Chisoxfn

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 22, 2016 -> 12:28 PM) No matter what people may think of Bush's choices as President, I feel comfortable saying: 1) I dont think Bush is a bad person. Whatever choices he made, I truly believe he made them because he thought they were the best for the majority, not because they were in some way the best for him. 2) If I had the choice of Bush or Trump, I would pick Bush. Even if Bush is likely more conservative, I still would trust him a million times more. 3) Post Presidency Bush has been nothing but a good model for America, which kind of carries on the tradition of other Presidents. Now I may disagree with a lot of things that happened, but its easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize. Plus, I think a lot of people misunderstood his humor. When I read that "Now watch this drive", it makes me laugh. When all you hear is doom/gloom, maybe its good that you have a guy in power who enjoys the little things. I agree with everything you say here.

I'm not smart enough to know who will project out to be the best pro QB (they may all stink), I just hope we find and take the right guy.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 22, 2016 -> 02:05 PM) Ask them if they'd take Jay Cutler in a trade. And ask Bear fans if they'd want those QB's. I think the answer is largely similar (with exception to Andy Dalton cause I think he's underappreciated here). There is a huge pool of Blah QB's who are on very similar paths. There are also young QB's who may never be as good as Cutler or stafford, etc, who right now some teams would rather have, but doesn't mean they actually perform better.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 22, 2016 -> 11:23 AM) Its Dejavu all over again. Well, this year our 5th starter sucks, but so does the offense and defense. We are still a really bad team outside of a top notch front of the rotation.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Sep 22, 2016 -> 10:35 AM) I think your comments are certainly a part of the problem but not all of it. Remember the Sox have also had many years since the start of the new century where they hit a lot of home runs but also went into prolonged slumps and losing streaks because of the "home run or nothing" approach. To me the solution can be summed up in one word...balance. A team that can beat you by stealing a base, by dropping down a bunt with a man on third, by getting enough on a pitch to bloop it into short right field or by hitting a three run home run. The Sox haven't had that balance since the 2005 season. It's very difficult to do. Mark Those years the team didn't win, they didn't win because we had one of the worst strings of 5th starting carousels that I can ever remember (and in general, relatively lousy pitching). Offense was streaky at times, but the bigger theme was we had 5th starters who didn't win for what seemed like 2 years (because they stunk...not because we didn't generate runs) and when you had a pretty much guaranteed probability of losing every 5th game, the club was in a tough spot to overcome that.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 21, 2016 -> 11:05 AM) Greg's probably too far on one end of the spectrum but there is certainly issues with the millennials. If I had to generalize like greg, I would say they want and expect everything for free and they're all victims. Their are issues with every generation. And that doesn't make them different / worse. When people are young, they have different expectations than people who are older and that is just a natural way of life. Greg makes them sound like some horrible, deplorable generation. Yes, they are different and have different expectations. And you too are generalizing on the victims and wanting everything for free. Baby Boomers were once hippies and all about peace, love, and blah blah blah. People act as if millennials today will behave the same 15 years from now and that won't be the case (as you have families and evolve, your beliefs change and mold and evolve). It is who we are and it happens in all walks of life. PS: Pretty sure the vast majority of all age groups tend to feel they are the victim.

I think it will be Bud Black and I actually think that would be a quality hire.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 20, 2016 -> 07:42 PM) I don't think you have to worry about sending any messages to children. The Millenials have proven that parents are doing such a poor job of raising kids that they don't want to work, they are lazy and all the other things people say about Millenials. No need to worry about children. They have no chance cause since American adults certainly have proven they don't know how to raise kids. Participation trophies; coddling them, screaming at teachers who give Johnny and Julie a B instead of A, on and on. Or, you can say that kids these day are less violent and smarter then all previous generations. They have invented many things. Perfect, no, different, certainly, and that isn't a bad thing. What exactly makes kids these days so bad? Whether they received participation trophies or not, does that make them rude, hateful, etc?

