UMFan83

Grossman as a rookie played in like 3 games at the end of the year. I think he did have one decent game though. Not sure it makes the cut though.

I would love that. Even if we miss out on Epstein, this means Ricketts is ready to spend. I'm sure he knows that if Epstein were to jump ship, it wouldnt be to spend 4-5 years building a team, it would be to build a winner in the next year or 2. Probably similar to the '06/'07 offseason with better decisions. And I wonder how much resistance that the Red Sox would even put up. They already have a team built to win now and the next several years, and if Epstein left town, they already have his heir apparent in Cherington. Even if he wasn't their guy, they'd still have their pick of the litter to replace him. Damn you not so cautious optimism. Good points Well some say that Epstein is leaking interest in the Cubs as leverage to get a new contract, so it will be interesting to see what happens if the Red Sox call his bluff. He may not have legitimate interest in the Cubs but if the Red Sox basically tell him they are going with Cherington, he'll have no choice. Doubt it would actually go down that way, but if Epstein plays his cards the wrong way, it wouldn't shock me. I'd have to think that Epstein is at the point where the glory of ending 2 of baseballs 3 biggest title droughts(Kenny Williams already ended #2) would be more important than the money, especially if the amounts are similar. We absolutely don't know that for sure though. Don't forget that Theo is from NE and grew up dreaming of working for the Red Sox. He's also only 37 years old, so he isn't necessarily thinking of his legacy at this point. No one really knows his true intentions at this point. While it is likely that he would be intregued by the opportunity to get the Cubs a World Series ring, it almost might not be his priority at the moment.

THE BREAKS JUST KEEP COMING! Teams just randomly start dropping the football when they play the Bears. How can one team get so damn lucky? Are you purposely being obtuse here, or do you really not understand the difference between causing fumbles and recovering fumbles? Fumble recovery percentage last year: http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/fumble-recovery-pct remember last year when the redskins fumbled like 8 times against us and recovered every single one of them? Well to be fair. Cutler's favorite target that day was on the other team too. That game was about more than fumbles. This reminds me. How can Lovie challenge a play yesterday that AT WORST gives them a 1st and goal from the 1, and not challenge a goalline fumble against Washington last year that would have been overturned into a probable game winning TD? IIRC Lovie already lost a challenge in the game and his excuse was that he didnt want to be out of challenges for the rest of the game. Also that he thought his defense could get the ball back in Skins territory because the Skins were pinned on the goal line.

I dunno about that. There is a very slight inferiority complex given that our division and arch rivals the Packers are media darling and have been for years. Traditionally the Bears haven't played a sexy style of football, so I can understand that they don't get the coverage the Cowboys or Packers get. People are just wondering why like 97% of all national writers gave the Bears no shot to make the playoffs this year.

I would love that. Even if we miss out on Epstein, this means Ricketts is ready to spend. I'm sure he knows that if Epstein were to jump ship, it wouldnt be to spend 4-5 years building a team, it would be to build a winner in the next year or 2. Probably similar to the '06/'07 offseason with better decisions. And I wonder how much resistance that the Red Sox would even put up. They already have a team built to win now and the next several years, and if Epstein left town, they already have his heir apparent in Cherington. Even if he wasn't their guy, they'd still have their pick of the litter to replace him. Damn you not so cautious optimism. Good points Well some say that Epstein is leaking interest in the Cubs as leverage to get a new contract, so it will be interesting to see what happens if the Red Sox call his bluff. He may not have legitimate interest in the Cubs but if the Red Sox basically tell him they are going with Cherington, he'll have no choice. Doubt it would actually go down that way, but if Epstein plays his cards the wrong way, it wouldn't shock me.

I honestly don't know. I probably sound madder than I actually am. I think it in general makes me mad that people try to discuss the entire national football league and sound ignorant about it 95% of the time. I can actually understand why writer with a national perspective saw the Bears as flukes last year. Like I said a week or two ago, there is no way these people can do in depth analysis on 30 teams, so they end up pigeon holeing teams one way or another. That's why groupthink prevails so often when predicting sports. There was a time last year after the 3-0 start where the media legitimately said the Bears are the best team in the NFC, and then that Sackfest happened in NY and the Bears never quite recovered from that in the public eye. Even the win over the Eagles never really completely convinced them of the Bears legitimacy, although it certainly gave them a little more respect. And then even if you had the Bears pegged as a lucky team, it was solidified when a) Joe Webb somehow led the Vikings to a road victory over Philly, securing a first round bye for the Bears, and b) the Bears somehow drew a 7-9 team at home for their first playoff game. At that point, the only way the Bears were going to get respect going into this year was to beat Green Bay. Anything less than a victory, unless they had an Eagles like offseason, would lead to the situation we saw going into this season. As a side note, after the first 2 Packers possessions, the Bears played the Packers extremely well. The Packers didn't score any offensive points the last 3.5 quarters of the game, Rodgers couldn't get much going. The Bears 3rd string QB was within 30 yards of tying the game late. And yet, I keep reading about how the Packers steamrolled everyone on the way to a super bowl trophy. That said, it gives me pleasure to refute this stuff and this is my number 1 message board, so mineaswell.

