jersey cubs fan

Maybe it's just me but that Daily Herald blurb did not read like a "hot rumor" but rather one writer simply saying there is a way to make salaries match and the Bulls would be open to getting him.

Ugh, I was at that game in Detroit. Horrible. Needless to say, I will also forever remember that embarrassment. As for this game, I can't bring myself to hope for a loss and a nail in the Lovie/Turner coffin against Detroit. I just have too many friends that are Lions fans. Besides, I think even the Bears should handle Culpepper or Stanton. With no draft status to worry about and in my opinion very little chance that any meaningful change will occur with a loss, I don't find it hard at all to avoid cheering for a loss.

The Tommie Harris injury excuse is done. And it's the coach's job to get max effort. If they can do it by coddling guys, great, if they have to light a fire, do it. But if Tommie dogs it, then that reflects poorly on Lovie and Marinelli. If Anderson, Ogunleye and Brown can be a menace for a season and then fade away for three years, then that reflects poorly on the coaches. If this defense can dominate for a year and a half, and with the same personel fall to below average, that reflects poorly on the coaches. The problem with the scheme is it requires top notch athletes at the peak of their skills, and makes no room for adjustments to players' ages.

For the first time since the Rams game, and maybe only the 5th time this year, the Bears are favored, by 3 this time against the still pathetic Lions. If Lovie's Bears have been impressive against Favre-led teams, the Lions have been a similar thorn in his side. Chicago has won 3 in a row, but they've lost 4 times to Detroit since Lovie took over, including an embarrassing post-super bowl season sweep that featured a ridiculous come from ahead loss where the Tampa-2 was humiliated with a freaking 34 point fourth quarter. I will forever remember watching that game on my blackberry from a pub in London, just terrible. That one game may slant my take on things, but it just feels to me like Detroit is a team that gives Chicago too much of a run for their money. Anyway, the game doesn't mean much of anything to anybody, except for those in danger or losing jobs. A loss would effectively ruin any positive vibe coming out of the Minnesota upset, while a win would just leave a bitter taste in the mouths of those who were hoping for change. Whether they win 6 or 7 games, I have to think this season has put a dent in the convoluted "Lovie has more wins than anybody in the NFC besides Tom Coughlin since 2005" defense that the John Mullins of the world used to try and laugh off any calls for Lovie being fired earlier this year. I think I said before the season that it would take a 10 loss season to force some change, so I guess I'll stick with that prediction, and also predict Chicago wins in unimpressive fashion, and they make only minor changes to the staff and roster this offseason.

I think most of what you said definitely happened, but it still doesn't explain many of the picks in the red zone, and a lot of the other clearly bad decisions. He always had the reputation as a "forcer" even in Denver with a better scheme, better blocking and a superstar receiver to help in bailout situations. I just feel you are a bit to quick to rationalize away his own mistakes, but he has to be held accountable.

They also probably don't have the option of getting Pujols. Gonzalez is worth a lot to any team that gets him. There's no reason for San Diego not to ask for 4-5 top prospects, he's much more valuable in trade right now than Tex was when he was traded, and it can't hurt to ask. If they wait for a team's 5 best prospects, they probably aren't getting anything done, but you've got to start somewhere.

I would bet this is untrue. I think most of those were clearly examples of horrible decision making. Poor blocking, a lack of one great receiver and a weak scheme contributed, (not to mention a lack of coaching to not make those poor decisions) but the picks were mostly his fault. He did have a couple should have been called INTs, receiver tips and bad routes, but again, the volume cannot be explained away.

I am not yet convinced that the talent the Bears showed Monday night is really there. I think Monday was a step in the right direction, but there have been too many other games this year that have shown otherwise. Was Monday a mirage, or the real thing? The fact that the talent showed up means it's there. They didn't show up before mostly because of a poor coaching that failed to get the most out of the talent. This is not a coaching staff that can be trusted to put the best guys on the field, put guys in the best position to win, get the best effort out of players, or utilizing their talents in the best way possible. This is not the most talented team in the league, but it is more talented than 6-9. They were the most talented team in the conference in 2006, and they got 1 great year out of it. At least with the Ditka teams that fell short, they had multiple great seasons. And this has nothing to do with the salary cap as they were not forced to let go of anybody after 2006, it was the same group and it fell apart.

Sickels places a much higher value on starters than relievers. I think he's only willing to rank relievers high if they either are really talented or if they are close to the majors (Caridad, Parker, Gaub, etc.). That explains Huseby. I'm not totally sure why he was down on the rest of them, though. That's how it should be, no?

I would say just the opposite. If he was going to press his luck and try to win one with Chicago, by far the most potentially prosperous option at the time, being under 30 was the time to do it. In his mind he was young and had a long career still ahead of him. Post-30, after multiple disappointments and setbacks, when the end of your career is creeping up on you, is the time you start thinking about just going wherever the best place to win is (well, that and your last big paycheck).

As a long time Cubs fan who goes to multiple games a year, travels to see them play and watches as many games on TV as possible, I've never understood the draw of the Cubs convention.

This is how Lovie plays not to lose, instead of playing to win. His goal at all times is for the clock to run out before anything bad happens. They never try to keep time for their own potential drive, they never try to get one last score before half. It is a cowardly way of playing football. This is the style of football that minimizes coach criticism, because the media never questions it, but would question it if something bad actually happened.

