Soul

Who is deciding who the best player available is, and is his judgement good? That's the problem I have with BPA.

He might have been better if he didn't have delusions of being a MLB star.

Otah. Or maybe Brohm? No. I much rather consider either Chad Henne or Joe Flacco in the 2nd rd then take Brian Brohm in the 1st. I am a Michigan fan, and I say: Dear G-d not Henne. Please not Henne. Huh? I think Henne's got a chance to be the best QB from Michigan in a long time. Sure as hell better than Navarre. I think he's going to have to be pretty good to be the best QB from Michigan in the last 10 years. There's 1 guy in the league who you know they say is all right :D I personally wouldn't want Henne. Questionable decision maker, and has good but not great tools to back that up. Michigan fans know quite well about his 1 or 2 just horrific decisions per game that really cost the Wolverines the last couple of years. He's got decent tools. Certainly has a good enough arm. Good height. Questionable decision-maker? How do you quantify that? Every QB makes bad mistakes in college. I've also seen him bring the Wolverines back in games too. Obviously I don't expect him to be as good as Brady. There happens to be quite a bit of latitude between Brady, being a pretty good NFL QB, and then being a bad one. I'd pick up Henne in the 3rd, maybe late late 2nd. I'm not suggesting the Bears do this, but in general.

I don't know. I like his tone of voice, he seems like a good natured guy. Like you said, he's not an idiot, which puts him ahead of many right there. Sad, but true. And he's not condescending. Some of these guys sound like they think they're entitled to never be questioned -- Morgan's a good example. I'm not sure why you say Brenly's voice in not compelling. He sounds like a guy I would like to hang out with. I find him to be very compelling. He's not a 'baseball genius' and doesn't claim to be. If that's not compelling to you, then I can understand it. It's a matter of personal taste.

Otah. Or maybe Brohm? No. I much rather consider either Chad Henne or Joe Flacco in the 2nd rd then take Brian Brohm in the 1st. I am a Michigan fan, and I say: Dear G-d not Henne. Please not Henne. Huh? I think Henne's got a chance to be the best QB from Michigan in a long time. Sure as hell better than Navarre.

because the Dusty-run clubhouse was a complete clown show. Steve Stone compliments Roy Oswalt and a fine pitching performance and then he has Alou/Mercker calling the booth to complain? what sane manager would allow that to happen? i don't blame him one bit for quitting....the whole situation was a joke That's not what happened. Dippy was the one who complemented Oswalt's performance, which was not actually fine, and Mercker, who was friends with Dippy, called the booth to give him crap as friends are wont to do. Stone then went to the media exaggerating this nonissue and continued to lie about the nature of his conflicts with the players. Steve Stone is not a nice person. you know this how? Though I've never met him, I've heard others say he's very nice in person. I think he got himself into a situation no broadcaster should get into: becoming the story, instead of the reporter. And he handled it badly. But let's be honest, the Cubs clubhouse was a nightmare that year, it wasn't just this one incident. There's blame to be shared all around for '04; it ranks as one of the most disappointing Cub teams of all time.

Orton might be better with an improved line too. He's been taught well to dump it off, but he also has a pretty darn strong arm and we really don't even see it anymore.

I couldn't disagree more. You can't take deep routes out of the play book and turn Grossman into and dinker and dunker. Grossman's biggest strength is the 15-20 yard pass. And he needs to throw the occasional deep ball as well. What they need is to do a better job blocking. I think the problem is the Bears idea of a passing game was often either throw a bomb or dump it off. They need to work on that intermediate game, but keep the deep game as a threat as well. Yea, I was scratching my head on that one too. Take out the deep routes with Grossman in? Huh? I love how when we can't protect the passer, somehow everyone decides it should reflect back on the QB in some way rather than just fixing the actual problem, which is........we can't protect the passer.

I'd be less upset with taking Mendenhall than I was when Angelo took Benson though. But yea, I'd rather get the best OL available first, then look at other needs.

I think you are grossly exaggerating what people are saying about Booker. Nobody is talking about a 1000 yard season. I think it's fair to expect a 50-60 reception, 600-700 yard season. I think he's more than capable of replacing what Muhammed gave the Bears, which, admittedly, wasn't much. However, it's a stable presence in the passing game who can catch some passes in traffic, at a reasonable salary. The key is still the offensive line. Alright. Well, I suppose if you look at it in terms of replacing Moose's non-production, it sounds better. There probably won't be a need to feel like you have to declare Booker the #1, too. Which is a plus, because Moose was never good enough with us to really be a #1 and we probably suffered for having to have him in that role.

