jersey cubs fan

I had the exact thoughts. And it was not just after the game. Showing up about 20 minutes prior to the game, getting out of the station was a mess. We didn't even attempt to take the train back, and ended up walking all the way to some bars near union station. Is it that much different than the 4 to Yankee Stadium or the 7 to Shea? If so it much be really bad. Much, much, much worse. The station can't handle a crowd, and the crowd pales in comparison to NY games.

I had the exact thoughts. And it was not just after the game. Showing up about 20 minutes prior to the game, getting out of the station was a mess. We didn't even attempt to take the train back, and ended up walking all the way to some bars near union station.

Bingo bango. If that happens, don't expect them to pony up. Why isn't the Tribune company asking Wrigley to pay right now? Because they've got little to no leverage in that negotiation. They can ask, but Wrigley has no reason to pay up unless they think there's a legit chance they will change the name and that will somehow hurt the brand. The Mets didn't name the new park Citi Field and then ask Citigroup to pay for the publicity after the fact.

Yes, but my point was that after the Super Bowl season, they seemed comfortable making off-the-wall choices and settling for depth in the draft, because they thought the team was fine for a few years. But the sharp dropoff could be a lot worse than a post Super Bowl loss hangover, and without an impact draft in 2008, this team could quickly turn bad enough to justify canning those guys. The draft always plays a factor, but they were able to get away with the busts of Grossman, Benson and others. They won't survive if their 2008 draft picks bust in a similar fashion.

Regardless of whether or not Angelo was in love with the QB class of 2008, he should not have the team in a position where two struggling veterans will fight for the starting job and 2 undrafted free agents will likely fight for the 3rd spot. They needed to be drafting QBs before this year. The future of the offensive line is going to be touch and go. It's pretty amazing they just drafted a tackle #1 but are still not anywhere close to stable. As things stand right now, they will go" Williams, Beekman, Kreutz, Garza, Tait, with St. Clair and Metcalf possibly fighting for a spot. Even if Williams is a sure thing, both guard spots are questionable, and the center and right tackle are old and not what they once were. They need Beekman or one of the other youngsters to step in now, and will probably need to draft a lineman relatively high again next year. They will need to replace Tait soon, and could use an upgrade over Garza. Hopefully Kreutz has 3 more solid years, but who knows.

have you been to the metrodome? Or Shea or the Vet? i probably went to more than 100 games at the vet, so i think i'm an authority on the matter. the vet was a complete dump. i can't really compare it with the old busch, riverfront or three rivers (cookie cutter multi-purpose stadiums), but i can't imagine those places being any worse. I only went to maybe 10 baseball games, and 2 football games, but I'd have to agree. It was horrible.

That's all well and good. However, undrafted free agents go undrafted for a reason, and while I'd like to see what Rex and Orton can do with an improved line, I'd also like to keep the pipeline flowing. The Bears have signed lots of free agent QBs after recent drafts and haven't come close to finding even an adequate backup, let alone a potential starter. Despite the relatively glowing review of these 2 new guys, I have maybe 1% faith in either of them being anything more than the typical Bears 3rd stringer.

So you're saying King wanted us to get a QB that makes stupid decisions to replace our starting QB that makes stupid decisions? King is the only one I've seen that's down on the Bears draft. I've seen mostly B's and B+'s from most media outlets. He's the leader of the anti-Grossman bandwagon. To be honest, I was disappointed they didn't draft a QB. But they weren't drafting one in the first (I do not understand why so many mocks had them doing so), and they weren't getting anybody who was going to start in 2008. I'm a firm believer in the draft a QB every year theory. Stockpile those guys as often as possible. You never know when a 4th rounder will pick up on things and become a valuable starter down the road, or even trade bait.

