jersey cubs fan

Nonsense. They cannot "easily" lose to Detroit. Parity gets thrown around way too much. You've got 4 god awful teams out there, the Lions, Raiders, Chiefs and Bengals are putrid. Seattle is probably right there with them. You've got the Giants, Buffalo and Tennessse that are all practically coasting. A great team losing one game to a mediocre or worse team isn't a sign of parity, it's just one game of a short schedule. Unlike baseball, where almost everybody ends the season with a w% between .350-.650, you are going to have a much wider spread in the NFL, with multiple teams winning 75% of their games and potentially more than one team losing 85% of their games. There is a significant number of good but flawed teams, and the Bears three losses came to teams that fit that exact description. But that doesn't mean there's parity. There is a very real clear distinction between the bad, mediocre, good and great NFL teams.

Can we please stop saying that our 2007 regular season was good? Considering how bad the first 6-8 weeks of 2007 were, I think the 2007 was pretty good. Do those weeks not count? I'm not sure the original poster said the 2007 regular season was good, but I don't see why you can't call it that. If somebody said really good or great, that would be pushing it, but how isn't 85-77, with a pythag record of 87-75, and an NL ranking of 8 in runs scored and 2 in ERA not good? It was the 6th best record in the NL, which generally qualifies you for the playoffs in any US sport aside from baseball, and they did win their division. Clearly they were nothing special but it was a pretty good team.

OL defensive player (preferably a DE) WR In my mind are the top 3 needs. There is a lot of talent of high end OL talent that will be gone before the Bears pick and I'm afraid that Angelo won't go OL two straight years in the first round even though it's a deep position in the 2009 draft and the biggest need for the Bears. I'll be happy as long as they get an OL in one of the first two rounds. WR isn't that big of a deal to me. Hester should get better. Davis and Lloyd have shown flashes. Bennett should be better. Booker should be there to provide a veteran if needed. You can go out and get someone via FA, who has talent but has underachieved ala Lloyd. I agree with you. I'd like to see them keep adding guys, but I'm not concerned with getting one early.

Why would you think that? I think he's their #3-4 starter next year. Approaching arbitration and selling high?

He actually was practically run out of town. His performance in the 2003 postseason was a huge disappointment. I think he struck out like 2 dozen times and very rarely got on base, while at the same time the media perceived the reason for losing to Florida to come down to the difference of "real" leadoff hitters/top of the order hitters. I highly doubt they'd take him back.

While I believe he will be on the Cubs next year, I'm almost certain at some point in the future he will be in a different uniform. You can count on it.

The problem is that means you either cut Hanie after one year, cut the rookie you just drafted, or go with 4 QBs. I would much rather risk Hanie and a rookie backing up Orton in the short-term than get whatever mediocre improvement you'd have from running Kerry Collins or Gus Frerotte out there.

I believe it's "bandied about".

A weaker division? The NL Central was pretty clearly the best division in the NL this year. O.K., point taken...and what about the rest of the post? Don't forget, the Angels almost got swept too in the first round, and they were considered the best team in the AL hands down for most of the year. By some people, but many saw the Angels flaws. I think the Cubs were close to great, but not quite there because they were essentially a team with a lot of good players and few really bad ones. That made their lineup solid on most days and meant their pitchers kept them in games. But they didn't have any great individual performers and I think that's what keeps them from being a truly great team.

The biggest benefit would be to get out of Soriano's contract and the ability to sign a LF that could be just as if not more productive. I won't argue that Drew is better than Soriano. But Drew's contract is a better contract. The Cubs could use the savings to improve the line-up. But it would be throwing money away when Drew spends half the year on the DL. His games played the last 4 seasons have been 72, 140, 146, 109. If he could stay healthy, he'd be one of the premier players in the game. However, that's a big if. All that talent does you no good if it's sitting on the bench injured. How does this equate to Drew making Prior look like Ripkin? Drew is injury prone, clearly, but he's also productive and generally able to play significant chunks of every season. I'd love to see if Boston would deal him, he could be like the Rich Harden of the lineup. This team is good enough that they don't need him to play 155 games a year to win, if they could get 110-120 games out of him and having him healthy for the postseason, I'd be all for it. Perfect platoon opportunity for Reed Johnson. I don't see Boston taking Soriano at all.

Why don't you think that D-Lee would waive his NTC to go to Boston? He's whined about Cubs fans demands, I don't think he'd like Boston.

Yeah, I think there's a fairly significant difference between GB going to Tennessee, Jacksonville and New Orleans while the Bears face them at home. Hopefully that proves to be a 1 game swing in the Bears favor. I don't really think there's a huge difference between facing Houston home or away, especially late in the season when it won't mean anything to them. GB does face Detroit at home that weekend which should be a sure win, but if the Bears have a 1 game lead by then they should be able to lock in the divison with a win at the Texans. Right now I see the Bears winning the Detroit game, one of the Packers games, at the Rams and at Houston. They should be able to beat New Orleans at home, which would give them 9 wins. Then it's a matter of taking one of the tough AFC south home games, or the other Packers game or the next Minnesota game. 11 wins is still on the table, but I see them losing 3 more unless the defense completely turns it around.

If we take TE out of the equation, you're really only talking about Benson and Grossman then? And Grossman was a #22 pick...not much ahead of where Olsen was picked, though he is a QB... Yes, I'm basing this off Grossman and Benson primarily, I disagreed with both picks when they were made. But I still don't trust him on skill position players QB/WR/RB in general. And therefore I don't want him picking those positions in the first round, when busts are more painful because of cap implications. Even though 22 isn't much ahead of where Olsen was selected, 9 spots earlier is fairly significant when it comes to guaranteed money. Plus, a QB is an even bigger gamble because that one position so greatly affects the entire team. A QB at 22 is not all that comparable with a TE at 31.

