jersey cubs fan

Okay, earlier in his tenure, but what does that have to do with the team that is out there now?

In what way shape or form is Weis paying for Ty's laziness right now? The team is all him. He lost the Ty excuses a couple years ago, or at least he should have. The Weis as Bears OC idea isn't a bad one, but it's kind of interesting to note New England has enjoyed much greater offensive success since he left, and Brady's best years have been without him. He'd still almost be a huge upgrade just by default. Although I wonder if he'd be willing to go from major college head coach back to an NFL coordinator with no time off. I feel like he'd rather sit back and enjoy his money for a year while looking for another top job. Although I wouldn't object at all if Chicago offered him a ton of dough to help them. Although if he is dumped by ND it is going to be in part due to negative perception in the Chicago area and I'd bet the Bears would view that as a knock against bringing him in to be the olive branch to fans looking for change.

The Cubs have been more "black" than them, with Lee, Hawkins, Jones, Pierre, Bradley, Floyd the Patterson brothers and a handful of utility guys in recent years.

I think toonsterwu gave the best reasoning on this in our chat. Basically, Rhee's ranking was comparable to a draft pick/ceiling nod. When healthy, Rhee has phenomenal stuff and the right mindset/grasp for being a top-flight pitcher. He's shown flashes of that in his rehab. If he starts next season at 100%, he'd be a Top 5 prospect in this system. Whether he reaches that remains to be seen. I'm down a bit too much on LeMahieu and Watkins power-wise to rank them much higher than where I've had them. For me, using the "which would I rather trade" method of ranking prospects, it seems hard to put Flaherty or LeMahieu in the top 10. I know I would be much more upset if we lost Burke or Archer in trade than either of those guys. I agree with that.

ha ha i thought the same thing. I think it has to do with Ozzie and how he continues to bring in Latino players to the white sox. Ozzie doesn't make personel decisions, and I wouldn't even consider the White Sox all that Latino of a team. I feel like they are one of the whitest teams out there, with AJ, Konerko, Pods, Kotsay, Beckham, Getz, Nix, formerly Thome and Anderson, and then most of the pitchers. And Ozzie has been there a really long time now.

Is it possible that the previous GM signed Hossa to replace Kane? This may be a reason he was shown the door because the marketing guy that is president of the team wanted to keep Kane. I doubt Tallon's goal was to replace Kane with Hossa. He was probably replacing Havlat and Sharp if anything. Tallon's biggest bright spot on his resume up to that point was probably Kane, and he practically hung his hat on making the right decision in that draft. If Hossa over Kane was the motivation, and the reason he was shown the door, they would have just nixed the signing before it happened. I think the Campbell/Huet signings were the big ones, and his inability to move Huet last year finished him off.

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.) No one is taking Campbell or Huet, so that discussion is out of the question. The Hawks are going to have to let Sharp or Buff go anyway, that still isnt going to be enough to keep Keith, Kane and Toews. This is why I think the better move is to keep Keith. Hockey is a 4 line game, being too top heavy will hurt the Hawks in the long run. Especially if their defense is weakened by losing Keith. I also think Kane is a little over rated. He is a good scorer but the rest of his game is average at best. From what I've seen this year Kane has stepped up his all-around game quite a bit, and is not nearly the one dimensional cherry picking scorer people claimed he was. He's still very young and can improve. And I wouldn't count out somebody taking Huet. He's not close to the highest paid goalie, and this isn't a Campbell situation. He's only got 2 years left on his deal after this season, and aside from a slow start to this season, he's been a fairly good goalie. I'm also not sure what you mean when you say they have to let Sharp or Buff go anyway and that isn't going to help. They are signed through 2012 and 2011, respectively, and combine to account for over $7m in cap space next season alone. If you can deal both of them and get back a cheap role player, that is more than enough to fit in Keith.

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.