jersey cubs fan

What sort of weather are you expecting Ike to create in Tampa on Sunday?

At the expense of what else though? There's no real downside.

The forecasts I've seen are now saying it should be going well south of Houston.

DVR the game, watch it in 20 minutes.

41-year old swimmers don't know anything about baseball.

But looking at the schedule, did they look like a better team than Minnesota, Green Bay, Philadelphia, Tennessee, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Tampa or Detroit? Detroit was a better team last year, and New Orleans was looking to be much improved. The Bears didn't look much like an improved team. All those 8 teams? Those were the home games. The only real winnable games looked to be the ones vs. Detroit, and the games at Atlanta and St. Louis. Sure, the possibility existed of stealing wins against unprepared teams, but 7 wins against that slate was asking a bit much, I think. Considering the offseason, preseason, and line issues, they looked to be one of the 4-5 worst teams in the NFC, and the rest played in the NFC West. Now? If they play like they did Sunday all year, they could sneak into the upper half of the NFC with Dallas, Philly, New York, Green Bay, Minnesota, and whoever the best team in the NFC South decides to be (NO/Carolina/Tampa). I was really down on the team, but still didn't see the 4-5 wins as likely. When Vegas had them at 8 wins, I was taking the under no question. When it moved to 6.5, it was really hard to take the under. This team is no worse than the one that won 7 games last year. And they have every single important player that played on the 2006 team. Last year's defensive letdown was clearly health related. As for that schedule, Detroit was not better. Detroit beat them, but the Bears beat GB twice and they weren't better than the Packers. New Orleans at home in December is very clearly a winnable game. Tennessee is a very similar team to the Bears, and since they play at home, I would say that's clearly winnable. And while Philly and Tampa are both definitely tough, neither was a juggernaut and both play in Chicago, either game is winnable. 7 wins was probably a good bet going in, and now that they've won a game that was a clear loss, 8-9 seems very reasonable.

They were last year too and look what happened. Playoffs are a crapshoot, over the 16 games Dallas was the best team in the NFC and are likely better this year than last. Eh, they still haven't won a big game in the Romo era. They didn't impress me against a mediocre Bears team early last year, not doing much until Bears defenders began dropping like flies. I think the 2006 Bears were more clearly the best NFC team than the 2007 Cowboys were. The playoffs are not a crapshoot, as much as they are a who is playing their best now thing. Teams don't win and lose in the playoffs based on chance. Football in general is a game that can swing at any point. They were a very good passing team, but nothing special on defense or running the ball. It should not have surprised anybody that they would potentially have trouble in the playoffs.

Winning a game that everybody (except BBB) had written in as a loss in permanent ink, and doing so in such impressive fashion, has to put them in 8 win territory. Were you predicting 4 before this game?

Early weather forecast is calling for temps in the low 80s and some thunderstorms Sunday in Charlotte. I'm not sure how that plays into a game. But Houston has a home game scheduled for 4pm Sunday, right around when Ike might be plowing through town.

The question is who to root for? Does our natural hatred for the Packers go over the fact that Minnesota is the true threat in the division? Im not saying that the Bears are going to be contenders this season, but I dont remember entering the 2006-2007 season with particularly high hopes. You didn't have high hopes for the Bears going into the 2006 season?

Wait K.Hill is back on the DL when did that happen? rich hill

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/storm_graphics/AT09/refresh/AL0908W5_sm2+gif/151330W_sm.gif They have it just off the coast of Galveston by Saturday morning at 8 am. I would think that would be close enough for them to cancel the game in advance.

Funny, so was I, for the Bears. I want to say I see the Bears winning by a touchdown. But I know I'm completely basing that off the shocking result from last night. I'll probably take 3 points in my pick 'em league, but I'm hesistant to completely buy into this team right now, considering how down I was on them the past couple months.

that is some hardcore linking going on right there.

He was predicting an off year for the Patriots I believe, as well as Tom Brady probably missing a little time. I'm guessing he'll talk a lot about Willis Reed.

