jersey cubs fan

Was it just a case of him standing or being one of those "take it upon yourself to chastise the other fans for not standing up" douchebags? Like this lady http://gothamist.com/2013/09/12/us_open_video_lady.php

To a certain extent, yes, they aren't winning by enough. They are 4-2 but have only outscored opponents by 11 points. They are 1-5 against the spread. And they've lost by 8 twice. I'm not sure why you are glossing over the entire point that while the offense has improved, it is going to take time to be really good. But it hasn't taken long for the defense to slide. I was hoping for an improvement in the offense and only a moderate backslide by the D, but the D has done more than a moderate backslide.From 5th in yards/game and points/game to 20th and 26th for those stats. And they have only faced two upper echelon offenses in these first six games.

Gradually? http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/files/2012/10/mike.jpg

Pretty sure nobody wanted the defense and special teams to fall off as dramatically as they have. Being an ass or u really don't get it? We wanted an offensive led football team. The offense is top 10 good and everyone has caveats. The defense doesn't have to carry the team and people are upset that they aren't capable of it anymore, despite the fact that they still get turnovers at a league best rate. The offense has made up for the decline on defense like we hoped. I think you are mischaracterizing what people are upset about. It's not that we wanted them to carry the team, it's just that they fell pretty damn quickly. The offense has improved at an acceptable rate. The defense has regressed at too fast a rate for my liking. It's not just a lack of dominance, but rather long bouts of incompetence. I'm not apoplectic, I just wished the defense would give the offense a little more cushion to gel, since I was expecting it to take some time.

I think the defensive struggles are overblown. I'm working on some stuff for my blog either this week or during the bye to show that. They aren't anywhere near good by any means, but people act as if the defense is going to stop this team from succeeding. Hell, the defense was great last year and they still failed when it mattered to get this team to the playoffs (Seattle, Minnesota). People, this is an offensive team now. This is what we all wanted for years to keep up with the rest of the league. Now we're fretting because the defense isn't dominating. It's not a lack of dominating, as others noted, that bothers me. It's the complete lack of any pass rush, and multiple big money stars and recent 1st rounder being quite disappointing that is the issue. They aren't league worst or anything, but they went from great to mediocre in a hurry.

Okay, I get that. But the Redskins and the entire NFC East are, I believe, more flawed.

http://img.mylot.com/2132449.gif They being the Bears. Yes, I know. So you think it's a stretch to say the Bears are better than the skins?

Two things: 1) I don't think any manager is going to actually bring back fans. I just think that paying $5m for a manager is a cheap way to make positive headlines in the offseason. 2) They aren't just going to post a headline and leave it there. It would be the storyline of the offseason. Kaplan would be talking about it every day. That show formerly known as Chicago Tribune Live will repeat that the Cubs finally stepped it up and are now serious about trying. He will be paraded around at the convention. Every average fan will read/hear/see his resume at every opportunity.

http://img.mylot.com/2132449.gif They being the Bears.

He looked very good Sunday, like somebody this defense could not hope to stop.

Reminds me of every Redskins game of late. They are never anything special but a bad fit for Bears. RGIII could rack up a ton of fantasy points.

I want Bryant's actual wardrobe.

Right there with you.

http://deadspin.com/why-dont-the-st-louis-cardinals-respect-the-game-1445679050

That's different. That's a guy showing up from the minors in the middle of the season. Anyone who doesn't follow the minors(or noticed his cups of coffee with Houston) is going to assume he's a prospect. Maddon is one of the most visible managers out there, and he's continuously led a team of kids to the playoffs, so he knows how to win the right way (by not spending any money) I mean he is pretty visible, but being that I follow baseball generally pretty closely and there are still teams whose managers I couldn't name, I could totally see the casual fans who aren't lunatics like us not knowing who Maddon, even being one of the more visible managers, is. As SSR pointed out, the media would [expletive] over the idea of these guys paying up for a manager. They are going to knock just about any "cheap" option and talk about such a manager as a pawn of the front office. So a media friendly manager with a career winning record, 2 manager of the year awards, several 90 win seasons, 4 playoff appearances and a pennant is going to be portrayed as an aggressive "win now" move. Trading a prospect for him would be portrayed as the recent strategy finally paying off. The message sent to the masses will be Cubs finally move away from acquiring prospects to using their prospects in an effort to start winning at the major league level.