Henne was considered a late 1st-late 2nd round prospect last year, he thought about leaving early (like Brohm) but decided to return along with Jake Long. This year his PR stock dropped because of his inconsitant playing time with his knee injury and shoulder injury. His stock came back to where it should of been. Henne and Brohm were always neck and neck even coming out of HS. At times he can get too confident in his arm strength but the dude can make all the necessary NFL throws. He throws great outs. He's not that mobile, id compare him to Rex, but at the same time he is less of a gunslinger than Rex. Michigans offense held him back from putting up crazy #s, but Parcells likes the same boring offense. Maybe not an absolutely 1st round QB, but I would of drafted him in front of the other winged helmet QB thats for sure. The injury excuse didn't mean much to me. He played like crap when he did play. Stupid decision after stupid decision.

How does King justify saying Henne absolutely should have been a first round QB? I saw a lot of Henne the past two years and was completely unimpressed. I don't like QB's that jump up the draft boards after the season.

Not the least bit surprising. I don't have much of an opinion on the draft. It seems to me Jerry went a little safe early, then took big chances on injury/legal issue guys who could be very good. I was not in love with any of the QB options, but I would have liked to see him get somebody like Dixon or Woodson late. These undrafted free agents sound nice, and somebody, I believe Kiper, was really talking them up on the radio this morning. However, they are still undrafted free agents and very unlikely to have any impact in the NFL. Forte sounds like a decent guy to run in a tandem with a more explosive RB, something the Bears don't have. It's hard to predict which RBs will break out in the NFL, so I can't pass judgement on the guy. Williams is fine. But it's just so disappointing that Angelo put himself in the position where he was forced to draft LT, and not just LT, but the guy most likely to be able to start this year. Offensive line was such a glaring need for a long time. I don't buy for a second all the nonsense about the age suddenly catching up to the line. They were okay in 2005, started 2006 well, but really fell off as the season went along. They should have been signing free agents and drafting linemen the past two offseasons, and not in a position where they had no choice but to draft a guy in the first this year. Likewise, they should be drafting QBs much more frequently, to keep the pipeline full. The rest of the draft sounds like a bunch of special teams contributors. The safety might push Archuleta out the door, but that's not much of an accomplishment. I believe this draft will determine Angelo and Lovie's future employment with the Bears. If they don't bounce back with a solid season by 2009, they could both be gone before 2010. And this draft class will go a long way toward determining if either of the next two seasons are going to be successful.

That's so stupid. I like the draft but they drag it out so much that I can barely watch it. Why don't they just do a pick a day after the Superbowl? That way they can drag it out all summer and ESPN can completely ignore baseball and talk patriots, brady and "spygate" (vomit). They are actually condensing it now, not dragging it out. Considering 4 hours of pre-draft coverage then 5 rounds on Sunday. Once you get there it is condence on Saturday, but Sunday is going to last longer. All in all, the draft is condensed. The biggest picks are first round and top of 2nd. They will happen closer together. Most tune out by the third round anyway, and few watch the 2nd day. I like the shorter times between picks, but wish it started earlier in the day Saturday.

That's so stupid. I like the draft but they drag it out so much that I can barely watch it. Why don't they just do a pick a day after the Superbowl? That way they can drag it out all summer and ESPN can completely ignore baseball and talk patriots, brady and "spygate" (vomit). They are actually condensing it now, not dragging it out.

This post doesn't make it clear what your answer is. I want them to do as well as they possibly can every year. But in some years that could be 75 wins, 85 wins or 90 wins. Actually winning the world series is definitely the most important goal. But getting to the World Series would be a huge step. Clearly everybody is dying to see AC000000 (and maybe that's how it would look no matter if they won or lost in the world series). I've seen the Bears win a Super Bowl. So getting to one wasn't as big as seeing the Cubs get into one. Still, it was pretty darn cool to at least have the team make it after all these years. I would not take that bet with the Bears. They need to win it all now. But after so many horrible seasons, and all those disastrous playoff appearances, actually winning 2 series, and 8 total playoff games (including 2 theoretical WS wins) would be so much more than I've ever experienced as a Cubs fan. I would view it was the next step, and then take my chances the next year. Ideally this is a 95+ win team that racks up a division, NLDS, NLCS and WS win. But I'm not sure they are good enough for that, and division, NLDS, NLCS (plus a couple WS wins) would be pretty darn cool.

