UMFan83

Stewart Mandel's bowl projections has Iowa falling all the way to the Insight Bowl to play Mizzou while Michigan would get selected to the Gator bowl to play the last team they faced in a bowl game, Florida. Yay that's actually a team that Michigan would have a slight chance of beating.

This is just payback for the Stanley Cup Finals. ...oh wait we won that one too!

Might be the best thing to happen to DePaul basketball and the Big East at this point. I can't see the point of having 17 basketball teams in the conference.

From Steve Johnson's twitter:

And he's a poor talent evaluator, takes too long to adjust when his personnel stinks (Tommie Harris), bad at challenges, forced out good coaches (Rivera) and so on and so on. lovie is a pretty good evaluator of talent as it relates to his scheme. Mark Anderson and Tommie Harris were both terrible and Lovie refused to take them out of the lineup until it was obvious to everyone that they couldn't play anymore. Manning was his personal project and not until this year has he showed anything. But he really hurt the team last year. The Mark Anderson love is a little weird. He had an amazing rookie year and looked like a legit pass rusher. I found it odd that he demoted Alex Brown for some reason despite Alex doing a good job as the starter. After Anderson proved he is not starter quality, Brown was moved back in there. Eventually Brown was released when we signed Peppers, a move I still hate, but the justification was that Anderson had somewhat of a bounceback year the year before (albeit nowhere close to the year he had in 2006) and probably figured with Peppers taking the pressure off of things (like Tommie did in his rookie year), he would be able to play off of him and get a bunch of sacks. Didn't happen, so he was outright released. As for Tommie, I don't blame Lovie for trotting him out there as long as he did. In 2005 until his injury in 2006, Tommie Harris looked like one of the premier DT's in football and was quickly becoming if not the best, top 3. Then the injury occured and Tommie looked a bit slow for the next year or two as he battled more injuries. Lovie, knowing what kind of talent Tommie could be when healthy had to wait until he injuries finally went away, trying to do things like suspend him to motivate him. Again, all because everyone knew that Tommie's ceiling is higher than any alternative DT has. So there was definitely justification fro both calls although I do agree he stuck with them both slightly too long.

Now for the weekly Peter King update: He has moved the Bears from 13th to 5th in his "Fine Fifteen". Instead of being below every team with the same record as them, the Bears are now above every 8-3 team, although strangely he still has Green Bay (7-4) ahead of the Bears. Whatever.

i completely agree with you. but what does "depending on who you are" mean? fans of the program v. rival fans (or disinterested fans). or did you mean by geography or age? I guess I've never thought of any particular group using any of those terms, though I've heard them regularly. No real distinction, just whichever you've heard enough times that it comes to mind at a particular moment. If I've been reading Every Day Should Be Saturday, I'd probably use Ole Miss, but if I'm talking with co-workers and they use the other one, then I might use Mississippi next time I reference them. As for the others, I pretty much always use Mizzou like OleMiss uses, uh, Ole Miss, but I've never really thought of it as strange if people refer to my school as Missouri. Well it is strange to us. I went there for seven years and am fourth generation alum and I've absolutely never heard anyone associated with the school say Mississippi. And like I said earlier I can't recall ever having an in person conversation where someone said that. Perhaps it is entirely a southern thing because of everyone's knowledge of the SEC down here. I don't necessarily have a problem with it, but I'm just not used to seeing people use it, that's why I asked about your use of it. It's pretty interesting -- but I'm sure there are some people who don't know that Ole Miss is the University of Mississippi. Same for Mizzou. Almost like Cal. My dad asked me where the University of California was the other day. I realized he was talking about Cal, but why does Berkeley get that title when there are so many University of Californias? I don't know why is University of Illinois-Champaign Urbana considered University of Illinois and not UIC? I would guess Cal-Berkley is the main campus or something.

Well Illinois plays Fresno State next week, so if they win that would probably give OSU and MSU a very slight bump. I really don't feel like getting into the opponent's opponents thing but I'm sure somewhere out there, there is a game or two that would affect one or more of those teams. Enough to bump one over the other? doubtful

Yeah I think so. People forget they were a halfway decent playoff contender last year. It's certainly impressive that in their last 4 games they lost to Orlando by 4, won in Miami, beat up on Cleveland, lost to Oklahoma City in OT, and then won in LA. I think the Bulls are a better team, and are still 1.5 games better than the Pacers despite the Bulls having the hardest strength of schedule in the NBA so far. But this Pacers team seems to believe in themselves, and have a decent starting lineup with Collison being a decent PG (bit of a disapointment so far though IMO), Granger who is an All-Star, Hibbert who is quietly becoming one of the best centers in the East right now (24 pts 12 boards, 6 assists tonight), Dunleavy as a legit 6th man, Ford as a quality backup PG, etc. I think they are pretty much a playoff team and probably the biggest challenger for the Bulls in the Central division unless Milwaukee makes the typical Skiles 2nd half surge.

Go South Carolina. Our last hope to see a Non-AQ in the National Title game. Go Oregon State as well I guess. But I prefer Oregon to Auburn and Oregon State pretty much has no chance to beat Oregon. I guess crazier things have happened and it's a rivalry game but....nah.

