Jump to content
North Side Baseball

JonJayCutler

Verified Member
  • Posts

    4,113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

 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

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by JonJayCutler

  1. That's another thing that changed after the loss against Washington. Not sure if it was planned or not, but it's definitely working. How is that a change after the Washington loss? He's been doing it all year and really his entire career. Are you watching the same games I'm watching? His amount of moving in the pocket, running for yards, and throwing on the run has all increased since the Washington game/bye week. This is why I wonder how much the offensive line has really improved, as Cutler has avoided numerous sacks with his feet over the past 5 games. I didn't see it as much before the bye week. He is currently within 5 yards of a career high in rushing yards for a season, and there are four games left.
  2. I watched the whole game but for the life of me cannot remember Julius Peppers recording a sack as the stats suggest.
  3. That's another thing that changed after the loss against Washington. Not sure if it was planned or not, but it's definitely working.
  4. The Tampa loss was big. With that loss, we can no longer miss the playoffs at 12-4. That scenario requires the Packers to beat the Giants and us to win every game but Week 17, which would put the Giants two games behind us going into Week 17, thus giving us a WC spot at the very least. It would be nice to win the division and have HFA over Atlanta, but with them playing Carolina twice and Seattle once in the last four games, I doubt we'd have finished ahead of them anyway, so them winning today is fine. I contemplated not saying this because it's very unlikely...but if the Bears win next week and the Lions find a way to beat GB, we would have a chance to clinch the division the following week on MNF with a win over the Vikings, regardless of what GB does that week. If it unfolded that way, the Bears would move to 5-0 in the division while GB would be at 3-2. So we'd have at least a two-game lead on GB with two weeks remaining, meaning GB could only end up tied with us at best. Then if that happens we would get the tiebreaker because of division record, 5-1 over 4-2. Again, very unlikely but that's definitely the soonest we could clinch.
  5. Bucs tie the Falcons at 14 before the half. I'm going to be pissed if we go 0 for 4 in games that would help us. If we can get TB out of the WC picture, I feel pretty good considering the Giants have yet to play both the Eagles and Packers. That's two games in which we are guaranteed to get a favorable outcome. So go Falcons.
  6. What if there was no bogus possession rule for catching a TD? There was still time left on the clock even if Johnson would have had a TD. The Bears do have Devin Hester. The Bears have had some breaks and lost some. Their record is exactly constitutive of who they are and who they have played. Every team's is. Just like Washington had a ton of time remaining, thus the game is still not over if Lovie challenges that call and wins the challenge. But I agree with your second statement, and that's the point I'm trying to make. The "what if" game is almost always a two-sided coin. You can't talk about games we should have won without considering the games that we should have lost. And there ARE games we should have lost. The bashing of Lovie and calling for his firing is ridiculous. It was a bad decision, it happens. Yet the good calls he makes go mostly unnoticed. Btw, we shouldn't have needed that goal-line challenge to win the Washington game anyway. We had plenty of chances after it.
  7. The point remains that the Bears lose in Week 1 if not for that rule technicality. As for today, when you're losing for the first 75% of the 2nd half and then take the lead, to me that counts as scoring at the end of the game. It wasn't the very end, but Detroit played well enough to win. And yet bears were in control except for last 60 seconds of first half. How? Detroit scored first. I don't have to look at a copy of the play-by-play to know that the Lions had the lead in that game longer than Chicago.
  8. What if there was no bogus possession rule for catching a TD?
  9. The point remains that the Bears lose in Week 1 if not for that rule technicality. As for today, when you're losing for the first 75% of the 2nd half and then take the lead, to me that counts as scoring at the end of the game. It wasn't the very end, but Detroit played well enough to win.
