jersey cubs fan

Pittsburgh. The Jets are nothing special. Packers and Bears both already beat Jets and could do it again. I'm cheering for the Jets because I've got friends who are fans of both and I'm sick of the Pittsburgh guy having so many SBs, and because the Bears stand a better chance of beating Sanchez & Co.

I'm in o'hare heading home with a lovely hangover. Bears are 3 point dogs and I like it. I also love jay cutler and fighter jets.

Anything on the smurf turf is awesome. It really isn't. It's terrible to watch. The unique factor got old a long time ago.

It would be 16 total contests. Mexico might get one. London maybe 4? The rest of Europe 4? At most 1 or 2 in Japan if they ever agree to actually play there. A primetime game in the US would still just be morning there, and travel is a concern. Have a couple southern teams, Atlanta and Jacksonville or New Orleans and Tennessee, play in Alabama. Put a few games in the Rose Bowl until they sort out the LA market. I think it could be seen as a great option if they end up doing 1 neutral site per team.

http://www.ontheforecheck.com/2011/1/14/1935236/shane-obrien-suspended-2-games-for-stick-foul-vs-florida

Interesting thought. If you do that, maybe you could have the neutral games be overseas. You could do one every other week through the season, and start getting more of an international audience. I could care less about the international audience, but I know it's something the NFL wants to tap into. I would jump at the chance to see the Bears in London or anywhere else in Europe. I'd guess they would not play all games overseas though. There may be a few more Canadian games. You could also hit other American markets that don't get NFL, using available college stadiums.

When this all started they talked about 17 game seasons, with everybody playing 1 neutral site game. Is this all a ploy to get to that point? Take away 2 worthless preseason games and add 1 regular season game. Players have nothing to complain about since they go from 20 to 19 games.

I'm so sick of the bad team that got lucky storyline. That is being pushed either becasue people were overly critical of the Bears in the preseason and could not picture them winning 8 games, let alone a playoff game, or because they saw the one Lions highlight and hung on that forever. They beat the snot out of Philly long before people like Don Banks realized they were even beatable. They handled the Jets but that apparently didn't matter. They easily beat Minnesota twice. They beat GB (which admittedly wasn't that hard to do this year) when both teams were playing for something and the Bears offense was still in its early instable period. Chicago lost their franchise QB for a game and a half, and when he returned he was obviously not at his best. They got the benefit of a controversial, but correct call in a game they should have won by more than a touchdown anyway going by the play on the field. They came into the season with all the capability to win 10 or more games. They stumbled at times but actually did win those games. They won their division and they earned the 2 seed. This isn't a 7-9 team that lucked into playing a crap division and against another mediocre division jus to get to 7. This team didn't stumble into the playoffs because they faced a better team that had no reason to play in a must win last game of the year. They played well enough to clinch early and were only playing for positioning up to the 2nd to last game of the year. They could lose, only because every team can lose any game this year, like New England losing to Cleveland, or Pittsburgh losing to New Orleans and the Jets and Baltimore lost to the Bengals. But that's not because they are bad, or anywhere close to bad. They won both Monday Night games this year. They were 3-1 in primetime games. They showed up in games that mattered and won.

Wow, a media member who actually voices dislike of Reilly. I'll never understand why he was worshipped by so many in his business.

Hasn't he been pro since signing his LOI? He's obviously looking for a more lucrative contract. I'm not sure he'll get anymore annually but he's probably looking for a little more stability on the duration. Despite non-guaranteed contracts it is possible for your father or agent to structure a deal that will effectively keep you in the same place for several years.

He took the opportunity to get off a sinking ship in a city that would never accept anything but Elway II to go to a team 2 years off a Super Bowl run with an actual defense. I don't see why that makes him a dick. Hell, it's absolutely no worse that what Elway did, or what Eli did, or what several other pro athletes have done to get out of bad situations. Agreed. I don't think it makes him a prick. You don't think it makes him a prick. But it's understandable that a guy that's looking for an excuse to dislike him because he won't engage him in a conversation would use this and the other situations as a reason to think he is a prick. Sure, it's easy ammo. Just like the "he won't open up to me doesn't understand what we can do for him" whining. But I don't think it justifies calling him a dick or the most hated player in football. What he did doesn't even compare to some of the stuff that the most hated players have done.