This comment was [expletive] hilarious all around. The Bears got so lucky that the Falcons player tried to shove Forte out of bounds but Forte skillfully kept his balance. And then on Hester's run, the defender slipped...remember Hester didn't make him slip with a sick cut to the outside, he just compeltely slipped on his own....how much more good fortune can the Bears get? He mentions the 2 ints slipping out of their hands but doesnt mention at all a Cutler pass batted straight in the air into the hands of a Falcon who runs it back for a TD. That was skill, but all the other stuff was luck for the Bears right? Oh but Also, Mcclure was missing for the Falcons. When the Bears stay healthy its "no fair teams always get hurt during the year", but when an opponent misses a game its another reason why the Bears lucked out. Oh and poor Falcons having to start a RG making his first NFL start. Bears didn't have anyone making their first NFL start yesterday did they?

I just read most of the Barnwell article. Nice job antaginizing Bears fans. Tease them by putting a picture of the Bears dominating the Falcons up there, start talking about an NFC North team getting a dominant victory over an NFC South "contender" and then pull the rug out from under us by saying Detroit's defense was more dominant giving up 13 points to the 20th ranked scoring offense last year, as opposed to Chicago's defense giving up 6 points to the 5th ranked scoring offense. Good stuff

Detroit? Where did you get that from? They played in Baton Rouge. I saw "Tiger Stadium" and instinctively thought Detroit. Baton Rouge makes a ton more sense. I remember that game. Jones and Benson were out so Adrian Peterson was the starting RB and I believe reached over 100 yards rushing in the game. It was a close game throughout which was a bit disappointing because the Saints were awful all year, and young Robbie Gould, in maybe his 3rd or 4th game as a Bear kicked the GW FG to win...I think 20-17.

Of course they were fortunate to recover all the fumbles. That much is obvious. And I didnt read Barnwells article yet, all I read was people here saying that they are saying we were lucky to win because we recovered all 5 fumbles. So I saw that as him desperately trying to grasp on something to defending his Bears = bad prediction he's taking tons of heat for. My "spazzing" was a exaggerated sarcastic remark based on that and all the other "lucky things" that happen to the Bears that these guys love to point out, not based on you trying to point out that we did get lucky in the grand scheme of things to recover all 5 fumbles. Actually it had absolutely nothing to do with you or anything you've said today, which is why I find it odd that you seemed to have taken it personally.

Uh, no. I understand what he's spazzing about, and he's still being ridiculous. I don't think you do understand my friend.

I do wonder, and I'm sure it will be asked, what the Bears are doing to mask all the knowledge Kreutz has of the offense, stuff like check-downs, protections, audibles, etc etc. Kreutz wasn't just another lineman, he was pretty much the co-captain of the offense and although he only played 1 year in the Martz sceme, I'm sure he is able to articulate the offense they ran last year pretty well.

This is good content:

I'd be confident if I were them. Playing at home after torching the Packers D and faced with a team that according to everything they've read about them was a huge overrated fluke last year. They should be worried about their own D of course, but in their minds the Bears offense sucks, they will get constant pressure on Cutler, and Cutler will throw 3+ INTs because that's what the media tells them he will do. I feel strangely optimistic about this one. I'm excited to see the Bears in a dome. I think Martz will draw up a great offensive strategy. Brees w/the Saints has never beaten the Bears. Unfortunately, we've never played them in the Dome. The previous times we played them were: In mediocre to bad conditions in the 06 NFC title game, a late December 07 game in mediocre conditions, and a December night game in 08 that we won in OT. 06: 27-49, 354 yards, 1 td, 2 int 07: 35-60, 320 yards, 2 td, 3 int 08: 24-48, 232 yards, 2 td, 2 int Total: 86-157 (54.7%), 906 yards (5.8 YPA, 10.5 YPC), 5 TD, 7 INT My very preliminary prediction is 27-23 Bears, but I absolutely understand anyone who picks the Saints. I know I'm going against the grain here.

THE BREAKS JUST KEEP COMING! Teams just randomly start dropping the football when they play the Bears. How can one team get so damn lucky?

