jersey cubs fan

I've been out of pocket* for a few weeks and missed most of the latest NFL news. [tweet] [/tweet] [tweet] [/tweet] What do we have now, 6 head coach openings? *I hate this phrase. It makes no sense but my mind is not fully operational and it's the only phrase I could think of.

Your analysis of this team suggests they did not go 3-13 this year or lose 34 games in the last three seasons.

He's old and bad. This team has gotten worse under his watch and his old team got better after he left. He sucks at game management and his supposed strengths have not shown up at all.

Disinterested team, lack of running game despite high quality RB, crappy OC, feud with talented DC who will likely bolt in the offseason, poorly handled personnel situations (PED suspensions, Ray McDonald, that crazed DT whose name escapes me), W-L record... The guy has taken two different teams to Super Bowls. He's clearly an adequate coach. I'd rather not turn into the Browns or 49ers where we're switching course every year or two. Until this team gets more talent, I don't see a reason to pay another buyout. hes old and no longer good. His last team got better when he left.

Is that ty cobb? Are you doing that thing again?

A lot of the reason this team put up yards but didn't score is exemplified by every hoyer game. Lot of dink and dunk while trailing but unable to put ball in endzone where soft tossing doesn't work.

those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it

The Vikings get nothing out of a loss since philly has their pick, hahaha Sam Bradford. Maybe they will try?

I'd bet between his full time gig as a highly compensated play by play man, his barely hidden disdain for stupid conversations regarding his red wings and lions on Twitter and his status as a Cubs employee, there are too many obstacles to make that happen. He'll get some sort of kid gloves touchy feely show on whatever new network the Cubs create.

Basically means, there's at least 1 solid starting QB in every draft. Other than 2007 and 2013 (and there's rumors of Mike Glennon getting double digit millions in free agency this offseason), every draft this century has had at least 1 long-term starter. Odds are, there's going to be at least 1 in this draft. Pace's job is to find that one. If he doesn't think any of these QBs are going to be a long-term starter, then to me, that is a cop out. That's basically telling me he's waiting on the next "can't miss" QB to fall in his lap. Which also tells me he plans on either having another really bad team (to get another top 5 pick where those guys tend to go) or he plans or using a ton of resources to either pay for someone else's developed QB or to trade multiple picks to get said QB. even if there has been one in most drafts, that doesn't mean they were identifiable as the best prior to the draft, and now we're just back into the take a qb in the top 5 just because you should take a qb in the top 5 portion of the discussion. If they don't think a qb is worthy of a top 5 pick they shouldn't take one, plain and simple. This team isn't a solid qb away from being great. To build a great team you need to take great players early in the draft. And there's no point building a team to be anything less than great.

If they aren't sold on a qb then they suck at evaluating football is a statement that makes no sense to me.

Oh and don't fool yourself. The Bears are essentially the Browns at this point. 14 wins in 3 years vs. 11 in 3 years. Both are terrible. The Bears are in no position to poke fun at Cleveland. And I never said you take a QB because you can. You take a QB because you can get the best one. If Pace and his scouts are good at their jobs, they will find the best one. Like I said before, Grossman was the 5th drafted QB in his class. McNown was the 4th (or vice versa). Since Harbaugh, the Bears have literally settled on their 1st round picks at QB, after 3 or 4 teams have already had their pick. You wait til the 2nd, you risk having 3 or 4 QBs picked over before you get a chance again. Which, again, is fine if you don't like the consensus top 3 or 4 guys as much as the guy that's going to be there in the 2nd. But you sure as hell better be right about that. the Bears have been a joke for three years, Cleveland had been Cleveland since Ohio was founded. The best qb in any class may not be any good, and even still the Bears may have to settle for 2nd best if they insist on taking one and letting an actual elite talent walk.

Raw, your theory on this is a great way to emulate the Browns. You don't take qb because you can. Hell, if league average is fine with you keep cutler through his contract and use the picks on actual elite talent. Looking for league average qb play out of a top 5 pick is dumb.

Complete agreement Makes 2 incorrect people. Make it 3

Does Kyle still post here?

Smartest thing anyone ever said here.

Cleveland was runner up? I thought they had a 3-1 lead.

I like

good at nothing with bad coaching

the really old one or the one who's missing an arm? the latter (actually more accurately i believe he is missing a rib now) http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-hot-stove-rumors-cubs-reportedly-seem-to-be-team-most-interested-in-tyson-ross/ http://chicagocubsonline.com/archives/2016/12/tyson-ross-visited-cubs-week.php I believe these came out after the PSD poster claiming to know that he is signing with the Cubs Missing a rib, eh? Has he also taken up yoga?

do you think those tix would somehow be unavailable if people like you weren't involved? Well, the barrier would become getting there first instead of just having to pay more money. If scalpers were eliminated and reselling for profit in all forms were eliminated, the tickets would still get bought up immediately in the case of any high demand games. They'd be insanely hard to get. This is obvious given what people pay scalpers/brokers. So if you don't get there first (which is going to be really hard to do...we've all tried to buy tickets before - yeah, there would be fewer scalpers in the way and more supply, but the demand is so overwhelming that it'll still be insanely hard to get them), you don't get to have them. Whether this is any more/less "fair" than "you get to have them if you pay more money on the secondary market" is debatable, I guess. Like Cubs playoff tickets would be insanely hard to get, scalpers or no scalpers. At face value they will sell out immediately. But with a secondary market, you can pay more and get to have them. This is without even getting into how unrealistic this would be when it comes to STH. If you never got to re-sell and had to use or give away every single ticket, the amount of people capable and willing to buy them would be cut drastically. EDIT - OR the Cubs could just cut out the secondary market altogether and just charge what the market dictates. Either way, the tickets aren't going to be easy to come by when the demand is what it is. One way just requires being the lucky few who are fortunate enough to buy them first, and the other one requires being fortunate enough to be able to afford what the market is willing to pay. no. There are normal human beings that sell tix and there are scalpers like this guy that thinks he's providing a service to society playing Julia assange

Really? I'm not saying they are innocent. I'm saying the police didn't press charges. I'm sure the students feel like it's case closed and that their teammates are getting expelled for nothing. I don't think boycotting the game solves much They dropped the protest as soon as the facts started to come out. It was a stupid protest by stupid people for a stupid cause.

I have a question: Have you ever purchased a ticket off the secondary market before? Did you think it was a bad thing that there were tickets available for you to buy that you didn't have access to before? do you think those tix would somehow be unavailable if people like you weren't involved?