This might be breaking news to you raw but Lovie Smith has been the head coach for 6 seasons now. And you are dead wrong. Lovie Smith is an idiot when it comes to clock management, and he makes horrible challenge decisions.

312sports, via cbsports.com, is like the 4th or 5th link

Didn't Reed make an all star game or two? Still a bad trade, but not the worst on the planet. No he didn't make an all star game. And he was a 37 year old relief pitcher, so yeah, it was one of the worst. 4/66 seems like a nice deal for the Mets. Somewhat pricey, but a short deal for a guy who should be a very productive hitter the next few years.

Yeah pretty much. I'm not buying into the media's Met Hype anymore. They were hyped last year to be in the playoffs and maybe win the WS. I remember Olney and some of the other ESPN analysts calling the Mets bullpen unbelievable and the best in the Majors hands down. I understand they had injuries but even if they were healthy, i doubt they would've even reached the playoffs. I'm pretty sure it was the year before last that they had all the hype. I don't remember many people having much confidence in the Mets at all last season.

The giants just emailed me to let me know they signed DeRosa.

I don't see how you can possibly justify this statement. Lovie makes horrible decisions in the challenge game. He wastes timeouts on plays that everybody knows will not be overturned. I'm not even sure what you are trying to say at the end there. The Bears have had numerous opportunities to try and drive late in a half, with 45 seconds or more to go, and they just sit on the ball. Their best offense has been the no huddle pass happy attack that would work in those situations, but the Bears routinely sit on it, or they run a screen, and if that doens't work, let the clock run out. When the opposition has the ball with 45 seconds to go, you just know they are going to move it to at least give them a chance at a FG, but the Bears don't even try.

OK, I don't know why this bothers me, but do you mean personnel or personal? You did this a lot over the last day or so, and I'm trying to distinguish what you mean. I haven't been posting for a day or so, but I meant personnel and I'm not sure why that wasn't obvious despite the spelling error. Mostly because both versions could have potentially made sense in context, so I wasn't sure whether you were thought the team had a personnel (talent) issue or a personal (problems with the coaching) issue. Well I don't think the problem is coaches having trouble at home or having sexual relationships with employees, if that clears things up.

High school pitchers throwing 150 pitches in a game and going back to back or little rest tells me there is nothing to be gained by pitching more. Pitching more smartly is possible, but the vast majority of coaches are shortsighted morons.

I honestly don't believe Lovie is in that much danger.

I really think these sponsors are really dropping the ball by dropping Tiger. It makes sense to not put out ads at the moment with him in them, but this is going to blow over. Sure, we'll all joke about Tiger's "infidelities", but he's still going to kick some ass on the golf course, and people are still going to buy things with his image on them. I think dropping him is a short sighted overreaction. They aren't all dropping him. Accenture is basically a bunch of dudes who travel around consulting other businesses, ie. filthy buggers who go from port to port. Cutting ties with Tiger might just be a large scale example of husbands showing their wives that they disapprove of his behavior to cover their own ass. Plus, they are still getting mileage out of the signage, and Tiger isn't going to be golfing for a while. And it was questionable how much value they had tied up in him to begin with. Those that will still benefit, like Nike, are sticking with him. And with advertising budgets being cut left and right, it's an easy mark.

OK, I don't know why this bothers me, but do you mean personnel or personal? You did this a lot over the last day or so, and I'm trying to distinguish what you mean. I haven't been posting for a day or so, but I meant personnel and I'm not sure why that wasn't obvious despite the spelling error.

Personally I don't see a point. I want him gone. But if you consider how well the defense worked when Rivera was the defensive coordinator, and the fact that Lovie wanted him replaced supposedly because he was less in love with the Tampa 2 than Lovie would prefer, I think you could make a case that a legit coordinator could make the Tampa 2 work with the Bears again by playing it much differently. There's 2 things I hate most about this defense. The Bears play the same exact thing regardless of their own personel shortcomings. Hunter Hillenmeyer is not Brian Urlacher but when he replaced him he was expected to play the exact same way. And their blitzing is pathetic. They just shove guys up the middle to run right into blockers, not getting pressure and leaving guys wide open in the secondary. A coordinator who actually coordinates, that means adapting to the players' strength, mixing up calls and adjusting during the game, could still work with Lovie as head coach. But in addition to a new defensive coordinator, they need somebody to tell Lovie when to challenge and more importantly, not challenge calls, when to use timeouts, and when to try and step on the throat of the opponent late in the 1st half instead of playing not to lose.

Because the last 4 years he's averaged an .800 OPS to go with 50 steals at 80+% and elite defense. Again, this is a corner outfielder we're talking about. Sure, he's better than Fukudome, but not nearly as great as he's been made out to be. We should expect more than an .800 OPS from a corner outfielder. The stolen bases and the defense make him extremely valuable. He was a 5 win player last year, that's about top 5 for all outfielders. Are people talking about Carl Crawford? He's already 28, and you are talking about signing him as a free agent after 2010? That will take something like a 6-8 year contract for a guy whose value is based on his legs and will spend that contract in his 30's. That's not very smart resource management.