jersey cubs fan

I wouldn't call that proof, this is still a baseball centric website with game threads that rival the length of full season threads for other sports teams.

It was like 3 years, then he lived on the reputation of that peak after the injuries started taking their toll.

I was in NY when the Knicks were last good, but I would not say they owned the town. They were no bigger than the Rangers who won the cup. Well, yeah, because they had just won the Cup and the Knicks hadn't won a championship. Whatever team wins the championship will be the biggest there when it happens. until a year goes by when they don't win it

I respectfully disagree. They do right now because they're the best team in the city, but when the Knicks are actually decent they top everyone. Probably because unlike football and baseball there's really nobody else competing with them for NYC fans (and anyone who says the Nets do really isn't taking this seriously). I believe you are wrong. And if the Nets move to brooklyn, that would at least provide a Mets-like competition. No team owns this town like the Bears are capable of owning Chicago.

I was in NY when the Knicks were last good, but I would not say they owned the town. They were no bigger than the Rangers who won the cup. If the Knicks win 4 titles then maybe they will "own" this town, but there's too much competing interest for any one team to monopolize everything. The Knicks might not have a Mets team to counteract their power like the Yankees, but there is competing interest in winter sports, and by the time the NBA finals comes along, there's baseball.

It's not to the same extent, but guys complain about the MLB ASG all the time.

I would not be surprised if it happened, and therefore can't consider it a minor miracle.

It's nearly impossible to judge a Bears draft one year in, since the coaches pigeon hole guys into can't play yet status. They got Knox who is a player. Afalava who can contribute, and a couple other guys that could do more if given the chance. I think Cutler is already in that 2nd group you mentioned, and he's got more upside than any of them. He could easily be at the level of Rivers and Rodgers within a year or two if things go right. Manning and Brees are 31 and 33 and have just 3 SB appearances between them in 21 combined seasons. It's not like they have a strangehold on contention. Chicago does need more talent, that's not in question, but their lack of talent is overblown, and they have a QB talented enough to be in the discussion every year.

The right quarterback can go a long way to overcoming a coaching staff's shortcomings. I'm not sure Tony Dungy would be such a respected super bowl winning coach if he never had Peyton Manning. Shanahan may still owe John Elway (and TD) for the contracts he's signing 12 years after his SB and 5 years removed from the playoffs. Does New England win as much if Drew Bledsoe stays healthy and Tom Brady stays a nobody? For all the negatives, this is still a .500 ballclub that recently added a very talented QB. People talk about them being devoid of talent all the time, but they are not that bad. If Cutler takes the next step and the offense shows some signs of real life, there's no reason why they can't win 10 games and turn into a contender again.

65 is already diluted for a tournament. There's nothing ridiculous about that argument. What is ridiculous is trying to compare NCAA basketball as a league similar to NHL, NBA and NFL.

I feel like Washington usually has about 5.

Like many others, I think this is a high-risk, high-reward move. Though the long-term risk isn't that high because if it doesn't work there's a good chance that everything is blown up for 2011. You guys have read and researched Martz more than I have. Making such a major schematic change into a very complex offense with mostly young WR's (who reportedly struggled to pick up Turner's stuff) seems like it would be difficult to me. Having an offense that's so based in downfield passing seems like it will be difficult to pull off with such a weak offensive line. Given the way Martz tries to break down QB's and build them up in his mold seems like it could have some lasting effects on Cutler if it doesn't work out and he has to start over again in 2011 for the 4th time in 4 years. Martz also doesn't like to roll out his QB's much which seems to play against Cutler's strengths. On the flip side it may be worth taking the risk that he gets the most out of Cutler. If so, you probably win 10 games and have another 3+ years of Lovie. Turner's system may be bland, but I've heard about it requiring WR to make all sorts of reads before and during the play. Some of the young guys may have struggled to adapt early in their careers, however, the Bears coaches were also slow at letting young guys show something on the field, and these guys aren't rookies anymore. They have experience, and even learning a new system shouldn't be as hard.

