JonJayCutler

Going by the articles I've read yesterday and today, Bears players are not happy to say the least about having to play at TCF. Not saying they won't give it their all, but it's not exactly the ideal mindset to be in for this big of a game. I don't care if you have to play on lava, just win this game.

Wow this is just unreal, and Clayton is a guy I pretty much take to the bank. If he says there's a chance, there probably is. It would probably seal Favre not playing as well. I could see him wanting to give the home crowd one last hurrah, but I doubt he'll push his shoulder for what would virtually be a road game.

The are asking volunteers to come and shovel the snow out of the stadium for free. They said they would need volunteer shovelers between now and Sunday to have the stadium ready. Here is an article about some of the hurdles needed go get past for the game to take place: http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/21124/questions-remain-on-tcf-readiness Note: The article says the Vikings would pay $10 an hour for shoveler's but that has since been refuted by Kevin Seifert, who says they would be unpaid volunteers. Saw pictures of TCF in it's current state this morning on ESPN. Needless to say they are going to have to work non-stop between now and the weekend to get it ready. I assume Ford Field and Edward Jones would be plans C and D, respectively. They also say Irsay volunteered Lucas Oil Stadium for the game. That would be a nice 3 hour drive for Bears fans. Yes please, but there's no way that happens. 85-90% of the attendence would be Bears fans due to the large contingency that were in Indy before the Colts arrived. Needless to say there would be tons of Bears fans in Detroit or St. Louis as well.

The are asking volunteers to come and shovel the snow out of the stadium for free. They said they would need volunteer shovelers between now and Sunday to have the stadium ready. Here is an article about some of the hurdles needed go get past for the game to take place: http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/21124/questions-remain-on-tcf-readiness Note: The article says the Vikings would pay $10 an hour for shoveler's but that has since been refuted by Kevin Seifert, who says they would be unpaid volunteers. Saw pictures of TCF in it's current state this morning on ESPN. Needless to say they are going to have to work non-stop between now and the weekend to get it ready. I assume Ford Field and Edward Jones would be plans C and D, respectively.

So what's everyone's order of QBs you want to face on Monday, based strictly on the Bears best chance of winning? Personally I'd go... 1. Webb 2. FA QB (I'm hearing Ramsey and Bouman, and that if signed they could start) 3. Favre 4. Jackson Favre and Jackson could go either way for me. Favre is not close to healthy, but I kind of want to avoid facing him for other reasons (last home game as a Viking, last MNF game, etc.). Thankfully none of those four choices are very good ones.

I'm going to lose badly. A team can only survive so long in this particular league without any returners. I really didn't keep that in mind during the draft. :x

The way I see it... No beer = quieter crowds = advantage Chicago. :D

Wouldn't it just be easier to play the damn thing at Ford Field again?

Fair enough. Really? You think his post is fair but disagreed with bukie? Since DM was the one who originally ranked Chicago ahead of Orlando, I felt it was appropriate to say it to him. My "fair enough" can go for everyone though if it means we can stop arguing. Seriously.

As of right now the forecast does not call for snow, but that could change in 6 days. Ideally I'd just like it to be cold as hell, but no snow. As for Favre, I just don't see how he'll be able to play on that shoulder with temps down next to zero. I know it's Brett Favre and he plays through just about anything, but with the streak already over I don't see it happening. Part of me hope he plays though because I don't think he'll be effective. On the other hand him playing would get the crowd more involved for sure. If the Bears face Webb, it will be the 3rd third-string QB the Bears will have faced in the last 5 games. Haha.

Fair enough.

They've been a 3, 2, and 3 seed under Van Gundy and gone to the Eastern semis, NBA Finals, and Eastern Conference Finals. That's not underperforming. so have they gotten it done in the playoffs or not? They haven't gone all the way, but they've won and dominated their share of playoff series over the past couple years. Therefore I don't understand what point you're trying to make. All I said was that I'm very confident should Orlando end up playing Chicago in the playoffs.

