jersey cubs fan

I was wondering about that, and I don't get it. CBS doesn't have an attractive early game other than Pats @ Bears. They already have Miami @ Jets at 4:15, and KC @ SD isn't terrible either. There also isn't a huge Fox early game, unless you count NYG @ MIN.

This is true. Heck, I'd almost rather have the 5th seed then win the division with the 3rd seed. Either way you are playing on the first weekend and either way, you are playing on the road in the next round and likely the next 2 rounds. I'd trade a home game against the Saints for a road game against the Rams or Seahawks anyday, and I don't care if both teams have good home records. Eh, I'm not so sure I'd hate to face New Orleans in Chicago in January.

Brees, Big Ben, and Rivers all are similar to Vick in the aspect that they would rather throw the ball down the field. Rodgers does too, but not as much, and he will also take off and run. Brees and Brady are the only QBs that I think can have long-term success doing that (of the guys you named). That's my big fear too. It's what we saw in the Superbowl vs. the Colts. Colts took what the Bears gave them and were great in the redzone, so bend but don't break didn't work vs. them. Those guys do work down the field, but Vick's huge success has been about the deep ball. Brees this year is completing 68.6% of passes and only throwing 7.3 yards per attempt.

Dallas? Oakland is only 2-2 against that crappy division. They have been grossly overrated ever since beating KC in overtime. I think of the 8 western teams, San Diego is probably the best but the seven remaining teams are all sub standard. And while Detroit may be better than their record, they aren't good.

Do you mean bad NFC? Bad NFL doesn't make sense. But bad NFC isn't accurate either. There is a bad NFC West (and a bad AFC West) but the division has several quality teams. Atlanta, New Orleans, Chicago, Green Bay, Philly and NY stand up against the best six the AFC offers up. Jets, Pats, Ravens, Steelers, who and who? San Diego? Definitely San Diego. Going into last night's game, they were #1 on both sides of the ball in yardage. The special teams play is why they lost so many games early on. It appears that they have made the necessary adjustments to their special teams to actually get their names mentioned among the best in the AFC. They won pretty impressively last night at Indy. Yeah, over a fairly weak Indy team. I can understand putting them up there, but it's hard to forgive losing to Oakland, St. Louis, KC and Seattle. The western divisions suck and they've lost four games to western teams. They also haven't beaten a team that is better than 6-5. They've loaded up on mediocrity, lost to bad teams, and lost to the only good team they've played. They do have cake schedule the rest of the way though. Either way, that resume of quality teams isn't any better than the NFC's.

Anyway, back to this game. The offense clearly won this game. The defense was stout when it mattered most, but their strengths matched up perfectly with Philly. Forcing Vick into dink and dunk mode and taking away the deep ball is what you have to do to beat him and it is pretty much what the Bears do every game. The problem will be when you face a QB who is better at that style, like Brady, Rodgers or maybe even a guy like Ryan or Brees in a potential playoff matchup. And god willing, Roethlisberger or Rivers.

People have been saying exactly what you just said for 10 years now. New England is still in its dynasty. Indy may have just ended theirs, but Pittsburgh is in their own run as well.

If they finish 12-4 I think he has to win coach of the year, although either AFC East coach could take it if they run the table. That's the high end of preseason possibilities for this Bears team. But I see no reason to talk about extensions and whatnot until after this team gets into and wins a playoff game. This isn't 2006. This team is much more fragile (although it might have the higher upside given the upgrade at QB). People are going to be betting heavily against the Bears in a playoff game, expecting Cutler to give the game away and a quality QB to pick them apart.

The Pats lost by nearly 3 TD's on the road in Cleveland. They aren't unbeatable. And neither GB or Chi plays NYG this season...unless I'm misunderstanding your post? There's no unbeatable team which is what I mean as far as a bad NFL having no dominant team or dynasty. I don't get what that means. How does that make the league bad? It can only be bad if you compare it to something that is good, but the NFL is all there is. And it has lots of good football teams, and a handful of bad ones.

I understand the concern, but I'm not sure about your comparison to other Lovie teams. The closest thing to it would have to be the 2008 season when they won three in a row to get to 9-6 but failed to beat Houston in the final game to finish 9-7. Other than that though, they either didn't win big games in the first place, 2005/2007/2009, were really good and suffered no big losses 2006, or did about as good as they could anyway 2005. Not "big losses" so much as games that they "should" win after looking good. I know that's by no means a sure thing, but these are really the only Bears games that I get nervous over. I get nervous over games they should win much more than games you'd expect them to lose.