That's not really a prediction now is it? Which one of those things do you think happens? It is funny how this game features two of the three biggest underdogs from week 1, with Philly/Dallas being on MNF, I could see this being the featured Fox game. GB plays at a crappy Lions team, Giants play at a crappy Rams team. New Orleans plays at a very mediocre Washington, and Atlanta/SF are featured in the other 2 games. Had the Bears just pulled that game out of their butts, I don't think people would make much of it other than getting lucky the Colts line was banged up and Manning was rusty. But winning the way they did probably peaked some interest. If they play that way again, they can probably beat anybody in the league. But I'm not so sure they are capable of repeating that performance. Teams will key on Forte and probably get to Orton eventually.

Not sure if you are joking or not. But if a hurricane hits the Houston area, the roof won't be enough to let them play games there.

Really? Not saying you're wrong, but where have you read/heard that talk? Peter King, specifically. Not the most reputable of sources or analysis, but at least getting a mention in the upper echelon already. Yeah, I think they are on the radar, but they aren't yet considered to be in that group by a widespread group. I would be interested to see where Dr. Z ranks them. He has historically marked the Bears relatively low, but if he's already brought them from 24 to 8 like King, that would be a strong indication that the masses are ready to pile on. People like trends, and while the loser of the Super Bowl having a bad year is widely known, people generally expect those teams to bounce back one year later. All that being said, I don't know much about Carolina. I don't have a good idea how they match up with the Bears. I could see a letdown game coming, but Carolina is coming home after a surprise road win, with a little more of a flukey nature than the Bears big win. Whichever team loses, their media will call it a letdown game, but I'm not sure that will be the case.

2008 is well on the way to being my favorite summer watching the Cubs.

Well, they definitely have options now. They can cut him and bring up another player with his 40 man spot. They can DL him, and then sneak another player onto the playoff roster using his spot. Or, they could decide they don't need either of those things and do nothing. That wording of that sentence is really strange though. He returned home and "informed" the general manager that he couldn't pitch anymore? That screams that something is going on behind the scenes. Like what? I just assumed he realizes he's done and doesn't want to either embarrass himself anymore, or deal with anymore pain.

I dunno, I'm not sure they can get in the "Best in the NFC" discussion until they beat the Packers and Vikings. These games are great, but they're early and we don't know how good these teams are yet. 2-0 with a dominating defense and good enough offense will easily put them in that discussion. Peter King has them 8th in his power rankings already. If they win this game, people will talk about Dallas, the winner of tonight's game, and probably Philly. 2-0 obviously does not mean they are one of the best, and does not guarantee any sort of playoff spot. But I'm just talking about how they are going to be discussed by the general population. When really good teams have an off year, people are willing to get back on the bandwagon quickly if they follow that up with better play. The Bears are a year removed from dominating the NFC and coming off two straight solid seasons where they covered most every spread. If they win on Sunday, and do so in at least semi-impressive fashion, I think most people will be talking about them as legit contenders again.

Who was the idiot who asked if the NFL can survive without Brady? I heard it on one of the stations at one point, but I don't quite remember the details of yesterday. 10 beers before going into a 100 degree stadium will do that to you.

That was maybe the toughest matchup he will see all season, outside of Jared Allen (twice). Still he was pretty weak pass blocking. He did ok in the preseason against weaker DEs. I didn't have a huge problem with St. Clair. I'm glad they kept him at left tackle and Tait at right. At least in that situation, Tait is a good enough right tackle to not hurt the team, whereas he wasn't a good LT at all. St. Clair is a mediocre lineman, but he's not completely incompetent. They just need to give him help all season.

I don't think they did an excellent job. They did alright, but teams don't stop the Bears' blitz packages, Bears blitzers stop their own blitz package by running right into blockers. They suck at the blitz. They did protect Manning well enough though, as their trouble with the passing game looked to me to be mostly about Peyton not throwing well at all.

I knew they were going to win all along. But seriously, that is not at all what I was expecting. I let myself dream about the possibility of a win, but the only way I saw one as possible was if they pulled it out of their butts on a freak play or two. I did not see them coming close to that level of domination.