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 01:23 PM) Out of curiosity, not going to actually use someones kid, but - let's be hypothetical parents. You are called to principals office Your teenage son/daughter has been spending the entire year spreading rumors and encouraging other kids to bully the class president saying that the president had done something juvenile, let's say peed his pants. Most of the kids at the school know the story was fake, but your son kept encourging people to use it against the student president because it hurt the president and made him/her feel powerful. When confronted, your son/daughter said it wasn't their fault and that the rumor actually started with the presiden'ts brother. The brother may have joked about it once but then told everyone it wasn't true and never brought it up again. How would we all handle this. Because this analogy is actually more critical of clinton than can really be claimed. It is this example for why I am embarassed about the message we are sending to the young and impressionable children of our generation as it relates to this election. The manner / lack of civility that people are showing one another in this process and the way people are trying to get elected is just deplorable and sets the stage for people thinking this is okay (and yes, I understand it is each parents job to instill quality morals, etc, but man, if you can't look at the president of the US and say that they exhibit fine behaviors, then that is a really bad thing, imo). I don't agree with Obama, but I certainly don't have an issue to how he holds himself up in the public eye and I would be perfectly fine if my kids looked at him as an example of a mentor, etc, for how to speak / treat others, etc. I would have a problem if it was Trump and to be frank, while to a lesser extent (purely on this ground), issues with the other side as well.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 20, 2016 -> 09:47 AM) They ARE blowing this franchise up. You just have zero patience for pretty much anything and for some reason want to start blowing it up again. The roster inherited from Trestman needed to be purged, and we are watching it happen. What was your predicition this season? Does 0-2 really surprise you or anyone else here b****ing about this game? This. Fox has a history of developing talent. Look at all the defensive talent he developed in Denver. This is a new front office and coaching staff and they inhereted a real mess. I would hope that next year, we start to see the arrow move upwards (albeit slowly), but I think this team was so decimated (especially in the sense that it had so few young, home grown players whose arrows were pointed up), that it meant the rebuild was going to be a much longer process then usual (we tried to be mediocre for so long, that it put us in a spot where we forced mediocrity through veterans and that means you don't get the picks to get the top talent, and then we whiffed on later round talent under Emery / Trestman) so we really were in an awful spot. The defensive coaching staff is pretty damn proven so they have a track record to trust, however, offensively, I think there are real questions with Loggains. I do think that stability in general is a good thing and when you look at the better franchises they seem to be more patient in general vs. less and wonder if that actually leads to some of the success (vs. just the underlying individuals running the ship). I.e., look at the Browns, restructuring every 2-3 years essentially means you never are able to see a strategy through and thus it is almost impossible to successfully rebuild.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Sep 20, 2016 -> 05:17 AM) So Trout shouldn't be the MVP? Well, I think he was head and shoulders better then the other contenders, so in that case, I think he passed the test.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 20, 2016 -> 08:11 AM) I did the same thing with the bears that I did with the white sox. You only compare them against themselves and you say "oh we are better at ILB, we have more line depth", but it wasn't until the Chiefs preseason game where I realized that there are maybe zero teams in the league that would trade their roster for the bears. This is going to be a rough season and you have to hope floyd, hall, one of our safeties, bullard flash, because otherwise it is going to be a really long time until we are back. Also super bummed, I wonder what would be different if we had hired Jim Bob Cooter over Gase. I believe he was one of the people we had interviewed prior to going with Gase. And speaking of, one of the great and sneaky things about the Gase offense was it prioritized TOP over explosiveness and executed it. Was very important to keeping so many games close last year, it kept defense off the field so our scoring defense was a lot lower than DVOA ranking. Loggains clearly is not capable of that same offense, and instead we are relying on big plays to Jeffery and nothing else. We don't have playmakers. We have one guy on the roster who was drafted prior to 2013 (Alshon). We need talent and that is why I laugh at people wanting to run Alshon out of town (he clearly is a top flight wideout and I guess we'll see if he can stay on the field). Defensively our scheme made us look so much better then we actually were (not that it made us look very good to begin with, either). I still expected us to be mediocre and long said the only way we'd be just awful bad was if Jay was out (which now seems to be the case).

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Sep 20, 2016 -> 07:02 AM) So apparently Cutler played through torn ligaments in his thumb that first happened in the Texans game. And ESPN dopes made the Philadelphia Eagles pre game show all about how Cutler wasn't tough. People are idiots. Cutler was 10/13 prior to reaggravating the thumb injury. That doesn't fit the narrative of everything always being his fault though. Yep. Cutler was playing fantastic early in that game. He is good enough to win with, but you have to build a good team around him. I just think we are too far away from being good to get any long-term benefit from Jay. This will be interesting. I really think it was a huge mistake not to take at least a developmental back-up QB this past year (Fales was obviously garbage). All that said, we know what Jay is. He isn't a top 5-7 QB in the league, but he certainly isn't the guy the media likes making him out to be either.

QUOTE (TheTruth05 @ Sep 20, 2016 -> 04:10 AM) Yup aside from the injuries being the worst thing to happen last night, the play calling was absolutely brutal. This Cutler stuff is ridiculous. He is who he is. He's a league average QB who is mistake prone, but capable of making up for talent gaps and have games where he covers everyone up. Even last night, in the first half, some of the throws he made to put the Bears in position to get points were incredible. Play calling was terrible though and I've long said, when you put a guy through that many coordinators, they have no chance to be anything but average, at best. Just way too much turnover / systems, etc. for a guy to ever be comfortable enough to where he truly can know an offense. Fox does plenty of things well, offense isn't necessarily his forte and he's had some really good coordinators for a few years, but the move to promote the existing guy probably wasn't the right move (at least not with the defense we have in place). Either way, this year should be about developing players, hopefully finding out that Jeffrey is a keeper and that White has a bright future, as well as learning about our running backs and if we have a keeper or two there, as well as developing our defensive players and starting to identify more special talent (hoping Goldman / Floyd pan out in that regard). Pass rush has been bad, but we don't really have any dynamic pass rushers. Houston / Young get sacks, but I wouldn't call them dynamic pass rushers in the sense of what the top / elite defenses in the league have. We were so devoid of talent that it is going to take a while, but I don't like what I've seen in the second half of either game and I think a lot of that has to do with coaching. We are getting crushed on offense. Then again, having that many turnovers doesn't help either (cause we started to run the ball with some authority in the second half, finally). I said this off-season it was time to get bad and I wanted to move Cutler (coming off his best season in a while) and we certainly could have. Right now, it seems the media has put his value in a brutal spot so I have to hope his injury isn't too serious and he can go on to have a good year (cause I'd like to have him as a tradeable asset vs. a guy we just have to dump). For a guy playing in his second game, Wentz was really freaking impressive.

