jersey cubs fan

Trent Dilfer did not get all the credit when things went well in Baltimore, in fact, he barely got any. I think Romo is a good example here, he gets fellated by the media when Dallas wins, and when they lose, he gets criticized up the wazzoo. During the 2000 season Dilfer was getting quite a bit of love, it seemed. Even now, the "game manager" QB type is attributed to him and people talk about it like it's something for a quarterback to strive toward. I agree with Testaverde and Romo, though. Those two are definitely better examples than Dilfer. If Cutler puts up very good numbers in Chicago, I think he'll be judged a bit less harshly by many fans, but the "he can't win" tags and the like will be placed on him, much like they were on Peyton until he finally won a Super Bowl. Dilfer was credited with being a game manager and that is all. He did not receive "all the credit". Nobody gives him "all the credit". He is barely given any credit at all. Everybody gives the credit, rightfully, to the defense. The whole concept of the game manager is that you are taking the power out of the QB to win or lose, and nobody talks about striving toward being Trent Dilfer. People only use him as an example of how it is possible to win with a QB who doesn't do much of anything.

That's the downside of being a quarterback. Right or wrong, the QB gets all the credit when things go well (think Trent Dilfer on the 2000 Ravens) or all the blame when things don't go well. Trent Dilfer did not get all the credit when things went well in Baltimore, in fact, he barely got any. I think Romo is a good example here, he gets fellated by the media when Dallas wins, and when they lose, he gets criticized up the wazzoo. On the other hand, somebody like Vinny Testeverde, who was okay as a Jet, but nothing special, is beloved there. Then, Chad Pennington was absolutely worshipped up until he started winning 10 games a year, then everybody nitpicked his shortcomings and eventually hated his guts. Very weird. I think fan bases, including the Bears, take circumstances into account with how they treat the QB. Rex Grossman won a lot in Chicago, but he was dismissed by most fans because he played far too poorly, far too often, even in wins. Kyle Orton was accepted, because he was pretty simple and less error prone. There wasn't much passion in either way with him, people who did not like him didn't hate him like they hated Grossman, and people who liked him didn't like them as much as those who likely Grossman. Cutler will be fine in Chicago as long as he plays well personally. There will be fans that will complain no matter what. There will be those who will want him dead if he fails to win a SB. But Cutler is probably going to play fairly well. If the team fails it will be because the defense failed to slow the decline and the WR were non existent. He won't get unfairly blamed for losses, unless he himself plays poorly.

When you think about baseball, you think a player is going to hit no matter where he goes. It's just a one on one matchup. And whether he's a Cub facing the Astros or a Red facing the Astros, the results are going to be the same, over time. That's assuming he doesn't have a manager pressuring him to sac bunt or swing early and often. But football is on the exact opposite end of that spectrum. A WR's production depends on the team he's on. It depends on his teammates.

I'm no Mort fan, and these early summer practices don't really tell you much, but this is what I'm expecting out of the receivers. I've had my differences with Angelo's decisions, but he's absolutely right when he talks about it starting with the QB. Everybody loves Brandon Marshall, but he was a 4th rounder. You think Brandon Marshall would be Brandon Marshall if he was drafted in the 4th round by the Bears in 2006? I sure don't. Do you think Eddie Royal comes close to the rookie season he had if he's playing for the Bears last year? A QB absolutely can make a WR. I know for a fact Royal wouldn't have had the season he had for any other team in the NFL, especially not the Bears. But Brandon Marshall is one of the top 5 WRs in the league. You can't tell me one of the best WRs in the league is only great because of his QB/system. That's like saying Emmitt wouldn't have been a HOF without the great line. Rice wouldn't have been the best ever w/o Montana, Young, Walsh. Talent is talent. Great players are great at all times in all systems. I'm not saying Brandon Marshall is "great" yet, but with 206 catches and 2600 yards in his only 2 years as a starter (and the first one was Cutler's 1st year as a starter)....I'd say he's on his way. I guarantee you he would not be considered a top 5 WR in the league if he was drafted by the Bears. No way, no how. Receivers depend heavily on the system/qb. They come out of nowhere and have success. I think a RB can do a lot more on his own than a WR, absolutely. But yeah, Emmitt wouldn't have been the same RB with a lesser line. He might be HOF still, but all-time leading rusher? Rice is an all-timer, there are exceptions, like Moss. I'm not saying Marshall would suck elsewhere, but the guy was a 4th rounder who owes a great deal of his success to the system he was in and great QB that threw to him. There's no way he would be considered the same player he is now considered had he been drafted by the Bears and played with Grossman, Griese and Orton. No way.

I love the phrase "(name your sport) activity".

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/prospect-hot-sheet/2009/268290.html That's impressive? That was a typo. Obviously if he's walking in 15.5 percent of his plate appearances his OBP wouldn't be that close to his average. His current line is .284/.400/.483 That's impressive You stole my line.

From Olney's blog: Seems to support the notion that Pittsburgh may not have gotten as much as they could have gotten for the guy.

Wouldn't batting order just indicate what preconceived notions the manager has about the player?

But I like Good Times.

I'm no Mort fan, and these early summer practices don't really tell you much, but this is what I'm expecting out of the receivers. I've had my differences with Angelo's decisions, but he's absolutely right when he talks about it starting with the QB. Everybody loves Brandon Marshall, but he was a 4th rounder. You think Brandon Marshall would be Brandon Marshall if he was drafted in the 4th round by the Bears in 2006? I sure don't. Do you think Eddie Royal comes close to the rookie season he had if he's playing for the Bears last year? A QB absolutely can make a WR.

In the Bears system the difference between strong and free isn't all that important.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/prospect-hot-sheet/2009/268290.html That's impressive?

anything of interest? I had to step away, I think this is the video. http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1143079343&play=1

I almost did as well, specifically the comment that Chicago is somehow a bigger sports city than NY.

If I had to guess, I'd say he's a month away from a rehab assignment. But, even if he does come back, the fact that he will likely need surgery after the season suggests to me that he's going to be well below 100% the rest of the way. I just don't see him having the same offensive impact when he returns.

Jim Hendry is not of average build.

Ricketts is supposedly going to be on CNBC in a few minutes.

What don't you get? It makes sense to me. At least indicates that it is definite that he spends a month more on the disabled list and then a possibility for more. The may be indicates that it might not be so definite. They don't really belong together in the same sentence. However, it really isn't a big deal. The meaning was still pretty clear from the sentence. It's an injury, and a month is a long time. There's no way of knowing. May be suggests that is the case, and at least suggests it could be longer. Will be out for at least a month is inaccurate since it's possible it will be sooner. May be out another month is inaccurate since it's possible it will be longer. May be out at least another month makes perfect sense to anybody that isn't trying to make things more difficult than they need to be.

What don't you get? It makes sense to me.

Olympic athletes who are caught using PEDs are typically stripped of their clothing, hauled out back by a haz-mat team, and tossed in the dumpster of life without a second thought. I agree football players get off light though. I think the key word is care though, because nobody cares about Olympic sports.

What do you mean soon? He signed the deal 2 years ago. It expires in 2.5 years and yet he will still be Cubs property at that point, without the benefit of any sort of NTC. I don't know why people are pretending the NTC was the main thing. The main thing was the money. They paid him an absurd amount to stay away from football. Why are people pretending this guy would never consider playing for another organization? NTC are routinely waived. The Cubs were asking the guy to give up on his 2 sport hopes, and in exchange he took a lot of money and the right to deny a trade. He's been in the system 4 years now, but he's only got a couple months of major league service time. I cannot for the life of me believe he would turn down the option to pitch in a major league park just so he can "play close to home" even though Des Moines Iowa is nowwhere near Valparaiso.

It was very clear he expected to win a starting role this year when the 5th job was open. And when it became clear he wasn't he was quoted as saying he just wants to make the major league team. What do you mean "must plan to use it often"? That wasn't the only way. It was part of an obscenely large contract. And it is now an asset he can use. He could stick with the Cubs until his contract expires and no longer have any sort of no-trade protection while still being under team control, but what's the point of that? Service time is also a valuable thing, and if he can get more major league service time by accepting a trade, that would be wise. I don't understand why a NTC always tells Cubs fans that a player only wants to play in Chicago and will never accept a trade. Guys waive their NTC. They like them because it provides them a bargaining chip and protection from going to an unsatisfactory location.

I assume you mean it would be difficult for the Cubs to accept dealing him rather than difficult to find somebody who might take him.

I don't get how people come to this conclusion. He said that when he was drafted and signed the big deal. But he made it quite clear this spring that his goal was to be pitching in the majors. And with the Cubs he's got very little chance to be pitching in the majors anytime soon. The last comments I saw from him indicated he would not waive the NTC under any circumstance. I can't find it right now, but I'm pretty sure he reiterated that this past offseason, but I'm not certain. But what is the value of such comments? First, they occured in the postseason, when he was preparing for and quite likely expecting to be a part of the Cubs rotation. Second, what else is he going to say? Yeah, I have a no-trade clause (a valuable bargaining chip for any player) but I'll waive it the first time they ask me. Saying he's pretty adamant about playing near home suggests he regularly says he will not accept a trade to any other team. A realistic scenario has never really presented itself, especially not since he was moved off the major league roster and passed up for promotion by another guy. The day he rejects a trade that would place him on another team's major league roster instead of Iowa is the day I will believe he is adamant about playing near home.

Yes, his slow start was a surprise. Anyone who says they knew he would underperform is a [expletive] liar. What he has shown throughout his career is that when he's not missing time is that he produces at the plate. Everyone knew he'd likely miss significant time this season...what nobody knew was that he'd start so slowly. He also has not been "worthless" the entire stretch of the season so far, but why let reality get in the way of another Jim Hendry fat joke? Not really.