Soul

You make it sound the Hawks should be afraid. I'm sorry I can't get afraid of the Ducks, I simply can't. There is not a team in the West that the Hawks can't beat. And you could argue the Hawks could beat every team in the NHL. So you're statement, NUN, really should fall on deaf eyes. I don't disrepsect the Ducks, I, and I am pretty sure the Hawks players themselves will agree with what I am saying, just don't fear them. Well I was just trying to point out that the Hawks shouldnt be that down about losing to Anaheim. And also wanted to point out that Anaheim has PROVEN to be a real good playoff team in the last few years. But hey, if you want to believe the Hawks have already proven something, be my guest. Nice logic. Hawks went farther in the playoffs than the Ducks last year, but it's the Ducks that proved something, not the Hawks. He did say last few years, implying that he's including their Cup winning season from 3 years back, and possibly their trip to the conference finals from 4 years back. That totals 7 playoff series victories in 4 years, while the Hawks have but 2 in 15 years. Cup wins from 3 years ago don't "prove" anything for 2009/2010.

Eh...I think the Packers did a disservice to him to not at least let him interivew for the job and the opportunity to turn the job down himself. Nothing like having someone else speak for you. But, I understand why the Packers did it. I don't think the Packers can stop him from jumping on a plane for Chicago to interview. They can say what they want, but it's a free country.

You make it sound the Hawks should be afraid. I'm sorry I can't get afraid of the Ducks, I simply can't. There is not a team in the West that the Hawks can't beat. And you could argue the Hawks could beat every team in the NHL. So you're statement, NUN, really should fall on deaf eyes. I don't disrepsect the Ducks, I, and I am pretty sure the Hawks players themselves will agree with what I am saying, just don't fear them. Well I was just trying to point out that the Hawks shouldnt be that down about losing to Anaheim. And also wanted to point out that Anaheim has PROVEN to be a real good playoff team in the last few years. But hey, if you want to believe the Hawks have already proven something, be my guest. Nice logic. Hawks went farther in the playoffs than the Ducks last year, but it's the Ducks that proved something, not the Hawks.

Agreed. 4 games, all good teams.

See, that's how you kill speculation without being definitive.

It is a concern, but they are very different cases. Cutler succeeded in Denver. Warner has had all his success in domed STL and desert/domed Arizona. He struggled in NY, and he's an old man. The Bears can screw up Cutler, there's no doubt, but there's absolutely no reason why they can't make it work. Cutler threw for 3600 yards and 27 TDs this year. He completed over 60% of his passes. Other than the INTs, he had the type of year that a QB who is at risk of getting "screwed up" doesn't have. Cutler is already beyond the point of being screwed up. He is good enough already. The question remains if he can be great with the Bears, because he has everything personally that it takes to be a top 5 QB in the league.....and that's in spite of the INTs, he just needs the help around him. Whether that's offensive coordinator, OLine or WRs. He just needs help around him, and that's the whole point.

That's what happens when you insist on making a proven NFL QB compete with a bunch of no-names. The proven NFL QB says, "thanks but no thanks" and goes on to blow up the league. Yet another one of Angelo's brilliant moves. I am not at all convinced that Warner would have resurrected his career in Chicago. He was looking like a washed up player nearing the end in NY. Chicago, which has an even worse track record of making an offense work and has worse weather. would have been worse. Warner is in the desert, playing weak divisional competition in mostly stable weather conditions with an offensive coach and loads of weapons. He would have had none of that in Chicago. His return to glory has been amazing, as is his playoff record, but he owes part of that to the decision to stay away from Chicago and go to Arizona. You realize what you're saying doesn't bode well for Cutler. Not that I disagree, but it goes to what I've been suspecting all along: the Bears could have a great QB and never realize it because they are so incompetent with all things offense. If Warner could have come here and failed, looking at how great he is with Arizona, then so could Jay. It is a......concern....that I have.

My impression is that Fewell will run Lovie's D, almost as a condition of employment.

Win Dallas. Beat Favre.

