UMFan83

see the 9-1 Vikings throttle the 4-6 Bears....yay? Dammit, we're not even good and we're only gonna have like 4 12 PM starts.

Which is nice, but we've also given them 4 out of 6 points.

Stat of the night: The Bulls season high in points this season is 93 through 8 games. There are 25 teams averaging more than 93 points per game. Horrible We really could have used that win last night. I have a feeling we're gonna be several games under .500 after the WC trip.

It's not like Nash played for the Clippers his whole career. He's been on some very competitive teams, and despite not getting to the promised land, he's been in some pretty fierce playoff battles and won a few too. So it's not like choosing Nash would be like wanting to be the star of a depressing bad team your whole career.

For what it's worth (and considering the source, not much), 2 of the 4 panelists on Around the Horn thought the Bulls should have won, including the Denver columnist (Woody Paige) and Tim Cowlishaw. Jay Mariotti and Kevin Blackisaw (sp?) said the right call was made.

good teams don't let games come down to such things I don't know what your getting at here. If the Yankees lose a game on a fluke disputed HR call against the Royals, should they not complain about it because good teams shouldn't let it come down to that? It's a long season, teams energy and effort levels fluctuate throughout the season. Plus I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Bulls are on the talent level of the Nuggets. We aren't the "good team" you are suggesting that's why a lot of Bulls fans are having trouble getting over that loss.

I still don't see what's conclusive about any of the photos. Sure the photos look like he's touching the ball, but I don't see where the evidence is overwhelming. Are you suggesting that the referees went to sleep last night 100% sure that Miller's hand was on the ball when the light went off? That's the type of proof needed to overturn a call as the rule was intended. However, the ref's statements suggest that they ignored the call on the court, and used the replays to make a judgment on what happened, which isn't how the replay rule is supposed to be used. I'm over the call, but I feel the need to argue those that say it was clearly the correct call. I haven't see a replay that tells me beyond a reasonable doubt that his hand was on the ball. That's just my opinion. Off to what has been a house of horrors for us recently. I don't like our odds tonight in Toronto. The second of a back to back is gonna be where Vinny's 7 man rotation is really gonna kill us throughout the year.

For those that want Lovie gone, the good news is that when Lovie named himself the DC, he put his neck on the line and expedited his termination from the team upon failing at the role.

That's actually a really really interesting read. Thanks for posting that. It might have to do with the playcalling, but it could also have to do with the lack of defensive talent on the field due to injuries and poor drafting.

Who?

How can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the ball is in his hands in that photo (I'm pretty sure I know the angle and photo you are referring to)? It looks like it is, but there's another angle where it looks like it's out. So which one is right?

My opinion is that Votto is very unlikely to be traded, and if somehow traded, even less likely to be traded to a division rival. Man it must suck to be a Reds fan. All that talk about the future, and now that the future is all up there, they might dismantle the team.

What RedFlash said is absolutely right. I've been ranting about this for years. Refs (NFL too) do not follow the correct rules when reviewing plays. They are supposed to overturn due to indisputable evidence of the contrary. Instead the refs make judgment calls when the replays are inconclusive. That defeats the point of a replay, which is to overturn obvious bad calls. By the rulebook, the Bulls should have won this game, and because of the refs, they did not. We'll move on and be fine, but it sucks to see a win given to you, and then taken away. A 5-2 start with the schedule we've had would have been tremendous.

The public tide is just starting to regress for Orton, but what I really wanted to talk about is how [expletive] dumb people are that say that the Bears start to the season is because Orton was a winner and Cutler is not. These same people haven't watched a game all season and assume that the reason the Bears are doing poorly is because Cutler is a stats first QB who kills the team with his interceptions. The thing that pisses me off is these people obviously haven't watched a single second of Bears football this season. Yes the GB game was very public and yes Cutler probably lost that game with his arm, but the other 3 losses have had absolutely nothing to do with Cutler. When your defense is giving up a touchdown literally every single possession, it's going to be hard to be a winner. If you can explain to me how that's Cutler's fault, then maybe I'll give you the time of day but you can't. It's actually a rant that applies to NFL fans and "experts" in general. The NFL is such a complex rapidly changing league. There are so many parts moving in unison, that there is no way that casual fans have any idea what's really going on. If Cutler led a mediocre team in Denver, got traded to Chicago and is leading a mediocre Chicago team, then Cutler is the problem because Chicago has an awesome defense, right? The Bears defense has been mediocre for 3 seasons now and up until 2-3 weeks ago, I hear people on TV and casual fans of other teams still saying things like "If Cutler can find a couple receivers he can trust...with that defense they will be great". My point is, if you don't know what your talking about, don't talk because you sound stupid.

ESPN's front page article is talking about ranking NBA Team's futures for the next 3 years. The Bulls finished 7th in the rankings, propped up heavily by their players (7th/30), their money situation (4th I believe), and market (6th).

Yes, but if he did end up winning a title in NYC, it would mean 10 times more for his legacy than a title win in Chicago. Just how it is. Plus it's not like the Knicks will be bad forever. LeBron signs with NY and suddenly tons of talented players will immediately make NY their number one choice. It's not like Isiah is the GM anymore. They now have someone in charge that looks at things like salary cap before he makes a move. It might take them a couple years but they will build a team good enough to be title contenders. Besides, they probably still have enough to sign another superstar to go along with LeBron, especially with sign and trade being an option to offset some of the salary. Put Bosh and James together, use the MLE and LLE and you got a top 5 playoff team in the East next year. Building from there and it might not take long before they are competing for championships. So due to having more money available this offseason, and having a more attractive destination, I don't think the Knicks are that much less equipped for a LeBron led team to be a title contender. Just my opinion and certainly open to debate...