Do you mean bad NFC? Bad NFL doesn't make sense. But bad NFC isn't accurate either. There is a bad NFC West (and a bad AFC West) but the division has several quality teams. Atlanta, New Orleans, Chicago, Green Bay, Philly and NY stand up against the best six the AFC offers up. Jets, Pats, Ravens, Steelers, who and who? San Diego?

Yes, those are justifications for having doubts about the Bears, but they aren't justification for ignoring other quality wins and pretending they can't possibly be better than those games indicated.

I understand the concern, but I'm not sure about your comparison to other Lovie teams. The closest thing to it would have to be the 2008 season when they won three in a row to get to 9-6 but failed to beat Houston in the final game to finish 9-7. Other than that though, they either didn't win big games in the first place, 2005/2007/2009, were really good and suffered no big losses 2006, or did about as good as they could anyway 2005.

I don't see it. They have no talent on the line. I think Tice has done as good as he could.

Even in offering up respect Don Banks completely disrespects the Bears. Winning in a shutout fashion on short rest in short week against a winning team from the supposedly superior AFC. They may be the only team to have beaten Buffalo in regulation this year. They beat Dallas when Dallas was still considered a threat, and beat Green Bay. They dismantled Favre's Vikings. How is this the first win that garners respect? And how have you not been able to see that if things go right this team clearly as the defense and the quarterback to make a "why not us" statement plausible?

Hell of a game. The weak link quarterback was slightly less weak linkish while tossing 4 weak linked touchdowns. Hopefully that line, running attack and receivers can carry his weak linked body through another tough fight on the road in Detroit this week. The Bears are 3 point favorites against the 2-9 Lions, who are probably more like a 4-7 or 5-6 team, but has some very obvious flaws that can be exploited. As great as it is to be a surprising 8-3 right now, a loss this week could put them on the road to missing the playoffs, because it will be tough to get 2 wins in the final four games, and even 10 wins isn't a guaranteed playoff spot. Philly, NYG and GB are all likely to be 8-4 after this week's games. TB may even be able to pull off an upset against ATL, and if they do, it's smooth sailing the rest of the way for that team. Not only is a loss likely to drop them back into a tie for the division and wild card, but it would be their 4th NFC loss. In other words, the Bears need this game. It will be tough, but they really need a win to put themselves into position to hold onto the division. Detroit is a pretty mediocre offense, but they can throw the ball, and they are right with the Bears in the turnover game. Chicago's defense is really stepping it up of late, but they are still living on the edge in the passing game, allowing teams to move the ball through the air. They can't leave this up to a jump ball situation with Johnson, because he will beat them. Detroit has had the extra rest/prep time that Chicago had last week against Philly, and they can make things tough on the Bears. But there is no doubt that the Bears should win this game, it's just a matter of executing. And keeping the weak link from losing it.

It's days like this that I really enjoy the fact that I can read other city's newspapers on the internet.

Not me, I have about three dozen in-laws who owe me plus a really good lunch on monday

Since you didn't refer to anything specifically you are probably talking about your incessant complaining of the Bears' defense after the opposition marches down the field only to wind up with a FG all the while the Bear defense is ranked third and fifth in points and yards respectively. Welcome to October

No he won't. With his line and his receivers Mark will be. Jay has more talent than Sanchez. Sanchez will be the better QB. Ok

And wrong Plus dumb

I can't think of one thing that Lovie does better than the average coach either. How about this year where everybody was saying the Bears were going to be lucky to win 5 or 6 games, yet they're 8-3 through the 11 game mark? Who is everybody? Anybody with half a brain and two ounces of football smarts saw a bears team that cod win 8-9. Only the dumbest pieces of flesh saw 6 wins as a max.

I won lots of bets today, if it was physiologically possible I would have jay cutlers babies and still be in the black regardless of child support payments.

They aren't that important for a variety of reasons. The most obvious one is because pitching talent is what determines how well a pitcher pitches. Coaches are important at lower levels, but at the higher levels they are there for babysitting purposes more than anything. Pitchers generally come up and pitch to their ability and then slowly decline as their arms age. Your team's quality of pitching will be determined by the talent of the pitchers. Not the pitching coach.

He can, it's just up to the manager to let him. That doesn't make it less important to have a good pitching coach, though, it makes it more important to have a sensible manager. No, he can't. If it's up to somebody else, he's not in control.