Soul

dav, there are always rules against conduct that reflects poorly on your employer. This is the point that you do not seem to grasp. I just think your hypothetical is ridiculous, that's all. I didn't ridicule you-----just your assertion. Using a hypothetical that clearly isn't a possibility in this situation shows nothing. I'm aware that you think IF they didn't break the law by, for example, using in a country that allows it, then it shouldn't be punished. I suppose if Buzz Aldrin had killed Neil Armstrong on the Moon we would have had a problem too because there are no murder laws outside Earth's orbit. So what? We're talking about actual laws that might have been broken here. And my point about personal conduct, reflecting on employers badly, etc. still stands. Even if you didn't break any laws, employers fire people for conduct that makes them look bad all the time. Mike Price is a valid example----Bama fired him for doing something perfectly legal (frequenting a strip club). But regardless of that, we all know the feds are looking for actual crimes that might have been committed, so if they find any then that's what they'll focus on.

:D Cute. I guess the accepted philosophy is, Packers need this game and the Bears don't, so the Pack will win. I can't argue it. Lovie & the Bears can talk all they like. There's no way to manufacture intensity, and this game, indeed, means nothing. I do appreciate that they will at least be playing starters more than they did vs. Minny last year.

I think Chicago vs. Arizona proves that Seattle would have to in order to beat the Bears in Chicago, unless the Bears hand the game away. Bring 'em on. I'll gladly take Seattle in that game over, say.....the Eagles or the Saints.

But I don't think Romo makes it if there's a clear viable alternative. As silly as Romo looks in there, there wasn't an obvious other choice. If Grossman had made it, or if Vick had made it, there would be the same arguments that they didn't deserve it. They wouldn't be the same arguements. Romo had played far fewer games and had far fewer good games. Brees was a clear choice to start in the pro bowl. Started every game, is leading his team to a 1st round bye. Look at his stats: Att Comp Pct Yds YPA Lg TD Int 549 352 64.1 4372 7.96 86 26 11 Compare this to Romo: Att Comp Pct Yds YPA Lg TD Int 305 197 64.6 2582 8.47 53 17 12 I mean come on. What other explanation could there be for Romo making it over Brees other than just the fact that most people won't watch the actual games----preferring instead to watch a few ESPN highlights? Romo's barely even played. It was a complete travesty.

I hope you're right. But the Romo pro-bowl vote-----clearly a result of the ESPN dumbing-down of the football world----has dampened my confidence.

I'd much rather hit Murt 2nd. He would appear to be well-suited to that slot. If Lee lost his power and was moved to the 2 hole, then I'd probably move Ram to #3 and then look for someone else such as Barrett or even Jones to hit 4th-----leaving Murt @ 5th. Either way, if Lee loses too much power and can't hit 3rd, we're probably in serious trouble.

Which 10 players were those? The ones that Grimsley named? I don't know which 10 players they were. I think it's likely ESPN's source for this story is the New York Post: http://www.nypost.com/seven/12292006/sports/eight_of_balco_10_failed_steroid_test_sports_brian_costello.htm

My own feeling is that this becomes an option worth possibly exploring if the Cubs bomb in the first half of 2007. That is to say, all the things that can go wrong do (Lee can't recover, Soriano reverts back to 2004-2005, same with DeRosa, Marquis and/or Lilly bomb, etc.). If the Cubs are toiling in the cellar again, you start exploring a trade of Zambrano (among others) to "re-load" on prospects, IMO. He's going to be owed a truck-load of money and it might not be in the best interest of the Cubs to pay it to him if they have no hope of contending with their current roster. Get what you can out of him and re-group. If the Cubs are tanking the first half, Zambrano could be the player that helps the Cubs unload Marquis and Derosa's contracts. Good point. If we stink we might as well unload some bad contracts with him and get some young guys who can help in 08'. Funny as it sounds, I think Hendry might have to be 1) Fired, or 2) Extended in order for the youth movement to begin. He's in total short-term mode right now. Prospects take his strategy well beyond his contract. Doesn't do him any good.

