Hairyducked Idiot
-
Posts
39,504 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
46
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Hairyducked Idiot
-
Of course I do, and I used it properly. "Extremely or utterly foolish." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/asinine Guilty on that one.
-
Following 6 straight playoff appearances...come on...you understand how that's different right? Of course I do. But I was asked yesterday "how much mediocrity must we endure before we stop living in the past?" The fans calling for Smith's head would very likely, imo, be calling for Cowher's after the first two non-playoff seasons. If he followed the same pattern as his Steelers tenure, he wouldn't have had his second non-playoff season until his 8th year as head coach...so we'd have a while to go before we worried about it. But we wouldn't win a Super Bowl in that time, which (according to previous Smith-bashing in this thread) is all that matters. We wouldn't have a 13-win season either.
-
Following 6 straight playoff appearances...come on...you understand how that's different right? Of course I do. But I was asked yesterday "how much mediocrity must we endure before we stop living in the past?" The fans calling for Smith's head would very likely, imo, be calling for Cowher's after the first two non-playoff seasons.
-
No, it's completely arbitrary and nonsensical. There's some sense to it. It takes time to implement a new system and draft the players you want for that system. Even with the first season, Smith's got a .563 winning percentage with three playoff victories. To throw out a coach like that after a winning season is asinine.
-
Sure, it's a bit arbitrary to throw out Smith's first season. But I'm not trying to prove he's better than Cowher, just that he's not as bad as people want to make him out to be. The simple fact remains that even the great Cowher had a longer stretch of mediocrity than some people want to fire Smith for.
-
That's a good cheerleader. Lovie has matched that pace the last four seasons, and Cowher had a three-year stretch where he averaged 7-9 at one point. I don't think we need to be in such a hurry to change.
-
Soriano was on pace to drive in more than 100 RBI in 2008 (75 RBI in 109 games). That's great production for a top of the order hitter. Not all of Soriano's hits are HR's. He's typically right around 40 doubles a year also, which allows the other guys to drive him in. Derrek Lee had too many GIDP's, but that's because Theriot is too one dimensional. Theriot would be the ideal #8 hitter in the Cubs line up. He can draw the walk or stroke a base hit, steal 2nd or get to second on the sacrifice by the pitcher and be in scoring position for Soriano. I think Soriano's stolen base rate would actually improve from that lower spot in the order. Soriano was also on pace to score 100 runs, something he's done several times in his career. Keeping him healthy is what the Cubs need from Soriano more than anything. A switch to another spot in the order isn't necessary at all. Necessary? No. Preferable? Clearly. Preferable by a margin to make it worth all the distraction it might cause? Clearly not. Unless you are going to do a truly optimal lineup, something like Ramirez or Lee batting second, there's really no 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. c) go back in time and not give him that stupid extension (my one problem with this management team is extending contracts, almost never a good idea for defensive players) d) cut him
-
One year deal, and I have big doubts he'll be any good next year. Agreed. Running backs have a very small window of usefulness, then you have to let them go.
-
08-09' Blackhawks (46-24-12) 104 PTS - 4th Seed In The West!
Hairyducked Idiot replied to Cynosure's topic in Other Sports
With apologies to Penny Arcade... -
I agree. I really doubt we'll ever see a dominant Harris again. Historically, great offenses tend to have a few years' reign, but great defenses are one year and done. To maintain them, you need a constant flow of new players.
-
The coaching staff helped produce the best team in the NFC that year. But they were probably 4th or 5th overall that year, and that was 3 years ago, not to mention not even the same staff. That ship has sailed. It was a fleating moment of glory that was unsustainable. How many seasons of mediocrity will it take for you to think the past continues to outweigh the present. More than two. You should be in the Bears front office then, because apparently they agree with you. Win for me!
-
The coaching staff helped produce the best team in the NFC that year. But they were probably 4th or 5th overall that year, and that was 3 years ago, not to mention not even the same staff. That ship has sailed. It was a fleating moment of glory that was unsustainable. How many seasons of mediocrity will it take for you to think the past continues to outweigh the present. More than two.
-
Comparing it to Dusty Baker (whom I can proudly say I was one of the Cubs fans who knew he was bad back in 2003) makes no sense. This isn't baseball. This coaching staff has already proven it can produce an elite team, I see no reason to change it. And predicting how hard next season's schedule might be is a hopeless game.
-
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.
-
If you want to argue that Kreutz is incredibly overrated, we'll I've been on that one for years.
-
There's really no point in axing coordinators. Either the coaching staff needs to go or it doesn't, but half-measures seem silly to me.
-
I'm not sure how you measure that, but they dominated the NFC Championship game and won the NFC by three full games. That's dominating enough to make up for a weak conference. LOL, they most certainly did not. They were back in forth with the Saints for a good part of that game and would have probably lost in the dome. The week before that they just barely squeaked by the Seahawks. Same game I was watching? They dominated the first half, then the Saints broke one big play and had one good drive to make it seem closer than it was, then they dominated the rest of the way.
-
I'm not sure how you measure that, but they dominated the NFC Championship game and won the NFC by three full games. That's dominating enough to make up for a weak conference.
-
Yeah, I think we can debate whether it's coaching or not, but that's missing the point. Even if it IS coaching, it's crummy coaching. And that's where we disagree. It got us to a Super Bowl we had a chance of winning, it got us nine wins this season in a down year, and if we have a good draft it'll win us another division title next season.
-
Hmm, so anything good that happens as a result of things Smith emphasizes is just luck, but the bad stuff is all on him. I get it. The coach comes in, says we'll have a team built around special teams and turnovers. We consistently have the best special teams in the league and are near the top in creating turnovers, but it isn't coaching that made that happen... :roll:
-
No, not true. Relying on turnovers in this scheme is simply relying on athletes making things happen. It is essentially playing for luck. It is not outscheming or outcoaching the opposition. Hmm, funny how that luck keeps happening for the Bears more than any other team. Almost as if they were coached to go for the ball...
-
Every time the Bears win because they get a bunch of turnovers or a big special teams play, Lovie has outcoached somebody.
-
Well, then we can respectfully disagree without needing to throw in things nobody said. I like the his coaching style, I like his game-day decisions and I like the team. I don't think replacing him is likely to make things better.
-
There's a big leap from "no need to fire the coach" to "no need for changes." The fact that you made it shows you aren't remotely objective about this, and are just another fan who wants to fire the coach. Fans *always* want to fire the coach.