CubColtPacer

Some of you are acting like AmazingGrace's comment was way off base. I don't see it that way. Okay, yes, the Cubs have not gotten progressively worse each year of his tenure. However, I do not count 2002 as a year of his tenure since he was taking over the position and the mess someone else made mid season. Yes, the Cubs won one more game in 2004 than they did in 2003. Short of that one win, they have gotten progressively worse. However, they went from 1st, to 3rd, to 4th to 6th since 2003 in the standings. Many will argue that the final standings have more significance than the final win count. Getting to the playoffs is definitely significant. Regardless of his past, he really can't get much worse than he was this past year, and I'm actually fairly pleased with his offseason. I still have some concerns about the direction of this club, but I'll hold off judgment until the season starts and I actually see that direction. I don't count the 2002 season either, but when you count 2003 as his first year, the improvement from the team that was there in 2002 has to be counted, since Hendry was there the entire 2002 offseason and improved that team into the 2003 version.

That might be mitigated by 55+ starts of Zambrano and Marquis though. zambrano's home runs are nice, but somewhat mitigated by the fact that he hit .151 and drew one walk last season. plus marquis hit 179/210/256 last year. i dont think they're mitigating much. Based on their careers, both of them should be significantly better at the plate next year than they were last year.

Dempster could be for the regular population (if he blows some saves, they'll turn on him quickly), but I think Izturis will be for NSBB. Most Cubs fans will probably like Izturis a great deal next year (because of his defense), but unless he really comes back from his injury NSBB will be all over him on his offensive production.

Bears are #1 in the league vs Tight Ends. I really don't remember a tight end doing a lot of damage to the Bears this season. Yeah-I don't see Clark making a large dent in the passing game, but I do think he can clear out some of the crossing routes for the WR's (by going deep and drawing one of the linebackers out) or for Addai on swing routes out of the backfield, which has been a staple of the Colts passing game as well. It's just too hard to complete a pass on one of those linebackers, as they are really good in pass coverage.

i was really hoping that they were gonna make everyone play stoned. Actually, somebody left a vague title on this subject on another board, and when the person clarified the subject someone said that it was good because Michael Vick and half the Bengals roster were already heading to Miami :D.

A report on the very different kind of grass that is being used for the Super Bowl than is normally used: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/special_packages/super_bowl/16441416.htm

Ward is really that power hitting infielder that you are looking for. In fact, he is almost exactly the same as Nevin. Also, you only have 24 players listed on your 25 man roster.

The big difference is that Rex did that in a 16 game season, his first full season, when you would expect some bad games. Marquis did it in a 33 game schedule, giving him much more of a chance to allow his better games to offset bad games. He also did that 6 games into a career that has had 2 other terrible seasons. Plus, a pitcher's numbers are a far greater indication of exactly what he did than a QB's numbers. QB's numbers depend heavily on what his players do. A pitcher's numbers depend on his defense to an extent, but it's much more of a 1 on 1 battle between pitcher and hitter. The QB is facing 11 opponents trying to stop him and needs the help of 10 teammates. You already admitted it's clear somebody else is the worst on the list. When we already know the answer, the only point in asking the question again is because you want to stir controversy. The "bad Rex" story sells, and the media loves it. They don't want decent Rex. And the only people who would actually think Rex was the worst are people too stupid to understand the truth. No, I only posted some of my analysis because two people made the statements that he doesn't deserve to be on the list with those other QB's, and that this season is better than those other QB's better seasons in their career. I refuted both of those-but he is most definitely not the worst. He deserves to be on the list of the 5 or 10 worst ever, but he's not the worst-that is clear. I would agree with you on the pitcher analogy, but only to say that a pitcher relies on a manager to limit the damage to his numbers like a QB relies on the other 10 people on the field. LaRussa did nothing to limit the damage to Marquis's numbers, and I'm not sure if the Bears did anything to try to limit the damage in his bad games or not. The problem I have with adding Grossman of the list is his lack of experience. The guy is young and just completed his first full season, to me it just shows injustice to put him on the list. True, but I don't think it really implies career, but simply right now. If Grossman goes on to have a successful career though, history will forget it was that way though, and will simply remember it as a good quarterback at the beginning of his career. Remember, a couple of those QB's when they played the SB as well were young, promising QB's also-they just happened not to pan out. I hope for Bears fans sake that Grossman does pan out, but I hope they also remember that Grossman's valient effort in the Super Bowl just fell a little short. :D