The fact that 1 of the 2 was clutch is meaningless. If you are talking about playing a hot hand, you'll have a hard time justifying calling a weak hitter coming off an 0-4 game who is 2 for his last 10 the hot hand. I didnt say he was the hot hand. Im just saying you cant bench him after 1 crap game, especially when you can have him and Ronny both playing. You bench him because he's the lesser player, not because of one crap game. But lots of people are insisting he's the hot hand, that he's white hot, and that he's on a roll. I was pointing out that 0-4 yesterday and 2 for his last 10 takes away from the theory that he's the hot hand.

I believe this topic has come up in the past. But I was talking with a friend who is a Pirates fan. We were talking about whether or not you'd be okay with losing a World Series. He said, as a Pirates fan, he would be more than happy to be guaranteed a World Series loss, understandably. I wasn't sure, but I think I would take a loss in the World Series, as just getting there would be new territory as a fan. The question is, if you could be guaranteed a loss in the World Series, but not a particularly depressing loss (no sweep, win 2 games, no devastating blown games, etc.), would you take that or roll the dice on winning the whole thing - or maybe not even making the playoffs? This is specifically about this year's team. And assume that there would be no loss of enjoyment or excitement from the regular season or playoffs. You would still experience the ups and downs and the tense games. And you'd only find about about the fate afterward. Assume also that this would mean the Cubs were a very good 95 win type team and they didn't have to mortgage their future to get there (well, at least not anymore than they already have).

The fact that 1 of the 2 was clutch is meaningless. If you are talking about playing a hot hand, you'll have a hard time justifying calling a weak hitter coming off an 0-4 game who is 2 for his last 10 the hot hand.

Theriot is white hot right now. Can we at least curb the hate until he cools down? I don't think it's hate to say Cedeno/DeRosa/Johnson is better than Theriot/Fontenot/DeRosa. It's just the facts. If Theriot is the hot hand, he should play until he's not hot anymore. Whatever gives us the best chance of winning. He's 2 for his last 10. If you believe in playing the hot hand, when do you consider a player to no longer be hot? I think it varies depending on the player. But an 0-4 from Ryan Theriot is much less surprising than the 4-5 a couple days before. If DLee or Ramirez mixed in an 0-4 and 2-10 in the middle of a hot month, you wouldn't assume the hot streak was over. But those guys are legit regulars. Theriot's career suggests his hot streaks can come and go, and turn cold in an instant.

Anybody know why he was DH?

The double play "line-out" was by no means a hard hit ball.

Why are people still acting like Hill is struggling? Oh come on. I'm not at all a Rich Hill hater, but it's obvious he's been struggling to at least a certain extent this season. Yeah his era is fine, but his 1.42 WHIP, his 14 walks in 19 IP, and his short outings (although he probably could have gone deeper in a couple) show that he certainly is having problems. If he keeps pitching like he is right now, that ERA isn't going to stay at 3.79 very long. Eventually people are going to start cashing in on all those baserunners. That being said, I certainly don't want him skipped and I absolutely wouldn't even consider taking him out of the rotation anytime soon. I still think he ends up being the second best starter on the staff this season, but don't act like he doesn't have some issues right now. I think the issue is he struggled big time in one start, and that skews his stats. He walked four in Colorado, but that is a really tough place to pitch. He's given up very few hits the last two outings and his numbers don't look nearly as bad as they do including the Pittsburgh game. I wouldn't say he's struggling. He's not thriving by any stretch, but he'd doing alright and will most likely improve as the season goes along.

When in one word form, it starts with FU and ends with CK.

The Giants thought about taking a Tight End at this spot, with Shockey's future up in the air. WR was also an option, but they decide to stay on defense and draft Jason Jones, DE Eastern Michigan. Miami is back on the clock.

Patriots take Godfrey

Actually no, I've never heard of that. Is that something that's widely acknowledged? I think it's something more like everybody will win 60, lose 60 and what you do the rest of the 40 is what matters.