Chisoxfn

I keep getting upset just thinking about this.

I'll still watch, but its legitimately not the same without the US in it. This is so extremely disappointing.

Man that sucks.

Eliminated. So unfortunate. Unless something amazing happens.

If we lose, we have to play in a tie-breaker, no matter what, correct? And that is only if Honduras and Panama don't both win outright (correct). If we lose and they both win, we are eliminated, correct? Which is quite possible given the fact that Honduras is now beating Mexico and Panama is notted up with Costa Rica. We better find a way to get the draw!!!

Geeze, down 2 goals. They are going to be tight. Not looking good.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 10, 2017 -> 01:04 PM) Right now he's not the guy. He isn't going to lead this particular team to the playoffs, but he obviously has a lot of potential. Give him some experience and some decent receivers, and he might be a star. Except for maybe Cutler, I don't think the Bears have ever had a more talented guy at QB. Hopefully he develops. The guy only started 13 games in college. To think he will get anything but better is crazy IMO. With this receiving Corps, I don't even know if Tom Brady would lead us too far. I do think with a very good QB we are a playoff team. Our defense is good, our oline (when / if it gets healhty is good), RB is solid, but the WR / TE position are so weak (hopefully Simms bounces back and shows something with Trubisky in and we see developments from Shaheen) that it is just so darn difficult to move the ball. Defense needs to create turnovers for us to win games (and offense needs to protect the ball, win time of posession, and wear down the other team.

One thing that I should point out is that our defense lost Timu and after that we had a lot more issues getting guys aligned. I don't necessarily view this as a huge inditement on the coaching staff since Timu was replacing multiple guys who were out and thus we really just didn't have anyone left with much experience to call the plays in the defensive huddle. Floyd had a sweet game (outside of that late "holding" penalty).

Lots of penalties on both teams, just an ugly and unique game. Pass rush was strong and our defenders continue to get their hands on a lot of balls (without getting the key turnover). I predict we'll have a stretch where we will finally force those turnovers in bunches. Offense is just really ugly. Trubisky looked relatively comfortable, but pre-snap issues occurred and Whitehair has just been bad. Hopefully he can turn things around and we can start to get a consistent olien out there so they can build up confidence. Cohen is an odd player, he can be frustrating and I almost feel we are over-using him. On special teams he was brutal and we went to Jackson late (for a reason). Howard is such a better RB (albeit Cohen is clearly a valuable and explosive player). Things will look so much better if we could open the offense up a bit (and had some downfield threats). Last year we had Miller (who was a much more explosive player then this year (age and injuries are catching up to him), plus obviously, Jeffrey & Meredith are significantly better then anything we have at wideout this year.

