UMFan83

It's a test to see if Jacksonville needs to get relocated. Give them a MNF game against a mediocre draw and if they can't sell it out, they're gone.

Yep...it's hard to beat 22-11. .667 winning percentage. Works out to 108-54 over 162 games. If you want to spin it quasi positively, they were only 4-3 against the Cubs, and 18-8 against everyone else :)

Good point why havent I thought about picking the Bears opponent defense yet? My league gives 2 points for every sack. You are right. As much as we want to take about different schemes, or using the shotgun formation or running more, or using the safety valves, etc. Nothing is going to make this offense into anything until the line is fixed. You might be able to slow down the onslaught that is occuring by being open minded and creative, but there is nothing you can do to make this offense functional without personnel changes on the line.

Few more stats I was reading today regarding the Yankees absolute monopoly in postseason appearances. -The Yankees are playing their 360th playoff game in franchise history tonight. They have 30 more postseason games played than 13 franchises combined (Washington (10), Texas (17), Colorado (20), Tampa Bay (21), Milwaukee (21), Arizona (31), Florida (33), San Diego (34), Seattle (36), Toronto (41), Kansas City (43), Chicago White Sox (55), Houston (56)) -They are trying for their 28th world title in history. They have more world titles than 5 franchises have playoff games played (Washington (10), Texas (17), Colorado (20), Tampa Bay (21), Milwaukee (21)). They also have more world titles than 12 teams have playoff wins (Washington (5), Texas (5), Milwaukee (9), Colorado (10), Tampa Bay (10), San Diego (12), Seattle (15), Arizona (15), Kansas City (18), Houston (21), Toronto (21), Florida (22), Los Angeles Angels (27 - same). -Taking a look at their early run of success. They won more playoff games between 1921 and 1964 than every team has in their history (99....St. Louis has 98 all time). They also have won more playoff games between 1981 to 2010 than every other team has in their history (101 wins...again St. Louis has 98 all time). -The Yankees lifetime playoff winning percentage is .604. Over a 162 game season, this is the equivilent of a 98-64 team. Mind boggling. I hate those [expletive]. Edit: Oh and in case you are wondering exactly how the Cubs fit in those numbers, they are 28-55 lifetime in the postseason (.337 winning % - equivilent of a 55-107 team over a 162 game season). The .337 winning percentage is 2nd worst of the 30 MLB teams. However, the worst team, Texas (5-12, .294), is hopefully improving on this number as we speak).

Did you know Andy Pettitte has more postseason starts (41) and wins (19) than any pitcher in baseball history? To put that number in perspective, he's won more postseason games (19) than the Cubs have since 1908 (18).

Was looking at Football outsiders trying to see just how bad the O-line has been. Unfortunately it hasn't updated the numbers yet for week 6 but looking at the adjusted sack rates for team in the NFL, the Bears are by far the worst in the league at 12.2% (next worst is Arizona at 10.9%). And again that was before yesterdays sack fest. Here is how FO describes adjusted sack rate: So if the Bears were to keep up the pace that they are at right now (and the number should be slightly higher than 12.2 after yesterday), only 3 offensive lines in the last 14 years have had a worse ASR than this years Bears: 02 Texans - 15.1% (expansion team) 05 Texans - 13.0% 06 Raiders - 12.3% 10 Bears - 12.2% In a majority of the years, the worst team in the league has a rating somewhere between 9.7% and 10.9%. So in 14 years, there have been 471 different offensive line units in the NFL. The Bears so far are 468th at protecting their QB out of 471 since 1996. Anyone who says that Kyle Orton is better than Jay Cutler should be made to understood what this means.

I don't think the Vikings are as flawed as they are off to a slow start. I think the Vikings should be considered the favorites at this point. The Packers are very hobbled but should stay in contention. The Bears? I have no clue but my gut says a level below those 2. Vikings still have to go 8-3 if they want to win 10 games. Packers have to go 7-3, Bears 6-4

The Bears have been booted off Peter King's top 15 team rankings this week. Teams like Green Bay (3-3), Kansas City (3-2) and Washington (3-3) are in there though. Not saying its a sham, but pointing it out anyways. In fact, in the entire 6 page article, he only mentions the Bears and/or the Bears/Seahawks game two times. 1. Ten things I like: 2. Ten things I don't like:

Who do you blame for that one? The one who put these mismatched coaches together. I'm sure Martz is a nice OC for someone who has the pieces, but we never should have hired Martz. We have no offensive line at all, and yet we employ an offense with deep dropbacks, no safety valves, no audibles and no adjustments. Those are the things you have to do if you have a bad offensive line to stay successful. To be honest, I'm not entirely sold that the line is that much worse than last years. The difference is last year we would at least attempt some screen passes, we could check down, we could change things at the line, etc. This year its just down the field 80% of the plays and its simply not working.

