Soul

That's the biggest reason I wouldn't want a big name, if he insisted on being GM as well. They were speculating on Mike & Mike this morning that Shanahan might go to Dallas. I don't see how that would happen if Shanahan left Denver because they didn't want him to be GM anymore. Jerry Jones shops for the groceries in Dallas -- he's not abdicating that job any time soon. Either way, I think Mike's going to have to consider being just a coach again. He didn't do a good job as coach/GM, and he's going to have to realize that at some point and move on.

Uh-oh, Lovie. Being contradicted in public by your boss cannot be good. Safe to say, Angelo will prolly be looking for a QB this offseason. Severe dischord? I think that's taking it a bit too far. Lovie said Kyle's the QB -- which is the ready-made comment he has on speed dial whenever a reporter lets slip a QB question. It doesn't mean there won't be competition for QB next tranining camp.

As girly as the Wings were in tonight's game, I don't blame them for not dropping the gloves. They were inside the Hawks heads and they weren't going to give the Hawks an opening to get back into the game, by getting into a fight. Having a few minutes to think back on it, I think you're right. It pissed me off that Stuart was too much of a pansy to dance after laying that questionable hit, but overall the Wings did the right thing. If it was the other way around I would have wanted the same thing. As far as the WC goes, I'm sure Bettman has sent down a strict "no fighting" mandate to the teams. I'm sure he doesn't want this huge game turning into a brawl, awesome as I think that would be. Bah, I never understood trying to take fighting out of the game to "appeal to the casual fan." IMO, fighting has always been one of the best draws for hockey to the casual fan. Not that I want a fight every 5 minutes, but I never agreed with the idea that taking fighting out of the game will make it more appealing. They should let the game take place tomorrow as it normally would. If there's a fight, then there's a fight.

Well the simple explanation is things change. When they were involved with Peavy talks, weeks ago, they were operating with an estimated budget. Now, however, they are being told they can't spend anymore until the ownership is settled. Lots of people and companies (and government agencies) changed their minds about spending habits in November and December. You start seeing "bankruptcy" attached to your name it changes your thinking about spending pretty damn quick, no matter what the press releases say.

So are we hiring Marinelli and handing Babich his plane ticket or what? I'm starved for some news here. That trib article has another interesting comment from Angelo: http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/huddleup/2008/12/angelo-would-lo.html

Again for future reference, what is a successful season? It's difficult to put definite parameters on it, true. But generally when I think of a team that had a "good" regular season, I'm starting my thought process at 11-5. I might range up or down a little from there depending on the division they play in, and their overall schedule. I try to stay above 10-6 because that's 2 games away from .500, and in the NFL that's really just a couple fortunate bounces of the ball. And also -- there continue to be cases of 10-6 ballclubs missing the post-season, so it's really not a guarantee. The Pats missing the playoffs at 11-5 is an anomaly. I don't consider most teams that didn't make the playoffs to be successful, because 1) it's not that hard to turn things around quickly in the NFL as witnessed in more than one case this year, and 2) no team should go into a season with a goal of less than a playoff berth, regardless of their previous season. But again, I'll give out a exception or two such as the Pats, who would have made it any other year and lost their best player for the whole season.

Weird. It's not like they get playoff appearances every year in Minny. Usually their fans are better than that, although I'm sure they will sell the tickets.

Haha, there is very little too low for the New York Post.

You've got a horrible baseball team, but you get good football nearly every year. Gotta take the good with the bad Jake.

And if they get swept out again, it'll still be rather anticlimactic and ultimately, meaningless. I'd still take that over 5-10 year droughts between playoff appearances. If they can keep getting to the playoffs with a high level of frequency, sooner or later they are bound to get hot at the right time. At least that is how I look at it. Exactly. I'll take regular or semi-regular playoff heartbreaks like we've had 3 times in the last 5 years (and just barely missed a 4th) than the huge droughts that Cubs had since their last WS appearance. Hell, 5-10 years would have been nice compared to some of the gaps. The more often they go, sure, the more often we could see collapses...but it also drastically increases the odds of them breaking through and winning it all. "Meaningless" implies there's little to no difference between a Cubs team that wins 97 games or 57 games. If the playoffs are all that matters, why even watch or follow baseball before September? You misunderstand. I'm not saying it's meaningless that they had a good season. I'm saying it's not going to have any further meaning unless they actually break through. Nobody's going to care in 20 years if the Cubs made the playoffs 3 years in a row if they got swept out each time. They will care if they do something once they get there, if only in one of those 3 years. And I do agree, the more you make it the more you give yourself a chance. I'm just saying, let's cash in here at some point.

