Chisoxfn

QUOTE (shipps @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 02:30 PM) Just another clown popping out of the car in this circus season. I read on Fuller that there is more to this. He had been practicing fine and people were wondering why he wasn't actually playing (given how minor the scope was, etc). Even alluded to the fact that Fuller was a little irritated that he hadn't seen the field yet.

In other news, there are some reports that Pace and Fox don't see as eye to eye as previously reported. In fact, some of the reports go as far as saying that Pace never wanted to hire Fox (he wanted Bowles) and Fox was forced by McCaskey's (at the recommendation of Ernie Ocorsi who suggested a veteran coach to counter Pace's inexperience). Also some reports that Fox struggles with discipline (evidently that was one of the matters that really irked Elway). Obviously negative stories are going to come up around now and who knows how much truth there is to these reports.

I'm so glad Rose is gone. Unfortunate he got hurt and I cheered like heck for him a long time, but man, what a breath of fresh air to have him some place else. One thing to be certain, the start to this upcoming season will be interesting. I sure as hell hope this works and that we can land a big name next off-season.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 11:04 AM) A bag of signed Jose Fernandez baseballs, also containing his checkbook, washed up on the shore yesterday about a mile from the accident. Why was all of this in a bag? Was this a suicide? Seems like there is more to this story.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 10:33 AM) That's the logic that gets Donald Trump elected President with 40% of the popular vote. What does the world look like today if Nader doesn't swing the 2000 election to Bush? Does the US ever invade Iraq? Is the entire Middle East destabalized to the point that we end up with ISIS? If the Iraq War doesn't happen, and we don't have the "everyone gets $300" tax break, is the deficit as high as it is? That's the issue with not voting for Clinton in a swing state (in California or Illinois, sure, go ahead and vote your conscience). If you are scared of a Trump Presidency, and you cast a vote in a swing state for Johnson or Stein or write-in somebody, you are in essence casting a vote for a Trump Presidency. Because the choice is ultimately a binary one. On November 8, 2016, either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are going to be the next President of the United States. Not if a third party candidate can steal a state or two...if you can somehow get to that, then you don't get anyone with enough delegates potentially and it could be none of them that get elected. I often wonder what would happen if a high profile person ran independent. It probably wouldn't work because if it was a high profile dem or republican, they'd canabilize their base and the other candidate would win enough, but if that candidate could steal a few dem and a few repub states, it would work out brilliantly. And no, if I think both candidates are crap, I won't vote for either candidate. It helps that I'm in California so no matter what I do, my vote doesn't matter. Probably a tougher decision if I were in Ohio or Florida.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 12, 2016 -> 08:30 AM) Based on what I knew of Johnson from his time as a governor, and looking at his policy points, I was pretty sure I was going to vote for him for President. But around the time of his Aleppo flub, I had started reading other things that were disturbing in terms of a lack of understanding of the workings of the world. The more I look, the more I can't do it. So I'm owning up to my own mistake, lol. I'll be voting for Clinton, sadly. Not happy about it, but I don't really have another reasonable choice. A ham sandwich on stale white bread isn't appealing, but it's a lot better than a pile of steaming garbage, and the third party "alternative" dish gets a lot worse the more you look at it. Matt - You absolutely have a choice. Write in the candidate you wanted. At least then you have a clear conscious knowing that you voted for who you thought would be the best candidate and you never put your name next to the candidate that was the "least" bad.

