UMFan83

I agree with the first part of what you said, but I really don't see how you can say he couldn't win a Super Bowl. He built two NFCCG teams, once of which made the Super Bowl which they played close for the most part. I generally like the idea of a different direction, and I actually kind of like the idea of sticking with Lovie (for now) while going about that different direction, despite it being the sort of half assed change it is. What I'm mostly concerned with is their ability to find a better replacement. Ted Phillips is an accountant. He's basically in charge of hiring and firing. He went out and got the solid, but uninspiring hire of Angelo. But nobody in this organization strikes me as particularly bright, forward thinking or innovative. Yeah he built the 2006 Super Bowl team and while we had a solid team last year I still don't know if we'll ever know just how good. I mean we beat the 7-9 Seahawks at home to get to the title game. But whatever, I'll give him credit for it I guess. Either way, the defense is getting older, I don't see many more productive years for Urlacher, Briggs is probably going to keep complaining until he is able to leave, etc. It would be up to Angelo to get top talent to replace these guys, and he hasn't drafted a Pro Bowl caliber defensive talent since......... And I also agree about being worried about who the replacement is going to be. There are a lot of horrible candidates out there. The thing that worries me is that I don't believe the Bears are going to be looking at bringing some big named person with a successful resume here (if theres one even out there - BESIDES THE POLIANS), so its looking like whoever we choose will be coming with some risk of failure. With the Bears built the way they are, we don't have a lot of cushion for draft failure over the next couple of seasons.

I wonder how much of an effect certain embarrassing events had on the Angelo decision today. His tenure has been littered with occasional things like the Tank Johnson situation, the James Starks accident, the Ravens draft trade fiasco, with the Sam Hurd incident being the last most glaring example. I don't think it had a huge effect on the decision, but with the Bears being an image conscious organization, I'm sure that played into the decision somehow.

So we get Olsen back now right?

I agree that he's not incompetenent, but he's not good either. That's the thing, despite a lack of draft hits over the last several years, and basically ignoring several FA groups, he still built decent teams. But I don't even think I really understand why. Here are a few reasons that I've come up with: 1) Defense is surviving on early to mid 2000's pickups like Urlacher, Briggs, and Tillman. The rest of the D is built with adequate but not great draft picks, and FA signings. Looking at Melton, Toeaina, Izzy, Wright, Jennings, they are ok players, but none of them are premier talents. They fit well in the scheme and their shortcomings are aided by Peppers (on the line), Tillman (in the secondary), and Urlacher and Briggs (everywhere). 2) Lovie is a coach who gets the most out of his players, gets them rallying behind him, and has stubbornly refused to adjust his defensive scheme. The last part is important because the organization by now knows every little thing about Lovie's cover 2. They know the kind of players that fit every position, and the players that have been there for a couple of years know it like the back of their hand. The consistency has allowed the players to "master" the scheme to the best of their abilities. 3) Angelo managed to acquire one of the only QBs that could make the offense look decent despite the lack of talent at WR and on the line. Thats the only thing I can think of because outside of Cutler, Forte, and maybe Chris Williams, there is a glaring lack of talent everywhere else on the offense. But yet, due to an offensive scheme that can succeed with no name WRs, and a lot of sacks are accepted, the offense has been at least average at times. The offense is what kills my vision of Angelo. Look obviously the man has some philosophy about spending on WRs being inefficient. But I just cannot make any justification for his handling of the oline. He went 4-5 years without drafting any oline players in the first 5 rounds of the draft (jersey once put this together and explaining it well) and tried to fill his holes with either over the hill vets that were once good, or rejected FA scraps from other teams. Just doesn't make sense to commit to many resources for the franchise QB and then not make an effort to give him all the pieces he needs. Instead he gets the OC that supposedly can make an offense without good WRs and line succeed. I don't necessarily hate what Angelo did (looking at his tenure as a whole), but I kind of agree with the quote that things were sort of stale. He did an ok job here but it is time to go a different direction and see what we get. I could see us making the playoffs, maybe getting to some conference title games, but unless a lot broke right, I don't see Angelo winning a super bowl here over the next few seasons. While its a big gamble, going a different direction might in fact be what we need.

This doesn't make sense. In football the draft is the primary talent acquisition method, and by a larger margin than the other 3 sports. Most even casual fans know this and won't complain if the new GM doesn't throw a crapload of money around in FA. Last year a lot of people were complaining about our FA decisions because 1) we had (have) a ton of cap space, 2) we had glaring needs at WR and OL, 3) we assumed Angelo was no where close to being fired, and because of his refusal to draft those 2 positions, we needed to make up for it in FA. With a new GM, I would hope most fans would give him a basic level of trust that he will build a team properly through the draft and fill the remaining holes through calculated FA pickups.

