UMFan83

Jeez, this is just terrible It was kinda expected. They are a competitive league and Rich Hill has been awful.

Even earlier today I picked the Vikings over the Bears, but now all the sudden I'm having a change of heart. The Bears seem to play well in the dome, notching wins over Indy, Detroit and St. Louis so far this year and looking good offensively. They lost a narrow one to the Falcons too, and didn't look horrible offensively either. I guess it will have to depend on which Bears defense steps up, and if the Bears can contain AP. If they do that, I feel confident they can move the ball ok on offense, and force Frerotte into mistakes.

Meh, they haven't played an easy road schedule by any means though @ Washington (loss by 5) @ Denver (loss by 2) @ Carolina (loss by 23) @ Atlanta (loss by 14) @ Kansas City (win by 10)

Why do people care what Piniella says? He's not the GM, Hendry is. Sure he could have some influence in what Hendry does, but do you really think he's going to object to acquiring one of the best pitchers in baseball?

I'll try to predict the rest of the season Bears: @ Min - L (6-6) v. Jax - W (7-6) v. NO - L (7-7) v. GB - W (8-7) @ Hou - W (9-7) Vikings: v. Chi - W (7-5) @ Det - W (8-5) @ Ari - L (8-6) v. Atl - L (8-7) v. NYG - L (yes even with rested players) (8-8) Packers: v. Car - L (5-7) v. Hou - W (6-7) @ Jax - W (7-7) @ Chi - L (7-8) v. Det - W (8-8)

Thing is, some people thought Beasley was the best player, regardless of position. in fact, i think that was the argument that most people, myself included, were trying to make when advocating for beasley. i think people wanted rose because he was a point guard and beasley was a power forward. i didn't think we could go wrong either way, but i wanted beasley because i thought he was the better player. i don't think there's been enough time to judge who the better player is, btw. i'm happy with rose, though. The only reason I wasn't 100% decided on Rose is because I felt Beasley was more NBA ready and was a postup player like we've been clamoring for, for years. But I knew Rose had the higher upside and was a PG so I wanted him.

Yeah Brees against out pass D? Ouch

Derrick Rose is an above average basketball player.

It's funny not just because its another over 32 year old player, but that they signed him before the Tigers even had a chance to not offer him arbitration.

The Bears schedule turns wacky after yesterday's game. From here on out we have: Week 13: Sunday Night Football Week 14: Sunday Noon Week 15: Thursday Night Football Week 16: Monday Night Football Week 17: Sunday Noon Weird that we're going to go this whole year without a Sunday 3:15 game. Seems like we have 2-3 of these a year usually, but I guess the Bears weren't a big enough draw, plus didn't play any West Coast teams on the road.

They are, but the basic idea is: If the Bears lose this weekend, they will be 2 GB the Vikings and possibly Packers with 4 games to go. The rest is just explaining how I got to that point. Granted, the Vikings schedule is awfully tough the rest of the year. Chi, Det, Atl, Ari, NYG is their remaining schedule, so its certainly possible to pick up 2 games in a 4 game stretch.

Not really worth it with this team =\ If you say so. Derrick Rose is amazing, the rest of the team... GARBO. The only enjoyment I get from watching Bulls games is being drunk and watching Derrick Rose make a fool out of everyone on the court. They are not a great team, but can you imagine how their record would look if they were playing teams like OKC, WAS, CHA, MIN, LAC, MEM, SAC instead of LAL, BOS, PHX, CLE (x2), ORL, ATL, DEN, UTA (tonight). The former is a list of the teams with the 7 worst records in the NBA, a group that we have played 1 game against (MEM). The latter is a list of 8 of the 9 best records in the NBA, a group that we have played a total of 9 games so far. Who knows what our record would be so far if we weren't playing by far the toughest schedule in the NBA so far. Maybe 8-6, maybe 9-5. Who knows? The bottom line is, the fact that we have stayed pretty mediocre and beat a few good teams is a really good sign, especially since I've seen this team play better as the season has gone on. Think about the fact that this team: A) Is playing with a new coach and learning a new system B) Is trying to give the keys to the offense to a rookie point guard and teach him the NBA game C) Is playing the hardest schedule in the NBA so far D) Is playing with several key players in contract years, causing a lot of selfish play. It's a constant struggle to squash the selfish play. I know it seems like I'm making excuses, and I definitely am. But they are valid excuses. Don't give up on this team because they aren't 10-4 with everything that's gone on so far.