By the way, I should make one thing clear. I am 1000% not voting for Trump. My only debate is do I actually associate my vote with Hillary or do I write in a candidate. So technically, Hillary was speaking to me or someone like me in the audience. My current prevailing wisdom is I disagree with her on too much policy related matters (not to mention I have zero trust in her) to give her my vote and thus will write-in a candidate.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 09:18 AM) I presume 98% of his contractors get paid, or some high percentage. IF people didn't do their job, they shouldn't be paid. You can have amazing hotels without always having the best contractors on various sub-projects, etc. That is life in business. Now there could be examples where he is being ridiculous, I don't know, but not enough facts were presented to make me care one way or another. The tax issue was played brilliantly by Hillary and he was a knuckle head...should have just said those are the laws of this country and I follow the laws. By the way, that is my presumption. IF he is just stiffing people to stiff people, well that is another story.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 08:14 AM) A multi-billionaire who claims that he is going to be good for the middle class who, at the same time, has a history of not paying contractors is absolutely relevant. If he's been spending his professional stiffing people who did work for him, then why should we think that will change once he's in office? I do a fair bit of construction work as well, and agree that there are a lot of really crappy contractors. BUT in one breath he says that his hotels are all the best in the world, and in the other breath, the contractors who built them did poor jobs and shouldn't be paid. It can't be both... I presume 98% of his contractors get paid, or some high percentage. IF people didn't do their job, they shouldn't be paid. You can have amazing hotels without always having the best contractors on various sub-projects, etc. That is life in business. Now there could be examples where he is being ridiculous, I don't know, but not enough facts were presented to make me care one way or another. The tax issue was played brilliantly by Hillary and he was a knuckle head...should have just said those are the laws of this country and I follow the laws.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 07:14 AM) Well, he did reply later that he "followed the laws of the nation," which, to me, is a better way to reply to the tax issue. I am quite certain that the Clinton's take advantage of tax law and tax loopholes to avoid paying excess taxes as well. Trump is a businessman and many of his supporters admire him for those qualities and want him in the White House because of those qualities. The fact that he hires intelligent tax lawyers is so far down the list of reasons not to vote for him that it is a non-issue. What is incredible to me is how the guy is not intelligent enough to just use Hillary's "establishment" label against her in a civil way (use Bernie's playbook) and then mix in some of his own thoughts and ideas with a bent on his business experience and his ability to "get things done." To me, that is a potential winning blueprint that either his team fails to see (which I highly doubt), or he simply is not disciplined enough to execute. Look at how the Clinton's use their charities. They absolutely tax advantage of the tax code beyond what a normal american could possibly do. In fact, I'd argue that what they do is not appropriate (as they are in my opinion, in an ethically gray zone). That said, I'm sure some of Trump's positions are in similar zones.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Sep 26, 2016 -> 08:40 PM) Yup. She really didn't change her gameplan in the middle of the debates to really stick it to him. Perhaps the lack of commercial breaks makes that harder to do. Again, Trump's true supporters wouldn't change their minds regardless of what happened. But the truth is that they both needed to win independent voters. I don't know how you can listen to Trump without being bored or losing interest if you're undecided. He adds in so many narcissistic and off-topic remarks that he loses the viewer 10-20 seconds into his talk. Hillary, I thought, started out strong, but seemed to lose a little bit of coherence in her speech as the debate moved along (insert stamina joke here). It is interesting these views on Hillary, because I tend to think of her as the master of giving this massive, long answers, that do anything but answer the question. Of coruse that is all politicians. Trump does the same thing, just with more blatant lies and in a far less articulate fashion. In general, Hillary uses a ton of words, often times to say very little. I would have loved to see this come down to Kasich vs. her or even Carly vs. Hillary. That would have been entertainment (from a debate perspective). I actually think Chris Christie would have been too...but Trump is the opposite of entertaining to me. He get frustrated, says stupids hit, blabs on and on, throws out some greatness and absolute comments and that is it. That said, for the first 30 minutes, Trump was pretty damn good (by my very low Trump standards...she got under his skin).