BTW, I heard a radio report this morning that 8/10 players implicated in the BALCO scandal tested positive in '03.

Because the breaking of that law has a direct effect on their job. I.E., they are reflecting poorly on their employer in so taking said steroids. People get fired all the time for doing perfectly legal things that nevertheless reflect poorly on their employers. These players actually broke laws in the process of doing so. And by the way, moral judgement always plays a big part. Like it or not, if the predominant opinion is that something you did was morally repugnant, you will be judged poorly. Ask Mike Price about this. As for sneaking out to a country where they are legal-----I'm ignoring that argument because it's ridiculous and I was hoping you would stop trying to use it on your own.

hahaha...awesome. I'm a huge Bears fan (and homer) but I think some of the complaining is getting a little crazy. There isn't any conspiracy against the Bears. They have been the subject of some terrible calls, just like everyone else. Bah humbug. They're out to get us.

It's not as outrageous as it might sound, but I don't think Murton is likely to slug at high enough levels to make me happy with him in the 3rd slot. And I don't think it's fair to put him in that position yet, either. 3 hole is the pressure-cooker in MLB. You are expected to be THE stud. The Bonds. The Pujols. The Lee. I like Murt but he's not ready for that yet.

It always seems the Bears play worse when people finally pick them as favorites. So I guess all things considered I prefer the additional bulletin-board material that comes with being doubted.

If Hendry won't acquire a long term CF option, then I guess we're down to hoping for Brady Clark. Ick.

Though Bonds in 2001 came very close to changing that balance for himself. And Mizzou: I'll take a team that can draw a walk every time to one that can make solid contact every time - every time. Every single time. As long as we're stating the obvious... Give me the team that ends up with the World Series trophy. 8-)

I hate ESPN even more than the Heat for refusing to cover the Posey story, which is the REAL STORY, and not Hinrich's obviously accidental hurting of Wade.

I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly. There are tons of laws that have no direct bearing on an athlete's performance in a professional sport. So any professional athlete that commits a crime should have his accomplishments brought into question? Let's just say that Darryl Kile had HOF credentials (he didn't). Should he not get into the HOF because they found marijuana in his system upon his death, and, we can presume, therefore broke the law? It shouldn't work that way. If steroids weren't against MLB policy, they weren't violating any MLB rules. As an aside, who is to say that marijuana doesn't have some sort of effect that enhanced Darryl Kile's own performance? Does it matter? Did MLB have a legit/enforced substance policy? Why should their statistics, then, be questioned? They didn't break any MLB rules in the process of achieving whatever it was that they achieved. An additional question which might bring up something to consider. Would it it illegal if these guys, say, drove to down to Tijuana, shot up there, and came back? Is it illegal for a US Citizen to go to Amsterdam and use recreational drugs and return while the drugs are still technically in his/her system? My point with the second part is that, if it's not illegal, (I'm not sure that it is or isn't), the player may not have even broken the law by using. It doesn't matter if they weren't violating MLB rules. Companies and organizations don't have to come up with parallel rules to match every law that's out there. How ridiculous. Here's a test. Go out and break a law which has no corresponding specific policy with your employer. In the process, make sure it reflects poorly on the company you work for. See what happens. I'm betting you won't. Think very carefully about *why* that's the case. BTW, these are federal investigators, not MLB ones. As for Marijuana, I don't think it's all that bad, but it's also illegal. I've known a friend or two who lost his job over the stuff. Nobody asked or cared if they snuck out to Amsterdam to smoke their joints.

I could see the Bears playing stupid----Hester muffing a punt, Grossman tossing multiple INTs, etc. But as for the Seahawks just coming in and dominating us from start to finish---i.e. controlling the line of scrimmage, moving the ball up & down the field at will, stuffing everything we try to do on offense? This I can not imagine. Not after I've seen them play this year. I have a hard time believing anyone who watched the 'hawks play against the 49ers & Cards could believe this, either. They were controlled, and by very, very weak teams. Hey maybe I'm wrong. I'm thinking Seattle is a one-and-done anyway. If they aren't and they come to Chicago, I guess we'll see.

