jersey cubs fan

What is: A clock is always right two times a day? I'm guessing he was referring to the typo in the title.

I don't see how you can say they've played mediocre. The defense has, but the offense has been solid. I think they've played very much like a 5-3 team, better than most, but not great.

They'd be much better off keeping one or two extra guys in to block and sending a couple guys deep than going with the quick routes option. And no, Turner isn't going to have Rex roll out. I don't get the over the top criticism that Turner takes. He's not horrible. He disappointed me last year, but he's done a tremendous job this season getting a productive unit out of what everybody considered weak QB, WR and line situations and questionable RB.

Damn park district and their soccer games! :x what soccer games are playing in Soldier Field nowadays? The Fire used to ruin the field, but they are gone.

what was up with that turf? It was embarrassing.

Tennessee is currently a 3 point favorite. Two things the Bears have going for them, they are the more desperate team and Tennessee really doesn't know exactly what they must game plan for from the Grossman led Bears offense. There's a school of thought that the team that needs a game more is the team that's going to win. It doesn't really hold up when there are huge disaparities in talent, but Tennessee is not a 2007 New England juggernaut. The worst part for the Bears, ironically, might be that they are playing at home, with fans who boo loudly whenever Grossman throws an incompletion. With Orton behind center I think the Bears keep it close and may have snuck away with a win. With Grossman back, there's a greater chance of a blowout, but there's also some hope that Rex can beat them by throwing deep. Checking down and being conservative with the pass isn't going to work. They need to test Tennessee down the field and go for a few big plays. Turner has done a very good job this year, now he's got to step it up even more and figure a way to get Grossman ready to air it out.

Well my understanding is that in the Cover 2, as in all zone defenses, there are holes to exploit. One of the big keys is a pass rush to hurry the QB so that he cannot find those holes. If theres no pass rush, the QB has tons of time to throw and find a receiver. Thanks, after posting the question I thought perhaps, its success is predicated on a pass rush. Given the Bears haven't had a consistent pass rush all season, it seems counter-productive that the Bears would continue to utilize such a scheme. Wouldn't a non-zone scheme which takes away the holes and gives the DL time to get the QB be a better choice for the Bears? The cover 2 is essentially a bend but don't break defense. You don't give up big plays, so you force the offense to make several good short plays in order to succeed. It's also heavily reliant on turnovers. Basically, you don't really care if the opposition hits 7 yard pass plays. Non-zone means man-to-man, which relies on defensive backs covering guys one on one all over the field, and the Bears do not have the personel to handle that type of scheme. It would be nice if they'd stop blitzing all the time because they have clearly gone back to their old ways, running the blitzer, usually Briggs, right into the chest of blockers and getting no extra pressure.

I want to see more than 7 games. This is around the time of 2006 when Rex started falling apart at the seams. Let's see if Ort can hold it together. It makes perfect sense to be hesitant to fall for Orton, but his 2008 has not really been comparable to Rex's 2006. In 2006 Rex was beating teams by dropping back unencumbered and tossing deep balls to Berrian. He also crapped the bed bigtime in week 6. Orton hasn't come close to showing signs of that type of game, which Grossman repeated 2 games later. He's consistently been a 60% completion guy. There's no way of knowing if he'll be a good QB going forward (and it was absurd that Haugh and others talked about the need to lock him up ASAP), but Orton is nothing like Rex Grossman.

I don't. At all. Rex still may have more ability, but Kyle has become the better QB. No kidding. Maybe it's because I never wanted him drafted, but it wasn't that hard for me to get over the Rex era coming to a close. Same thing with Benson.

Absolutely. Anderson is only a couple years younger. And while people focus, justly, on his horrible lack of OBP, he can't hit for power either. He hasn't crossed the 20 HR threshold since 2003. He's less of a hitter than Mike Fontenot.

You should have reflected your second statement in your first. It's more accurate to say that Hendry strayed from his roots with regards to OBP because of Dusty, and has since returned to center and even moved right with Lou. But it's not like Hendry as baseball person was oblivious to OBP pre-Lou. His biggest mistake was starting his GM career with Dusty. Every indication was he was as oblivious as a GM could be to the value of OBP. He talked of hitting not walking, and scoffed at media questions regarding OBP. Throughout his time in the minors, the Cubs completely ignored patience as a virtue with hitters, it was 100% about tools with no focus on approach and actual production. And Garrett Anderson would be the dumbest of the dumb moves. I don't think it will happen.

It's a hand though, isn't it? I could see the point in easing him back if he had a hammy or other leg issue, but with the hand, he's either ready to go or he's not.

Agreed. Marmol is not going to be part of a major package, Marmol would be the featured piece. Fans know him, the league knows him. He's marketable, and quite valuable. I'd give him up in a Peavy deal, but would not throw in a bunch of other pieces.

http://www.the506.com/nflmaps/2008-09-FOX1.html Guess who is doing the Bears game, again. Rosen and Ryan.

Actually, I've noticed a heck of a lot less whining than I expected to hear when the delays first started to become inevitable. Maybe it's because so few people are interested, but most people have taken the "there's nothing you can do" angle, and despite thinking Selig looks dumb, agree that he made the right decision.

