jersey cubs fan

Huh? They lost by 14 at home to USC, and 14 again to Stanford (and were down 21-0 with the game over at halftime). They were better late in the season because that is when they schedule all their garbage games.

Does not compute Using Sagrin ratings which were updated yesterday I get that, I just think sagarin must be pretty crazy for having ND that high.

Fixed I don't understand the Urban Meyer criticism. I think the reasons he left Florida were valid. I also think it is very possible that he has a better plan for health and family going forward. I don't have a problem with the reasons he had for leaving Florida. I think the way he kept wavering was a little sketchy. Resigning, then coming back with a leave of absence then resigning again less than a year later left him with a label as a serial quitter.

Does not compute

I was starting to think I was the only one with this opinion and thus, crazy. I'm glad that at the very least, I have one other crazy person to be crazy with. It really was an incredibly stupid call to make at that point of the game and spot of the field. You really are crazy for pretending otherwise.

If the throws it on a line it's a tackle for a loss. I think Davis may have had enough time to catch the ball and make a move, definitely not a certainty though. I get what you mean though, there was a linebacker sniffing out the play. Edwin Williams should have been on that. That doesn't mean it was an Earth-shatteringly horrible call. Again, I have no problems with people questioning the call. But calling Martz a complete moron and blaming him completely is just not fair. Martz has deserved plenty of blame for a lot of things that have gone wrong over the last two years. He deserves his share of the blame on that play. Making him the scapegoat for the whole game based on that one play doesn't make sense to me though. To me, execution by Hanie and Williams has more to do with why it unfolded as it did than Martz's play call. Yes, they are two players with limited playing time, but I know for a fact they ran that play in practice and made it part of the game plan. They are professional football players and they should be expected to make the play. I think people are reacting to the outcome of the play and playing a little bit of Monday morning QB. I don't see any other play from yesterday that people are claiming was too difficult to ask Hanie to do. I'm not sure who is putting all of the blame on Martz alone, but it was a very dumb play to call in that situation. You don't run that deep in the red zone, it's just reckless, and pointless. I often defend Martz for his play calling, but he had Caleb Hanie playing like crap and giving the game away and he needed to tone it down and guarantee points for the Bears there, not call risky plays. As for you monday morning comment, I think you are talking out of your arse. I was saying at the time that the Bears had to cut out risk and be conservative there, I specifically said don't get cute, and that is exactly what they did. It was a stupid time of game and place on the field to make that call, that is not hindsight, just fact.

Not all numbers are accurate. Anybody can put up a ranking system and say what they want about the SOS. Ultimately, if what pushes the thing in one team's favor is that their weakest opponents weren't as weak as the other guy's weakest opponents it doesn't really mean anything in terms of who has the better resume.

But that's pretty much all this defense is capable of. They can't shut down teams completely, especially if their QB can throw at all. Agreed. But they needed to yesterday and didn't. They got only 1 TO which came deep in their end of the field. But the D is getting off without criticism for the most part due to the offense's issues. I don't think they deserve much criticism for that game. They gave up 2 long scoring drives in the second half. But remember how that game started. The offense had three consecutive drives that lasted under 2 minutes and Oakland got the ball already in field goal range after the third. Two consecutive Oakland drives started on interceptions that left Oakland in great field position early. The Bears defense was playing a "we must score" style and all Oakland had to do was not get careless. Their biggest plays were little pop passes over the middle, which this defense is inherently susceptible to. Everything went against them because the offense, namely Hanie, did such a horrible job. Bend but don't break is what they do, you can't blame them for just doing what they do. Any halfway decent QB play and the Bears win that game easily. I can't blame the defense for not scoring, which is about all they could do.

this. I missed this earlier. Believe me, I wish the name thing wasn't an issue. Bleacher Nation started just a few months after Bleacher Report - and long before anyone had ever heard of Bleacher Report, or before it had become the nightmarish pile of dreck that it has become. Had I ever known of "The Report" before I started my site, I would have chosen another name. As it was, it was a solid two years of "Bleacher Nation" before I even became aware of "The Report." By then, BN had become a thing, and I wasn't really interested in changing the thing because one of the words in the name was the same as one of the words in the name of another site. At that point, I put my faith in peoples' ability to read more than one word. 50% of the time a Bleacher Nation post is linked on a random message board, one of the first three responses is "never listen to anything you read on Bleacher Report," or some such thing. My faith in peoples' ability, it seems, is sometimes overstated. That's a pretty condescending view of your potential viewers. It's not a matter of reading more than one word, it's remembering which Bleacher "random noun" site is completely worthless. Considering how meaningless either site is to any one person in the grand scheme of things, it's not wise to put the onus on the reader to remember which one is which if you want to build and solidify your brand.