He had a pretty decent second half yesterday (Orlovsky) The only concern I have with the Lions game is if they look past Detroit, which, with this team, is entirely possible. The bye week will help with health, but it may also cause them to start thinking about Tennessee. I think they can afford to go 1-1 the next two games, heading into GB with a 5-4 record, even though I would obviously prefer a 6-3 record and a guarantee of nothing less than a share of first place. The Packers play at Tenn and at Minnesota after this bye week.

Olsen and Forte in the last couple years. Jury is still out on Chris Williams. Maybe Angelo's getting better? I wouldn't trust Angelo to make the right decision on a first round skill position player, but I do trust him on the offensive line and finding talented offensive players after the first. Do you not consider TE a skill position? Or you think the Olsen pick was lucky? I don't really think of it as skill position, QB/RB/WR is what I'm talking about. I think he was lucky that Olsen fell to him. And I think of that spot in the draft (31) more like I think of 2nd round picks than top 15-20 type selections. At 31 you aren't tying up an insane amount bonus money into one guy and a bust doesn't hurt as much.

Olsen and Forte in the last couple years. Jury is still out on Chris Williams. Maybe Angelo's getting better? I wouldn't trust Angelo to make the right decision on a first round skill position player, but I do trust him on the offensive line and finding talented offensive players after the first.

With my living room out of commission for the first two months of the season I've been watching games at bars with fans of all sorts of teams. If there's one thing Americans can agree on, it's the enjoyment of seeing the oft-fellated Cowboys completely crap the bed.

What the heck happened in that game? It was a college matchup with no defense. I was very happy with the passing game, but nothing else was impressive. Both big special teams plays were strictly due to poor play by the Vikings, like really dumb stuff. At least they got their turnovers, but other than that the defense sucked, and it wasn't just 3rd string defensive back related.

I still think the Bears need to draft a QB in the 1st half of the 09 draft, though. Maybe not 1st or 2nd round like we all suspected, but definitely by the 3rd. Grossman will likely be gone, and Hanie isn't a legit #2. as far as drafting another qb to fill the backup spot, i think that's unwarranted. i don't want to have to depend upon a rookie in any way if orton goes down. there will be plenty of veterans available before next season. At this point I'd be leaning heavily on drafting offensive line in the first again, unless a defensive playmaker slips to them. I definitely want a QB drafted, they should draft one at least every other year, but I'd be fine with waiting until Day 2 (which I believe is now rounds 3-7). Grossman might be gone, but I'm not sure how much demand there will be for his services elsewhere, and the Bears seem to like him and want him around. He still might play at some point this year, showing his value as a backup. If he left, however, I wouldn't have a problem going Orton, Hanie, Rookie in the depth chart. I don't see the point in going after mediocre veterans. Let potential future starters serve as backups.

I don't know about plenty. Butler is probably not available. Laroche is nowhere near a lock to OBP .350, let alone a decent bet. And of course we already talked about Jacobs.

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5i1KetPkaXdScQi-4fOHUftctztjQ Why is the outrighting of a cubs farmhand who hails from the south suburbs from the iowa farm team to the iowa farm team scooped by canadian press? Because they aren't bogged down by presidential politics and so they have time for the important stories they did just have an election

You do know that despite the homeruns, Mike Jacobs is a pretty crappy player as evidence of his career .262/.318/.498. So no thank you on Jacobs. You do know that Jacobs through 4 seasons (at a younger age also) has better numbers than Lee had at that point. Jacobs career OPS+ is the same as what Lee posted last year and he is a player on the rise while D-Lee is beginning to show that his career is certainly in decline. Also, Jacobs doesn't GIDP nearly as much. We also need to get more left handed, he's a possible answer. He's got a career OBP of .318 and he turns 28 in less than 2 weeks. He is not "on the rise". When DLee was 25, 26 and 27 he had an OPS+ of 112, 131 and 131. Jacobs has been 106, 100 and 111. And I would say that Lee's 550 PA age 24 season was more impressive than Jacobs 112 PA season at the same age. He's a bad option, the Cubs can't afford to lock in decreased OBP at any position.

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Sam Rosen is doing the Bears game again, along with Tim Ryan.

I don't think a bad three games means the team folded under pressure, but that's just me. i think they choked, but that has more to do with HOW they lost than the fact that they lost. ryan dempster has a bad start? could just be bad luck or bad timing. but he walked more guys than he'd walked in any start since the '90s. struggling to throw strikes worse than you've struggled at any point in the last 10 years suggests to me that you're feeling the pressure and not responding well to it. same thing with game 2 - every infielder made an error, including an excellent fielder (lee), a good one (ramirez) and two guys who, while not great defensively, are pretty sure-handed (theriot, derosa). i don't know that it was what piniella did down the stretch, resting guys too much or whatever - i bet you can find lots of good teams that clinched early, gave their guys plenty of rest and then played very well in the playoffs. but i do suspect that piniella had something to do with the team being too tight and too high-strung to perform well in the playoffs. I agree I think weird things like Fukudome to the 2 hole were more questionable than resting people. He overdid the rest a bit too much for my liking, as I was really hoping they'd beat MIL and put the Mets in the wild card. But relievers pitching on Sunday, the starting pitchers being limited, guys not playing in the rain, I had no problem with that stuff and don't see how it could be blamed.

No Mariano Rivera, no Yankees, no Manny Ramirez and maybe even no Red Sox...........What will McCarver have to talk about? Each and everyone of those topics, at least once.