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Sep 26, 2016 -> 08:37 PM) My dad was beginning to think Trump was gonna win and now thinks Hillary just beat him down. Look at all the posts on this site saying Trump had no chance...at this point, I just assume whatever I think (which is that he's awful and can't possibly win) is wrong and that he'll end up our next president. I can't even pretend to think anything else at this point.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 26, 2016 -> 08:21 PM) It had 16 people. He was never in a 1-on-1 debate If they widdled down sooner, Trump probably would have gotten eliminated.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 26, 2016 -> 07:56 PM) She needed to excite democrats and I think that happened. I can't really comment on that, but I can't imagine anyone walking away from that excited about Hillary. Unless by excited, you mean, democrats are just so scared of Trump that it means they'll unite with Hillary because of it (not because of her).

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 26, 2016 -> 07:50 PM) I mean she certainly did better than him, but that is no high bar. Nothing that happened tonight is new; and while that may be all that Hillary needs to win, I thought it was far from a dominating effort on her part. I agree with you. I think Trump imploded about 30 minutes in (prior to that, for a guy who doesn't like him, I didn't think he was awful). Hillary was bad, she just didn't fully implode. She did nothing which made me go, yes, I want to vote for her as president (Trump did everything to tell me what I already knew...that I don't want to vote for him), but Hillary has yet to do anything that has gotten me excited or even close to the point where I'd even grudingly go, yes, I'll vote for her. America lost tonight.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 26, 2016 -> 07:23 PM) OTOH, I don't think she is helping herself by behaving so condescending towards him. She should just be completely oblivious to his nonsense and pretend as though she is debating someone who isn't a complete fool. I thought America lost tonight. Embarassing on both sides. Yes, I'm a republican but I think we have the two greatest scum possible running for the highest ranking position in our government. Hillary came off as rude and condescending herself (not that Trump isn't rude too). At least she says more about building our economy then Trump, with a focus on creating jobs vs. Trump 100% focused on stopping jobs from leaving (vs. doing anything around real actual growth...certain jobs can leave, as long as better, higher paying jobs (in greater fold) can replace them. Common sense we should attack things from multiple angles and I don't disagree with Trump on certain points as it relates to our trade deals, I just can't deal with his total absolutes as it relates to everything because it means I have zero idea what he actually plans on doing. I also don't actually think Donald is a racist, although he has certainly played up that card in certain instances, I don't think for one second he is a racist (just my personal belief). Either way I won't vote for either of these clowns. Romney will probably get my 3rd straight vote (twice written in...cause why change my trend now, haha).

Welp....that debate was more embarrassing then I ever suspected. We lost as a country. What horrific candidates we have on both sides.

Not hearing his voice during Dodger games just won't be the same. The very best to ever do what he did and he'll be missed.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 26, 2016 -> 09:42 AM) Honestly, how can you even truly evaluate what is happening right now? These results, while tough to stomach during the games, are not hurting us long term...this was always going to be a transitional year, and given the injuries we've already incurred just two games into the season, getting a few good bounces to go our way and being competitive is not in the cards. We need to be patient and continue to determine who is worth keeping around and who isn't. Losing these games in the fashion we have makes Mondays/Tuesdays more painful, but come April, we'll get better for it. No need to panic. The coaching staff needs to focus on developing our critical young players and the long game. Great post, totally agree.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 26, 2016 -> 09:07 AM) I don't know that I have ever not recognized that we don't have talent? I didn't advocate firing fox but I don't think Loggains has the previous success or current results to allow him to stay on as OC even through the full season. Kevin White hasn't looked that good, but everyone has correctly identiifed that he has not really been used the way you'd expect, see: Houston letting fuller run streaks. Though the defense I knew would be rough, the offense should not be this bad, especially running the ball. I'm not a fan of Loggains, but I'm not ready to run a guy out 3 games into the job. I don't see what good that does for anyone involved. My view is we are going to have a new starting QB next year (or at least grooming one) so whomever we bring in next year is what matters and we better have some consistency to it. Our offense has clearly sucked, but it also had a ton of moving parts early in the season. I expect we'll win 2 of our next 3 games.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 26, 2016 -> 08:40 AM) I've said it before, but the defense looks so bad because Loggain's offense is not creating sustainable drives. Last year the bears were NINTH in time of possession, and that's why even if our defense was horrible in DVOA, Fangio's extreme bend don't break defense with Gase's offense designed to maximize TOP led to the bears in a lot of close games despite talent. Well, Loggain's offense is currently dead last. And we are seeing what those extra possessions by the opposing offense is doing to the score. That said, every team has injuries. My main concern watching the bears in preseason was how razor thin they were, and even their backups were losing their 1 on 1 matchups. We are 2-3 years of top ten draft picks away from assembling a deep enough core. So you said it yourself, we don't have the talent. I can't fault Fox for that and I think it is critical to be patient in the process. Now if by the end of next year, we aren't seeing talent emerge and get developed, then we have real issues (and I'd even go as far as saying, if by the end of this year we are saying Pace's picks are all busts, then again, something similar). I'm not saying it now and I don't even want to think about a new coach until the end of next year (and I certainly hope at that point, we are seeing the arrow start pointing up).