Yeah at this point, no matter the dumb [expletive] he does, he obviously has this team play good football more often than not. At the point I made the comment, he had made 2 playoff appearances in 6 years, and had gone 3 straight years without making the playoffs, and based off that first Detroit game didn't look like he had anything special going on that year either. But now you look at his resume as currently compiled and you see since 2005, he's had 4 winning seasons out of 6, 3 playoff appearances, 2 conference title game appearances, 1 super bowl appearance, no 10 loss seasons, and I believe the 2nd winningest NFC team during that tenure. When you look at the Bears as a whole during that period, you have to wonder how the hell he managed to lead this team to that status.

That's Bill Barnwell. He is technically right that the Bears were fortunate to recover all 5 of the fumbles in the game and as a result force the Falcons offense to become one-dimensional. None of the fumbles the Bears made were ones where the other team really had a chance to get them though. It wasn't like it was a scramble where the Bears were lucky to come up with it. I love how the sportsbook is part of his argument. Cuz they're always right, eh? I would have to think that in 90% of all games, you could make a somewhat cohesive argument that the winning team caught breaks that contributed to the victory. But come on. We just beat a 13-3 team a year ago by 18 points, and the margin should have been more. If Barnwell is throwing luck out there he's just trying to defend his 'bears could be the worst team in the league' prediction that he's currently taking heat for. What were the 5 fumbles? I only remember 3 of them. A strip fumble from a guy that is known for trying to strip/tackle every single time, a fumbled caused by pressure on the QB, Hester dropping a punt return that really was in no danger of being recovered by anyone but him. Sure the Bears recovered all of those fumbles, but you also have to give credit to the team for forcing those fumbles. If I was Cutler fumbling the snap and falling on it under a pile of people, that's luck. If Tillman comes and strips a ball carrier, that's what he does. Sure its lucky the Bears came out with it but you have to give credit to the Bears for forcing the fumble in the first place. It's not lucky that the Bears knocked Matt Ryan on his ass 11 times yesterday. It's not lucky that pressure forced Ryan to put the ball on the ground. It's not luck that pressure forced Ryan to make an ill advised throw caught by a diving Urlacher. It's certainly not good luck that a Cutler pass was batted around 3 times before falling right in the hands of a falcon with open field (but I balance out that with the fact that that one Falcons DB dropped 2 should have been INTs in the game). Bears did a ton of good things yesterday to win that game, and if your focus is how lucky the Bears were to recover all 5 fumbles, you are obviously bitter that the Bears didn't look as bad as you predicted them to be this year.

Thank you Facebook for reminding me that a year ago today, I made this wall post: I think it was after the Lions game in week 1 last year. I can't remember what Lovie did that was so bad but it's funny how much difference a year makes. Not to say that I'm "rah rah" for Lovie but he's certainly given himself some rope in the last year.

Bill Simmons AFC playoff predictions: 1. Pittsburgh 13-3 2. San Diego 13-3 3. New England 12-4 4. Tennessee 10-6 5. NY Jets 10-6 6. Cleveland 10-6 Pittsburgh blown out by Baltimore, who isnt picked to make the playoffs, San Diego looks shaky in a win over Minnesota, Tennessee looks bad in loss to Jags, Cleveland loses to Cincinnati's backup QB 1. Green Bay, 12-4 2. New Orleans, 11-5 3. Dallas, 11-5 4. St. Louis, 10-6 5. Tampa Bay, 11-5 6. Philly, 11-5 Dallas chokes and loses to the Jets, St. Louis is blown out by Philly, TB loses convincingly to Detroit at home (Despite the final margin) Great start Bill!

This is a really cool video that the Tribune posted about the Bears moving into Soldier Field in 1971. I had no idea that Soldier Field was in such a state of disrepair before the Bears moved in. http://www.chicagotribune.com/videogallery/64586043/Sports/Bears-move-to-Soldier-Field-1971#gl-5 An interesting thing was that Soldier Field was only meant to be a temporary home for the Bears, and when George Halas was interviewed in the video he said that even if Soldier Field works out they needed a new stadium as soon as possible. Obviously they didnt get that new stadium until 2003 after 32 years at the old Soldier Field.

Cubs are 22-17 since July 31st and have won 8 of their last 12 series

I can't believe his ERA coming into today was only 4.78

LOL I was half watching the bottom of the 11th and saw a Mets player hit a monster home run in what is essentially garbage time. I said to myself "I bet that's Grabow pitching" and sure enough it was.

He's pretty cool. I like that the cheering during the anthem has caught on when he sings for other Chicago sports teams besides the Blackhawks. The fact that people from other cities don't like it and think its disrespectful only makes me like it more. I'm not sure how cheering with excitement while your national anthem is sung could be considered disrespectful but whatever.

Romo? it was the D in BIG D that fell apart Granted I didnt watch until the end but I did see Romo fumble the ball away on the goal line, throw an awful interception and not be prepared for a snap with 8 seconds left.