He's not blaming the coach with no reasoning. It makes sense that when a team has a brutally miserable record in close games that reflects on the coach. Obviously the players have to play, but when you are talking about a close game its things like which team executes better, which play calling is better, who makes the least mistakes, who puts the right personel in there, that make the difference. Most of those are things that the coach has a big hand in. I don't watch enough of the Packers to know if McCarthy really is a big issue, but with a miserable record like that, I'd immediately look towards the coach upon reading that.

I remember another NLCS where in game 2 a pitcher was left in for way too long with a big lead. That turned out well didn't it?

I've honestly never followed a team quite like this, at least offensively. We look so disjointed and disfunctional, you wonder how we ever score any points at all. And then Cutler will get enough time to find someone like Forte and Knox and they will make a move in the open field and get a 40+ yard gain. And then the offense will go back to looking disjointed. We came into the game dead last on 3rd down conversions and assured we would remain that way by going 0-12 today. A breakdown of those 12 third downs: -10 were 3rd and 5 or worse -12 were passing plays -0 were running plays -6 resulted in incompletions -2 resulted in completions short of the stick -4 resulted in a sack That's beyond awful to go 0-12 on 3rd down, but its even worse when 33% of your 3rd downs your QB gets sacked. The majority of the time the team just looks so disjointed. I am used to seeing bad offense, but I'm used to seeing it because of poor QB play. Not that Cutler had a great game today, but the Cutler who played today could have been successful. I have never seen an offensive line as bad as this one. I never knew that offensive lines could be this bad. Have any of you witnessed a line, college or pros, that is as bad as this one? We have no running game, our QB gets sacked in like 1 out of every 4 passing attempts, our receivers don't know what routes they are running. The only good thing I can say about this offense is that they aren't turning the ball over very often. So what can be done to fix this in season? Is there any way to? Is there any lineman we can find somewhere, either on another teams practice squad, or a veteran FA, or a trade target that we can do to improve the line even marginally? We have the bye week coming up after this next game, that would give the team 2 weeks to work in a new guy. Jerry has to be working the phones because he can not possibly be sitting there with his team leading the division but with an obvious season ruining deficiency and think that he doesnt need to try someone, anyone else on the line in an attempt to improve (I know, he's ignored the line for so many years, why would he start now). If he doesn't, management is going to see a team that started 3-1 last year and 4-1 this year that were ruined by glaring deficiently that was left unaddressed for so many years. That's not gonna look good on Angelo's resume.

I was gonna mention during the game that at least 3 times every game I see a cutler pass sail into the middle of the field 10 yards from anyone and Knox is always somewhere in the shot looking confused. after one of them, they showed cutler, who clearly said "what happened? what happened?" and it's not that he's a bad route-runner, he's actually a pretty good route-runner, it's just that he's a complete idiot and doesn't know which route to run. In a Martz offense, don't you have to have somewhat intelligent receivers because his plays are so complicated? Unfortunately with Hester and Knox you don't have that. I can see why Martz was only hired after everyone else said no. The Bears have the wrong line and the wrong receivers for this offense. Yeah you do. And the whole offense is about throwing to a spot, not throwing to a receiver. So if the route is run improperly, the ball is just going to sail into no mans land most times. I'm shocked Cutler only has 3 INTs this year so far.

I'm puzzled by this. It's not like Leddy isn't getting a lot of playing time. Is it really better to have him playing the same amount of minutes over in Rockford? Perhaps there are other considerations -- salary, whatever. Or a trade? I don't want to be too reactionary, but at this point Brouwer could go for a depth defenseman. I'd wait to see how the D is with Campbell back before making a trade for a 3rd line defenseman. I also need to see better play from the 2nd and 3rd lines before I trade Brouwer. I know he's been rather disapointing so far, but its just too soon. That said, something is fishy about this. Leddy hasnt played great, but there are much worse defensive players with 2 way contracts on the roster I believe.

I'm starting to think that unless the Vikings get their [expletive] together and take over the division, the North is going to be won with 9 wins. I think do to the fact that the North drew two really tough divisions this year with the afc and NFC easts, everyone has a tough schedule this year. The Vikings and packers both have slow starts this year and gb is dealing with significant injuries. The bears are probably 3rd best in the division and while I won't count them out of the race they desperately need to find a way to make that line work because it's destroying them and will be their downfall. Right now I see the Vikings and Packers finishing at 9-7 and one of them making the playoffs and the other 50/50. I think the saints and falcons should both win more than 10 games and it's probable that the loser of the NFC east between Philly, nyg and Washington will have 9+ wins. Anywho I see the Bears at something like 8-8 or 7-9 at the end. I hope I'm wrong of course.