Of course, they've been playing just a little bit different of defenses in the playoffs :D ..but then again, that will also be in the case in the Super Bowl. Manning has had a tough test-the #1 scoring defense at their place, the #2 at his place, and now the #3 on a neutral field. Manning's statistics are pretty deceiving, as he's actually played pretty well throughout the playoffs (so has Grossman btw). It could come to QB's, but it certainly might not. Ok-a different question-how do you think the Bears will try to guard the Colts receivers? Who do you double? Whether this is good or bad, the Bears don't often double cover anyone. They tend to try and just do what they do. It usually works out. We'll see, I suppose, how it works in this game. It didn't work against Steve Smith, but that's probably an extreme example of a receiver that can really take over a game on his own. Another question... How big of a factor is Devin Hester in this game? I think he might, in fact, be a big reason the Bears win the game, if the Bears win. The x-factor, to cite an overused cliche. Coupled with the Colts' lackluster coverage unit, Rex and the Bears should see short fields a lot in this game, and Hester may also run one back on his own. Devin Hester is huge in this game, especially on kickoffs. If the Colts kick deep to him every time, I see two kickoffs getting past the 50 (with one maybe going for a TD) and the rest in between the 25-35. If they squib kick it, I see it more constant that the Bears will start closer to the 40. I see the Colts as more likely here doing the former, because their kickoff coverage has been good about half the time, and the Colts are a team that love to hold on to any sign of optimism. I see Hunter Smith trying to kick his punts out of bounds because he tends to outkick his coverage. Hunter loves to boot a 60 yard punt, and I don't want to see that with Hester standing back there. As far as doubling receivers, I can see why the Bears statistics line up the way they do. Some Colts fans noticed that the Bears do very well in every statistic passing wise except against the #1 receiver-and against that receiver, the Bears are one of the worst in the league. The Colts have two legitimate #1's on the outside, but one of them is hurt without telling anyone (Harrison). So it should be an interesting battle like the Patriots did with their corners 1 on 1 with the WR's.

The big difference is that Rex did that in a 16 game season, his first full season, when you would expect some bad games. Marquis did it in a 33 game schedule, giving him much more of a chance to allow his better games to offset bad games. He also did that 6 games into a career that has had 2 other terrible seasons. Plus, a pitcher's numbers are a far greater indication of exactly what he did than a QB's numbers. QB's numbers depend heavily on what his players do. A pitcher's numbers depend on his defense to an extent, but it's much more of a 1 on 1 battle between pitcher and hitter. The QB is facing 11 opponents trying to stop him and needs the help of 10 teammates. You already admitted it's clear somebody else is the worst on the list. When we already know the answer, the only point in asking the question again is because you want to stir controversy. The "bad Rex" story sells, and the media loves it. They don't want decent Rex. And the only people who would actually think Rex was the worst are people too stupid to understand the truth. No, I only posted some of my analysis because two people made the statements that he doesn't deserve to be on the list with those other QB's, and that this season is better than those other QB's better seasons in their career. I refuted both of those-but he is most definitely not the worst. He deserves to be on the list of the 5 or 10 worst ever, but he's not the worst-that is clear. I would agree with you on the pitcher analogy, but only to say that a pitcher relies on a manager to limit the damage to his numbers like a QB relies on the other 10 people on the field. LaRussa did nothing to limit the damage to Marquis's numbers, and I'm not sure if the Bears did anything to try to limit the damage in his bad games or not.

Of course, they've been playing just a little bit different of defenses in the playoffs :D ..but then again, that will also be in the case in the Super Bowl. Manning has had a tough test-the #1 scoring defense at their place, the #2 at his place, and now the #3 on a neutral field. Manning's statistics are pretty deceiving, as he's actually played pretty well throughout the playoffs (so has Grossman btw). It could come to QB's, but it certainly might not. Ok-a different question-how do you think the Bears will try to guard the Colts receivers? Who do you double?

I would agree with that-my guess is that Grossman has a TD or two with a turnover or two as well, which will be fine for what he's asked to do. Then it comes down to the Colts offense vs the Bears defense, which should be a fascinating battle.

