Jump to content
North Side Baseball

jersey cubs fan

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    68,036
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    64

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by jersey cubs fan

  1. olin kreutz in his prime? of course they would be. don't be stupid. You are insane. Kreutz couldn't make the offense better, let alone the defense.
  2. Jesus let's stop talking about Olin freaking Kreutz. This team wouldn't be any better with Olin freaking Kreutz.
  3. It's not early. I want guys signed yesterday.
  4. Looking forward to "from A to Z" headlines and ugly tshirts.
  5. Nothing like a complete [expletive] of a mid season flop to get the blood boiled and game threads on record pace before Wednesday.
  6. He averaged 9 wins a year with only 2 sub .500 after his first season taking over a bad squad with his "teaching" staff. In the end it wasn't enough because they were good but rarely great. There is value in being consistently good, but you run the risk of never replenishing with top end talent and falling short along the way. A good OC at any point probably results in 2-3 more playoff opps but he failed in that area. Trestman is more of an all around failure right now.
  7. Lovie was a consistent winner, and he was not a dud personality. He was a strong personality where it mattered, with his players. The problem was simply he did not win enough due to offensive blind spots. You and I may define 'consistent winner" differently. He made the playoffs three times in nine years. I realize that includes a 10-6 finish in his final season, but the reason they didn't make the playoffs that year is that they were 3-5 in their final eight games. By "dud personalities" I meant their public personas. I acknowledged that Lovie was great with the players and in the locker room. He won quite a bit, just not enough. All those amazing leaders weren't enough.
  8. Lovie was a consistent winner, and he was not a dud personality. He was a strong personality where it mattered, with his players. The problem was simply he did not win enough due to offensive blind spots. Yes. Getting to the SB in Chicago seemed to give him too much power, or Angelo was week and let go of too much power. I actually like Lovie as a HC a lot, Trestman as an OC under him? Could that work? It could have, although it obviously never will now.
  9. Lovie was a consistent winner, and he was not a dud personality. He was a strong personality where it mattered, with his players. The problem was simply he did not win enough due to offensive blind spots.
  10. Kreutz was terrible and the team was a complete joke for half his time on the roster. There's always a need for leadership and Briggs was also a horrible option for that role. Urlacher filled that role and was a star impact player who made a difference. Kreutz was a freaking center, one of the least important jobs on the starting offense. His leadership was based on being a dick and didn't make anybody any better. He was the face of the offense when the team couldn't play offense. Kruetz was a 6 time pro bowler. He had his day as a leader, even if he was credited as being a leader past his best years The team also sucked when he was at his best. FWIW, I didn't mean he was a terrible player. I meant he was a terrible leader. All bluster. He was a leader for the sake of saying he was leading, not to accomplish anything meaningful. He had some good years as a lineman, however, him being the best lineman on the team was neither good for any other lineman, or the team. Kreutz was the type of guy that said we dip our balls in the rookies mouths because somebody dipped their balls in his mouth when he was a a rookie, not because he thought it helped the team grow together.
  11. Coaches make their money by convincing the world they have so much to do. But I wasn't saying Urlacher wouldn't have been good without Lovie. I was saying his leadership ability may not have been as effective in different circumstances.
  12. Sir yes sir! http://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/headshots/nfl/players/full/5531.png&w=350&h=254
  13. Urlacher was a good soldier for a head coach that featured him. I think lots of supposedly good soldiers would be just as bad as seemingly bad soldiers if they had the wrong coach during their career. There's nothing to be gained from a well behaved shitty team. Nobody should be proud of a well oiled turd machine. This isn't a lack of good soldiers situation.
  14. i think Lovie just delegated all the leadership to Urlacher and Kreutz and let them deliver the tough messages. Lovie himself was just nice to everyone. That's completely wrong. Please stop praising Kreutz. why? i don't care if he was a meathead jerk in the mold of an alpha beta enforcer. In the grand scheme of things I wouldn't care either, if it accomplished anything. All of Kreutz's bullying did nothing good for the team. He probably contributed to the disappointing career of more than one skill position player and his side of the ball was awful the vast majority of the time.
  15. Charles Tillman is considered leadery. The fact is it comes down to not enough good players (especially on defense) and a joke of a coaching staff. This is a staff that has had multiple CFL coaches, not just the head coach, but multiple assistants. And when it came time to bring in outside help they brought in a career college strength and conditioning coach with a couple seasons of NFL work under his belt. Kromer is probably the most accomplished assistant, and he's not that accomplished.