He took the opportunity to get off a sinking ship in a city that would never accept anything but Elway II to go to a team 2 years off a Super Bowl run with an actual defense. I don't see why that makes him a dick. Hell, it's absolutely no worse that what Elway did, or what Eli did, or what several other pro athletes have done to get out of bad situations.

Except the McDaniels stuff was clearly McDaniels fault. Everything about his tenure in Denver screamed he was in over his head and incapable of dealing with others. He tried to replace his franchise QB before meeting him and then people were surprised that Cutler was pissed at him and didn't trust him? No QB is going to take that lightly. The body language is questionable, but I don't see a "not my fault" aspect to it, more like, "oh well, just have to try again later".

I want the Jets to beat New England, but Boston wins the newspaper war. http://cdn.ksk.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/de-feet-377x600.jpg

That is the most important thing to me. He's a much better option than Sharp to be the 2nd center in a playoff series, matching up against opposing top line guys. Sharp is an offense only guy in my opinion, and this team doesn't really lack the ability to score. Bolland is also much younger and locked up at an affordable rate. Sharp is more expensive and if they have any intention of keeping him beyond next year will be an overpaid 30 something. If they don't intend on keeping him longterm then they should trade him. I thought what we did in the offseason would get us through this season. Do we have to trade someone? Because if not, then I'd say let these guys play the season and then get what you can after the year is over. Fine with me. But I'd still like to see what the league would be offering up for 1.5 years of Sharp at a fixed salary. I believe when he hits free agency somebody will be more than happy to have him and his cup winning history/scoring ability be their featured signing.

That is the most important thing to me. He's a much better option than Sharp to be the 2nd center in a playoff series, matching up against opposing top line guys. Sharp is an offense only guy in my opinion, and this team doesn't really lack the ability to score. Bolland is also much younger and locked up at an affordable rate. Sharp is more expensive and if they have any intention of keeping him beyond next year will be an overpaid 30 something. If they don't intend on keeping him longterm then they should trade him.

He's our douche I don't even think it makes sense to use douche to describe him. A douche is typically somebody who aggressively acts like an A hole. Rivers, or people from the Jersey Shore. Cutler is indifferent. He's not out selling himself or an image. He's not imposing himself on anybody. He just doens't give a crap.

Yeah, Cutler may be the most hated by the media who judge guys strictly on how they interact with them. But he's more of a secondary character in the long list of NFL players that people hate.

It's actually not a terrible column. It's more or less fair, rehashing a lot of stuff we've all seen, but fair. He doesn't care what people think of him and I don't care that he doesn't care. I don't know why any fan would. I can see it frustrating the press who just live for pretending they can get you the inside story and really show you who a guy is. He's the best offensive player this team has had since Walter Payton left and that's all that really matters. Peyton Manning is a media/advertising whore and people hate him for that. Tom Brady is Mr. Cool and people hate him for that. Philip Rivers is a demonstrative bitch and people hate him for that. Brett Favre is Brett Favre and people hate him for that. There's no reason to try and force a Mr. Nice Guy personality.

He's talking about the Seahawks own offensive gameplan against the Bears, as opposed to how they gameplanned for that crazy Denver defense or the confusing 49ers and Tampa. It's meaningless throwaway nonsense.

I would too unless you can get something of value for Fukudome. The drop from Fuku to a Colvin/Johnson platoon is minimal enough that if you could seriously upgrade another position it might actually make sense. Not sure what position that is though. Second base maybe? Highly doubt we're getting a top center fielder for Kosuke. While that specific dropoff might not be huge, the bigger problem is this destroys the OF depth and the other 2 positions include 2 guys who will not play 162 games of irreplacable ball. Some other guy is then going to fill the 5th OF spot, and a team already lacking in OBP ability will get that much worse.

Aryan Nation?

If this is true, that's just insane. A regular season NBA game over an NFL playoff game? I don't care what team is coming to town... I agree though, most Bears fans are predicting a blowout and probably don't see a point in forking out the money for that. Personally, I'd have a lot of fun watching a Bears blowout in person. Depends on how you define demand. There are 3 times as many Bears tickets out there. You only need 21,000 people who want to go to the Bulls game for demand to outstrip supply, but you need 62,000 people wanting to go to the Bears game. Also, Bears playoff tickets are much more susceptible to high levels of brokers trying to make a buck, so secondary market supply is bound to be high.

Wasn't Vaughn a closer? Now this makes no sense.