jersey cubs fan

I like how he blames the Bears being a running team on their QB struggles. He obviously hasn't watched any Bears football this year. Isn't the point that they emphasize the run only and use the passing game as an afterthought? They went out and got a big time QB this offseason, but they still have an incompetent offensive coordinator who has been in the NFL and big ten college football for 2 decades and has yet to be involved in the development of a good QB. And they gave him no receivers. It's sort of like ignoring the offensive line for over half a decade, then spending one first rounder on a guy and pretending you've solved the problem. Lovie still talks about this team being a running team, even though that's a joke. They live in a bygone era where winning and losing is all about running the ball, when in fact passing has dominated this league for a very long time. Teams like New England don't even pretend to emphasize the run. Chicago still tries to act like they are a running team and are really only begrudgingly going all pass due to running incompetence. They need to embrace their passing ways. They need a real QB coach, a real offensive coordinator, a quality line and better weapons at receivers.

Prolly, but I much rather not trade Sharp. I think you might see guys Steeg, Skille, Kopecky, Buff, and perhaps even Barker all dealt to make sure the Hawks can keep Kane/Toews/Keith/Hossa and Sharp. But getting Campbell and/or Huet off the cap would go a long way to keeping the core together for a long time. (The latter is a long shot, I know, but one can dream.) Sure we'd all like to keep him. But as a guy making $4m+ the next couple years and one who is not among the core of the core players, I think he's expendable.

I think you are revealing why it's considered a bad job, more than defending it. Isn't the whole problem about everybody living in the past? How the coaches of the distant past are remembered doesn't really affect the status of the job right now.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4655239&name=lebrun_pierre duncan keith conspicuously absent Keith isn't a restricted free agent so they don't have as much incentive to resign him this early. Are you sure? I was under the impression all three would be RFA after this season.

Can't they keep Keith by dealing Sharp and/or Buff? Those are the higher paid guys I see as most likely to be dealt.

The Bears recently switched from suck to blow, but Philly swallows.

They have one more versus the Vikings.

That just isn't true. The worst thing you can do is ground into a double play. Just "putting the ball in play" is not an accomplishment in and of itself. Part of decreasing K is going to be becoming more aggressive early in the count, to avoid 2 strike situations, that means slapping at pitcher's pitches, and making his day a heck of a lot easier than if you were more patient, and more willing to risk the strikeout for the much greater reward than simply putting the ball in play.

That's not true at all. I don't get how anybody can think it is. If a person simply works on striking out less, it could easily result in even less production. The "just put the ball in play" philosophy probably results in the weakest performance a player can have. Really the heart of the issue is, how much power (and to a lesser extent, BABIP) would a player sacrifice to achieve a given improvement (reduction) in strikeout rate? For example if a guy could cut his strikeout rate in half while only diminishing his power by 5%, with no change in his BABIP, then he'd be crazy not to make that adjustment in his hitting approach. But if a guy would lose a lot of power and also some BABIP while only reducing K's by less than 10%, then it's a bad choice. And in the end, the tradeoff of K's for power and BABIP will be different for every player. But improvement in K rates guarantees you nothing, so what is the point in a productive player trying to change that aspect of his game? It's a flaw, but it's a flaw you can, and should live with. You can try and fix it, but you're risking too much for hopes of modest overall improvement. Doesn't make sense. If you can eliminate all strikeouts and go from a 850 OPS player to a 1050 player, great, but it's not going to happen and it's not worth trying.

This is a very conflicting set of sentences. You like, you don't like, it's not bad you are giving the game away.

They were moving the ball at will at that point and didn't have far to go. And your last sentence is exactly why I said it was cowardice. It was a cover your ass strategy instead of a try to win the freaking game strategy. He had plenty of time, and by forcing his QB to try and win it in OT (after the coach displayed a huge vote of no confidence in him late in the game) was just plain old stupid. at will? They had 2 drives in the 4th quarter. One ended in a TD, one ended in a pick. They had a KO return for a TD and ran out the clock at the very end. On that last possession, they had to go 40-45 yards to get into 50/50 territory. Murray is 5/10 on FGs over 40 yards this year. So 40-45 yards in 50 seconds to have a 50/50 shot at the winning FG v. chance your QB in his first start throws his 2nd pick in the 4th quarter or fumbles the ball, giving the opponent great field position to kick the winning FG. If you thought Iowa was moving the ball at will, why wouldn't you want OT? That's right, in OT they lost 15+ yards in 3 plays to knock themselves out of field position. They were not moving the ball at will. They were having mixed success, which is the best you can hope for with your backup QB. As for your comment about my last sentence as evidence of cowardice - that's ridiculous. Ferentz wasn't thinking about the fan reaction when he decided to run the clock out. He was thinking he had a better chance of winning the game in OT than risking a TO that would lose the game for him. It was conservative, but that's his nature and I think it's the right call in that situation. Well then you are both wrong. When you have your players line up in spread formation and then at the last second say "oh wait, I'm scared shitless about what you are going to do here even though it's really ease to move the ball in a short amount of time in college football, so everybody just stand there looking like idiots" you wreck your young QBs confidence and let the home favorites off the hook. You are the underdog, you go for the win.