Isn't it more or less a foregone conclusion that Lovie Smith = Cover 2? The Bears don't always play cover 2. I'm still holding out hope that they replace the defensive staff, and that the scheme continues to evolve. Stagnation should not be an option. Another thing Haugh mentioned in his article was that Urlacher is slowing down, and that the Bears should either: a) Get away from the Cover 2, because Urlacher is getting beat in the middle of the field. He doesn't have the speed to fill his gap on run coverage and also play pass coverage in the middle of the field. b) Move Urlacher to strong side LB. But they played a ton of zone this year too. And that "mug up" look -- that's not standard cover-2, and they did that ALOT. Lots of blitzes too. They were out of that base cover-2 an awful lot to say they're a "cover-2" defense. I think they should be beyond that tag for now, at least until they show they will play it more often.

Cub fan, and Wings fan, all in one brain? That is unpossible sir.

Just to clarify on this, this is stated by Olney in the context of an article regarding Manny Ramirez, who he might sign with, and why the cubs aren't candidates. Perhaps the Cubs truly are "maxed out", and can't even afford a lefty reliever, much less Bradley or manny. But it may also be that they don't have $$ for manny ("maxed out"), but do still have enough discretionary flexibility to add lesser contract(s). There is no room for your level-headedness and rational thinking in this thread It's irrational to think there might actually be a bottom to the barrel of cash the Cubs have been carrying around for the past several years?

I love the term "player's coach." Someone was being very diplomatic when he coined that one. It means "won't make anyone do anything."

Translation: golden boy tag removed.

With Davis carrying on like the crazy coot that he is, those might be the best options they can scare up.

Angelo needs to stop with his traditional reach picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. OK, fine it worked once or twice. It's not going to work very often over the long haul. You're not going to outsmart the other 31 GMs and find a diamond in the rough in the 2nd round when you should be picking for value and there's still plenty of good value available. I'm sick of it. If Jerry wants to experiment, fine. Have at it -- in the 6th and 7th. Before that, he owes it to the people who pay his salary to make solid picks.

Some pretty good stuff, but I don't believe Orton's the same as Delhomme. I think Jake's significantly better, even when he doesn't have Smith. Maybe not night-and-day better, but significantly. Cowher also got his first ring once the Steelers located their franchise QB. Let's not forget that. Fisher's a good coach -- I don't think Lovie can hold a candle to him really (even though I'm not a Lovie basher like some). A big obstacle for him is having to go through the much tougher waters of the AFC to reach the promised land, unlike Fox.

And if they get swept out again, it'll still be rather anticlimactic and ultimately, meaningless.

I love that we always talk in terms of hiding our QB's flaws, rather than just getting an actual good QB. True, though not that many teams have good QBs. Most have to build a team to minimize the QBs flaws. Like the Titans, though, the Bears' QB just has more flaw than many of the others. And there's not much QB depth in this draft. Stafford and Bradford will go early, but otherwise you might have Tebow and Mark Sanchez and then seniors include Rhett Bomar (very interesting), Josh Freeman, Graham Harrell and Nathan Brown. No sure fire good/great QBs after the top two. Yeah, but this has been going on forever. There's always an excuse why we can't have a good QB. It's never anyone's fault. Yada yada. Bullpucky. Heads should roll over this, and they never do. Teams that sustain success in this league nearly always have a franchise-calibre QB guiding the ship for the long term. Yes, it's hard to find the guy -- but it needs to be a higher priority for our franchise. Until it is, you'll probably see periods of about a decade in between a year or two of success. Then back down into the doldrums again for another several years. You won't see Indy/NE type success until you've got your Manning/Brady, in all likelihood.

what a fantastically moribund offseason.

This doesn't bother me. Some of the stuff Lovie has said indicating they were "close" this year does, but they have so many other areas that need fixing...draft a QB, let him sit behind Orton and learn. This team can be successful with Orton as QB. I really think they need some type of weapon on that offense other than Matt Forte and Greg Olsen. If they don't replace Orton with somebody better, they should find a receiver better than Hester. I wholeheartedly agree on WR. But if Orton really was playing on a gimpy ankle in the second half of the season, I think he deserves another shot at it while we upgrade both lines, and WR. Orton is serviceable, you're right. Upgrades to the o-line and receiver should be enough to hide his flaws. I love that we always talk in terms of hiding our QB's flaws, rather than just getting an actual good QB.