Wow, he must not respect the Bears as opponents if he reacts that angrily to losing to a fellow 7-3 (now 8-3) team.

lol, they lost by 5 because the Bears played a near prevent defense the entire 4th quarter in an attempt to run out the clock. This is what you are able to do when you have an 18 point lead entering the quarter. As it was, the defense stepped up and stopped the Eagles when it mattered, having them settle for FGs in the red zone 3 times I believe. But yeah, keep believing you didn't just get dominated by the Bears.

Another reason why the GB loss was big is because it was a conference loss. This leaves GB with a 5-3 conference record, and the Bears at 6-3. This might end up being an important tiebreaker. If the Bears and Packers both finish with the same record, its possible if GB beats Detriot and Chicago, and the Bears beat Detroit and Minnesota they both finish with 5-1 division records, leaving conference record being the determinant. If that is tied it goes to strength of victory I think, which still has a long way to go to be determined with both teams still to play NE and the Bears still playing the Jets. Here is a look at both teams remaining conference games: Bears (6-3): @ Detroit @ Minnesota @ Green Bay Packers (5-3): San Francisco @ Detroit New York Giants Chicago

Because I originally said that Sanchez was maybe (meaning not certainly) as good as Cutler. Why would you write an insanely long post when all you had to do was recognize that I said maybe? Everyone looked ahead to the part where I said in jest that that he was basically the same guy because Sanchez has a much better line and receiving core. I tried to defend the "maybe" by pointing out that Jay and Sanchez had very similar stats going into today. Everyone here (including me) gets their jollies by pointing out where others are wrong. But why completely overlook what I originally said where I poked fun at myself by saying they were basically the same. I did that because you guys missed something do obvious where I qualified my statement. But all I said was that maybe Sanchez is not too far behind because they have similar stats. The point is that there are 5-6 QBs in this league who can do exactly what Jay does in this offense even with a bad line and an average receiving core at best. Jay has his best game this year and all of the sudden no one else can do what Jay does. The "maybe" is the only leg you have to stand on. You said Sanchez possibly could have won the game for the Bears today like Cutler did when the next game he himself wins for his team will be his first. It doesn't make any sense that you would jokingly say that they are basically the same. If you really did say it as a way to admit you are wrong then fine. But it looks a lot more like someone backtracking and trying to make a dumb comment look less dumb. You also contradict yourself when you say that Cutler and Sanchez's stats are similar, but earlier admit that Sanchez's numbers have a lot to do with the Jets having superior receiver and a much much much better offensive line protecting him. So no, Sanchez isn't in the same realm as Cutler right now, which is what you originally implied was maybe true. The point is, beyond your original point instead of just downplaying what you said, you turned it into a much bigger convo by trying to prove your point and saying many wrong things along the way.

We have to admit we have gotten a bit of luck this year in regards to injuries. I feel like we deserve it considering how many injuries we had to deal with last year. It's great that we've been able to take advantage of this so far.

Why can't you just admit that you made a dumb statement and we can move on? Everyone occasically says things that are dumb on this board, whether it be because you are misinformed or because you didn't put a lot of thought into something or whatever. Instead of trying to backtrack for 3 pages on something you surely wish you didn't say because you just happened to throw a name onto a list of other QBs, why not just say "oops i didnt look too closely at the numbers, my bad"? Then you made it much worse by trying to actually make an argument that Mark Sanchez is as good as Jay Cutler. Now you feel like you have to backtrack even farther by claiming it was said in jest and trying to say he "could be in two years". See how much of your night was wasted trying to prove a point that is impossible to improve, all because you cannot bring yourself to admit you said something dumb and move on?

Sounds better than some of the other crap we've been linked to No doubt.

If our offseason involved aquiring Carlos Pena and Brandon Webb, what an offseason that would be....in 2007.

Cutler's season QB rating went from 84.2 to 90.4 with his performance today. 180-292, 2311 yards 16 TD, 10 INT, 61.6 COMP%, 8.0 YPA, 90.4 RATING

Awesome...Vick started his press conference by tipping his cap to the Bears defense for having a great scheme against them.

Wow....was he trying to commit suicide?

I am trying to think where someone could fall out of the stadium onto the street. Any areas of the stadium I imagine that happening leave little chance of surviving. I think most of the areas would be around the columns that encircle the stadium. Also probably at the top of the North end zone. Either way, it's likely instant death. Truly a tragedy that mars a huge win. I will pray for that guys family.

Yeah we're probably a below average running offense but we've started to prove we can move the ball with some effectiveness at times. We ran the ball really well against Miami, and I think Minnesota. The biggest reason besides improved offensive line play is that the opponents have to respect Cutler's arm at this point. In most situations this will allow them to run with some effectiveness. In situations where the Bears are sitting on a big lead (something that hasnt happened much this season) and the D is keying on the run game, the Bears just aren't good enough to run with any effectiveness. But bottom line is since the bye the Bears have run the ball rather decently. Certainly much better than last year's team.

Yeah from my impression Rose has improved defensively this year but I still don't see him being any more than average as a defender at this point. He's been better on the ball but fast guards still beat him a lot, and he still has trouble getting through screens and recovering to get in a good defensive position.

Cutler hopefully is finally shedding the "can't be a winning QB label". Bears have already won more games than last year and are guaranteed a .500 or better season. 2-3 will probably take us to the playoffs. 3-2 might win us the division. If we beat the Lions next week, we're looking fantastic.