What is the NFL rule for a defender coming back in (from out of bounds) and being the first to touch the ball? Harrison Smith (I believe) was out of bounds and then came in bounds to intercept Trubisky on that play? I know if that were a receiver doing that, it would be illegal (and not ruled a valid catch). Does that same rule apply to a defensive player? I've never seen it called so I presume not, but was curious.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 9, 2017 -> 08:40 PM) That game decided John fox’s fate Any statement like this is so inaccurate. John Fox's fate will be decided by how Trubisky and the Bears do the final 6 weeks or so of the season. If they can finish strong and showing signs of life, he'll be back...if not, he's out.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 9, 2017 -> 08:35 PM) Bears defense played their ass off. Except for they had some key breakdowns. Yes they played good, but there were a couple big plays that were blown.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 9, 2017 -> 02:33 PM) We were damn near league average last year with Barkley and Hoyer at QB for much of it. And a significantly better receiving corps. Night and day difference. This receiving corps is just brutal. Said it when Glennon was in and will continue to say it again. Really sloppy start of the game and just an ugly game in general. Our inability to limit the big play on defense and/or create turnovers is just brutal. Lots of opportunities. Trubisky flashed but also showed that he is still a rookie. Game plan was awful and we still failed to throw down field. That said, Trubisky got some experience and can hopefully learn from it.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 02:14 PM) I too don't understand where the "Collins had a bad year" agenda-pushers came from. I'll take an .816 OPS with his defensive improvements any day. Depends on how you view stats. Given that his OPS is driven a lot from a strong OBP (as well as solid power numbers), you could view it as assuming those same components will carry forward at higher levels or you can take the approach that if he can't hit at the lower levels, you will see even worse hitting at higher levels. Additionally, higher level pitchers are more accurate and given those stats aren't going to be pitching around you, which then bodes the question of how much will you really benefit from that strong plate discipline.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 12:09 PM) That's the problem. If he's worth the contract, it gets ripped up and you have to give him another one, or be smart enough to walk away. IMO, acquiring him, unless you are ready to win now or very soon, is something that can only blow up in your face. No matter what, you are going to be getting a player who eventually will be paid a lot of money to really suck. My view is the Sox are going to at some point, play in the free agency space, so with that in mind, I think they are going to spend money. If you get Stanton, you are getting him (even before he opts out) during a window you anticipate contending and if anything you might actually accelerate that "contention" window. You are right that if he performs he is opting out and I would advise the Sox to walk away at that point. If he is good, he might stick around and that isn't necessarily an awful thing either. You know you get him for the next 3 years and if he performs, that should work out to a solid overall value. If he doesn't, you definitely run a risk to be on the hook for the remaining years.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 12:06 PM) To be fair, one of the reasons Stanton missed the end of a year was because he was hit in the face by a 95 MPH fastball. That's not injury prone, that's bad luck. He has been prone to lower body injuries in the past, primarily quads, hamstrings, and groins, which are not good. I would trust the Sox training staff to take care of him. For the right price, I'd absolutely consider it. I believe he has an opt out in 3 or 4 years, and I imagine he'd use that to get one more long-term deal, but maybe not. If he performs, he's opting out. If he collapses, then you are stuck with the long-term nature of the deal. Get creative with the insurance you associate with the contract.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 10:30 AM) Ryan Bass‏Verified account @Ry_Bass Sounds a lot like Giancarlo Stanton will be traded. I know, I know. His contract sucks, we're rebuilding, blah blah blah... at the same time, I feel like this isn't something that can't be completely ruled out. Given how horrible the contract is, his trade value is much lower. It's too early to start trading prospects for proven talent, but this is the one and only opportunity we're going to have to acquire a power hitter like Stanton. If a trade were centered around Dunning and Adolfo, with the Sox receiving cash, of course, would you support it? This would make the Avi trade a lot easier, and he'd provide great protection for Abreu and Moncada. See,I just don't agree that his contract sucks. I think if you can get him without giving up your a-level contracts, you do it. He's going to ba very good player during the window we compete.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 07:48 AM) Yeah I do think starters is the 6 for $68 deal of Abreu. I can't see the price going that high. We are still talking about a 17/18 year old kid here. Too much risk for a team to shell that much. I could see it going as high as 30-45M though.

I would think this doesn't happen and instead they lose future rights. Seems odd just to null and void a particular player's agreement. That said, as long as the player ultimately benefits (and gets more money...which in this case he presumably would), I could see it working. If he's a free agent (and unrestricted), I would think it is pretty unlikely Sox win the bidding, but I would be a proponent in taking the chance (given our current lack of payroll). Given his age, handing out mega bucks is pretty risky as well (lots can go wrong from 17 until you reach the big leagues). No denying his potential though.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 2, 2017 -> 04:59 PM) And there's my problem with that - this guy could, for whatever reason, have decided that he was doing the same thing. Standard white terrorist with easy to purchase weapons who wants a body count. Anyway, just makes it hard to draw the dividing line people want to draw. Much more grey than any easy answer - other than the commonality of a heavily armed guy. I don't think stronger gun control laws (as in who is able to buy vs. who isn't (from a mental illness perspective or even a more detailed background check)) were going to stop this person (at least based upon the current information out there). So if you were going to look at this scenario in a vacuum, based on current facts, it would appear that the only thing stopping it would be an inability for anyone to purchase these type of firearms. I'm not a gun owner though (have barely shot a gun in my life, other than some rifles at scout camp), however, I do respect people's rights to own/protect / etc. I really see no scenario (outside of the ability to defend oneself from thy own government) where people need the types of firearms being used in these type of instances.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 2, 2017 -> 03:57 PM) Would you describe the 9/11 hijackers or the Paris attackers as mentally ill? (nonsarcastic question). Have to think about that for a bit. Somewhere in there, I think they have been brainwashed/rationalized their behavior for a greater cause as part of a "holy war". So it falls into a "gray" area as to what you define as "war". Like I said, need to think a bit about it, however, in general, I tend to separate acts against soldiers vs. innocent people (and I'm not referring to innocent bystanders).