Terrible. RIP.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Sep 26, 2016 -> 07:21 AM) The Bears aren't very good but it's overreaction city on defense. They are down their 3 best players: Goldman, McPhee, and Trevathan. Also missing Fuller and Callahan. Next man up is just a cute thing that coaches say. But when "Next man up" is a guy that sucks, this is what happens. Their decimated defense isn't good enough to withstand getting nothing from the offense. If you could guarantee me the #1 or #2 pick right now I'd take it but I don't believe they will be that awful once Cutler returns. They have absolutely no depth, their offense and OC are bad, and they are decimated by injuries. I am with you and I look forward to seeing our defense when it gets healthier. It won't be great, cause we lack playmakers, but that is something I've been saying for a while. If we can find one or two playmakers (hopefully Floyd becomes one and maybe Goldman becomes another) and we add one more in the draft, then I think we'd have the rest of the pieces to bring it all together (all major ifs, but I hope we get to see Goldman back along with McPhee, Trev, Fuller, etc. and actually see this defense as is. Given we are in a full rebuild, I think we all knew we wouldn't have much depth (given our 1st unit was still being built out, clearly our back-ups aren't going to be top shelf).

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 25, 2016 -> 06:47 PM) I think the roster is a bigger problem than the coach. Two high first round draft picks for Pace are still wild cards, that's not good on today's NFL I will say it a lot, but this roster was so bad and it looked to me like the Bears finally realized they had to rebuild at all possible cost and they have done that, but because of how devoid this team was of talent (because we were mediocre for so freaking long), we really were in a spot that our mediocrity was due to veteran players with limited upside vs. young players who were on the rise. We literally had too few young, talented players, and that has to change and we are seeing tons of young blood get development. Next year I expect we'll see things rise (although the critical aspect in all of this will be finding a good young QB who can be groomed all while the defense, etc get groomed).

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 25, 2016 -> 06:22 PM) I'm thinking Ryan Pace isn't very good. It will be interesting if Fox survives this season as Bears coach. schefter was on the radio saying it would be wrong to think he's back next year no matter what. I can't see us moving away from Fox this early or Pace and to be frank, I think it would be a mistake. They are truly rebuilding and the last time this franchise had rebuilt was early in the Lovie Smith era (and it wasn't very long). That is a long time without rebuilding. Now we probably should have rebuild sooner, but the front office didn't have that plan. We need to find a QB and we need to develop young players. I think we should see signs point up when we get the full unit back and get our young players more experience. Our defense is going to struggle given the weakness in the secondary to go with the fact that we don't have enough of a pass rush (and well, I don't really know who would have expected us to have a ton of it either, we don't have a dynamic pass rusher...yet...hopefully Floyd can emerge as part of that equation). Offensively, it has been rough, but totally overhauled line last minute, brand new running backs, new tight ends, rookie wideout (by all accounts). I expect we'll see improvement as the season goes on. By the way, Howard looks like he's got some potential and White finally had one catch that made you go wow (even though he didn't catch a deep ball he should have had).