All that proves is how many stupid people there are that follow football. Grossman did more good things this season than any of those QBs did throughout their careers. I would completely disagree with that. The best numbers of all of the QB's on the list so far: Eason: 61.6% completion percentage, 23 TD/8 INT, 3328 yards, 7.5 Y/A, 5 TD's rushing Ferragamo: 59.4% completion percentage, 30 TD/19 INT, 3199 yards, 7.9 Y/A, 1 TD rushing Woodley: I don't want to embarrass him by posting his numbers-let's just say he's the worst QB to ever make a Super Bowl Dilfer: 56.2% completion percentage, 21 TD/11 INT, 2555 yards, 6.6 Y/A, 1 TD rushing Grossman: 54.6% completion percentage, 23 TD/20 INT, 3193 yards, 6.7 Y/A, 0 TD rushing To predict that Grossman will have a better career? Fine. To say that Grossman has done more this season than those QB's did in their entire careers? With the exception of Woodley, absolutely not. Eason and Ferragamo's seasons blow Grossman's out of the water, and Dilfer's is a little better as well. Taking Grossman's season numbers as a whole is very convenient. It's also extremely misleading. I'm not sure there's many QB's where you could take out their 3 worst games, and their numbers would go from this: 262 of 480 (54.6%) 3193 Yards 23 TD 20 INT 73.9 Rating to this: 240 of 412 (58.3%) 2982 Yards 23 TD 10 INT 89.3 Rating And that's not to say you can just throw out those games. It's meant to illustrate that his overall numbers don't really tell you very much in terms of his game to game performance. A few (3) REALLY bad games turned his stats from very good to just below average. I would agree with that argument (I call that the Jason Marquis argument BTW, since the same thing was used in defense of him a month ago, and while most people didn't buy that argument then I will buy it now :D). On the flip side though would be strength of schedule. How many teams did Grossman play that were actually playing well on defense at the time? The Lions weren't-they gave up the exact same numbers they did to Grossman the two weeks after Grossman played them. The 49ers didn't get their act together till after Chicago had played them, in fact they gave up over 30 points to 5 of the first 7 teams that played them. Seattle gave up 28 or more points 5 games in a row, with the Bears game being in the middle of that stretch. The Giants lost 4 in a row starting with the Bears game, mostly because of their lack of defensive players. Grossman did hit several teams at the right part of the season, which helped him out. He also had 3 frightening bad games, which makes his season look worse than it actually was. His numbers and the situations have been so scattered that it's really hard to tell what's going to happen next.

I'm still scared of him. With all that has been said, Grossman still has the potential to step up and have a masterful game. He has proven that very much with his several great games this year. He has proven that he can almost singlehandedly win or lose a game for the Bears, which few QB's have ever been able to do. I really have no idea what to expect out of him because I don't know what the gameplan by the Bears will be. If they can keep the pressure off of him, he should have at least a decent day, if not a great one. If Freeney and Mathis get around, then Grossman is going to fumble a couple of times because he hasn't proven that he can evade the rush consistently like Brady did so well last week. I'm very interested if the Bears are going to try to A) rely on their running game, B) try trick plays for misdirection, C) go to 3 step drops, D) go max protect, or E) All of the above. Grossman just has to make a couple great drives, and then try to let the defense do their work. I'm hoping the Colts can rattle him early, and force the Bears to pass.

All that proves is how many stupid people there are that follow football. Grossman did more good things this season than any of those QBs did throughout their careers. I would completely disagree with that. The best numbers of all of the QB's on the list so far: Eason: 61.6% completion percentage, 23 TD/8 INT, 3328 yards, 7.5 Y/A, 5 TD's rushing Ferragamo: 59.4% completion percentage, 30 TD/19 INT, 3199 yards, 7.9 Y/A, 1 TD rushing Woodley: I don't want to embarrass him by posting his numbers-let's just say he's the worst QB to ever make a Super Bowl Dilfer: 56.2% completion percentage, 21 TD/11 INT, 2555 yards, 6.6 Y/A, 1 TD rushing Grossman: 54.6% completion percentage, 23 TD/20 INT, 3193 yards, 6.7 Y/A, 0 TD rushing To predict that Grossman will have a better career? Fine. To say that Grossman has done more this season than those QB's did in their entire careers? With the exception of Woodley, absolutely not. Eason and Ferragamo's seasons blow Grossman's out of the water, and Dilfer's is a little better as well.

