jersey cubs fan

done

Why choose? Game long decided by 10:30 or 11, show up fashionably late to the parties (which normally start around 10 here - I can't speak for other schools). Watch game at party? The only person I know that would ever have college football games on at Halloween parties is typing this post. I can't remember the last time I went to a party where there was zero access to watching a sporting event if one was on.

Why choose? Game long decided by 10:30 or 11, show up fashionably late to the parties (which normally start around 10 here - I can't speak for other schools). Watch game at party?

I thought Bruce eventually started to travel with the team. I could be mistaken, but I thought I saw his name attached to road stories. Then again, I guess he didn't have to travel to write some things up for the Daily Herald. My understanding is that he went to a couple late season "local" road trips, to STL and MIL, but not the longer trips to NY/PIT or SF.

Was your head spinning because it is so poorly written? I'm not sure what the revelation is supposed to be. A bunch of guys in the 70's and 80's also did steroids? Yeah, who didn't know that? Steroids were a huge story throughout the 80's and they were all over sports.

isn't he a current head coach? Yea in Houston. but in the final year of his contract, I believe? dunno, I've heard a few people talk about him I wanted him last time they had a coaching search. If he became available as an OC I'd jump at the chance. Not sure if that's likely or not. But head coaches going back to coordinator to rehabilitate their image seems to be a popular trend.

isn't he a current head coach?

The Bengals are good, but they aren't as good as they looked yesterday. A game like that doesn't happen without the other team bending over. i know. but i really do think the bears are good. i'm just amazed that the bengals beat them so easily while a few weeks ago they should have lost to the browns. That's the NFL, the talent level is relatively even, and it's a matter of matchups in any given game.

I think today's loss was just a bump in the road. They will be a .500 team at the end of the year and they are right there now. Lovie and his staff have had one of the best records since he started as head coach. And they have had far worse talent than the other teams around them. Is Lovie a great coach? No. But he has had one of the best records with just barely above average talent. I would like to see what he can do with good talent. This is absolutely false. The Bears had amazing defensive talent taylor-made for his beloved cover-2 from 2005 to about 2007 and he turned that into a choke job against Steve Smith, a Super Bowl run and a 7-9 season. They were easily the most talented defensive team in those years. The fallacy of a lack of talent on the Bears confuses me. This team was loaded during that run. They have been without a pro bowl QB, but they have had loads of talent available to them, and they have a pro bowl caliber QB now. They've had multiple talented RBs who have either gone on to have better success post-Bears (Jones/Benson) or fallen apart in year 2. They've had talented receivers who left and did just as good or better elsewhere (Muhsin was more productive the year before and year after his Bears tenure). Aside from QB, the one place they've lacked a lot of talent is on the offensive line, but they have spent a lot of money there.

As the 95,000th person to make that joke I think it's safe to say that no, it was not too soon.

In retrospect, does having the Herald keep you off the road, and thus away from the train wreck, this year look like a positive? Any word if things will be different in 2010? In recent years the Cubs seem to put an effort into maximizing fan interest by the time tickets go on sale in February, whether it's acquisitions actually made before then (Soriano/Bradley), or potential acquisitions that are talked about relatively openly (Maddux/Peavy). How do you see this year's offseason playing out in terms of what they use to get fans excited to buy tickets? A rumored big name acquisition? A guy who fits a specific need, perceived or otherwise (the Hendry special), like a leadoff guy or RBI guy. Or are we looking at a year where getting rid of Bradley and paying big for a name hitting coach prove to be the biggest moves they make?

I'm not coming to your side. I have not been a Lovie supporter. He's a bad gameday coach.

Tillman isn't an all pro, but he's perfectly fine. The problem with the Bears secondary is that the defensive line gets no rush and the constant barrage of ineffective blitzing linebackers leave guys on an island for far too long. He's the best they got and they will have him for the long haul.

If it's not Shanahan, it has to be somebody who is a real offensive mind. They need that and they have to realize that they need that.

Since this isn't baseball and there are so few trades, it doesn't really matter who the untouchables are. If you can find a better player, you cut the guy you have. That being said, I think the core is obviously Cutler, some combination of Hester/ Bennett/Knox, Briggs, Tillman, Brown and maybe Afalava. The new d-lineman might fit in there, but I don't think any offensive lineman has shown to be anything close to a core player for the long haul. Forte was overused in college and his rookie year and probably does not have a long shelf life, plus, RBs are too unreliable, unless you have a true elite threat.

