jersey cubs fan

He can look, but will he find it? Shanny is kind of old, and he was fired from his last job. This isn't Holmgren leaving GB for Seattle in '98 on his own terms as a 50 year old. His team struggled toward the end and he was canned, and a lot of people have given up on the Coach/GM model. It doesn't tend to work.

I don't see it happening either. I'm guessing Lovie and Jerry get one last chance to make it work with a new OC next season.

Doesn't read like a guy who was sucker punched.

I believe Bolland was expected to miss as much as 4 months. With an early November surgery that would keep him out until March, which might give him a month to get back into playing shape before the playoffs. So, it reads as if he's effectively done for the season. Not to me. It's nearly a 7 month season with another 2 months of playoffs, and the Blackhawks should qualify. He could play 3 more months when he returns. That would mean he missed half the season. Done for the season means he's not playing until next year at the earliest, like Brian Urlacher.

Yeah, his age would be an incredibly unique value if he really becomes available.

Maybe that's a clash that can't work, but Angelo already conceded some personel power to Lovie after the Super Bowl, splitting some of those duties with a head coach is fairly normal, and when one guy has specialized in defense while the other has specialized with offense, it makes perfect sense. I don't see the clash. I doubt it happens for a variety of reasons, but I don't see why it can't work. As for cubbyviruses "ownership committed to winning comment" I don't even know what you are looking for? Words? Do you want a Rickets style press conference where they talk about winning? Are you looking for Jerry Jones style talk? Or maybe Snyder's bluster and reckless spending? The Bears owners committed serious money to many guys. They allowed the team to trade number 1 picks for a franchise QB and freed up money immediately to extend that guy. They've signed several expensive free agents and they haven't lost a single high quality player to free agency due to cheapness. They don't sign the biggest free agent fish out there, but that rarely works anyway. And they don't go after the biggest named coaches, but that's a hit or miss proposal at best anyway. They certainly don't spoil the fans, but their "cheapness" doesn't prevent the team from winning either. I am concerned that they won't make a move with the pending labor dispute on the horizon, but I wouldn't say they are any less committed to winning than any other owners out there. It's not really about ownership commitment. It's about football people making better football decisions and players playing well enough to win. This team has football issues, not ownership issues.

Seriously, try paying attention sometime. Who said be as good as DeRosa? How about be as good as he was in the past. Miles lost 100 points in both OBP and SLG off his career. But his career norms were already a downgrade from DeRosa's career, let alone his time in Chicago. They traded Mark DeRosa and signed his replacement, Aaron Miles, almost simultaneously. He was going to play a lot, likely 400+ PA if he was able to maintain his normal productio and stay healthy. He got hurt and he tanked, so they stopped playing him. But the plan was very obviously to have him be the new super sub guy. Just because you are wrong doesn't mean you have to be a jerk.

That's a really weird post. considering you are comparing him with guys who either already make more than $20m a year, or pre-free agency guys who are going to get huge contracts themselves. How do you propose the Cubs go about acquring these countless other options? There aren't countless options. There's a finite numbers of true impact bats, and the Cubs don't have them and they won't have access to them. I mean I can see not wanting to trade the farm for a guy, but you are acting as though the Cubs have the opportunity to acquire any number of similar players for far less, when they really won't. Maybe one or two will actually hit free agency, but then you're competing with deeper pocketed teams.

But that wasn't the plan. He was hurt and much worse than expected. He was going to play a lot more. Seriously, it's incredibly ridiculous to pretend Miles wasn't brought in to replace DeRosa. He was the super sub that could play OF, and multiple IF positions. He was given a 2 year multi million dollar contract. This team did all it could to not call-up Jake Fox when they needed help at 3rd. Guys like Fuld were not really in the plan. Miles was slated as a guy who was going to play a lot, but he sucked so much worse than they expected that he did not. If he was just mediocre he would have had 400+ easily.

Yeah, I assume the only way Shanahan comes in is if Angelo is gone to. I'd be beyond shocked if that happened. Is this because people assume Shanahan will be his own GM? Didn't he lose GM privileges in Denver? I really don't think there's a strong trend toward letting a new coach come in and be the coach/GM. Is there a coach in the league with that set-up right now? The closest maybe Belichek now that Pioli left, but it's very rare. Everybody's favorite spokesperson for that model, Parcells, isn't even in that situation as he's the head football guy, with a GM working under him and a seperate head coach.