  16. The Bears were a mess for much of Kreutz's tenure. i don't remember that. how were they a mess? there was never any question of leadership. if anything i think the problem is Kreutz never let the QB take a leadership role because he was a bully-type. the talent may have been a mess, but there was a pecking order and that brought stability. Stability of what? The team sucked balls for many years. The offense was a joke. Young players were bullied and never groomed or developed. It was a disaster. What did they have, one good year in his first 8 seasons?
  17. Kreutz was terrible and the team was a complete joke for half his time on the roster. There's always a need for leadership and Briggs was also a horrible option for that role. Urlacher filled that role and was a star impact player who made a difference. Kreutz was a freaking center, one of the least important jobs on the starting offense. His leadership was based on being a dick and didn't make anybody any better. He was the face of the offense when the team couldn't play offense. All this. Agreed. Kreutz was a lunatic. Urlacher I'll give some credit to, but I think a lot more goes to Lovie. I think coaches who can actually manage their players has the most impact as opposed to some monster player-leader creature. Yeah, Lovie always had everybody ready and willing to play hard on gameday. He was a talk softly and carry a big stick kind of coach that players respected. Nobody was going to respect the goofy Trestman unless he came in and turned the offense into an elite squad. He made them better, but that ended quickly. In my opinion he "lost" the defense last year but it really became the issue it is today when the offense took a step back. Without a 28+ point offense, Trestman doesn't have a leg to stand on.
  18. Yeah, I finally feel that there's something to this. After Urlacher left, the Bears veterans were Briggs who doesn't give a [expletive], Peppers, Tillman who leads by example, and Jennings. Plus, I think a lot of that came from Lovie, who the players respected. I don't think Trestman commands a lockeroom like a HC has to if he doesn't have the players to do so. That being said, I don't think leadership is necessary to win. But I do think you need it when things don't go well. What do you need it for then? To make sure you get to 7 or 8 wins? I feel like this train of thought is shifting blame away from Trestman and the coaching staff on this issue. This team wouldn't be any better with Olin Freaking Kreutz at center. Hell, Roberto Garza is a protege of his and was said to have taken over that role when Olin left. All was fine with his leadership before this year. The defense misses Urlachers' ability, but it also missed his ability when he was still on the team and available to lead. His ability included his "direction" while making calls on the field. But this team sucks right now because their GM is a goober who hired a "unique" head coach who is not up to the job. And they have no great defensive players to make up for all the bad ones.
  19. The Bears were a mess for much of Kreutz's tenure.
  20. Kreutz was terrible and the team was a complete joke for half his time on the roster. There's always a need for leadership and Briggs was also a horrible option for that role. Urlacher filled that role and was a star impact player who made a difference. Kreutz was a freaking center, one of the least important jobs on the starting offense. His leadership was based on being a dick and didn't make anybody any better. He was the face of the offense when the team couldn't play offense.
  21. Look, I spelled out a hypothetical conversation. One in which no deals were made, no dollar figures tossed around, no terms, nothing. The kind of conversation that happens all the time in the sports world. Players who are under contract are always talking about teams they'd like to play for before they hit the open market. They openly admit it to the media. Shouldn't that be tampering? Agents have been working the phones before a player's contract is up, defining a market for their representatives and perhaps lining up potential suitors in the process. If your agent isn't doing that, then he sucks. Should't that be tampering, too? You honestly don't think managers do the same thing? Really? If you truly want to go by your definition of tampering, that's fine. But then I think you'd see these types of charges being leveled all the time. This type of thing happens every year when NFL free agency comes around. Lots of teams circumvent the rules. The point is, there is tampering, and if somebody actually goes through the effort of not turning a blind eye and lobbing an accusation, it can and does get discovered and punished in the sports world. If your hypothetical occurred and can be proven, it would be considered tampering.
  22. Hey, I didn't make up the definition. No, you just made up the source you chose to take it from.
  23. That is the very definition of tampering. Except that it kinda isn't. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/tampering.html You aren't familiar with sports are you? You aren't familiar with reading, are you? So you think sports league offices are concerned with whether or not opposing teams are altering each others documents when they investigate tampering? When team execs have contact with a player/coach under contract and express interest in retaining their services if/when they are out of that contract, that is treated as tampering.
  24. That is the very definition of tampering. Except that it kinda isn't. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/tampering.html You aren't familiar with sports are you?
×
×
  • Create New...