Truce though. It doesn't really matter with it still being rather early in the season. Perhaps after the 90s I've enjoyed being better than the Bulls a little too much and it sucks that we're almost even now lol. :P

This. A 41-year old QB with a bum shoulder who can't run? Yes, please. Especially if it's outside at TCF.

No, the "debate" started when someone dared claim the Bulls' best case scenario for the year was finishing 3rd ahead of Orlando in the standings, and then you felt the need to assert Orlando's dominance by citing a single game, and then proceeded to figuratively stick your fingers in your ears and hum to yourself for 5 hours. I don't understand this. Every argument I've made in this thread has been valid, even if you don't agree with it. Do you expect me to admit the Bulls are the better team without any real proof of it? You not only misrepresented the argument, but you continue to not even acknowledge the actual argument. You made up an argument and your side of the debate consists of one result from one game. Nobody is arguing that the Bulls are clearly better than the Magic. Just that they have been comparable to this point and that the Bulls have a puncher's chance of ending the season with a better record. It's pretty hard to argue that a team will finish with a better record without arguing that they're also a better team. Even if that's not what people meant, that's how it came across. Especially considering nothing about remaining schedules was even mentioned, which would be the primary way a team finishes ahead of a better team in the standings, right?

No, the "debate" started when someone dared claim the Bulls' best case scenario for the year was finishing 3rd ahead of Orlando in the standings, and then you felt the need to assert Orlando's dominance by citing a single game, and then proceeded to figuratively stick your fingers in your ears and hum to yourself for 5 hours. I don't understand this. Every argument I've made in this thread has been valid, even if you don't agree with it. Do you expect me to admit the Bulls are the better team without any real proof of it?

Don't forget how this debate started, with people claiming the Bulls are better than Orlando, not the other way around. More than anything I'm just trying to defend my team from getting put below a team I don't feel they are inferior to. I've stated my opinions on the matter though, and you all have stated yours. Not really much else to do but to watch some NBA and see how it turns out.

1. Changing Vinny Del Negro to Tom Thibodeau. I'm not sure the effect can be stated enough. This improved a decent defense to a near-top-of-the-league defense, and actually created an offense that consists of more than "GO DERRICK! DO SOMETHING!". Also, the team is now capable of using timeouts effectively. And Deng now shoots 3's instead of low-percentage 2's. 2. Upgrading from Hakim Warrick to Carlos Boozer. Technically, Taj was the starter last year, so it's upgrading Gibson to Boozer and Warrick to Gibson, but the net benefit is Boozer instead of Warrick. Do I even need to describe how big of an upgrade that is? 3. Signing Korver and Brewer instead of Hinrich and Flip Murray. Brewer is about as good a defender as Hinrich, and Korver gives the team 3-point range that was sorely missing the past two years, requiring opposing defenses to actually defend perimeter shots instead of sitting back to defend Rose. So, the team is defending better, a real offense exists, and the opposing defense has to work harder to defend people other than Rose. Coupled with the continued improvement of Rose, Noah and Gibson, and the team is a LOT better than last year. And they weren't terrible last year. Then I guess we define what "THAT much better" means differently. To me it means that Chicago is now a top tier team, which they would pretty much have to be in order to be better than Orlando. But you just pointed out they're Tier 2, and I agree.

This is the extent of your "argument": 1. The Magic were better in the past. 2. The Magic dominated the Bulls in one game. 3. I refuse to listen to anything that suggests anything other than what I think. All I'm saying is as of right now, in the NBA, there appears to be a clear top two tiers: Tier 1: Boston, Miami, San Antonio Tier 2: Dallas, LA Lakers, Utah, Orlando, Chicago Of those teams, Chicago has played, by far, the toughest schedule in the first 25 games. With the division down this year, their best case scenario is to finish 3rd in the East, ahead of Orlando. This is actually possible. Yeah and if not for the flu we'd be about 3 games ahead of Chicago. It's not like the Bulls would be like 20-3 if they had an easier schedule. I'd give them a few more wins, putting them around Orlando's record if they remained healthy. But still without proof that Chicago's the better team.

