somewhat for the Bengals, and its a shame that they blew some fourth quarter leads this year. Its going to be tough for them to make the playoffs

Those are some beautiful plays. I'm not liking the nickname though, I wish he'd let it go. I think its slowly catching on (Joniak wont let it go). I don't mind it, but its not very catchy.

I believe the weight he holds has to do with a condition he has and is under very little control from himself. You can't honestly expect a legitimate "fat guy" to make the NBA do you?

Soul you've always worried too much. Ever since last year.

Instead of saying crap like this, why don't you actually bring some proof? Their performance against the Falcons last year makes me think that homefield advantage outweighs whatever negativity the weather brings...if its anything.

I don't think its contradictory to believe that Michigan is the better team but doesn't deserve to play in the NC game.

but they aren't good enough right now. sorry, I'm not going to give Louisville props because South Florida might be good in a couple of years. and for pete's sake, how many times does it have to be explained to you that it is not just about the records, it is about who you play. no matter how rosey a picture you try to paint of the conference, the bottom five of the Big East all suck big time, right here, right now, and their non-conference schedule sucks. that's not to say the bottom five of other conferences don't suck, but I'd still take the bottom five of the Big Ten over the bottom five of the 8 team Big East any day of the week. congrats that the Big East beat a few dregs of the ACC and other power conferences. they are still dregs. if the ACC had teams with the BigEast records, it would be teams like Miami, VTech, BC, FSU. teams that have been, you know, good, in the recent past. teams that have quality bowl wins the over the past few years. teams that have great talent, coaching, and facilities. I really think that Cuse does overrate the Big East. I think you underrate them though. Louisville is a Top 5 team. If you were to put their schedule up against Michigans and Floridas it would hold up. Maybe not as tough but certainly was credible. Yeah, and I want to make it clear that I don't think Louisville, WVU, and Rutgers are bad teams. I just don't think they're on that top level yet, and I'll need to see them beat the best before I put them there. I'm not going to consider them great before they beat the established powers. Call me a good old boy all you want, but unless there's a playoff system I don't see any other way. Can't just hand someone automatic top billing.....they have to earn it somehow. I definitely agree with jig that the mid and bottom of the Big East is just really, really marginal. I strongly suspect those teams would struggle to be at the top of much lesser conferences. And I also strongly suspect a Louisville vs. OSU matchup would be a highway slaughter not worth watching on New Year's day. The mid to marginal Big East teams beat the mid to marginal Big Ten teams but yet that proves the Big 10 is better, why? Because the Big 10 schedule is much tougher, against bigger, more punishing players all year long. I already argued this with you, I'm not going to circle around and around on it. Beat OSU. Beat Florida. Beat USC. Then I'll give the Big East some more credit. That's it. Who did the Big 10 beat to deseve credit? USC? Florida? Texas at full strength, ND (hahahaha, I kid) The truth is, you don't play that many powerhouse teams out of conference. First of all, it doesn't help you that much, second of all, you don't play that many OOC games anyway.

Louisville would give them a better game? Louisville has a pathetic defense. It'd probably be a similar game, at least in point differential, the over/under would be about 30 points higher. As a Buckeye fan, I really really really really don't want to see a rematch, because its always hard to beat the same team twice in a year. That, and, its kinda lame that we have to beat them twice in order to win the National Championship. While Michigan would only have to beat OSU once. Why should one game count more than the other one? As a football fan, I recognize that Michigan is almost certainly the second best team in the nation, and probably deserves a shot in the NC game. The simple and most obvious solution would be a playoff structure. The real loss in terms of adding a playoff structure is a loss of that "special" feeling from the regular season. And its not made up, the regular season in College football is incredibly more important than in any other sport. Unfortunately, year in and year out, the postseason continues to cause controversy. If you are going to award a national championship, you must institute a playoff structure. If you just want to have conference champions and bowl games, thats fine. But you can't legitimately declare a team better than another when they don't get a chance to play it out. BCS be damned. The BCS is not helping determine who the best 2 teams are. Louisvilles defense is decent and not as bad as you say it is. Also, when Ohio State opened up their offense they put up a lot of points on Michigan. Many, even the experts, think Louisville has a better offense than Ohio State. Michigan is good but I'm not so sure they are the second best team. While I credit Louisville with attempting to schedule an out of schedule powerhouse...I'm just not all that impressed with them. You can make a better argument for Michigan than Louisville just based on the strength of their losses. Louisville lost to Rutgers, who no one in their right mind would compare to a national championship contender, and Michigan lost to the best team in the nation. And I still hate on the Big East. I don't care what you say, you might say parity, I say mediocrity. West Virginia losing to South Florida? (South Florida is in the Big East? Thats absolutely pathetic) Rutgers losing to Cincinatti? Come on now. Don't compare the Big East to the Big Ten.

Louisville would give them a better game? Louisville has a pathetic defense. It'd probably be a similar game, at least in point differential, the over/under would be about 30 points higher. As a Buckeye fan, I really really really really don't want to see a rematch, because its always hard to beat the same team twice in a year. That, and, its kinda lame that we have to beat them twice in order to win the National Championship. While Michigan would only have to beat OSU once. Why should one game count more than the other one? As a football fan, I recognize that Michigan is almost certainly the second best team in the nation, and probably deserves a shot in the NC game. The simple and most obvious solution would be a playoff structure. The real loss in terms of adding a playoff structure is a loss of that "special" feeling from the regular season. And its not made up, the regular season in College football is incredibly more important than in any other sport. Unfortunately, year in and year out, the postseason continues to cause controversy. If you are going to award a national championship, you must institute a playoff structure. If you just want to have conference champions and bowl games, thats fine. But you can't legitimately declare a team better than another when they don't get a chance to play it out. BCS be damned.

What is this thread doing on the second page? I'll fix that.

Awesome. haha I love that image Looks like the top of the skyscraper is spearing the bear in the chest and it's crying in pain :wink: I thought the message initially was that the Bears rule NY after the sweep of the two NYC teams.