Also some dude on twitter suggested the Polians. Ugh they might be the only guys to have a worse drafting track record over the last 4-5 years than Angelo.

Lovie certainly has his issues but his players play hard for him. Maybe in 1-2 years but right now I'd rather not get rid of him now. Too much shakeup for an organization that has a team that can contend with a couple of good moves.

Merry Xmas Bears fans! It sucked to go through the last 6 weeks but there seems to be some long term benefit from the ordeal. Going to be really interesting to see who they hire.

This dude, and the last 2 Boise State kickers should start a support group for choking kickers.

The subject of fandom is a double edged sword in terms of our rivals perception of our fans. If we suck and still draw well, they go on and on about how our fans are really going to get drunk and be at Wrigley Field and have no idea what's going on at the game. If we suck and draw a lot less, than we are fair-weather fans like the White Sox. Not that stereotypes are true, but that's how it will be perceived.

Every time someone goes for 2 before the final 7 minutes of the 4th quarter, it befuddles me. It seems like every single time they end up in a situation later where that costs them. So you are down 16 with 9 minutes left in the 4th and you score a TD, you won't consider going for 2?

Oilers had lost 7 straight road games, scoring only 12 goals in the process. They scored 4 tonight and win in regulation tonight against the team with the most points in the league. Awful. Hawks are so streaky. Playing well for awhile, now they've lost 2 of 3 at home in regulation. Hopefully they can turn it around before it becomes a slide. Losing to Edmonton just sucks.

Make that 0 for their last 14 and 1 for their last 22. Anemic.

The Hawks know that they have an extra man on the ice in these things right?

Hawks have scored 1 goal in their last 21 power play attempts and are 0 for 13 in their last 3 games.

Our old friend Eager scores to make it 4-2. We're looking at 2 regulation home losses in our last 3 games.

PS, I feel like the Hawks have been taking a lot of penalties lately. Not used to that as the Hawks are among the best at avoiding the box.

Im starting to hate Edmonton. They for some reason have our number. They were absolutely terrible last year and still managed to hand the Hawks 2 regulation losses in 4 games last year. This year they already beat us 9-2 earlier and are beating us on our home ice through 2.

I've been thinking about it recently. I think I will be slightly more interested in this team than the last 2. The reason being is that the last 2 years, our team was a bunch of veterans with no upside. Once the team proved to be bad, there was just nothing interesting to follow outside of Starlin. At least this year there are new pieces and likely to be a lot of young faces in the lineup (and ones with upside, not the Campanas of the system). It will be somewhat interesting to see how the team progresses throughout the year. Don't get me wrong, on a scale of 1-10, we're talking a 2 next year instead of a 1.

Hammer! 2 interesting goals given up by Khabi

Sweet, Carcillo gets a 5 minute penalty for boarding and 10 minute game misconduct. During the 5 minute power play, the Oilers score twice (so far...still 1:23 left). What a disaster.

Still not quite certain. I think I'm getting closer.

I'm pretty sure that the NHL played an exhibition game outdoors in Las Vegas within the last 10 years. This is what lead me to believe they could play a game with the temps in the 50's Edit: It was 1991. Temps were in the mid 80's when the game was being played. Now an exhibition is different than a regular season game but it can be done. I'm sure technology has improved enough over the last 20 years that it could happen. So there people who mocked my idea.

I know there is a ton of good college football on and I've been watching plenty, but I can't help but get into the Winter Classic game every year. This one between the Flyers and Rangers has been good. That said, the novelty is surely being lost quickly. Every game except for the Wrigley Field game has been played in the Northeast (Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Boston and Philadelphia). They need to do something bold to keep the interest high, like play the game in a western market, possibly even a warm weather city. Not something like LA where there would be a ton of issues, but how about a San Jose-LA Kings game at AT&T Park in San Fran? I know San Jose is only loosely affiliated with San Jose, but I think that would be an awesome way to showcase two west coast teams at a relatively unique ballpark. Plus, San Fran really isn't all that warm in the winter, and the temp at game time would probably be in the low 50's Some other choices would be Avalanche-Red Wings at Invesco Field, or Stars-whoever at Cowboys Stadium (or if thats not outdoor enough, Ballpark in Arlington.) I don't think Dallas gets all that warm in the winter either. They could also include Canada into it and do away with the Heritage Classic. Two bolder options would be to try to pull it off in a warm weather city like LA or Phoenix, or changing the format and instead of a regular season game, make the All Star game the Winter Classic. I'm not sure if that would hurt the popularity of the Winter Classic or help the popularity of the All Star game, but its an idea.