It's fair because although the Bulls have improved, I refuse to believe that they are THAT much better than they were last year. And even if they were, Orlando has been so much better the past few years that it would simply just narrow the gap. And I do agree that the gap has been narrowed significantly. Seems contradictory. Anyway, as for the first part, then you refuse to believe the truth. They were also better last year than their record said. They had a legit shot at 50 wins in February when they got hit hard by injuries (all of Rose, Noah, and Deng out together at one point) and hit a long losing streak. And that's also contradictory. If they were better last year than their record showed, then how can they be "THAT much better" this year?

I do refuse to believe it. Most Bulls fans are acting like they suddenly have a top 5 team in the NBA. It's ridiculous. But I'm done arguing something that apparently can't be proven on either side. I certainly have my opinion and you all have yours. I'm sure we'll find out during the playoffs.

It's fair because although the Bulls have improved, I refuse to believe that they are THAT much better than they were last year. And even if they are, Orlando has been so much better the past few years that it would simply just narrow the gap. And I do agree that the gap has been narrowed significantly.

If you don't think the Bulls and Magic are in a similar position this year in terms of conference finish in the standings, then you're being a homer. 9 out of 10 people who aren't fans of either would view both as a step behind Boston and Miami, currently. Just because the Magic are a bad matchup right now for the Bulls specifically, doesn't mean a whole lot in terms of the teams' outlook for the season and playoffs. I never said the Bulls wouldn't finish near the Magic in the standings. They'll probably indeed finish 4th. What I basically said is that ranking them ahead of Orlando right now is BS because they've done nothing to prove they are better. And again, it's being assumed that the Magic being ravaged by the flu has somehow weakened the team for good. Without the flu, Orlando is at least 18-6, most likely 19-5 and nobody is calling Chicago the better team. You are also not taking into account the Bulls playing both the toughest schedule in the NBA to this point, and also being without their second best player for 15 games. With Boozer and Orlando's schedule, Chicago is at least 18-6, most likely 19-5 and nobody is calling Orlando the better team. Sure that can definitely be argued, but it doesn't really prove that the Bulls deserve to be ranked higher. And this argument of "we're a better team, just not when we play head-to-head" is absolute BS. Part of being a better team is head-to-head results, which Orlando has dominated and have shown no signs that they won't continue to dominate. So if the point being made here is that Chicago plays better against some teams then sure you have an argument, but since a matchup in the playoffs is a decent possibility, you absolutely have to account for head-to-head games to get the overall picture. And you can't really use the Boozer thing in regards to the Magic game earlier this month. Not only did he play in the game but even if he was 100% it would have not affected the outcome. Of course the Magic are certainly not 30 points better, they may even lose a game against the Bulls this year, but I have no doubt in my mind which team would win in a 7-game playoff series assuming both teams are at full strength.

I don't think Orlando's better than Boston or Miami either, but they're one trade away from being just as good. And even if they don't make a trade, they're still plenty capable of beating both teams in a series, even if it's unlikely. I just don't think the Bulls are there yet. This is all just a result of their 6-game winning streak anyway. It's amazing how confident fans get in their team after going on a bit of a run that included beating the Lakers. Unfortunately it's not going to get better anytime soon because the Bulls schedule is absolute cake for the rest of the month. We'll find out in April/May how good they really are.

If you don't think the Bulls and Magic are in a similar position this year in terms of conference finish in the standings, then you're being a homer. 9 out of 10 people who aren't fans of either would view both as a step behind Boston and Miami, currently. Just because the Magic are a bad matchup right now for the Bulls specifically, doesn't mean a whole lot in terms of the teams' outlook for the season and playoffs. I never said the Bulls wouldn't finish near the Magic in the standings. They'll probably indeed finish 4th. What I basically said is that ranking them ahead of Orlando right now is BS because they've done nothing to prove they are better. And again, it's being assumed that the Magic being ravaged by the flu has somehow weakened the team for good. Without the flu, Orlando is at least 18-6, most likely 19-5 and nobody is calling Chicago the better team.