For the record, I hardly think that a poll asking for the worst QB to ever make the Super Bowl proves a national media bias against the Bears. For the record, I do. It's a joke to even see Rex's name included with those players. Do you guys even realize how bad those other guys were? Do you? Grossman has more talent in his left foot than these bums. Talent, sure. Has Grossman played better than those QB's though? Here are the the season statistics of all 5 QB's you mentioned- QB A: 48% completion percentage, 5 TD/10 INT, 7.1 Y/A, 8 games played QB B: 59.1% completion percentage, 12 TD/11 INT, 6.7 Y/A, 9 games QB C: 54.7% completion percentage, 5 TD/8 INT, 6.0 Y/A, 9 games QB D: 54.6% completion percentage, 23 TD/20 INT, 6.7 Y/A, 16 games QB E: 56.2% completion percentage, 11 TD/17 INT, 7.2 Y/A, 16 games (came out in 7 games). Is there really that much difference between these QB's? There's a couple really bad ones in there, and a couple decent ones, but none of them are anywhere close to typical Super Bowl QB's. One more thing-QB E is getting a little too much blame for his Super Bowl year-the year before, he had 23 TD/8 INT's with 5 TD's running the ball along with 3200 yards passing. That's almost MVP numbers in some years. In addition, the year after the Super Bowl he went back to 19 TD and 10 INT-which makes me think that he was hurt most of his Super Bowl year, which caused the really bad numbers. Grossman may be the best or 2nd best on that particular list (I would say second best right now), but his numbers still put him as at least on the list.

It's unbelievable... Look at the names on that list. It's ridiculous. Yet, some people would still have you think that there is no national media bias against the Bears. Obviously the people in that poll disagree with you (considering Grossman is winning)-while I am not sure that Grossman is one of the worst QB's ever in a Super Bowl, he is definitely one of the 2 or 3 worst in the last 10 years- Look at this list 2005-Big Ben, Hasselbeck 2004-Brady, Mcnabb 2003-Brady, Delhomme 2002-Brad Johnson, Gannon 2001-Brady, Warner 2000-Dilfer, Collins 1999-Warner, McNair 1998-Elway, Chandler 1997-Elway, Favre 1996-Favre, Bledsoe 1995-Aikman, O'Donnell Before that we had QB's like Aikman and Kelly, and names like Montana and Elway that were in several of the SB's the years before that. The SB has always been populated by great QB's. The only QB's you could even put Grossman next to on that list are Big Ben, Brad Johnson, Dilfer, Collins, Chandler, and O'Donnell. I just looked up all their stats, and Grossman is worse than all of them in important stats like completion percentage and TD/INT ratio (I didn't look at rating, but if Grossman is behind in those, he likely isn't above any more than 1 person at most in rating also, since those stats are key in compiling the QB rating). This is no national media bias-Grossman is growing and will be a very good QB one day, and has had many very good days-but when one looks at his stats compared to other QB's, he deserves to be on the list of the worst QB's to ever play in a Super Bowl. Edit: If Bob already cleared up your question, I'm sorry. I didn't see his response till after I wrote this, but I did find the analysis interesting, so I'm going to leave it up as it is.

It's not like he was that far off. They got one game better between 03 and 04 but have declined since then. Having said that, as someone else stated, whether or not this is a good deal depends entirely on how Floyd is used which is of course yet to be determined. True, but they also got better between 02 and 03-so it was 2 years of ascending records, and then 2 years of descending records, and 07 promises to go back up. I agree there could be some cause for concern with Floyd in the way he's used, but right now, this is a very good deal to get another solid bat off the bench, something which the Cubs have not had for a long time now.

I can't decide if he wants to downplay the importance of it (Peyton has never wanted to talk about his injuries when he has had them, of course they've never been serious enough for him to miss a single game in his career) or just a little bit of gamesmanship. I think it's the former, but I can't be sure.

It will be at intervals we are used to during the game-the TV timeouts will probably be longer than usual, but that's the only difference. BTW, I expect CBS to announce-"We're going to try something different with the commercials tonight, as one sponser has bought every commercial slot! Here is the first comercial"....."This is my country" :D

How is Bob Sanders? Can we kill him somehow? No, you may not, and his knee appears to be just fine :D.

Nick Harper is going to be held out of practice this week and then re-evaluated. If he can't go, he'll be replaced in the lineup by Marlin Jackson, which will make Kelvin Hayden (the corner Brady sort of picked on) coming into the game as the nickel corner.

Here's ESPN's story-they're saying that Floyd will be a backup-no mention here of "sharing time", although I'm sure that's going to come up in a story or two today: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2738583

Please don't say broken down in a Floyd thread! I hope he doesn't think he's going to get 500 AB's at the expense of big red. I'm pretty sure you can't take your walker to LF, so I think Murton's ABs are relatively safe. Probably not but I really don't understand why he signed with the Cubs since they don't have a DH, there must have been very little interest or he just wanted to play in Chicago. Floyd has said that the Cubs are the team he wants to sign with since the beginning of the offseason-he probably had better offers elsewhere (since there was a report that several teams were after him a few days ago) but Floyd really, really wanted to come to Chicago.

Why does it mean that? That would run contrary to everything Piniella and Hendry have been saying-they want Floyd to be the 4th OF, not take away most of Murton's AB's.