I don't think they'll fool anyone as stars, but they seem more serviceable than that. I feel like both have looked much worse this year than last, which might be partially due to injuries and ineffectiveness elsewhere exposing them. Wright especially looks like he's regressed - far more frequently out of position and looking more like a confused rookie. The complete lack of any pass rush and no tackles exposes the safeties to more threats on the ground and through the air. I'm not sure you can judge them fairly by such a statistical measure through 6 games under these circumstances.

The first line I saw was Bears -1, and now the same site has Washington -1. CBS Pick-em league is going with Washington -1.5. I believe the Bears are 1-5 against the spread now.

No. He's big, young, and doesn't have much wear and tear on him given that he was a backup until midway through last year and missed a couple years with the knee injury. Plus its a lot better to overwork Wootton over 33 yo Peppers or 250lb McClellin. Depends if pulling back on Peppers results in better play when he's in there. If it does, then I agree. If not though, then I'd rather ride the guy who I know is gone after this year, than put extra miles on legs that I'm going to count on for more years. These aren't 23 year old pitchers, or even running backs. It's not really a matter of putting extra miles on their legs.

Everything that has happened the past two years is cause for lashing out at ownership.

Yeah, that's not true at all.

While I have done that if I have a conflict prior to the start of the game, I would never do that by choice. It sucks for watching football. Although it works great for baseball. You can watch any game on 2-3 times speed and just hit play whenever you think you see something interesting happen. It also works with hockey. Football is the only sport where I see it working. It's like the skip ahead 30 seconds button was created just for that. Can catch an entire game in a half hour that way. Only if you have an offense using the whole clock. You have to hit the button right after the play ends and hope they aren't hurrying up. Then you also have the red zone option which you can turn to from time to time during your game. I'd rather use the back button to toggle between the Bears and everybody else between plays than bother with fast forwarding. But the big point is football is played at only a select few times during the week so it's easy, and enjoyable to watch them all. Baseball is played everyday and it's easy to miss games. Put a baseball game on fast forward and just hit play whenever you see movement on the little diamond thingy, it rewinds to just prior to that play and you can see it. Hockey does the same thing. I've done that at night many times after watching something with the wife.

If ownership/business people are pushing for a name manager to push the brand this winter, and even if it's among the most expensive managers in the game, the actual cost is still much less than a run-of-the-mill player. They could pay somebody $5m to manage and tell the world they are serious about winning, and take it out of the Scott Baker portion of the budget. The public at large and media is going to applaud such a move. What doesn't make sense is Theo trying to trade prospects for a manager. The Cubs have a long history of doing something to drive fan interest prior to the convention and/or the date of February ticket sales. The past two years they have bypassed that process and I would not be surprised at all if the business side was pushing hard for a renewed attempt to gain fan interest over the winter. The easiest way is to sign a big name free agent, but that is expensive. Signing a name manager to a big contract sends a similar message, but at a much less expensive price point.

While I have done that if I have a conflict prior to the start of the game, I would never do that by choice. It sucks for watching football. Although it works great for baseball. You can watch any game on 2-3 times speed and just hit play whenever you think you see something interesting happen. It also works with hockey.

Pretty bold stance to take, 5 games into the season. I've seen a lot of proclamations about exactly how good certain teams are this year and I don't really remember hearing that stuff this early before.

Pretty much what I figured if there was any truth to the Rays listening. If this is ownership talking I hope Theo is just saying, "see, it would not be worth it."