jersey cubs fan

Also, the winter classic could be a bust since it's in the country's rainiest city. Maybe the NHL should try and promote something more than just Sidney Crosby every chance they get.

Well that is a vague qualifier. I think it could greatly improve the 2011 rotation, not in comparison to 2010, but in comparison to what 2011 would be without him. Is Silva going to get 25 starts this year? He could easily suffer a setback after a brief glimpse of decency this past year. Does a guy like him, as good a bet as any of them to give you 200 innings and make every start, make it easier to stretch out Cashner? Dempster, Zambrano, Garza, Wells and Cashner could be a stable rotation that actually provides some room for real upside. And then you let those other guys fill-in where needed. (Gorz/Silva/whoever). Maybe you put yourself into position to trade pitching at the deadline for much needed bats. I think on his own he'd improve the rotation a fairly significant amount. When you talk about cost of prospects though, that could be negated.

How are either of those things "true"? Cubs starters combined for the following stats in 2010: 7.3 K/9, 3.5 BB/9, 8.8 H/9, 1.364 WHIP, 2.10 K/BB, 4.00 ERA You're telling me that Garza will "greatly improve" that? Will the degree of improvement he offers be worth what the Cubs would have to give up to get him? If he replaces the worst performer of the bunch then yes he could improve them.

And points scored isn't impressive either. Also, if they are getting the benefit of better field position than anybody else, they should score at a greater rate than their offense "normally" would. This still indicates they are subpar.

Yes, the 1 seed will face the lowest seeded first round winner.

A win and the Bears can do no worse than 2. Packers are not necessarily eliminated with a loss. Tonight is on NBC, the regular Sunday Night Football broadcast.

Confirmation on Kane's return in the Tribune: http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/12/kane-returns-to-blackhawks-lineup.html

It's easy to pretend to know more than the idiot managers when your "decisions" don't actually result in something happening and you can't be called out on them. Two things happened with Stone. One, all the kids that watched him and liked him in the 80's/90's grew up, and he became a bitter dick.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-1228-bits-bears-chicago--20101227,0,6817839,full.story Biggs commented on that yesteday, he also noted Kreutz might be getting one.

It's very risky

It's a pass on $1 million/1year deal. The Cubs don't have room for a hitter who can't play the field. They do if they don't waste space on a 7th reliever.

They should view it as a playoff game, but you never know. It's more clear-cut for Green Bay, and they have the ability to beat the Bears by a TD.

Bears are 6 point underdogs.

Clearly I already have overcome your ignorance.

It was correct and you aren't very bright.

What I said was correct. It was the first, when the scoring drive began and mostly took place, and second when they were moving the ball and scoring at will.

The big drive that created their first score began in the first quarter. It was like the last 5 minutes of the quarter. I didn't think that would be that hard to understand.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-1228-pompei-film-session--20101227,0,6890293.column Dan Pompei hands out his grades, and throws a half hearted defense of the cover 2 defense. He states that on 54% of the snaps the Bears played something other than cover 2. He also noted that they played the least amount of cover 2 in the fourth quarter. That's a pretty poor way of defending the cover 2, since the fourth quarter was when NY only scored 3 points. It was the first and second when NY was moving down the field at will and scoring points. And that is presumably when they were playing mostly cover 2, going on his numbers.

Eh, there's one team of the 6 that definetely "shouldn't" get one over them. But I don't have much sympathy for dome teams concerned about the ideal path to the Super Bowl, let alone teams that just freaking won the thing the year before. Plus, there's still an outside shot that they can host one. That and having the easiest first round matchup is a pretty nice consolation. I'd rather not have a 1st round game than have one, no matter who it is against. They still gotta win 3 likely road games to get to Dallas, while a team like the Bears or Eagles w/ the same record will only have to win 2, with 1 of them being at home. It's a huge discrepancy. That being said, I don't have a problem w/ the system as it is. Yes, I would prefer that, but if that's what they wanted they shouldn't have lost to Arizona and Cleveland. New Orleans was very unimpressive until they beat Pittsburgh this year. Squeeker wins against Minnesota, San Fran and Carolina. Losses to bad teams. They made their own bed despite favorable conditions.

I thought the Buffalo game was very uninspiring. Regardless of what ifs that can make them upper half, being 18th or 14th doesn't really make a difference when saying they are not yet a consistent force.

That is simply not true at all. I listened on numerous occasions without having any idea what was happening. Between the goofing with Ron, substitute play by play man (which is a ridiculous perk) and 7th inning guest, there was plenty of time when play on the field took a back seat.

Eh, there's one team of the 6 that definetely "shouldn't" get one over them. But I don't have much sympathy for dome teams concerned about the ideal path to the Super Bowl, let alone teams that just freaking won the thing the year before. Plus, there's still an outside shot that they can host one. That and having the easiest first round matchup is a pretty nice consolation.

They need to consider a new way to do the seedings. Never been a fan of division winners automatically being #1-4. It's not really a problem. I know it's your thing...to state an opinion as a fact with no detailed explanation...but just because you say something, doesn't make it fact. NFL playoff seeding is a problem...how much of one is certainly debatable, as there are certainly a lot of larger issues to address, but to just flat state that it's not a problem is just annoying. A lot less annoying than people constantly whining about not having the ideal way to determine seedings. It is what it is. There is no perfect method. It's a sport where you play one game a week for four months. When that is over the people who win their divisions and the two best records that come up short get to advance to the playoffs. A crappy division winner is going to lose to a better team, home or away, most of the time. A better record doesn't necessarily make one team better than the other. All you can do is win the games on your schedule. In the end the Super Bowl winner is going to have an impressive resume. And everybody has fun getting drunk on Sundays until February. It isn't a problem.

Sure...but I think it's a fair assessment to say the offense is on an upward trend, but there's definitely a long way to go. Right, but going back to my original point being that I am scared of the pass defense partly because the offense is not currently a consistent force.

I don't know about that. They've been more dangerous, but not all that consistent. They scored 7 against New England. Cutler's struggled to get 200 passing yards, and the team has struggled to get 300 total. To be fair, they are always a threat to score, which is something the Bears generally never are. They have won the only 2 real shoot outs they have been in this year, and I'm not saying I have no hope for the playoffs or anything. This team can beat anybody in the league, and that still includes New England. Like someone pointed out earlier...somewhere...I forget which thread and when....the Bears may not get a ton of yards because with their special teams, they end up with a short field so often. They don't have to put together a lot of long, sustained drives. In fact, Football Outsiders has the Bears offense with the #1 starting field position in the league. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats LOS/Dr is average starting field position. This isn't to say the offense is unbeatable, of course. But NE game aside, they've passed the eyeball test lately. The field position thing plays a part, but that probably just makes them average instead of bottom of the barrel. They've still only scored 22 points per game, in the bottom half of the league. So it's not like they are just getting "unlucky" to only have 50 yard drives instead of 75. The two Minnesota games, Philly and the Jets are the most impressive showings. The rest of the 2nd half games have left something to be desired, and as Cutler has said, they left points on the field.