jersey cubs fan

Lots of fans don't actually wear paraphernalia with team logos.

I don't see why you'd think this. They have something they've never had, a legit QB who can win them games. The Bears are not good, but they have talent. They are not among the dregs of the league. They are in a group that can go either way in any given year. Due largely to poor coaching, they've come up short for three straight years, but they have been in the picture. They need a couple more guys, no question, but they could beat anybody on their schedule next year. What would it mean if they won a few more games and made the playoffs? It would mean Cutler and the offense took a step in the right direction and the so-called lame duck status of the staff would be postponed. It would not take a miracle.

They were blown out 4 times: 45-10 by the Bengals 41-21 by the Cardinals 36-10 by the Vikings 31-7 by the Ravens So nearly half the time they lost, they got blown off the field. Nobody is saying they are good, but rather it wouldn't be a miracle for them to get better.

The optimistic route has done me no good in the past year with the Cubs and the Bears. I'm trying out pessimism to see how it works out. Trust me, it doesn't work either. I was optimistic about the Bears this year though and it blew up in my face worse than the 2004 Cubs.

you are mistaking the team for the fans. The fans are just happy to be there. The team is a different matter. A blowout seems extremely improbable. The worst the Saints have been beaten this year was by 7 points (I'm not counting the last game where the starters didn't play). They had one of the best offenses in the history of the NFL this season. Even if Manning is destroying their defense, their offense will do enough to keep the game respectable. The Colts defense is hardly stellar. Certainly not on par with what the Vikings were throwing at them. Yeah but the Colts can pressure, and what I was seeing yesterday was Brees struggling because the Vikings were getting good pressure. I'm hoping for a good game, but I do think a Colts blowout is on the table. There's an outside chance the Saints could win by taking the ball away (which they are marvelous at), keeping Manning a little rushed if not sacked, and taking away the deep stuff. If they can keep it close and then get turnovers, that's where I see the opportunity. A colts blowout is definitely on the table. But New Orleans has more than an outside shot at winning this game. They beat the Jets handidly because the Jets didn't have a a real offensive threat. Neither did Baltimore. Indy only played a couple teams this year with a real big offense, they blew out Arizona early, then barely beat New England and had some relatively close games with Houston. New Orleans will provide the biggest challenge they have had to date.

Have they actually offered anyone the job? Or have they interviewed them and heard them say "sorry guys, I'm gonna take this other job." It's hard to say, but I feel as if they haven't actually gotten down to offers yet. There was talk that money didn't play a role in the Bates decision, but Bates simply followed his boss to a guaranteed position before getting into the interview process where he was guaranteed nothing with the Bears. It seems like they want to interview lots of guys before making an offer, and guys are taking guarantees from elsewhere instead of waiting and hoping. In general, if they want a guy, reports of offers and imminent signings come out the day they interview and they often aren't allowed to fly home.

So if you don't think they are planning on firing him in a year why do you think he's a lame duck and that this is why nobody wants to come here? The question seems to be stability, and the only question of stability is whether or not it's realistic for them to keep their job past next season. I can't imagine any NFL coach thinking he couldn't do a good enough job to help the Bears play better next year and thus everybody keep their jobs. I do think they don't like what they hear from Lovie about what he expects them to do -ie. get off the bus running the ball, and let my defense determine our fate.

I don't have any confidence in how they will handle it. I expect them to screw it up. But if they get the right guy in here and do well, there's really no reason to expect them to fire everybody next year, thus paying all of their contracts and finding a whole new regime to take over. If anything, their "cheap" reputation should give people confidence that the Bears aren't going to make such a financially risky move. What I think is going on is people are displaying a lack of confidence in Lovie leading this team to a winning season in 2010, and my guess is part of that is the so called autonomy they are offering the OC isn't really there.

If the Bears win 10 games next year, they will all be back, and if they are successful the next year they will all have the option to return. There's no reason to expect that regardless of outcome it's a lame duck situation. And it is in the Bears interest for whomever takes over the offense to have a real opportunity to stick around longterm. They do not want to waste Cutler's best years going from coach to coach.