QUOTE (Wanne @ Oct 2, 2017 -> 03:21 PM) Good point about Fox. I'm not sure where it's all coming from. I even saw a story this morning that this has been a Pace mandate to not play him (which baffles me). But they honestly could not keep trotting out Mike Glennon and all his ineptness. They were losing fans...and quite frankly I think they were losing the locker room somewhat if they decided to keep trotting him out there. Players were getting PO'd. I'm not going to pretend to know what's best either...but when you see rookies like Watson have the success they've had so far...it almost forced the Bears hand with this. As for your first sentence...I wish the Bears would have felt that same way with Cutler and actually built him a solid OL...and stabilized that OC circus they had going on. They did't do too good with that investment IMO. I know this is different somewhat...but still. In terms of the lockeroom, I do agree that it is a key point that ultimately matters. You can't just treat Trubisky with total "kid" gloves because there are other implications it has on the lockeroom, especially given that, by almost all accounts, Fox has had pretty strong control over the lockeroom. I think the fact that the team laid a complete egg on Thursday against the Packers, had a lot to do with Glennon (who was awful and I'm not one to just totally throw a player over the bus) but also I think magnifying it was the fact that the team had zero confidence in the QB (nor did the coaching staff...hence why we played it safe in that 4th quarter and ran the clock down quickly (vs. risking injury). Players are not inhuman and they knew they had no chance to come back. We as fans knew it, and they knew it too. To go back out and make any statement towards Glennon would have been crazy and if Trubisky has proven to be the clear cut best player, the Bears had to at some point turn to him. At the very least, if he wasn't ready, they would have had to turn to Sanchez, but I don't think that would have actually worked since by all accounts he's been much worse than any of the other QB's (going back to preseason). Either way, at this point I hope Trubisky is able to grow and show us what we want and then some in this first year. I also hope he stays healthy and shows "progress".

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 2, 2017 -> 01:32 PM) Is that true? I'm asking medical professionals. We are assuming because the act of killing is horrific you have to be mentally ill. There are bombers in war who kill thousands. Not trying to argue. I just think we are going to see more and more of this and I'm thinking in not all instances will the gunman be mentally ill. He might be pissed at the world, at the man (in his case the casino he sued for two years?) and as a complete selfish asshole he could take hundreds of people with him as he leaves the cruel world. I'll stop now as I know NOTHING about mental illness. I'm just wondering if some people are capable of s*** like this without being insane. I mean there are a lot of gang members who kill just for the sake of it. They are not considered insane, just ruthless. Were all those guys in the mob insane by the definition of insane? Oh well, my mind is al over the place as you all know these senseless mass murders make me get very angry, like at the Colorado asshole who killed so many in a theatre. Best wishes to all in Vegas. In my opinion, depends on how you define it. You can have "mental illnesses" that create long-term issues, or you can (in my opinion), have events in your life that perhaps cause a drastic shift to your mental health which in my opinion could make you mentally ill. I separate conflicts of war from other scenarios because in that case, you are not being unique (presuming you are performing your act consistent with how a soldier should perform it). To just randomly murder other people is not a sane act and anyone that does such a thing clearly has a mental inbalance (at that point in time). A whole seperate question as to whether it should / could have been identified earlier and actions prevented. Lots of things unknown as it relates to this particular perpetrator.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 2, 2017 -> 01:09 PM) Two issues: Gun control, mental health. ... a.) Well, I don't really want to know more about this guy but I'd kind of like to know why he did it. From what I read I don't think he was mentally ill, he was just an asshole. He was gambling heavily, probably drinking heavily? There's a chance this 64 year old wasn't insane, just wanted to leave the earth in a splash, a blaze of glory so to speak. Shooting a gun from a window, he didn't have to actually see the blood and carnage. he could just kill, then kill himself. He may have just wanted to die and do it in a public way. Or maybe he hated people late in life. He had some beef with a casino I read. He may have just been an asshole. I seriously doubt he was mentally ill. b.) Gun control. I wouldn't give up. There is no reason 64 year old guys should have those kind of guns. I know it's our freedom to arm ourselves, but if we don't solve this issue non partisan (ha, good luck there) and keep assault rifles, etc., out of the hands of people, this indeed will be the new normal. I'm surprised we don't see hand grenades in these attacks as well. It's going to happen at a sporting event as well as concerts like this and it's very sad, tramatizing and heartbreaking. I realize I'm dreaming about keeping these guns off the streets, but if there ever was a cause to not give up the fight on, it's this. But it CANT be solved cause of partisan politics. I'd still try, though. Technically at some point to do what he did, he had to be mentally ill. Seperate from that is whether he actually showed those signs elsewhere.

Horrible. What is wrong with these people. I'm going to be in Vegas Thurs-Saturday. Going to be eery. Prayers out to everyone impacted by this horrific tragedy.