Probably out of Lovie's respect for the Rams org.

I know we've talked about this ad naseum, but I just posted this on the Bears message board to explain why bukie is completely right. See if you can follow it and it makes sense:

Yeah, that was the other thing I forgot to mention: If the Bears lose this game, they can only win a tiebreaker if Detroit can beat one of Min/GB. Crap thats right. Hmm...we kinda need to win this game because I can't see the Bears outplaying the Packers and Vikings by 2 games over a 4 week period.

OK, so if they lose they are 2 back with 4 to play. Probably even a bigger game for them than us, but not by much. Again, first tiebreaker is common record among tied teams If Bears win: Chi 2-1 (vs. GB) GB 2-1 (@ Chi) Min 1-3 If Vikings win Chi 1-2 (vs. GB) GB 2-1 (@ Chi) Min 2-2 So that would leave the Bears needing to beat GB to go to the next tiebreaker. If that happened, the next tiebreaker would be division record, which would be the same assuming everyone beats Detroit twice (which the Bears have). Then the next tiebreaker is common games, and I have no idea how to figure that out. In the division, common games for this season would be all division games + the NFC South games (ATL/NO/TB/CAR) + the AFC South games (TEN/IND/JAC/HOU). There are only 2 games on the schedule that aren't common games (NFC East opponent and NFC West opponent) Well that hurts the Bears then because they are 2-0 in their non-common opponent games, while the Packers are 1-1, and the Vikings are 0-0 (still play Arizona and NYG). So if we finish with the same record in that scenario the Packers or Vikings will probably take it, but I'm getting way way ahead of myself here.

OK, so if they lose they are 2 back with 4 to play. Probably even a bigger game for them than us, but not by much. Again, first tiebreaker is common record among tied teams If Bears win: Chi 2-1 (vs. GB) GB 2-1 (@ Chi) Min 1-3 If Vikings win Chi 1-2 (vs. GB) GB 2-1 (@ Chi) Min 2-2 So that would leave the Bears needing to beat GB to go to the next tiebreaker. If that happened, the next tiebreaker would be division record, which would be the same assuming everyone beats Detroit twice (which the Bears have). Then the next tiebreaker is common games, and I have no idea how to figure that out.

I realize the Packers/Bears game in Week 16, but this game is just as important. A win essentially puts the Vikings 2 games behind the Bears for the division. The only way the Vikings could get back into the race by tying the Bears record would be a 3 way tie with the Bears and Packers, and some tiebreaker magic, which isn't likely because I believe the first tiebreaker is H2H among common teams, which would be 1-3 for the Vikings, 2-1 for the Bears, and 2-1 for the Packers.

That was an epic collapse tonight. From up 99-96 with 3 minutes left to losing 114-101. Nice little 18-2 run there to cap the game.

That's the same exact thing that happened when the Bears played the Falcons. I know exactly how you feel. Infuriating. And it wasn't like 3rd and 8 or 3rd and 9s. It was like 3rd and 12, 3rd and 15's.

I wasn't that impressed seeing the highlights and followin the game. The Vikings scored 14 points less than 2 minutes into the game by 2 stupid fumbles by the Jags, one returned for a TD, and one was on a kickoff deep in Jags territory. They did outplay the Jags from the rest of the game on, but the score isn't indicative of how they played.

I thought this "Fun Fact" that ESPN has is interesting: This tells us two things: 1) They have had a WORSE start than 0-11 before 2) They, in addition to that, have had ANOTHER 0-11 start in their past Just amazing futility in Detroit.

Michigan's gonna get blown out. Oh wait, it's over. It's finally OVER!!!! WOOOOOOOOOO!

Well they barely beat a worse Detroit team at home a few weeks back, starting a huge stretch of bad play. At least we won this convincingly on the road. Our O-line opened holes and protected Orton decently, our pass rush showed signs of life, our secondary had 4 interceptions, our RB looked really good and broke a long run, etc etc. Even if this is a really really bad team that has given up (as Detroit is when we barely beat them), we beat them up and blew them out. So just enjoy it for 10 minutes and hope that we can carry it into next week.

Come on, lets at least enjoy the win for an hour before we have to go to Minnesota and get crushed next week.