If the throws it on a line it's a tackle for a loss.

Why are you ignoring the fact that Michigan isn't any good? Michigan is going to get housed if they get to a BCS game. Michigan is likely to play Houston in a BCS game. If so, I'd say it's far more likely that Michigan does the housing than gets housed. If they luck into that matchup then they at least stand a chance. Doubt they destroy them though.

I don't think it's a meaningful distinction when comparing the teams.

San Diego State is ranked that high? That seems crazy.

The Cubs in 2012 will be a lot better with an elite 1B than without an elite 1B. And by 2013 there is no reason they can't be the division favorite with those one of those guys. They will take advantage of those players remaining elite seasons by simply playing games. You will win more games, and you will have a better chance of making the playoffs in a weak division (that will get weaker by stealing a rival's best player). They don't have to be a lock for 100 wins to justify the signing. They have a glaring hole, and either player fills that glaring hole. It's absolutely mind boggling why people prefer to make excuses not to sign them and keep this team mediocre for several seasons.

That article is pretty dumb and overreacting quite a bit. It's a little melodramatic but the fact remains Chicago was going to be Orton's best chance to showcase his ability and earn a new contract.

But that's pretty much all this defense is capable of. They can't shut down teams completely, especially if their QB can throw at all.

I'm not as down on Hanie as you appear to be. He had 3 ints, 2 of which were really bad decisions. The third was a bad play call following a misread on Hanie's part (he should have seen the 2 defenders). Out of all that, Oakland got 6 points. That's it. Hanie can make the throws, his deep pass to Knox showed his arm, and he can scramble. He's just so [expletive] raw. The defense really needs to do better this game, and especially the special teams. Leckler (or whatever the hell his name is ) killed us. We just didn't match up to them well enough. Hanie was terrible. He's now attempted 70 passes in his career and thrown 6 picks. He's careless, and it's not like these are flukey picks, they have been horrible passes. A mediocre QB performance in that game and the Bears win by a touchdown.

You don't have to be that good to be able to pass against this defense.

Michigan would barely be bowl eligible if they played in the SEC this year. It's a sign of just how horrible the Big Ten was this year that Michigan is even in the discussion for a BCS bowl.

What's Stanford, Arkansas, or Georgia's most impressive win? You can go in these circles with every team. But Michigan isn't good.

Bears are 8 point favorites, and I think that is pretty stupid with Caleb Hanie at QB. He's a TAINT waiting to happen. I'm thinking the Bears struggle to pull this one out with Orton spreading the ball around and tossing a couple TDs.

stop writing loose

Why are you ignoring the fact that Michigan isn't any good? Michigan is going to get housed if they get to a BCS game. Outside of LSU/Alabama and OSU I think Michigan would compete with just about any other team in the country. Stanford, USC and Oregon would slaughter them, although obviously USC won't get the chance. I think Arkansas and Georgia would handle them. What is their most impressive win, against an overrated Nebraska team?

Three of the previous 7 World Series winners were not elite teams. The 2011 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 88, the 2006 Cardinals had a pythagorean win total of 82 (83 actual wins), and the 2005 White Sox had a pythagorean win total of 91 wins. The 2008 Cubs were an elite team (97 actual wins, 98 pythag wins) and got swept in the first round of the playoffs. Obviously these are only a few examples and there are other examples of elite teams winning it all. However, the point I'm making is you don't have to be elite to have a very real chance of winning the World Series. All you have to do is be good enough to make the playoffs and you might get hot at the right time. Next year the Cards won't likely have Pujols and the Brewers won't have Fielder. There's a very real chance a record a little better than .500 (85-88 wins maybe) will win the division. There's absolutely no reason why a team with the resources the Cubs have and in the division the Cubs are in should intentionally give up on even one season, much less multiple years. You also don't have to be elite in 2012 to justify signing an elite free agent. It's pretty much the heart of the insanity that defines the "don't sign these guys" reasoning.

Why are you ignoring the fact that Michigan isn't any good? Michigan is going to get housed if they get to a BCS game.