Magnetic Curses

Drinky was in agreement with Terry too. It was three against one. I'm not certain that Jay isn't a hard worker, he is just the typical NFL QB. think Jay probably works as hard as the average QB, but I don't think anyone has ever said that he puts in the extra effort. That is partially why Vick is having the season he is this year. He has admitted multiple times that he was the last one in and the first one out. Dan doesn't think there is much behind leadership. But it was either Terry or Drinky that pointed out that people don't want to let Bellichick or Brady or Manning down and that brings out the best in players. I'm not sure Jay has that sway yet. except bernsy > everyone else on that show combined and it's not close

Who had more boards last night? who had more points? Fine, they're equals damn right

was that the day the music died for you?

Who had more boards last night? Glad to see you finally admit that Rose is vastly superior to Rondo. you mean chuck tinsley jr.

get sutcliffe and let him drink as much as he wants in the booth and he'll be exactly like a dirty santo.

Who had more boards last night? who had more points?

Sully. He had the tools to be elite, but I don't think he will ever get there. But I still think he can win a Super Bowl and that is really all I care about. I don't know if this is true, but the Boers and Bernstein show has been pointing out that they don't think Jay works as hard in the film room as the other elite QBs. no jason goff and terry were implying that, bernsy was asking what it is that they think specifically he doesn't do that coaches tell him to do and they either couldn't or wouldn't give him an answer. it's a meatball idea, in that it is a non-idea. people think he's lazy but they won't say why they think so. bernsy is right, it's his risk-taking, not his work ethic. nobody who isn't at practice or there with him in the film room can say that, so people who say it think that they know what they're talking about but what they're really just talking about is creationism.

what a limp dick that guy is

That was one of myriad things wrong about that article. Who the hell thinks Jay Cutler is elite? And who would take Mark Sanchez over him? Terry Bradshaw would take Sanchez. I think Cutler is right there with the elite. If he had some better offensive weapons and played in a dome I think he could put up monster numbers. i agree. i think he's a bit of a narcissist in that he thinks he can make all the throws and that sometimes gets him in trouble, but he's a qb in the mold of favre, not brady or manning, and that's part of what makes him worth having. i just wish he would temper his risk-taking, learn to refine his confidence so that he still takes shots, but doesn't throw hopeless, impossible passes. imagine what he could do if he had greg jennings on this team.

Meatheadedness defined. Cutler's teams always underperform. Yea, because everyone predicted the Bears to win the North this year. it's shameless how some idiot can come out and write that the day after cutler leads his team to a division title. and he did lead the team. and, sorry, it's meatball.

i remember him limping off the field after a series or two and then not seeing him after that.

he got fired by the bears and doesn't have the pride to slink off to another city and start over, nor does he have the shame not to badmouth them every single time he gets a microphone in front of his face. he's in the middle. too crazy for boys town, too much of a boy for crazy town. scum.

Yes, he missed the Seattle game, which was when I believe Cutler still wasn't 100% post concussion. I was misled by sports talk radio! Also I forgot. Pisa has failed to accumulate stats in 4 games, and I believe he left another one after making one tackle. Also, the line was plagued by injuries early in the season. Garza and Williams missed time. Desmond Clark was slated to be a part of this offense but hasn't played much at all after some early injuries. Manumaleuna was injured in training camp and I think that made him limited early in the season. Also, Major Wright was expected to compete for a starting position but was too injured to get the job and too injured to play most of the first half of the season. Then there's Hillenmeyer. I'm not sure where you got your starter numbers of games missed, but it's not true. They have been relatively lucky with health, in comparison to GB and INDY, as well as last year's team. But they haven't completely avoided the injury bug either. i think actually briggs missed the better part of both the seattle and washington games. he may have dressed for the redskins, but he didn't play much iirc.

It feels like he's had about 10 against us. He's had some long returns that didn't go all the way like the kick return last night. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YQYuX2GhwE at 5:25 my favorite joniak call of all time: "and there is nothing, and i mean nothing but kentucky bluegrass in front of him!" gives me chills every time.