Allowing myself to live the fantasy that Lovie is gone after this year, I don't think Shanny will be coming in. Thats' just a job threat to Angelo that I don't think he wants...which is understandable. Personally, I'd like to see Cowher in here, but there's no shortage of talented coaches on the market this offseason. Angelo is 9 years into his stay here and signed for what, 4 more? I don't see the need to feel a threat, and I'm guessing he's going to be willing to move on in the next few years anyway. Angelo has abandoned the draft and abandoned the defense above all else philosophy. He's spent big on a big time QB and has not received much of an early return on that investment. He needs an influx of offensive minds, and I bet he recognizes that. Angelo's best trait so far has been finding mid-draft talent to fill in on defense. He's sucked with RBs, he's sucked with WR (his best one was drafted as a KR/DB), he can't find an offensive lineman to save his life. He can't like seeing players he drafted find much greater success on other teams. Angelo has to think the offense is in need of a kick in the pants, and without a top notch defense, Lovie serves no purpose.

The Bears are 13.5 point favorites right now and that's ridiculous. I would not trust this team to cover a 5 point spread, let alone a two touchdown line. I don't care that Cleveland is a joke and might be the only team in the league that can't pass on the Bears at will. Chicago will find a way to keep the opponent in the game, that is what they do. I hate this team. I hate Lovie, I hate Turner, I hate Kreutz and the rest of the offensive line, I hate Ogunleye, Tommie Harris and everything else on that side of the ball. This is going to be a crappy way to work off a Halloween party hangover.

Well hot damn, this team sucks. What a joke. Both lines are terrible, they continue to send linebackers on blitzes that accomplish nothing. If they don't fix this thing this year, I really hope this is the end of the Lovie era. This team's entire record of success was a hugle level of talent on the defensive side of the ball. Now that those guys are older, slower, and/or gone, they are nothing but a big pile of mediocrity. If they can't manage a playoff appearance this year, Lovie and Ron really have to go. Bring in Shanahan, let him run everything offense, and have Angelo decide who will run the defense. Lovie's claim to fame is defense and having guys ready to play. He sucks on gameday. If the defense continues to lack and the guys aren't even ready to play, Lovie serves no purpose. He better turn thing this around quickly, and if not, they better get rid of him.

I think all but a select few coaching or managing are. but with lou it seems much more exaggerated. Like, your first at bat determines what he thinks of you.

or getting drunk and cheating with your wife Or getting drunk with power and using the mistress you're cheating on your wife with to help you cheat It would be hotter to have the mistress you're cheating on your wife with tempt your wife into cheating on you with her so that you can blame the divorce on the wife.

He's a huge first impression guy.

That can't possibly be true. That Bradley is better than most of the free agent outfielders? I'd say it probably is. Here they are: You said "far and away the best player available this offseason". Better than most free agent outfielders is a completely different statement. Far and away is probably exaggeration, but he is the best outfielder on the market - save for maybe Cameron. Holliday, Bay, Crawford. There's an argument for plenty of guys. And that doesn't even take into account other potential trade bait on the market.

I don't know what variables has to do with it. But Bradley has nothing to do with the 2009 struggles. He was a disappointment, but a pretty decent player and probably better that whatever they plan on replacing him with. So not only do they have to get some old banged up dudes healthy, hope they stay healthy, and hope that some declines were flukey, they would have to do all that and hope to offset the decline from what Bradley provided. Backtobanks, to clarify, you believe there is a very limited market for Bradley and the Cubs will likely have to resort to some combination of eating salary/accepting marginal return (a reasonable opinion that I happen to share), but you also believe they have to trade him? I'm not sure how you reconcile those two opinions. If the market isn't there, they don't have to trade him.

That can't possibly be true. That Bradley is better than most of the free agent outfielders? I'd say it probably is. Here they are: You said "far and away the best player available this offseason". Better than most free agent outfielders is a completely different statement.

Could just be: Cause a Cubs team is in danger of not drawing fans? A non-winning Cubs team definitely is. The recent string of sell-outs is no guarantee, and it has not been a very longterm trend. As recently as 1999/2000/2001 it was extremely easy to get tickets. In late 98 it started to get tough, but it wasn't like it's been recently. The "unprecedented" level of success coupled with the fans dying need to be there to see it happen led to tickets sales going through the roof, regular shmoes making real money selling their tickets on the open market and it all fed off of itself. But people took a bath this year. Tickets were going for well below face on stubhub, and there were loads of empty seats. The tickets were sold by the team (for the most part, there were tickets available for every late game directly from the cubs), but without bodies in the seats beer/food/merchandise sales did not happen. This started to happen in 2005/2006 after Wood/Prior fell apart, Sosa left and the team played like crap. They had to resort to a franchise busting contract for a huge name in Soriano to renew interest and guarantee sales. But if the Cubs remain stuck in mediocrity or fall back to the crap they were, ticket sales will decline, and the ratings will not be there. They need to be competitive to keep the money stream flowing.