jersey cubs fan

I hope they are gooder at math than inglish.

Isn't the OL repairable? Given one or two solid additions? Assuming so, and with an offensive HC, it's not all that far reaching the Bears offense could dramatically improve. One or two? Its' going to take at least 4 for the longterm. In the short-term you'd need 2 at the minimum and probably three to actually make it a good line.

Pioli is out

Apparently in some discussions, Hoyer also suggested that he's pretty comfortable with the position situation in the minors, but not so the pitching. My impression is that Soler, Baez, Almora, and Vogelbach are really good prospects. But that that they are all fairly distant; that there aren't a lot of other good position prospects; and that given their distance, that there aren't many position prospects close to the majors. Of those who are in the upper minors, Jackson, Szczur, and Ha are three of the possibly better ones, and each at the CF position that is currently unblocked. By contrast we don't really have any good corner outfield prospects closer than Soler. So I found it interesting that of the three outfield spots that Hoyer is looking at, none of which are strong, that it's the CF spot, the spot with some depth of decent-if-iffy prospects in the high minors that Hoyer is looking at. Maybe it's just because Bourn is there and they like him, whereas there are no 3B/LF/RF who are available. Maybe the Win-Now priority is stronger than we think. Obviously none of Jackson/Szczur/Ha are ready now, and while DeJesus is adequate as a necessity CF, Bourn would be a big Nowacrat defensive upgrade. It may also be that they don't take Jackson/Szczur/Ha very seriously at all. If they aren't very comfortable with those three, though, it's hard to see how Hoyer could be very comfortable with the position landscape in the minors. The only other position guys north of Baez/Soler are Lake and Watkins. Or, maybe I took the third-hand comments way out of context. Rizzo, castro, that's two young long-term positions. Possibly Barney, and perhaps they like Watkins/Torreyes/Almora/Baez as down-the-road 2B. 3B, maybe they still like Vitters, or else figure that will be for Baez? OF, maybe they figure that CF is the present hole, but down the road if they added one, that between Soler/Almora/Jackson/Szczur/Ha/Lake/Dunston/Martin, that they've got some numbers there. While they may have a little bit of (weak) closer to the majors depth at the CF spot and are very limited in the corners, it is also true that they have competent major leaguers already holding down the corner spots and nothing in center. Also, nowacrat? It's a professional baseball team. You field the best team you can within the parameters of your budget while maintaining a responsible view of your future. It's not an either or proposition. Signing a 30 year old CF isn't just a one year focus move. It also allows you to keep your underwhelming CF prospects in the minors at a pace that helps maintain their value as both trade chips and potential contributors when they are ready without being rushed.

Jackson is already listed on the 40 man but Villanueva is not, and it's at 40.

How in the world can you possibly say what style of offense the Bears will play in the future? Especially if Jay isn't here after next season. There's been a lot of talk radio wishful thinking that the new coach will try to get a new QB in here, but I seriously doubt that happens. I would be shocked if the new coach didn't get a new QB in the draft within the next 2 seasons. They won't get anybody worth getting from outside the organization, but they will be drafting one shortly.

You have to love Gregggggg Jesus, that got heated quickly. Forgot to put Legless Jimmy in for a snap because the score was tied 41-41 with a playoff spot on the line? HELL. HELLFIRE AND BRIMSTONE AND ENDLESS REVOLUTION RERUNS FOR YOU.

What does it mean to use NSBB to argue with ESPN?

Two things, it's idiocy to claim the decision was based on what happened in week 17. You can't ignore Emery's statement about how they've never been even above average in Lovie's tenure. Also, a huge part of the reason why the offensive line has sucked is because Lovie's demands for positional triage in determining draft picks meant an over abundance of picks spent on DTs and DBs who did very little. Plus, the amount of the budget dedicated to LB, plus the number of picks spent on finding the third and fourth LB meant they paid as much, or more attention to that 2/3 man group than the 5 man group of offensive line.

They might be the best conference by default, but somehow are still overrated 3-2-1 against the spread so far would indicate they are properly rated by people. No one is talking about how Vegas rates the SEC. Spreads are determined by the trends of the bettors, which isn't Vegas. Bettors also aren't ESPN and the national media or the population as a whole.