So play calling was brutal. We clearly lack talent.

So what are the potentially intriguing new shows this season?

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Sep 13, 2016 -> 10:20 AM) You're missing Jimmy's point. Why should Sale and Q be penalized for being on a bad team if they have (relatively) no control over it? Put Porcello on the White Sox and he'd probably have just 13-14 wins. Put Sale/Q on the Red Sox and they'd both have 20 wins easily by now. Why should Porcello benefit in the Cy Young race for being on a team that gives him loads of run support, if Sale and Q don't have that same luxury that's out of their control? Cause I view it to be easier to pitch in meaningless games. Zero pressure. I suppose someone could argue it is "harder" cause you are over it and not playing for anything, but bottom line, while I realize it is an individual award, i'm penalizing the guy putting up huge stats on a garbage team and if that player is going to have to win, they have to be head and shoulders better then everyone else. PS: Chris Sale is not heads and shoulders better then everyone else (nor is Q).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 13, 2016 -> 10:16 AM) Not at all. Pitching in important games should be more important than meaningless ones. It is kind of common sense to me. I agree with you. Pitching in pressureless meaningless games just isn't important and I'm not giving the Cy Young or MVP to someone who racked up the stats on a garbage team (unless they are that much better than the competition).

QUOTE (TheTruth05 @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 09:14 AM) This is so true, last week I thought the Bears had a nice 1st half and in the 2nd half just got out-talent'd so they deserved to lose but they put up a fight. After watching Smith get pummeled yesterday it made last weeks game look even better, I think they win tonight. I hope they win.

Doh iowa

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Sep 16, 2016 -> 07:34 AM) Why was the link in the quoted post changed? He gawn!

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 16, 2016 -> 06:42 AM) Yea, he has shown that he can provide stability for #1 overall QB picks lol. Now I should point out, that is what "they" the Rams obviously must think. Not what Chisoxfn thinks. That said, in general, I am a big believer of surrounding a young player with stability, which is why if I'm drafting a QB #1 overall, I'm making sure whomever I have as his coach / OC are going to be there for a few years. You can't just cut the cord immediately. Heck, Tampa Bay went so far as to fire their HC to ensure their OC wouldn't get away from Winston (because they valued that consistency so much).

They had been talking all of training camp that an extension was in the works. I presume they weren't going to let one game ruin whatever they had already decided. They obviously view stability as key for the young QB and think Fisher is the right guy there. I agree that you need to have a lot of stability so a young QB comes up in one system and is able to really get ingrained in one offense, but man, Fisher has kind of proven he is what he is.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 15, 2016 -> 02:07 PM) I doubt there would be talent consessions but monetary seems possible, but unlikely. More likely - draft pick penalties vs pads and front office penalties. I absolutely think they could require that the Padres sent back certain players in the trade or even unwind the trade (if the other team involved wanted to). They could also force cash penalties to the teams involved and/or force Padres to exchange draft picks. The teams who were on the other side of the deal were directly impacted because information was allegedly withheld, which implies, the teams may not have made the same trades had they been provided with the appropriate information.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 15, 2016 -> 01:04 PM) Didn't the Sox say Aaron Rowand played a part in the acquisition? Wouldn't he know if Shields was taking advil and doing stuff for his back? There is no doubt some buyer's remorse here, but on the other hand, the Padres apparently not playing straight with everyone, to me, should be a huge penalty. Not unlike the hacking case. Deliberately holding out information for better trades is something that should make heads roll and the team to take a huge hit either player-wise or financially with every team they exchanged players. If it is true someone ordered 2 sets of files, whoever ordered it should be in their finals days employed by a major league team. While I realize they are cousins, I wonder if Shields would be that open regarding some of that information and what would Aaron Rowand be actually willing to share / share. I actually hadn't realized they were cousins until you made the post (and I decided to google it). I agree that the Padres should take a pretty significant hit for this (if it proves to be true). And by big hit, each team should essentially have right to undo trade with other repercussions and Padres should also be penalized.