The Cubs could really use a guy like Fielder. They'll probably extend Lee, but with no significant bats on the horizon in the minors, no impact LH bats, and Lee turning 35 in the final year of his deal, Fielder could actually be a great fit. Although it would never happen.

I guess this game should be discussed or something. Bears are 2 point underdogs. You have to believe McNabb and company will be able to move the ball through the air even without Westbrook around. The Philly defense isn't as good as its been in the past, in fact it's kind of similar to the Bears this year, slightly worse against the pass, slightly better against the run, the difference being that they are much better getting to the QB and taking the ball away. Playoff hopes are virtually gone, however, the wild card leaders in the nfc are all just 5-4, meaning a win here could actually keep the Bears in the discussion. We'll probably see another crap show by somebody, either the defense giving up 300 yards and 3 TDs in the air, or Cutler and Co. turning the ball over on command. I'm guessing they will emphasize throwing the ball out of bounds and that kind of stuff, which will just stifle the only effective part of the offense. I just hope it's not too embarrassing.

Speaking of big games for Ole Miss: http://deadspin.com/5405654/michael-hudec-idiot-now-idiot-tomorrow-idiot-forever

They were moving the ball at will at that point and didn't have far to go. And your last sentence is exactly why I said it was cowardice. It was a cover your ass strategy instead of a try to win the freaking game strategy. He had plenty of time, and by forcing his QB to try and win it in OT (after the coach displayed a huge vote of no confidence in him late in the game) was just plain old stupid.

That's not true at all. I don't get how anybody can think it is. If a person simply works on striking out less, it could easily result in even less production. The "just put the ball in play" philosophy probably results in the weakest performance a player can have.

Man, Kirk Ferentz displayed some serious Lovie Smith caliber cowardice this weekend.

Actually, the closer they get the fewer options they have to run. They were pressuring the QB with 4 guys leaving 7 defenders to cover a fairly tight field. He needed to just throw that out of bounds or very high where only Olsen could catch it.

That's dumb. Heh to each their own. I dont care if anyone wears 23 around the league, but it wouldnt be the 1st time the league has retired a certain number. I think this is also a way for Lebron to change to his favorite number, which hes hinted hes wanted to for awhile now. I thought the Gretzky thing was a slap in the face to Jackie Robinson. Oh this guy, integrated the sport, and was helpful to the civil rights movement! Yeah, well this guy scored a [expletive] ton of goals and made hockey popular in LA for 3 years!! Jackie Robinson integrated hockey?

Just because a team plays a guy against lefties doesn't mean he's not a platoon player. if you can only hit righties, you are a platoon guy. It helps that most pitchers are righties, so you are the more valuable part of a platoon, but you can't run a guy out there everyday if he absolutely cannot hit against the type of pitcher throwing that day. And since they already have a guy like that in Fukudome, it would be a big problem.

That's exactly part of the problem. I would say 2/3rds of his INTs this year have been a direct result of him trying to force something desperately trying to avoid a sack, or desperately trying to get a TD instead of settling for a FG in the Red Zone. He seems like a reasonably smart guy, but when the pressure is on and the ball is in his hands, he completely loses sight on perspective, and fails to assess the risk of his actions. He becomes intent on only one thing: don't get sacked. That is a bunch of moronic nonsense. The guy gets hit on nearly every play. Seriously, that is stupid. He has to scramble on nearly every play and they aren't even deep drop backs. Maybe he gets too focused on one thing, "make a big play", but "don't get sacked"? Afraid of contact? He's a risk-taker without any receivers capable of bailing him out or blockers capable of protecting him, not a pansy.

I just walked by David Stern on the street, much shorter and chubbier than I thought he was.

A potential franchise SS for a platoon CF is a bad idea. I'd include Vitters and just about anybody else though.

Everybody always freaks out about how this city is going to treat a player. I get the issue, but it's really not an issue. Cutler isn't some in over his head nobody trying to make it big. He's an established quarterback who recently signed a substantial extension and will be the QB. There is no QB battle. Even if people freak out about him, nobody is going to build up a lot of support for needing a new one. Even his most vocal critics admit the problems mostly lie elsewhere. Everybody thought the Bears were great except for Grossman, nobody thinks this Bears team is just an upgrade from Cutler away from domination.

This wasn't the NFC championship game for a team with one last chance to win it all. The 2009 season was virtually over before they even kicked off last night. What is there to forgive him for? The city isn't going to eat him alive and spit him out. People say that's what happened with Grossman but his problem was he wasn't particularly good. He had a handful of quality games on his resume, but nothing else. He didn't leave big drives on his own, and he was actually on this team the last time they had a quality offensive line. Cutler moved the offense all by himself last night. His jackass offensive coordinator decided to run two doomed to fail dive plays and a freaking play action pass when the defense knew they had to pass and yet they had no receivers on the field. Why was Kellen Davis featured so prominently last night and why was Olsen on the sideline on goal line? Sure the last pass was also bad, but again, every play during that drive he was scrambling for his life and/or dealing with his teammates drawing penalties that kept negating gains. He got knocked around all game but stayed on his feet and in the game. I hardly doubt the venom of the city is going to destroy him. If they ever put a decent team around him, they'll be good and he will flourish. Cutler has job security. Lovie and Angelo have some, but not nearly as much as Jay. They will be spat out long before Cutler is.