Jake

We don't need an overhaul, that's what people are missing. There is a ton of top end talent on the Bears today. We need a coach that can get these guys to win right away, this is why most of us don't want a guy who has never coached before. We can't piss away games because a guy is getting his legs under him.

Might lure the mythical OC by a promise that he will become head coach if Lovie's canned. See Jason Garrett for more details. They could also give Jeremy Bates a trial run.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 30, 2012 -> 09:48 PM) Personally, I don't have that much against Lovie. His specialty is defense and the defense has been good the past few years. The problem(s) I do have with him are the stupid and useless challenges and the inability to get an OC who can call a play in time. There is absolutely no reason you should be wasting most of your timeouts before the end of a half. It's inexcusable. The entire offense needs to be rethought and remade. I can definitely be sold on a team in which Lovie remains head coach and we hand someone else the reins on offense. However, I've been sold on this before and I won't be offended if the Bears decide that Lovie has had too many chances. If we do can Lovie, though, I will be very insecure about the future of the defense. He's presided over awesome defenses and I find it all too likely that we don't fix our offensive issues and we create a new batch of defensive ones with a new coach. It is also worth mentioning that we've been a rather controversy free team with Lovie because he has a pretty damn good grasp on what comes out of that locker room.

If only the free market could take care of mental hospitals and what will often be lifetime mental care for people who have never earned a cent.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 30, 2012 -> 07:46 PM) I'm having trouble visualizing a 10-6 head coach getting axed...usually they wait for you to have a s***tier year than that and then axe you. Anyone remember the last 10-6 head coach to get fired? I honestly wouldn't mind keeping him, if you hired a very, very strong-willed OC, but I just can't see that happening. I think Schottenheimer was canned after a pretty damn good season. QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 30, 2012 -> 08:11 PM) Yeah, was waiting for that... Honestly, I feel like Martz would have worked out here if it weren't for the OLine being so goddamned awful. Jake had a point though...outside of Andy Reid, who could they bring in that you'd really feel much better about? Everyone has heard me begging for Chip Kelly, but I think most people would have more questions about him than Lovie. What if we just replaced Tice with Norv Turner? I would like to see Norv Turner play with these pieces.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 30, 2012 -> 07:26 PM) The Bears have never hired a head coach with previous NFL head coaching experience. If Lovie goes, there is a decent chance Wanne II is hired. At least Bears fans will be happy until September. This. Lovie's recent performance makes a firing logical. However, it could be a colossal mistake if we don't bring in an established guy. This is an aging, talented roster. We need to start winning yesterday.

Lovie paying for the sins of his OC's and Jerry Angelo. We better not axe him without getting a legit replacement. Somebody with a track record.

10-6. Not a bad season. Playing in the wrong league to be the 7th team via tie

I can't like a team with a defense this bad

10-6 seems playoff worthy, I've gotta say.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Dec 30, 2012 -> 05:28 PM) My point was that with 6 guys covering 5 positions there's a lot of playing time for everybody. PK did not play in 18 games last year and even with that time off his second half was not strong. Kubel gives time off not just to Viciedo, but Konerko and Rios as well. And he's better than a AAAA guy when/if someone hits the DL. I understood your point better than those that came in afterward wanting a LF platoon.

Train Williams may have just cost the Bears a playoff berth.

Packers are freaking stupid, Jesus Christ

What a terrible defense.

What a terrible defense.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 30, 2012 -> 05:51 PM) It's pretty much a lock that the rule will change in the offseason. They will keep the penalty, but the "unable to review" portion will be gone. Yep.

Stupid design of the rule.

Piece of s*** GB defense

Starting the season with Viciedo platooned would be terrible.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Dec 30, 2012 -> 12:35 PM) Forte 3rd and short inside the 20 is just BRUTAL................he never seems to make it. Yeah, that's a huge shortcoming of his.

Are these balls slippery?

Kubel will be a sorry sight on defense.

Django was indeed awesome. I have never been in a 3 hour movie and hoped it wouldn't end so soon before.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 29, 2012 -> 06:42 PM) We have a number of other proxies for temperature. They don't have the small error of a thermometer, but you can combine things together quite well, particularly if you know a bit of geology. There are many ways of measuring it, most of which agree pretty well, but the best are the ice cores. Some particularly fun ones are the records of the Royal Navy. I really like that one in fact, you've got mobile weather records, written down, going back several hundred years, taken at noon, with known equipment, covering the globe. You can reconstruct temperature from water samples, from shells that grew at the time, from plants that grew at the time, from the bodies of people from the time, etc. Thanks to those ice cores recovered from Greenland and Antarctica, we can safely say that we're at the warmest atmosphere in 120,000 years. We can also safely say that we have the highest CO2 content in the atmosphere in >800,000 years, probably >2 million although the data gets a little fuzzy past 800,000 years ago because we lose the ice core record. If we stopped emitting CO2 right now, by the time 2100 rolls around, we'd have the warmest atmosphere in 800,000 years. Thanks a ton, that's exactly what I was looking for.

Green folks, can someone tell me what the usual response to the climate change critique that we've only been recording temps since the 1800s? I assume there is one, but for the comfort of my mind I have to know how science accounts for what would otherwise seem like a big hole in the theory.