I read a David Haugh article this weekend and was disappointed in his statement that what should matter most is stability, and that somehow Bates could not provide that while Martz could. His theory was apparently something about how Martz being a "known quantity" equates to stability. First off, the notion that what they need most is stability is wrong, stability has resulted in nothing but mediocrity and failure for three years, and they already have plenty of stability since the vast majority of the people in power with the Bears are still in power. This team isn't desperate for stability, they are desperate for new blood and change. I'm not a strong Martz advocate as I see him as somebody who would be pushed out the door with Lovie when the inevitable axe comes falling on all of them, and I see them having to go with another new system for Cutler. However, if they do go with Martz, it wouldn't necessarily mean they have to let him go with Lovie. Plenty of coaches have found a good deal of success in their 2nd stint after being viewed as a failure. Martz is "only" 58 and his record in STL matches up well with other 2nd chance guys like Coughlin, Belichick and Dungy. He could be sold as an experienced "name" head coach if he is Lovie's replacement, and if he is hired, I think I'd prefer he be given that chance, instead of starting over again with what would be a 28 year old Cutler. The goal with this hiring should be somebody who can be here longterm. Yeah, it should be obvious: stablility is important when there's success. But stability of mediocrity is never a good thing. I'm not sure why Haugh wouldn't see that. The problem I see with Martz being a longterm solution is that he's tied to Lovie now (if hired). If Angelo goes, then Lovie goes, then the new GM isn't likely to want to be told who he has to hire. He'd probably want to go in his own direction.

From a couple of people I trust who are friends with USC boosters high up, they are expecting USC to be hit with sanctions but it won't be severe. But the main reason Carroll is leaving is a falling out with the AD (who is feeling heat with basketball and football compliance issues). How has USC been kosher since Reggie Bush? Dwayne Jarrett, OJ Mayo and Joe McKnight were all after. Honestly, I'm not the right person to ask about this. I don't follow USC's perceived or real violations because I honestly don't care much (I care about violations, just not USC specifically). I just know what I've been told by people within the NCAA. They could be wrong, not privy to all the information, but they aren't lying to me, I know that. (Non-severe sanctions would comport with what I've heard, I believe, especially if they result from the Bush issues.) As to OJ Mayo, I thought it was pretty clear I meant the football program exclusively (we are in a football thread). If not, I apologize. The entire Mayo recruitment stunk and was, ostensibly, a sham. As to McKnight, if you're referring to the SUV thing, that seems to be an open case that USC suspended the player for. More information is probably needed, as far as I know, before a determination either way. On Jarrett, if you're talking about the rent issues, I believe USC's compliance department discovered and reported the issue (and Jarrett paid back the rent). Didn't Carroll twitter that something big was going to hit? Or was that just an internet joke?

That's what happens when you insist on making a proven NFL QB compete with a bunch of no-names. The proven NFL QB says, "thanks but no thanks" and goes on to blow up the league. Yet another one of Angelo's brilliant moves.

Yep. I've noticed when they're playing better they have more traffic in front and the shots are more often quality ones. Sometimes they go into "3 point mode" -- for lack of a better term -- they'll rack up shots but they percentages are lower. I still think the huge loss the night before was a factor. And no I will not shut up.

Rodgers has never been able to throw the deep ball with consistency. He doesn't understand that when the receiver has the safety beat you just loft it over the top and make it an easy catch. He always wants to throw a bullet as if he's threading a needle. I still think he's a great QB. I wouldn't be laying this loss at his feet. The Packers' supposedly amazing D laid a huge egg yesterday, and the Cardinals didn't even have Boldin.

I don't know who I want, but I have zero faith in them finding the right guy. If I was a betting man, I'd lay pretty good money they don't solve much of anything this offseason.

So, what's best for this franchise is apparently to let Lovie hire a couple more buddies. LOL. Look at the teams that played this weekend. In what way, shape, or form do the Bears resemble these playoff teams? And those are the lower-tier playoff teams, too. Seriously, this is becoming Wirtz bad.

I'll be holding my nose and rooting for Dallas next week.

Not totally sure, but I'm thinking that game was a kick in the nuts.

After last night, one had to wonder if they'd struggle a bit. Q needs to get in the heads of his boys before this blossoms into a long losing streak

Wow, what a [expletive] game.

That's more like mega holding

I was thinking about Rackers' miss against the Bears in '06 when he kicked that. That dude has problems with big game kicks, apparently.

GB wins.

LOL insane!

Unreal. Pack needs a stop desperately.