The Rogers Centre inflates home runs more than Wrigley. Also, I don't see how 328ft foul lines, 375 ft power alleys, and 400 ft CF really qualifies as "cavernous". Thats pretty much the same as the Great American Smallpark. You're right, Rogers isn't all that huge. I must have been confusing it with the Expos' old place. Still, the wind never blows out at the dome. That's what I'm hoping for----Wrigley will turn a fly ball pitcher into a quick loser on those days. He'll have to learn how to pitch with that wind or it's going to be rough. Is it possible Lilly could progress just out of necessity, learn a few new tricks? Pretty slim hope, but hey I'm allowed to dream. And if he doesn't, he's just going to suck on those days which is going to be pretty frustrating.

I said there's no way that Seattle comes in and *BEATS* the Bears. Any team can lose if they beat themselves, which is the scenario you are describing. As for Alexander, he's having a down year. Hasn't been himself, even now that he has recovered from his injury. If you look at his splits, he was horrible before the toe injury put him out (understandable), then he was alright when he came back (around 4 yds/carry), but in December he's dipped back down again to under 4 yds/carry. So having Alexander back doesn't mean much to the Seahawks this year-----which is one of the big reasons they are on a 3 game losing streak, 2 of which are losses to terrible divisional ballclubs. Any way you slice it, this Seahawks club is weak in '06/'07. You're going to find scenarios in which they beat the Bears to be very rare indeed----and they all involve the Bears giving the ballgame away, as opposed to the Seahawks actually manning up and beating Chicago.

I don't know what happened during Bayless' brief time in Chicago as a sports writer, but something must have happened to make him hate the city so much. He was run out of town in about 8 months wasn't he? That probably pissed him off. Considering Chicago has put up with the likes of Mariotti for years, when you get run out of town in 8 months you *KNOW* you're an idiot.

The implication on the table is, it's because they're insane. And the evidence is quite difficult to refute 8-)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-0612280242dec28,1,7268686.story?coll=cs-bears-headlines Thanks. LMAO. :lol: Indeed. All I can do is laugh and say......indeed.

Ok. What about a 20-6 halftime score and an opening drive TD by the Bears to start the 3rd quarter says that the Seahawks were in that game? I'm not disputing that the Bears aren't likely to beat Seattle as bad as 37-6 if they played again, but Seattle was never in that game, and has to be a longshot, at best at this point, to beat the Bears. Agreed. Hubes, are you sure you are remembering the same game? Seriously---that one was a blowout pretty early. Seattle was never in it. Rex seemed to just keep slashing them with long passes-----all day long. I know they had a couple drives, but the only one that was meaningful was the first drive of the game. I do remember a long pass opportunity that was just badly overthrown by Hasselbeck. But that would have only brought Seattle to within a couple scores----and it was desperation under heavy pressure anyhow (Bears were putting great pressure on back then). There's just no way in hell Seattle comes to Chicago in the blistering cold and actually *beats* the Bears. Alexander or not. It's not their MO. They play great at home. But get them out of their element and that team often begins to resemble a top 10 draft team, not the NFC champs. This is the same team that got embarrassed by Arizona and SF and are on a 3 game bender at the end of the year. I'd have a tough time feeling comfortable with them beating their wild card opponent in the first round @ home, much less coming all the way to Chicago and beating the Bears. You have to at least consider the possibility that the Bears (re: Grossman) will beat themselves. Now, before you jump on me, I'm not saying Grossman will play horrible in the playoffs and he has played well the last couple weeks but the possibility still exists. Don't get me wrong, if the Bears played Seattle 10 times in Chicago in the cold, the Bears would probably win 7 or 8 times. But to say Seattle has no chance to beat the Bears is flat out wrong. So let me get this straight. Seattle has a chance to "beat" the Bears because the Bears might "beat" themselves?

LOL, can't wait for King's exasperated report on Monday: