jersey cubs fan

Not so fast my friend. Teddy Bridgewater is probably poised for a huge breakout game. If AP plays the Vikings will score 30+.

It's the lack of a competent QB on the other team. Any competent QB can hang 40 on these guys. The exception to that was Matt Ryan, who probably would have done the same if all his receivers weren't dropping passes. Miami had an average QB, but they also had an elite defense. Minnesota has a crappy QB situation and while their defense isn't bad, they aren't as good as Miami.

what happened this time? Although sketchy, the NCAA is investigating a point shaving possibility. Oh that's right, somebody mentioned that yesterday. College football is so much more enjoyable when you just throw on games in the background all day and ignore the storylines.

Because he does/didn't have a regular minor league deal. His call up date had/has no effect on when he hits FA. He's still subject to service time rules. Since it's a near absolute certainty he'll opt into arbitration, at that point his original contract is pretty much ripped up. I suppose it's remotely possible that somehow he can be arbitration eligible and still subject to his 10 year guarantee, but I've never heard of that happening and it's pretty illogical(arbitration by definition means you don't have a guaranteed deal). It's not even that, it was a 9 year deal. There's this prevailing thought that Soler would get auto-free agency after the 2020 season no matter how much service time he'd accrued and it's never made any sense to me. Even if somehow he never opted for arbitration, if he only had 5 years, 60 days service time when his original major league contract ended, he'd go to arbitration just like anybody else would. I've probably asked, and gotten an answer, this question a dozen times but wasn't the "automatic" free agency assumed based on what would have to be his final potential option year? Wouldn't the inability to be sent back down result in the inevitable service time?

what happened this time?

All of this. This team is built entirely around its skill-position stars, and they aren't *that* good and seem to be declining. This goes back to the idea of what type of team you want to be. I thought this team was going to depend on its offense while trying to get by on defense. Instead they have thrown a ton of resources at the defense, gotten zero return on that investment, and failed to supplement the offense. If you want to be a dominant offense, you need to emphasize that side of the ball. They should have been prepared to take a WR with one of their two first round picks this year and should always be willing to take an offensive lineman in the first half of the draft. They should be loading up with depth on defense and try to be good enough to not give up 50 points. But they need to give this offense more weapons, more protection and probably within a year or two, a new QB. I would much rather see the 1st and 2nd be impact offensive players and then 3-7 be more defensive depth than the other way around.

I sure do. Long is the only longterm option in place and probably the only guy on the line now that I'd like to see on the line in 2016. Bushrod helped stabilize things but I think he was vastly overpaid and probably only a short-term guy. They need at least one tackle and one interior linemen. Outside of Long everybody is either bad, old or bad and old. Just for 2015 Bushrod, Slauson, DLP, and Long is a solid 4 IMO. Of course they need to continue to develop OL, but we have at least a year with that group. I would say at most, not at least. And that group is not that solid. It is old and probably average at their best if you supplement with another tackle that isn't a weakness.

That seems obvious from Mr. Positivity.

That may be what they are stuck doing, but think about what you are advocating with those first two picks. Two more picks allotted to the defense after that side got the top three this year and two of the top three the year before. The Bears have used one top 3 round draft pick on an offensive skill position player in the past 5 drafts and that is going to come back and bite them eventually. They have a declining Marshall, a nice but limited Jeffery, a consistent but unspectacular Forte, garbage at tight end and a declining Cutler. There is zero explosiveness on the offensive side of the ball. No big threats. The offense is basically limited to bullying their way down the field with big receivers and no hope of the homerun. That takes time and allows a defense to adjust and take chances that will not be exploited, and that leads to turnovers.

I sure do. Long is the only longterm option in place and probably the only guy on the line now that I'd like to see on the line in 2016. Bushrod helped stabilize things but I think he was vastly overpaid and probably only a short-term guy. They need at least one tackle and one interior linemen. Outside of Long everybody is either bad, old or bad and old.

It could if they stick with the status quo or hire another failure. But there's no reason why it has to. I don't trust the decision makers much either, but all it takes is a decent front office boss and it won't take years to untangle the mess. They will probably be pretty bad next year but they could easily be a tough team in 2016.

I guess it depends on your definition of worse. 2007 coming off the super bowl this team was still quite talented and seemingly was just a QB away from returning to contention. This year the entire team is awful and would probably get destroyed by even that 2007 squad.