I was gonna mention during the game that at least 3 times every game I see a cutler pass sail into the middle of the field 10 yards from anyone and Knox is always somewhere in the shot looking confused.

lol. It's not all negative, but considering we still have so many great teams still on our schedule, we can't give away home games against Seattle.

I was just thinking about how, based on the Vikings start to the season, they are due for a decent run of easy games to get back into the mix. I don't see it. The schedule does get easier than what they've had to start the year, but damn.. @ GB, @ NE, Ari, @ Chi, GB, @ Was, Buf, NYG, Chi, @ Phi, @ Det. There aren't a ton of "locks" left in that schedule.

Andy Reid might have Kolb'd Vick back to the bench. http://insidetheiggles.com/2010/10/17/eagles-reid-reignites-quarterback-controversy-between-vick-and-kolb/

I think the idea is 1. Not to give up big plays 2. Make it take an offense a lot of plays to get into scoring position 3. More plays = more opportunities to force a turnover 4. More plays also = more opportunities to make a big play or for the offense to commit a penalty that puts them in 2nd and long or better. The problem is that we can't stop them on 3rd down for the last 3 years. If we don't get any turnovers, and we can't stop them on 3rd down, bend but don't break doesn't work all that well. i know what the idea is, i just don't agree with it. then what happens when the turnovers don't come? it's amazing how many good drives are put together against us by terrible offenses. oh hey, another 12 yard gain right down the middle. it's okay though, we only bended on that one. That's the thing, we're supposed to have playmakers on defense to force turnovers. If the line is getting pressure, a QB like Hasselback should be throwing at least a couple of dangerous throws. If Briggs was in the game, Lynch wouldn't have been able to cut to the outside so easily and allow Seattle to establish the run. If we had a legit 3 technique DT, he would greatly help on the plays right over the middle, as well as provide pressure on the QB. I don't mind the cover 2 at all. It worked awesome in 05 and 06 when we had the pieces in place (Harris the 3 technique DT, Urlacher the pro bowl MLB that can drop back with ease, Brown the above average safety who acts as a field general and can apply a big hit when someone attempts to catch the ball in the soft spot in the zone.) I don't even hate the cover 2 right now when the defense has been somewhat average, and not absolutely removing us from games like last year. The problem is, it needs certain pieces to be playing up to par otherwise, a very good defensive scheme becomes a horrible looking disjointed defense that allows yards and points like they are going out of style.

let me guess, he talked about how he spent time with him a few years ago and how he is just such a great kid? No...it was weird, it was just a bunch of sloshing sounds with the barely audible sound of a man panting in the background. Must have been having mic problems or something.

I think the idea is 1. Not to give up big plays 2. Make it take an offense a lot of plays to get into scoring position 3. More plays = more opportunities to force a turnover 4. More plays also = more opportunities to make a big play or for the offense to commit a penalty that puts them in 2nd and long or better. The problem is that we can't stop them on 3rd down for the last 3 years. If we don't get any turnovers, and we can't stop them on 3rd down, bend but don't break doesn't work all that well.

If they approach this offseason like a 2 year rebuilding effort, they could easily put themselves in a position to contend in 2012. But we all know the Cubs are never going to commit to a rebuilding year. Or at least they will never admit to it.

Yeah the third down conversions by the defense were completely unacceptable, and admittedly part of the reason they were on the field for so long.

What am I supposed to concede? That you aren't a complete idiot and they aren't completely incompetent? Okay, you aren't a complete idiot and the Bears defense occasionally makes a play. But they had a really bad day against a disturbingly mediocre offense that sucks on the road and has for multiple years and they have been a bad defense for 4 years now. What else do you want me to concede? Dammit you bastard you are sucking me back in. They gave up 353 yards on 71 plays.....4.9 yards per play. Seattles defense gave up 307 yards on 59 plays....5.20 yards per play. If the Bears gave up 4.9 yards per play thoughout the season, do you know where that would rank in the league? Tied for 9th in the NFL with Philly and Miami. That's a bad day? The defense is fine when they don't have to be on the field for 71 plays in a game. per play? You are making me rethink my first concession. They never stopped seattle which is why they allowed so many plays to happen. Yeah 4.9 yards per play. The best defenses in the league give up something like 4.3 yards per play. The worst this year around 6.5 yards per play.