because the Dusty-run clubhouse was a complete clown show. Steve Stone compliments Roy Oswalt and a fine pitching performance and then he has Alou/Mercker calling the booth to complain? what sane manager would allow that to happen? i don't blame him one bit for quitting....the whole situation was a joke I know, but it seems like some of the people here are saying that Stone is just bitter because he was fired, when that's really not the case, and the Cubs got rid of everyone that was said to be causing problems for him. I think Stone's actually been really positive about the Cubs considering everything that went down. What has changed about Stone is that he doesn't feel a need to disguise his innate "holier than thou" attitude anymore. At least, that's how I see it. I don't enjoy Stone's talk show commentary really at all. He comes off like he's looking down his nose at everyone now. I really didn't clue into that when he was doing color, especially when it was with Harry. I really, really liked Stoney when he was with Harry. He was great, IMO. But he's really changed now. I think I'm going to say it. Oh yes. Wait for it. I like Brenly better than Stone now. whew. there. I said it. :cool:

Yeah, you guys are thinking about the Marty Booker that was here years ago. He's not the same guy anymore. Still, I don't think it's a bad signing, but it's woefully inadequate. We better get some road plows on that line and try to ram the ball down people's throats this year. I fear for our passing game.

well get the tissues ready, because some tears are in your future I'm coming to Zip City to raise hell if they do :D

In the baseball world. Using 3-year splits, do you know how many 2B have put an OPS over .800 besides Roberts? Utley, Kent, Cano, and Polanco (Hudson doesn't have the 2005 to qualify, I think from injury, but he should be there). There are other young guys without 3 years that project over .800 in 2008 such as Johnson, Uggla, and Pedroia. Utley and his .900+ OPS is in a tier by himself. Then you have a 6-10 guys who might give you .800+, which should be considered plus production for that position. In the baseball world a guy that gives you plus production at a position and still close enough to age 30 to be relevant has value. Whether your personal baseball beliefs include steals or not, many in the baseball world tack a 50+ steals rider onto an .800+ OPS as additional value. Honestly, I don't get the problem, unless you've been playing too much PS3. 4 players is a lot only if you consider 'proven' MLB numbers in the package. 4 players is not a lot if all would qualify as unproven talent and none qualify as can't miss prospects, and in this case Murton, Cedeno, Gallagher, and one B prospect constitutes a package of unproven every day talent and it does not include a can't miss prospect. Take out Roberts "roid" year of 2005 which his OPS was .902 and he's not in that .800 OPS club either. In fact, if you look at the last 2 years of production and we are focusing on OPS, DeRosa's avg OPS was .802, whereas Roberts' was .783. I'm not going to argue how valuable Roberts is to ANY team, but I will argue just how much of an upgrade he is to THIS team. I realize that he's an incredible leadoff man, and can steal bases, which the Cubs do need, but not in a 2B. If he played SS, do what it takes to get him. First, welcome to the board. Second, the smack-down. Unfortunately for you, you cannot simply choose to remove a year of player's career to suit your argument and get anywhere, especially around here. And it's a clear overstatement to say 'roid year' when Roberts name has been linked to one usage of hgh publicly. So both sides of your argument really have little relevance and don't contradict anything I previously posted. Not that I disagree with your premise, but if you think Roberts only used HGH one time because that's all the Mitchell report could uncover, I've got a bridge to sell you.

That's my whole deal, really. What the hell are we going to do on OLine with limited draft picks that can make an impact and so many other holes now? It seems like such a mess. Wouldn't it be grand to draft Mendenhall, watch him average 3.1 yard/carry because there isn't a hole to be found, and then watch Chicago turn on him and call him a bust? That's entertainment folks! :banghead:

This is a very stupid post displaying an extreme lack of knowledge regarding NFL. this is a very stupid post. i know teams in the nfl can flop places quickly. but most of the meaningful free agents are already signed, and it was a thin free agent crop to begin with. given what the bears have done, or more accurately haven't done, how can you say that the bears are going to make up the gap on the packers in the next six months? please, enlighten us with another stupid post. without favre, the bears and packers are very similar teams. on defense, they have the same strengths--linebacker, cornerbacks, and each have a pro-bowler on their line. i would argue that tillman and vasher>woodson and harris urlacher and briggs>bennett and hawk kampman is better than either of the bears' ends but tommie harris is better than anything the packers have inside, and may be the best in the league when absolutely healthy. on offense, the packers have a much better receiving corp headed by driver. the respective lines are virtually a wash and i think the bears have a better qb pool with grossman and orton. orton outplayed favre late in the year in the arctic wind and i still believe benson to be a good back, no matter what his perfomrance was last year. however, the running backs are a wash. the bears huge edge is their special teams. i think the bears can win the north and, imo, are the favorites at this point. Packers' Oline is significantly better than ours, unfortunately. I do agree our ST will still be an advantage though. QBs -- I don't even know, you can't take the Dallas game where Rodgers came in with the Cowboys having seen zero tape of him and use that as a basis for anything. It's completely up in the air whether Rodgers is even going to make it. He could be anything from very good to terrible. With our Oline and no receivers though, it's a pretty good bet that Grossman and Orton will struggle.