Since nobody else is making the new threads, I'll keep doing it. It's come to this, Bears are 10.5 point underdogs to the Vikings. You can make an argument that the Bears should have won that game against the Eagles, and maybe even by 10 points, given all the sure touchdowns Cutler missed. Maybe Vegas knows them well be now. Chicago has lost 2 in a row by 4 points, and both games they were 3-3.5 point underdogs. The perception has been the Bears are getting their butts kicked, and while that has been true in 2 of their games, for the most part they've been in the other 4 losses, and maybe should have really won a couple of them. I had predicted a series split with the Vikings, losing in the dome. So there's no reason to change that now. The Vikings should really handle the Bears with ease, Maybe they'll get some turnovers, and stay in it early, but I doubt it. The 7th loss should end any and all hopes of making the playoffs, as there are 4 teams ahead of them on the WC hunt, and three of them have 6 wins already. You have to think it will take 10 wins to qualify. It looks to me like the Bears might only have 2 games remaining where they will be the favorites, possibly a 3rd depending on how they and GB do the next two weeks. Go Blackhawks.

Why? It's exactly what they did. They traded one guy then signed his replacement for a little less money. Just because Miles bombed so horrifically bad that they didn't use him as much as planned doesn't mean he was not the replacement for DeRosa. That's what he was and it's idioitic to pretend otherwise. Jake Fox wasn't even in the Effing picture when they made that move.

Cowher might be the least enticing big name out there. The Bears need a true offensive mind and I have serious doubts about Cowher bringing in somebody like that. He's just a hothead defense first guy with questionable game day decision making in his past. So, he's a more intense Lovie.

I believe Bolland was expected to miss as much as 4 months. With an early November surgery that would keep him out until March, which might give him a month to get back into playing shape before the playoffs.

Any team that wears black tops with black pants automatically sucks. No sir. Black on Black is great, especially since the black tops and bottoms both have a lot of yellow and gold in them as well. Now, the Saints all black unis are ugly because they are all black except the little French emblem thing (whatever it's called) and the numbers. It would be hideous if the helmets were black. fleur de lis. Whatever you desire

I don't know what he projected as, but he had 15 HR, and 67 XBH in his first two years compared to 6 and 51 for Starlin, so he was already more powerful.

They get it because they put the effort into doing it, no? It doesn't really bother me. Watching all three games uninterrupted is basically impossible and when Thanksgiving is at the in-laws, far less acceptable than at my family's. So the Lions game provides a decent opportunity to turn away from the TV and talk to people, which in turn makes you look like such a great guy to forego some of your precious football time for things like family. Also, it's great for napping.

I do this all the time, leave your bags at the hotel. Most of them have that option, either with the bellhops or somewhere else. Your night game plan requires a 2-night stay anyway. You can do the day game with a 1 night stay, or just as easily add a 2nd night after the game. And really, what do you think those extra eyeballs are going to do for Northwestern? It's great to get the exposure of a bowl game, but outside the difference of a weedeater bowl vs the rose bowl, I really don't see any advantage to being on one with a slightly larger audience. It can only be a negligible advantage. I really think you're making a mistake by glossing over the "stuck in Orlando" factor. That town sucks.

Assuming all they do this offseason is change the offensive coordinator, would Mariucci be a good candidate for the job? His history is with QBs and the offense. He's a retread head coach and was passed over for a couple college jobs I think. I think he'd take the job if given a big deal, would he be good?

I'm not sure what a couple more million eyeballs are going to do for Northwestern. And for travel, why wouldn't you just go down new years eve day and leave after the game? If you can't stay long, the night game isn't any better for getting in and out. Plus, there is nothing to enjoy in Orlando, it sucks.

The problem with the move was replacing DeRosa with Aaron Miles. I'm really excited about Archer* *the television show that begins in January on FX, don't really know much about the pitcher.

What is it about an early game that makes you think it's worse for travelling? I'd take the Outback bowl without question. I much prefer Tampa to Orlando, I'd rather go down there, enjoy new years with the added anticipation of a big game the next morning, plus leaving you the rest of the day after it ends to do as you please. Day football is more enjoyable than night games. As a TV viewer I love waking up and turning on that first game early sitting on the couch.

is that even really a debate? To the lay fan, PSU is leaps and bounds more well known of a program than Iowa. Yes it is debatable. There was an article last week debunking some of that. Basically Penn State's bowl games recently haven't been any higher than that bowl has averaged. Iowa has had some games with really high tv ratings this year. The IU game was the 2nd highest rated 11 a.m. start ever on ESPN. Iowa/OSU was rated higher than PSU/OSU. The Iowa/Texas Alamo Bowl in '06 was the highest rated bowl game ever on ESPN. Yeah, Iowa is at least the equal to PSU on the butts in seat/tv ratings angle.

thank god for the Blackhawks

Naive? What you are saying is really stupid. Guys follow the money. They don't go to where they can be the #2 instead of the #5. They all freaking pitch. Number 5 pitcher isn't a position, neither is ace. They are all just starting pitchers. Pedro barely pitched last year. He's not going to be a regular in anybody's rotation this year.