Lovie isn't Dusty Baker. I don't see him being averse to such a thing. He did come around on the need for throwing the ball, even if he was incapable of finding somebody to run a system. Lovie is pretty old school, he talked about coming off the bus running, standard coach speak, etc. I'm not sure how much analysis will factor with the Bills as far as roster composition or whether or not it will factor in play calling etc. I just wonder if Lovie will have a greater role with the draft and FA rather compared to chicago, which he had a larger role under Angelo. My guess is Lovie's next job won't give him a huge input on personnel, at least at the outset, with the exception of having the team target the type of player he would like on defense.

Feeling a bond with someone that roots for the same school as you is fine, but feeling a bond with someone because they root for a school that has been arbitrarily grouped with yours just makes no sense to me. "It makes us look better if Michigan wins." I still haven't figured that one out, but I hear it all the damn time. Considering how easy it is for flawed SEC teams to get all the best press (and everything that comes with that) even after they lose, the reputational capital within a conference seems to me to be a real thing worth considering.

Considering how much I've envied the Saints for having Payton, getting his OC would be a great option.

Lovie isn't Dusty Baker. I don't see him being averse to such a thing. He did come around on the need for throwing the ball, even if he was incapable of finding somebody to run a system.

I always thought he was ordering takeout with that thing. http://answers.bettor.com/images/Articles/thumbs/extralarge/Packers-Coach-Mike-McCarthy-hints-at-playing-Erik-Walden-against-Giants-NFL-News-115773.jpg

the "wow" suggests that you're surprised. I didnt realize it was that bad. There have been some pretty consistently awful offensive teams out there since 2004. I would have guessed they would have been somewhere in the 24-28 range. There have been some bad offenses teams, but few match the Bears in consistency. Even when Chicago scored in 2006 they were only 15 in yards. For them gaining yards was like the Cubs taking walks. Look at Baltimore. Everybody compares the Bears and Ravens when discussing teams that are led by the defense, but Baltimore has been consistently average on offense. in the 14-18 range. Miami has been without a QB forever yet they are averaging around 20th since Marino left (and actually had their worst year in 5 seasons after supposedly finding their QB). KC has been bad, but they were #1 a couple times during Lovie's era and had a decent offense a couple years ago.

Lovie Smith would be such a Bills hire. I'm not saying its necessarily a bad fit, its just a boring vanilla coach joining a boring vanilla team. Edit: I wonder if any interviews he has are half-legit option and half Rooney rule. I would assume Lovie's interviews are for legit reasons. Lovie isn't nearly the boring hire that Jauron was. At least with Lovie you are hiring a guy whose entire career is based around creating turnovers on defense. Jauron's defense was about stuffing the run up the middle.

It's kind of ridiculous to talk about the percentage difference between percents like that. Out of curiosity, why do you think that's the case? The difference between rates very meaningful. Expressing it as a ratio itself seems to be fine. A 1.6% rate increasing to a 2.9% rate being called "80% higher" is purposefully done to make it seem much more extreme than it is. In that example above, you are talking about a guy hitting 17 HR vs a guy who hit 10 over the course of a full season. A difference, but not that huge of a difference in real terms. It's just unnecessary and purposefully misleading to describe the percentage change between those percentages.

Zach Zaidman ‏@ZachZaidman Phil Emery to @WBBMNewsradio when asked directly about Tom Clements: "We have to wait that out a little bit."

It's kind of ridiculous to talk about the percentage difference between percents like that.

@AdamSchefter Andy Reid did not fly to Arizona last night as scheduled. Interesting. Wonder if it's because the meeting took longer than expected and it was too late to fly out or if he's about to be hired in KC?

If you're into that sort of nonsensical myth making that hacky sportswriters love then I guess it makes sense to say he's special. But what's more true is that he's a really good quarterback that went to the perfect situation, a great organization that sucked the year before because of atrocious QB play and he played well. That team had the benefit of a 4th place schedule in a second rate conference, allowing it to rack up more wins than other pathetic teams.

http://www.csnchicago.com/football-chicago-bears/bears-talk/Bears-hiring-process-likely-to-go-deep-i?blockID=819411&feedID=661

Do you seriously think that intangibles don't make a difference? Make a difference? Maybe some. But talk about there being "something special about this kid" and "knowing how to win" is just nonsense.