Just asking, because I haven't looked, how much of that( Abreu's OPS) came against crappy Cubs pitching. Lighting it up at Wrigley doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. He could have built up great stats against some really bad to average staff's in the late 90's and early 00's. Using a players numbers at Wrigley is an absurd reason to justify going after him, especially if that player is 35 and has been playing in the AL for 2.5 years. Abreu is a nice bat, nothing special anymore, but pretty good. He'd probably help the Cubs vault from 14th in the NL in RF OPS to something closer to the top 5. But his 1129 lifetime OPS at Wrigley is absolutely meaningless and he won't come close to duplicating that if he comes to the Cubs.

I'd rather have Cabs.

We could argue about this all day, but here's my view. You get two points for a win and zero points for a loss. So what do you call it when you get one point? I'll call it a tie. If you're 3-3-3, you're exactly .500. You're right, we could argue about this all day. But my point is, I don't call any scenario where one team gets 1 point, and the other team gets 2 points a tie. It's not an outright loss, but its worse than a tie, especially in any game against a Western Conference opponent. Either way, we've emerged victorious in 3 of our 9 games, which is not a good pace. I agree that it's not a good pace. And I wasn't really calling it a tie vis a vis the team they just played, but in terms of the standings and distribution of points. Yesterday I was going to say that despite the relatively hot recovery off the slow start, they were still not in a good spot, but then I noticed the standings and they were actually the 7 seed. And it wasn't just about playing more games either. However, they've just fallen back out of the race as the 9th seed, due to too many points coming off OTL rather than wins. They definitely need to pick up the pace this coming month. Teams that go .500 don't make the playoffs anymore, you have to be much better than the 3-3-3 pace the Hawks are on. That 82 point pace isn't going to come close to getting it done, it's closer to top of the draft than playoff territory.

Seriously. Shootouts happen so infrequently, that theres gotta be no correlation between attendance/ratings and shootouts. Unless the general public can't stand hockey because of the potential for ties. I guess that's possible. I would imagine they put the shootout in because casual fans (i.e. non hockey-watchers) said "I hate the ties!" alot. But I'm not sure. But then how do you figure out if it's actually working? I guess that's why some people have degrees in Marketing, and I don't. Isn't the 'breakaway/penalty shot/1-on-1' widely considered one of the most exciting plays in sports? I would think the NHL instituted the shootout because it adds more of their 'premier' most exciting play. If a 'casual' sports fan is flipping channels he/she will likely stop to watch the shootout because it lasts a couple of minutes and decides the outcome of the game. The NFL and the NBA have both installed rules that allow for more offense. People like to see dunks, touchdowns, homers, and goals. I don't want to come off like a hockey expert because I'm definitely not, but to me the shootout is nothing like a breakaway goal during the game. If I had to choose a football analogy, it would be like taking everyone off the field except for the QB & WR and maybe 2 DBs, then having them throw bombs from the 50 yard line. Sure it would be fun as a distraction for a little while, but as the final deciding factor of the game? I guess what I'm saying is I can see why people who love hockey don't like this. Except shootout style plays occur in regular games as the result of some penalties. Plus, while the end of baseball, football or basketball games you either win or lose and it's done, the end of a shootout results in one team getting 2 points while the other gets 1. Winning the shootout gives you a little bonus, while losing the shootout doesn't really hurt you in the standings. I don't think there's a perfect answer to this situation, and I don't really see the point in getting worked up over shoot outs. Ties are messy, never ending playoff styles overtimes are unreasonable for the regular season.

They did just draft a college closer who probably has very little chance of succeeding in the starting rotation. Cashner could provide a significant amount of bullpen help if Marmol is dealt. Not to mention there are some decent relief options out there in free agency. I don't see Cashner breaking with the team in Spring Training, but he definitely could be a September callup next season if the Cubs keep him as a reliever. Yeah, I love Marmol, but I'd give him up for an elite pitcher or hitter. Peavy is an elite pitcher. I can't think of any logical deal I'd make that trades away Geovany Soto. Yeah, you'd have to acquire a guy that gives you such an improvement over what you have that it would completely offset the obvious downgrade you'd get from losing Soto and going with what is likely to be crappy catching production. I just don't see how that could work.

They did just draft a college closer who probably has very little chance of succeeding in the starting rotation. Cashner could provide a significant amount of bullpen help if Marmol is dealt.

The Bears are listed as 12.5 point favorites. Detroit was a 7.5 point dog and lost by 8 at home yesterday.

I think you may be overstating Wood's (or any player's) affect off the baseball field on the team's performance. What teams did you play for in the majors? I'm assuming you disagree with him and therefore I ask you what teams you played for I've never played in the major leagues. That's why I find it so difficult to judge whether a player's leadership/personality off the field has little to no effect on team performance. So you disagree with both 5412 and Wade? I don't disagree that Wood is a leader of the team. Numerous players have said as much. I do disagree with any definitive statements regarding how much of an impact his leadership/any player's leadership will have on how a team performs if you've never been in that environment before. We just don't know. Well, one guy said "devestating effect" while the other said "I think you might be overstating".

I read a columnist type suggest it, I haven't read anybody saying it will happen. I don't think it'll work. It's fine for Miami when they are using one of their 2 RBs, but Hester is a little receiver, he's not going to be able to do the same things.

I think you may be overstating Wood's (or any player's) affect off the baseball field on the team's performance. What teams did you play for in the majors? I'm assuming you disagree with him and therefore I ask you what teams you played for I've never played in the major leagues. That's why I find it so difficult to judge whether a player's leadership/personality off the field has little to no effect on team performance. So you disagree with both 5412 and Wade?