Axing coordinators does not equal a half-measure. But what are you for? You don't want Lovie fired, you don't want coordinators fired. Are you for anybody getting fired? Is your preference to keep Lovie and fire literally everybody else? The coordinators are very important position. Combined, they are probably equal to, if not greater than the head coach in terms of importance to the team. Firing the coordinators is going to result in other changes in staff, as new guys are going to insist on bringing in some of their own. A coordinator purge would be a hell of a lot more than a half-measure. And it is far better than sticking with the status quo. My preference is to keep the management team intact. I like it, I believe it is capable of winning championships, and I believe any replacements are likely to be worse. If you don't agree with the direction or philosophy of the team, then Smith should be fired. If you do, leave them be, because this wasn't a bad season. The defense has sucked for 2 years in a row now. Since Bob Babich took over the DC role. Is that a coincidence? Do you think that will magically change? I think if they can get a good pass-rusher DE and above average DT for the rotation, and are in some way able to get pressure with just the front 4, I do think the defense will improve drastically in passing situations. They're already a dominant run-stopping D when they don't have to focus so much on creatively applying pressure to stop the pass. But it's still possible for the DC to affect the pass rush. Be more creative and varied in your blitzing schemes. Run some stunts with the linemen. I won't pretend to be an expert on defensive schemes...I'm not. But I find it very difficult to believe that the entire defense stopped playing well at the same time, just because they all stopped performing well. Maybe there's some of that, but I really think a new DC could make a difference. I'll freely admit, if they change and there's no improvement, that I was wrong on that. It kind of makes sense though when you consider that the Bears scheme is predicated on getting pressure with the down linemen. Tommie Harris had trouble getting going this year, and never really returned to his previous level of play. Ogun has been sliding down the cliff for a couple years, and that continued. Dusty was alright -- he helped with the run D, but not much pressure. Alex Brown was OK. So you had 2 of 4 DLine reduced in performance, which is why the Bears became one of the most blitz-oriented defenses in the NFL. That translates into less coverage in the defensive backfield. You could probably see a large improvement if you could plug the right 2 DLine guys into the starting lineup for next year, just because of the cascading effect it would have on everything else. I'm not confident it will happen though, given that pretty much every NFL team is looking for those few DLinemen that can consistently provide pressure.

Should've been at least 10 with that Atlanta game. The GB win serves as a counter-balance to the Atlanta loss. Back to 9. I see your GB, and raise you the week 2 Carolina game. And I'll raise you a Smith suspension. That Carolina game defined this season. They were lucky to play them without Smith, just as they were lucky to play a gimpy Manning and the Colts in week 1, instead of week 10, and they were lucky to get the Saints to come to Chicago in December again instead of having to go to the dome. They gave it their all from an effort standpoint, but the defense fell apart because the athletes back there can't do what they used to do. And the offense, while effective at times, shot themselves in the foot. And that Tampa game had nothing to do with luck or bad penalties either. They were sitting with a huge lead and simply couldn't hold it against Tampa's offense and Brian Griese. That was a mediocre defense being mediocre, which was a big part of why we missed the playoffs. If a team is mediocre, there's very little a coach can do about it. Depending on the amount of say he has in personnel decisions, Lovie should take some heat for that. But his schemes have had players in position to make plays - that's all a coach can do. I'm not blaming everything on Lovie though. I'm just saying this was a mediocre ballclub and that was bourne out in the final results. Arguing a lucky bounce here & there really isn't going to change my opinion that this wasn't a real good Bears football team. They had some good things going, certainly. But that doesn't make them a good team. Like I said, the final results bear it out.

Should've been at least 10 with that Atlanta game. The GB win serves as a counter-balance to the Atlanta loss. Back to 9. I see your GB, and raise you the week 2 Carolina game. And I'll raise you a Smith suspension. That Carolina game defined this season. They were lucky to play them without Smith, just as they were lucky to play a gimpy Manning and the Colts in week 1, instead of week 10, and they were lucky to get the Saints to come to Chicago in December again instead of having to go to the dome. They gave it their all from an effort standpoint, but the defense fell apart because the athletes back there can't do what they used to do. And the offense, while effective at times, shot themselves in the foot. And that Tampa game had nothing to do with luck or bad penalties either. They were sitting with a huge lead and simply couldn't hold it against Tampa's offense and Brian Griese. That was a mediocre defense being mediocre, which was a big part of why we missed the playoffs.