Explain this one to me. Do you think there's a tipping point where adding teams becomes a negative to the tournament? 64 creates a rapid fire atmospher dropping it from 64 to 16. There's going to be burnout with this number of games, especially with so many crappy games to start things off. As a casual observer, the only interesting part of the tourny is the first weekend. By the end I don't really care. And the most interesting part is seeing some 12-16 seed trying to squeek by against a big boy. Under this system, that takes away a big part of the fun. A lot of those little guys are going to be eliminated in a play-in game against some mediocre big boys, which means the big boys are just going to be playing less talented big boys in their first games. And of course it just changes the names of the people who are going to be whine about being "snubbed" from an already bloated tournament.

scary length for a catcher, but if you are in the AL it's easier to deal with. And Minny had to do this, good for them.

6 man bench? On a team with serious questions in the rotation and a strong tendency to use a 12th pitcher at all times, I doubt we see a 6 man bench. I'm assuming Tracy starts in the minors until or unless they need to replace Aramis early.

I know I'm guilty of this myself, but the lame duck description is inaccurate. Lame duck suggests gone no matter what. In politics that's a guy with a term limits problem or in sports a coach on his last year of a contract. Since Lovie is signed through 2011, I think the odds are quite high that if the Bears do well this year, Lovie, and most of the staff, is almost guaranteed to return the next year. If the Bears win 10 games, can you imagine them eating all those millions to go out and get a new guy? The McCaskeys let Jauron go after a 7 win season that followed a 4 win season. They let Wanny go after back to back 4 win seasons. They canned Ditka after a 5 win season. Going into this season I thought maybe 10 losses costs him his job. Now, going into next season I think 9 wins might even be enough to save him. 10 wins is almost a guarantee. Think about it, if the Bears win 10 games next year that almost certainly means playoffs. That probably means the defense has stabilized and maybe improved, and that the offense was showing signs of a life. Even if they make the playoffs and go one and done, can you picture them canning the whole staff? I wouldn't bet that way. I'd think they'd be comfortable with the way things are going and actually adding a year. This would have the effect of aligning Lovie and Angelo on similar contract lengths which could make it easier for a clean break after 2011 or 2012 if things stall.

The first post told us it was a minor league deal. But there's still going to be a bunch of chemistry/practical joker/intangible nonsense discussed as a result. The first post didn't mention that there was no guaranteed money though. It's a minor league deal, so that's assumed, no? I would never worry about the money in a minor league signing (except for Samardzija), but rather the annoyance of having that worthless veteran around.

The first post told us it was a minor league deal. But there's still going to be a bunch of chemistry/practical joker/intangible nonsense discussed as a result.

If so, then I really don't have a problem with the process or the end decision. I do, however, still think they should have canned Lovie from the start. While checking for confirmation I saw Adam Schefter's twitter that 12.3 million watched the pro bowl, which more than vindicates moving it to the SB city the week before. NFL hunger is still big right now, but after the SB it plummets into depression.

Yeah, let's not be ridiculous and let in more than 65 teams to a tournament. It might dilute the field.

What exactly is it that would cause you to believe anything other than that we will be a mediocre team? Because we're going to have the best pitching and probably the best offense in the division. What? I doubt this. The Cubs had the best offense once this decade, and usually there's been at least 2 better offenses in the division. The odds are they won't have the best of either this year, let alone the best pitching and hitting.

Stronger than what? Millar shouldn't see Wrigley.

clubhouse chemistry stories to follow

It would, if it happens. But that's no sure thing. He's almost 32 and is coming off surgery. That's one year removed from a down season attributed to health problems. Maybe all that time off saved his back and legs, but he's no spring chicken, and considering how important speed is to his game, there's still a wait and see situation with Urlacher. I'm hoping and expecting him to have a solid year, but they can't really count on him to be that big of a difference maker in comparison to how weak the defense has been for three years.