Jump to content
North Side Baseball

minnesotacubsfan

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    25,068
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

 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 minnesotacubsfan

  1. yea, the Packers defense had NOTHING to do with them winning the SB http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1996/opp.htm
  2. wha? you serious? hahahaha Looking at the Superbowl winners from the last 10 years or so what I see are teams that were, for the most part, offense first. The Patriot teams that won did so because of Tom Brady and the offense. The Colts won because of Manning. The Rams, The Broncos and I'd say even the Steelers won because they had a good offense. On the other side of the coin there's the Ravens and last year's Giants. The Ravens are an extreme example of absolute domination on one side of the ball, much like the Superbowl XX Bears. The Giants, though they did have a very good defense, don't win without strong play from Eli Manning. you must be absolutely drunk stupid to believe the Patriots, Packers, and Colts didnt play strong defense. While the Colts defense wanst anything to brag about early in 2006, it certainly came about in the palyoffs. The Packers in the 90's had a great defense, to go along with Favre, something people for get about. Teh Broncos in the 90's were primarily an offensive minded team, but they too played good defense. you need balance to win the SB, and more importantly, intelligance to understand how to manage that balance. The Bears inability to develop a QB has nothing to do with their desire to run a team with a stong defense, at least it doesnt have to.
  3. your starting to think like me now.
  4. signing Leftwich to anything but a back-up role would be foolish in Chicago. that guys delivery is horrible
  5. of course he did, which is why he's pining for Warner now
  6. Haugh is a hack. I cant think of another sports journalist who tries to use so many psuedo-witty analogies. His articles are hard to read, and his logic even harder to understand
  7. that mock-draft is a joke, 3 ot's picked before Oher? blech. A few mocks I've seen have da Bears taking Micheal Johnson, which I think would be a nice pick. Mays would be good too as for Gross, he will get a Feneca-like deal, but screw it. I wanted Feneca last year, Gross would do...
  8. Holmgren too maybe? I'd love to see Shanahan given the moon and full control over the offense, but I doubt he'd take it or the Bears would offer it. What has Mike Shanahan done since John Elway retired that Lovie Smith hasn't? Smith is more accomplished since 2005 than Shanahan is since 1999. ONE playoff win in that span and numerous late season collapses. I like him as offensive mind and think he's overall one of the better coach's in the league but he in no way deserves "the moon" at the expense of Lovie Smith. Smith's been a flat out more accomplished coach recently. read again I'm not sure what you mean by "the moon", but I understand why you like his methodology. Denver has had some incredible running teams in his tenure, but Cutler has been a very good pick too.
  9. I don't have a link for this one since I heard it at some point today on one of the football stations (might well have been Adam Schefter on NFL Network) that the leading candidate for the Jets' head coaching job is Brian Schottenheimer. May not be a bad hire (Marty's son), but I'm betting there were some livid New Yorkers after hearing that news. Cowher is just waiting for the bears coaching position :)
  10. oic, I read that as on the DL
  11. you have no point. stop. Then tell me his significant accomplishments in the NFL? Other being the DL line coach for a defense that will probably have 3 HOF's someday. 3? Sapp, yes McFarlane ..? Rice? I kind of doubt it. he had a few good years, and racked up a few sacks (122), but idk he gets in idk, I do think Marnelli (sp?) would be better then f-in cross-eyed babich
  12. I'd be fine with him as a DC over Babich
  13. Thayer was saying first round OL second or third round reciever I dont think we have to draft OL the 1st round, but one of 1-3 rds needs to be oline. I think we can be more selective then locking in @ 1st rd oline. Well with us getting a later draft pick now I think its a little harder. When Thayer said that it was like 2 weeks ago and I'm sure people were assuming we were done. What are the first 5 picks going to look like by the way? I feel like there not that obvious this year (the players not whos drafting) IC. I dont know that its that obvious either.
  14. Thayer was saying first round OL second or third round reciever I dont think we have to draft OL the 1st round, but one of 1-3 rds needs to be oline. I think we can be more selective then locking in @ 1st rd oline.
  15. Brown and Ogun are both past their prime, and Anderson seems to have been a fluke. DE needs youth and talent. DT is fine. They havent played THAT badly. Harris has 5 sacks, Harrison looks like a great pick and is still a rookie, and AA is servicable. Dusty is a questin mark OL is a need, adn defintiely should get a 1st day boost WR needs a #1, frome somewhere, either draft or FA, but I dont want Housh unless we get more you talent in the draft. he is likely to regress
  16. YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
  17. HOOOORSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEcolla
  18. comon D, offense showed up get a take away
×
×
  • Create New...