I'm not sure if it's half-assed, or not half-assed enough. I think the Bears are actually going 100% in the "this is Lovie's team and he can make all decisions" department, when they really shouldn't be. Everybody is calling him a lame duck, but the Bears have done nothing to indicate he is. He's got 2 years left on his deal, and if a good OC comes in and the team does well in 2010, he will be back in 2011. This isn't a situation where Lovie is as good as gone. It probably won't take much for him to keep his job. They've been extremely patient with all their head coaches since Ditka took over. This isn't a team that fires a guy for failing to make the playoffs, they fire guys for sustained losing and 10 loss seasons. I think this is much more about people not wanting to be Lovie's offensive coordinator, rather than not wanting to go into an unstable situation. No coaching situation is stable. Head coaches are on the hot seat in their first season, some coordinators don't even make it throug their first preseason with the team. Lovie has all the power in this situation, but he shouldn't have it. His defense has been allowed to flounder in the bottom half of the league for three years, but it's the offense that has taken the fall.

The problem is they need that person to be somebody who could conceivably take over the Lovie if he's canned next year. But since Lovie has the authority to hire the OC, he's not going to be all that excited about bringing in his replacement. The OC hire should be Angelo's call. Lovie doesn't know offense. He doesn't know how to hire coaches. His staff throughout his time in Chicago has been guys with very limited NFL experience, with the exception of Marinelli last year. And that was just him hiring a friend. Angelo is the one who traded for Cutler. Angelo is the one who should be telling Lovie who his OC is going to be. Or, as I said from the start, Lovie should be gone already.

It's chasing a whole different type of tail.

I didn't see that story.

I forget, does the NFL have some sort of de facto media blackout for deals during super bowl week, the way MLB tries to do with the World Series? I don't think they do. I feel like jobs are in discussion throughout this period. This is really becoming a disappointment. There's nobody of note on the defensive side of the ball, and every mildly interesting name on offense gets crossed off by the minute. Are guys getting staying away because of demands Lovie is putting on them for what type of offense he wants run? It's looking more and more like this is going to end up being Marinelli getting the DC job and Martz getting OC. I hope they find some relatively young blood in the NFL coaching ranks to work alongside Martz, if he is in fact the guy.

Which is why calling a roll-out was such a dumb call. An already lead-footed QB with an ankle injury? Let's roll him out of the pocket! Yeah, but the roll-out wasn't all that bad. He got out of the pocket fine, and was in open space. I think it was just another bone-headed INT by Favre in an NFC Championship game. That one is all on Brett, IMO. There were other options, better options. He was moving perfectly fine on that play and made a dumb throw, which is what he always does and what he was always destined to do to finish off the Vikings season. This had to happen in this exact way.

After all the effort he's put in so far I would hope Brett would be happy with just a room

So playing hard is now a sign that he faked the entire injury despite very clearly getting slammed in the knee? Come on, now. He's always played with reckless disregard for his body. that and a never ending tendency to fake injuries

So limpy

Deadspin headline

They go hand in hand. A guy who was a masher is relying even more on god (or Dr.) given ability than your typical major league hitter. But your question was about a guy who hit homers vs a guy who couldn't even make AAA, so ability is clearly part of the discussion that you raised. Why is a guy who is a masher relying more on his given ability than the guy who hits singles? The singles hitter isn't the only other type of hitter.

IBL

Good point, I think most of us remember the dominant Harden and forget that he had been regressing. Harden was good last year, the Cubs are worse off without him.

As you noted, Soriano is no lock to hit well. Lou has locked into hitting him 6th and I really see no reason to argue about hitting him higher.

I'm fairly certain this was mostly a Crane Kenney move. Ricketts is still in charge and gets the final say. I'm sure he had something to do with the descision making. Right, he had the final say, but Soul was talking about the process that led to that decision, which it seems obvious was set-up by Kenney long before Ricketts arrived.