Embrace the fun bad! Although this is pretty much peak anger. From here it quickly turns to apathy until the season ends. Sucks because I was looking forward to the 5 out of 6 home game stretch all year and when it finally gets here the team is dead. I don't know about you but my anger peaked weeks ago. I'm resigned to the sadness now. Kyle Long ‏@Ky1eLong · 29s29 seconds ago “@billdozer32: @Ky1eLong hey Kyle, are we allowed to boo now?” Absolutely. We are trying to figure it out as you are. It's frustrating

I was just about to post that anyone expecting coaching changes mid-season are going to be disappointed. Massive changes in the offseason? Almost assuredly. But no way they do anything before then. Eh. I certainly don't think they will do anything, and the Bears generally take quite a while to make changes. However, this season is very much unlike most any Bears season and George McCaskey is now the primary decision maker. He was at the helm when the decision was made to fire Jerry Angelo following 11-5 and 8-8 seasons and he was at the helm when the decision was made to replace Lovie following a 10-6 season. We're 4 years into George's reign, and 3 years into Emery's tenure and this team is as bad as it has been since at least the Jauron era and possibly Wanny. I don't think people can say with certainty what changes they will make and when they will make them. We act as if this organization is incredibly predictable and always follows the same pattern but that isn't really the case. They've operated without a GM for huge chunks of time, have kept guys around despite multiple bad seasons and fired guys following good seasons.

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--VIqihpIC--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/tyxiilqobzxaqvmzmsvy.gif

Bears are trending on twitter this morning and it has nothing to do with the stock market.

it doesn't happen like this against the packers every year, that is where the problem lies.

He's been GM for 3 years and this team is awful. It's pretty clear he has not been good. He's largely done well with talent composition IMO. He inherited an aging defensive team and outside of his first draft where he still managed to draft a pro-bowl caliber WR, I think has done well drafting. His only real bad FA signing to this point is JA. And his one trade was great At this juncture his coaching decisions have completely undermined those things(literally half of today's scores can be linked directly to coaching not talent). So yes he's been bad, but I don't think it's unreasonable if you liked him at first you'd give him a shot to correct this current existing weakness. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk That's the same [expletive] defense that hendry lived on for a decade. Emery has been awful. I can't argue he's not awful because the results speak for themselves. If we're comparing him to Hendry though I think Hendry actually had the ability to set the franchise back beyond his tenure. I don't see that with Emery because at worst I do believe he'll improve our talent base. But the coaching decision can be remedied immediately at whatever point you want to move on. Now granted it would be better to move on in 2014 rather than waiting til 2015 until you remember it's still Philips who will be making that replacement. Toss up as to what he'll find IMO. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk That is only because of the nature of MLB vs NFL rosters, the latter of which do not take 3 years to improve. Of course, that is also only true if you stupidly believe the Cubs roster couldn't have been better the last 3 years if somebody actually tried to make them better. Hendry didn't set the team back. He failed to win enough when they were capable of winning. He has nothing to do with the past 3 years.

omg this broadcast is nothing but stupid shoutouts to GB lore

He's been GM for 3 years and this team is awful. It's pretty clear he has not been good. He's largely done well with talent composition IMO. He inherited an aging defensive team and outside of his first draft where he still managed to draft a pro-bowl caliber WR, I think has done well drafting. His only real bad FA signing to this point is JA. And his one trade was great At this juncture his coaching decisions have completely undermined those things(literally half of today's scores can be linked directly to coaching not talent). So yes he's been bad, but I don't think it's unreasonable if you liked him at first you'd give him a shot to correct this current existing weakness. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk That's the same [expletive] defense that hendry lived on for a decade. Emery has been awful.

no depth of talent and poor coaching

I don't know man. Olt and Lake?

Sure. Whatever. That's an excuse. But you have an oline guru as oc and a passing game guru as oc and 4-5 pro bowl caliber skill position players as well as high priced free agents and 1st round draft picks on the line. They don't have a deep threat, the line is weak and forte can't make anything happen on his own. But they have enough quality to be a hell of a lot better than they actually are. No mention of Cutler? I was replying to the "health of the line" defense. Cutler has been bad.

Sure. Whatever. That's an excuse. But you have an oline guru as oc and a passing game guru as oc and 4-5 pro bowl caliber skill position players as well as high priced free agents and 1st round draft picks on the line. They don't have a deep threat, the line is weak and forte can't make anything happen on his own. But they have enough quality to be a hell of a lot better than they actually are.