The only missing piece is Neifi. Haha, I wonder if some of the Cincy brass are going, "umm.....is he really going to just bring back his failed Cub team?"

Absolutely unacceptable. The Bears had been rebuilding for years and years (with the exception of the fluke 2001 season). They finally make it back to the playoffs for two years. Rebuilding AGAIN so quickly after only two playoff appearances is not an option.You may find it unacceptable, but it is the truth. Currently the Bears need 2 more WR's, an OT, and OG, and and another RB. I won't even get into the QB situation. That is 5 key positions on offense, and the FA market is dwindling. Do you really expect Angelo to plug these holes via the draft? Espcecially considering his track record regarding offensive players? NFL teams are constantly rebuilding, unless they have a QB who can provide them steady pro bowl caliber play, year-in and year-out. I don't see how it's unacceptable for this team to be rebuilding. And I don't see why it should take more than 1 season to be back into the playoffs. Simple. Because they let the good period of FA fly by with no action, that's why. You aren't going to come close to plugging all these holes with rookies. Just will not happen. And you won't grab solid FA's, because frankly there are none left. TC deals and the 6/1 releases usually yield slim pickings. Where are the opportunities going to come from to rebuild an entire offense in 5 months?

Absolutely unacceptable. The Bears had been rebuilding for years and years (with the exception of the fluke 2001 season). They finally make it back to the playoffs for two years. Rebuilding AGAIN so quickly after only two playoff appearances is not an option. Yes but its the NFL. Very few teams can have sustained periods of success. How many current teams have made the playoffs 3 years in a row? The Bradys and the Mannings and the Seahawks. That's it. Even in a terrible NFC, only one team can consistently be good. Rebuilding doesn't have to be 4-12 rebuilding. It can be 8-8 rebuilding. I'm not saying its an excuse, and I'm upset the way this offseason has gone, but maybe they realized that they needed to get better and they couldn't do it in oe offseason. That's the only explanation that makes sense to me and doesn't have Angelo and Lovie as complete idiots. Because if winning in '08 was the plan, they are [expletive]. It's not just losing Berrian. You've got to look at the big picture. The entire offense is now junk outside of our TEs, really. Sure there are some journeymen players there, Kreutz can probably still play -- but the holes are many, and FA is essentially drained now with NO movement by Angelo. There simply aren't going to be enough opportunities to improve that many positions for '08. As a GM you need to have future years in mind. The exodus from this club, plus all the positions that have degraded to the point where we have nothing; it's all happening at once, it seems. And that's what a good GM needs to be able to avoid. Think of it this way -- most clubs that went to the Super Bowl failed to make the playoffs the next season. But look at the year after that; many of them were right back in. Even with the draft yet to come, our offense is so horrible now I don't see a playoff run in '08. That's bad planning. It's very simple. This is a disaster. And it's not just me saying it; many others are starting to take notice. If it's a 2-year plan then fine, but what I'm saying is, other clubs haven't had to do that coming off a Super Bowl year.

lol it's almost like this has happened before or something. it'll be weeks; pray it won't be even more. I said this in the game thread, but I currently have the tip of my middle finger broken, and I bet its 2-3 weeks before practicing, and longer before games. There is absolutely no grip strength and lots of discomfort. I am at 2 weeks right now, still splinted, and lifting a towel (insert towel drill joke here) is tough. I can't imagine without the splint. Not to be a downer, just my 20 pesos. Some guys would be out 3-5 days with a hangnail. I realize it's not a serious fracture, but even with a small deal like this it's silly to throw the guy back out there in less than a week. Common sense dictates he's going to be out longer. I can't believe the Cubs continue to try and sell people on these ridiculously over-optimistic injury estimates.

lol it's almost like this has happened before or something. it'll be weeks; pray it won't be even more.

The exodus from this club is very concerning.

Doesn't matter, Theriot should be leading off anyway.

I heard they're thinking about moving the Cubs somewhere else for an entire season. That sounds like major rennovation to me, not just some cladding on the outside to make it look pretty.

I don't know about your conspiracy theory, but I basically agree with your sentiment. I think they (Zell) are banking on somebody wanting to own the Cubs very badly and at most any cost. I think they will find few takers for the Cubs if they sell Wrigley separately. Once the new owner is in place you can bet on some cost cutting measures. Maybe in the long run it will make the Cubs leaner and smarter in terms of baseball operations, but in the short term there will be a lot of disgruntled Cub fans. I can't imagine buying the Cubs without Wrigley. Wrigley is the big attraction that makes the Cubs such a valuable commodity. It would be like buying a car with....I dunno....no tires, or something. Why? I think you're right to fear cost-cutting measures with the new ownership. I fear this as well, but you can't fight the future and it's probably coming no matter what we want.