I almost pulled off a win on the exact same scenario a few weeks ago, but ended up losing by like .10 points. Basically they needed to take 3 knees for me to win and they only took 2. Not my season in fantasy :(

Comcast talking about this as well.

He is such an interesting player. Of course he's pretty useless against lefties (.239 average, .770 OPS), and as you'd expect he hits much much better on the road than at home (.845 at home, 1.045 on road). Considering most hitters in non-extreme ballparks tend to hit better at home than on the road, can you imagine his numbers at a halfway decent hitter's park?

Haha, I say all of this, and then I goto RealGM and read about this.... http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/knicks/lebron_will_have_better_options_h6US69ienG0jhqziBG49cJ

BTW, for those of you that just can't let go of playoff hopes...think about this. The Bears are 4-4, in order to get a halfway decent shot at a playoff spot, they'll need to finish 10-6. So they need to go 6-2 the rest of the way. They still have to play the Eagles, the Vikings twice, the Ravens, the Packers, among other teams. Do you see 2 losses or less in those 5 gaves? They would have to go 3-2 against those teams and then win the rest of their games (49ers, Lions, Rams)

Well, I don't think we got better without Gordon, I was more referring to the cost cutting moves at the deadline last year, but I think we are better long term without Gordon. Gordon is a unique talent and a unique scorer, but I don't think it's something that can't be mostly replaced. Maybe you aren't gonna find a player with the shooting ability that Gordon has (the ability to catch and shoot, the ability to get unbelievably on fire, etc), but you might find a player that can create more on offense, one who can slash better, one who can get to the line when his shots not falling. Scorers are a dime a dozen in the NBA, but finding players who can create offense in multiple ways, and play solid defense are much harder to find. That's just my opinion, I don't think the Gordon debate will ever have a clear victor unless we do get a stud FA this offseason. It doesn't help that the offense has come out noticeably weakened this season, but then again the defense looks revitalized so who knows.

Oh, I'll be furious if that's the case. I know it's irrational, but I'll use hindsight to bash Paxson and Foreman for letting go of Gordon for nothing. I was pissed at the time but I understand their line of thinking, as I said. But if we reach the summer and we can't get any of those free agents? That erases that line of thinking and instead of having a guy that can pour in 21 points a game, we're going to be relegated to keeping John Salmons for a long-term deal when BG should be getting that money. I hope it doesn't come to that. I really hope we don't screw this up in the summer. I don't know if its a matter of screwing up. The Bulls saw how many great FAs were out there, positioned themselves to be a player that offseason (and actually got better in the process), and now they just have to hope that they can attract a FA to come there. I see this offseason (for the NBA in general) going one of two ways: 1) Almost all the FAs end up going back to their current teams because they can offer more money and security; this offseason is a huge bust in terms of the hype it's gotten. 2) Due to the economy, many of the smaller market teams with FAs, can't afford to give their players max deals and/or deem it more fiscally responsible to work out sign and trades so they get something back in return. I think 1 is more likely by far. If that's the case, you can rip the Bulls for their plan not working out, but I tend to think the Bulls are in a better position long term now than they were a year ago this time, so all is not lost if we get shut out. Anyways, if FAs are looking elsewhere, there is gonna be a lot of competition and I think there are several more attractive options for most FAs than Chicago. Look how things turned out in 2000 when we went out looking for stud FAs. Chicago wasn't as attractive as Orlando, despite neither team having much in the way of talent. Yes the Bulls have a better team now, but Chicago isn't considered by many players a destination NBA city (IMO). Who wants to go out at night and deal with 15 degree temps in January when they can be living it up on South Beach or something. I could be wrong though. I will anticipate the offseason hoping something happens, but I'm not counting on it.

I'm actually with you about not having Gordon being good for the Bulls long term, but I have to say that in my mind, the scenario where the Bulls strike out in free agency and end up getting a player who is worse than Gordon is more likely than the Bulls actually hitting it big and getting a superstar this summer. Imagine the Bulls striking out in FA and having to settle for Rafer Alston or something like that, and giving him Ben Gordon money.

Raisin or gooney usually post these, but their mojo obviously isn't helping the Bears, plus it's a short week so we gotta get this started (do we have to?) I can't remember a time in my Bears fanhood where I've been more down about the team. Sure there have been worse teams, but I've never seen a team that has underperformed so significantly before. Part of it is that they just aren't good enough, but some of it is also something else. How are they good enough to beat the Steelers, but bad enough to get destroyed and humiliated by the Bengals and Cardinals. It's been awhile since I've thought about this, but I think you are seeing the impact that Brian Urlacher has on the Bears defense. Yes there are issues (the biggest by far being the lack of pass rush), but having Urlacher out there shouting out audibles, it was a different more confident defense. Anyways onto the game...I guess the Bears could hypothetically beat the 49ers, but I don't see it. I think this team is demoralized and full of turmoil right now. They are playing on the road, cross country on a short week. Several defensive starters are banged up and questionable at best for the game. There are a lot of negatives going for the Bears right now, and should be underdogs to a team that has looked pretty bad after a 3-1 start, losing 3 straight and 4 of 5 (i believe). Despite all the negatives, I will still be rooting and hoping. Like it or not, the Bears have given me more success in recent years than any other team I root for, so if I was there for the Super Bowl season, I'll be there for them when they suck too. Go Bears!