According to this article it was in 1973. I remembered reading about it but couldn't remember when it was. one of the last times i heard ron he was talking about how his stepfather and his mother are lucky they went together because they couldn't have lived without one another. i wasn't aware of the story.

we are in the love cutler club, now go away

no, that was the other two-return game, the one against st louis in 2006.

but signing he-man doesn't hurt either.

the salary component was introduced by you, though. to be fair.

except the vikings outspent them by more than 10 mil this year and by 25 mil in 2007. so, 1 out of 4 years ain't bad. Whoops, I thought we had the most this year, I actually didnt look up those number and assumed based on how you guys were talking about our spending spree last winter. We spent more than them in 09 (120-99) and 07 (104-92). In 08 they outspent us 133-120. I don't know where you got 1 out of 4 from. i think you have 07 backwards or something. http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=721071&mc=1&forum_id=1 http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=178103&page=2 we have had the most salary in 09 only. I'm using USA today's salary database which is supposedly accurate, but who knows at this point Bears http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamresults.aspx?team=5 Vikings http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamresults.aspx?team=18 Packers http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamresults.aspx?team=12 Edit: Didn't even both to check the Lions, they don't matter. Upon that, I retract my statement. My point was that you were saying that were arent even in the top 10 in salary and have won 3 divisions, so I was trying to point out how we compare in the division, which matters more than conference if we are talking about division titles. that's fine, i pointed out in several separate sources that we've had the top salary exactly once in the last 4 years, which makes things pretty even. for the record, i said that we are #10 in salary. we still have to compete with other nfl teams in the actual games, we are not competing in a north vaccuum.

except the vikings outspent them by more than 10 mil this year and by 25 mil in 2007. so, 1 out of 4 years ain't bad. Whoops, I thought we had the most this year, I actually didnt look up those number and assumed based on how you guys were talking about our spending spree last winter. We spent more than them in 09 (120-99) and 07 (104-92). In 08 they outspent us 133-120. I don't know where you got 1 out of 4 from. i think you have 07 backwards or something. http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=721071&mc=1&forum_id=1 http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=178103&page=2 we have had the most salary in 09 only. even if you go by what USAToday says, the lions outspent us in 07. http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2007

except the vikings outspent them by more than 10 mil this year and by 25 mil in 2007. so, 1 out of 4 years ain't bad.

It may be unrealistic but I don't see what is childlike about it. That being said, I'm not expecting them to be Patriots like. There are plenty of other teams they don't measure up to either. But again, that isn't the point. I'm just not sure why you are suddenly fellating this often, and recently, disappointing organization. I am happy with where they are at and enjoying the hell out of this season. It's been good. You aren't making any sense though so I'm not sure there is any point continuing whatever discussion you are trying to have. my original comment was that criticisms aside, the smith/angelo era has been good and we've had success. i've enjoyed watching them, as you have, admittedly. it beats the hell out of expecting to be bad and having no hope year after year. i've had expectations going into every season since 2004, and that feels good for football in chicago to be pertinent, even if the results are sometimes disappointing. the bears have done this without giving out terrible un-jettisonable contracts to marginal players and standing on a pile of dead money. you're arguing that it's been okay. i disagree.

The analogy is Bears sucked in the 90's and have been better the latter half of the 2000's, and so you are pretending they have been something more than they have. Likewise, the Cubs sucked in the 90's but did better in the mid 2000's and some people were willing to pretend that was amazing because of the lack of prior success. this is where it's completely stupid, even if you take payroll out of it, you get "success isn't better than no success." i like when my teams are successful and the bears have been successful in the lovie smith era. i don't know how you can dispute that. Are you that dumb? What you get is, "People with low expectations and a history of failure are far more accepting of minimal success than they probably should be." Seriously, it's a straight forward comparison that doesn't take a lot of thought to understand and you are completely oblivious. Do you not remember the "well they were over .500 in back to back seasons for the first time in 30 years so Jim Hendry must be the guy for the job" nonsense? no, you're dumb.

Every football seasons ends with teams who think they were one play away from contending for the super bowl. except in this instance they actually were literally 1 play away from the playoffs. and again, the cardinals were a super bowl team with the exact "mediocre" record we sported that year. we're talking about the angelo/smith era, not the angelo era. and they've been a top quarter of the league team in that era. expecting them to be the patriots is childlike.