  10. If that lack of a challenge costs us a playoff spot, it should still cost Lovie his job, even if we go 11-5 and don't make it. I have no way of proving this, but I don't think this team goes on to win 5 in a row if they don't lose that Washington game. That was the game where the result forced us to put more emphasis on the run game, and seemed to be a general wake-up call for the team. Plus who knows how the rest of that game would have played out had Lovie challenged that call. The Seahawks game we were outplayed. Plus, we shouldn't be complaining about potential wins that slipped away. We stole a win on a rule technicality against Detroit at home, got a gift from the Packers in the form of a million penalties, and scored at the end of road games in Buffalo and Detroit to take wins there. Not to mention the continual injuries to players of the opposing team. We've had our share of good luck.
  11. I'm sure you're thinking of Logan Mankins, as Mangold plays for the Jets. Anyway, New England wanted a 1st-rounder for Mankins, which is why he's still a Patriot. No thanks. Considering that Jerry is not really good at drafting first rounders, it was a possibility. If the Bears were going to go out and get a lineman in the draft with a first, why not get a guy with that pick who you won't have to guess with. I guess the only problem with that is you have Williams at LG already. Too bad he probably won't be a LT. Considering Mankins will be 29 in March, I wouldn't trade a first-rounder for a guy who will probably start declining in the next couple years. Addressing the OL in the draft is a much better idea, but someone needs to tell Jerry that.
  12. I'm sure you're thinking of Logan Mankins, as Mangold plays for the Jets. Anyway, New England wanted a 1st-rounder for Mankins, which is why he's still a Patriot. No thanks.
  13. You're nuts. It's not THE most pressing need, but it's up there. I think the Bears need a certain type of receiver. They have no need for another small, speedy guy. They need someone with size and height. Agreed. This becomes an elite offense with one or two good OL and a Brandon Marshall/Calvin Johnson type WR.
  14. I need to be reassured about this game. I just have a weird feeling that the offense will go back to struggling in the redzone and on 3rd down. It's been almost too good lately. The Lions D was the worst it's been all year against the Pats while the Bears offense was the best it's been all year against the Eagles. I could easily see rebound on the part of the Lions and regression on the part of the Bears.
  15. Lol at the rate this is going Calvin Johnson will miss the game with the flu.
  16. Priceless at 0:20. Ron pounds on the table: "Jesus Christ!" Absolutely priceless.
  17. Bell deserves some carries. He averaged 5.5 ypc last year on 40 carries. Now that number was largely skewed by a 72-yard run on his first NFL carry, but still. He's a 23 year old back with good size. Taylor has indeed been pretty bad, especially his last two games where he ran for 10 yards on 11 carries and -3 yards on 6 carries in games where Forte pretty much ran with ease.
  18. Well I didn't expect to wake up to this. R.I.P. Ron, you will be greatly missed. :( Oh and screw you, MLB.
  19. What's scary about that scenario is that it's not even that unpractical. Good Lord.
  20. If that happened, I'd be perfectly fine with no NFL in 2011. Hell I'll be pissed if 11-5 doesn't make it.
  21. Ok, my whole point was to point out that it'd be much easier to get a bye if the Eagles are the champs, and the Giants in the WC race isnt the worst thing in the world since either them or the Packers are guaranteed to lose again this year, helping us in one race or the other. I just didn't put together my thought very well. I don't want the Eagles to win tonight. I just want them to win the division instead of the Giants and/or both teams finish with a worse record than the Bears. If the Bears finish 3-2 (11-5), the Giants would have to go 4-1 to finish ahead, of the Bears and the Eagles 5-0. It's a valid point, but you could also look at the Giants-Packers game in that one winning helps us in our own division and the other winning helps us towards a first-round bye, if the Giants do indeed take that division.
  22. Even after reading UM's reasoning, I am failing to understand how it's good for the Eagles to win tonight. First of all, the Texans winning has zero negative effects on us. Second of all, if the Eagles lose tonight and we win on Sunday, they become practically THREE games behind us, as we'll have 2 games on them plus the tiebreaker. If the Giants win their division they could get a higher seeding than us if we win our division, but at least we'd pretty much be guaranteed a WC spot over the Eagles if we lose the division to GB (I too am assuming the Bucs will fade). I guess others have more confidence in the Bears winning the division than I do. With the tough schedule to close out the season, I just want to get in the playoffs.
  23. Burleson's comments add fuel to the fire Thanks, Burleson. This is exactly what I wanted to happen.
  24. What scares me is that someone is due to be right about their guarantee. Let's hope it's not Burleson.
  25. Dwight Howard mocks Derek Anderson LOL.
×
×
  • Create New...