Steve9347

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 12:38 PM) Aside from the aforementioned excellence on defense, the Bears have had, without question, the league's best special-teams unit nearly every year of Lovie's tenure. That punt return last week was beyond sick. I just wish there had been a mic on the punter right after he booted it left and watched the other 10 guys on his team all running downt he right sideline. Yes, this team has been ready-made for an offensive line upgrade and an elite WR to catapult them to dominance. Yet it continually gets ignored. Roy Williams.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 12:30 PM) Relax Steve, I can read and I think you know that. I'm just wondering why if you say the Packers consistently compete yet you refuse to say the Bears do. Since Lovie started the teams have been about dead even. That would mean the Bears also consistently compete. I would think its black and white. If you are saying ignore all of the wins and losses, titles etc and only compare their offense then yes, the Packers have probably been better. But you cannot ignore that football is a team game, and since Lovie has been the coach the Bears have been just as competitive as the Pack have been regardless of how "balanced" you seem to think the Packers are. You continue to prove lack of reading comprehension. I'm saying we have this f***ing valuable thing here, this defense, and the Bears have had chance after chance after chance to improve their offense and become a powerhouse. They have ignored that opportunity time after time, and it's the same old story. Defense, defense, defense, pathetic offense. You are so obsessed with the fact I said the word "Packers". I apologize for igniting your meathead fandom. Replace that with Eagles (very similar to the Bears in terms of results, but 100x more watchable). The Eagles at least feign attempting to improve in all facets, while the Bears continue to repackage the same trash and act like it's going to magically work. We got Ron Turner! We fired Ron Turner he sux! We got some guy who worked with the Cheifs! Gary Crowton! Priest Holmes! He sucks! We got JOHN SHOOP! PARTY! OH GOD HE SUCKS. 3 years. We got Terry Shea! Yeah. Sux! We got Ron Turner again! Woohoo! Sux! We got Mike Martz! Greatest Show on Sod! Sux! It's endless. The anger is boiling. However, one thing has been painfully consistent the last 10 years. Bad o-line, bad receivers. It's all on Angelo. I can't wait til his next extension.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 12:13 PM) Damn, if the A's not winning is the "feel good movie of the year", just wait until they make a movie about the Cubs. Ha. Yeah.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 12:08 PM) That the Bears have had a s*** offense for two decades is the point. No one seems to understand this, I guess. You can make mediocre QBs good with a good O-Line and great receivers. You can make a good QB a Pro-Bowler with a good O-Line and great receivers (that's where Cutler would be categorized as proven in Denver). You can make a good QB look like s*** and get hurt a lot with a porous O-Line and arena league wide receivers (that's where Cutler is categorized).

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 09:57 AM) teh suck Oh. This one got me good. I spit some water.

We were going to check out 'Moneyball' this weekend, but then their marketing department did a 180 and decided to run a commercial last night calling it the "feel good movie of the year", which pissed me off because it's "Moneyball" and about Billy Beane. They just lost two tickets based on that s*** commercial alone. SOOOO, we're going to check out "50/50", which looks great and by all accounts is really good. The only thing that can get me to see a Seth Rogan movie would be if the other lead is a fantastic actor. They covered this with Joseph Gordon-Levitt. I'll let y'all know how it is sometime late Saturday.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 11:11 AM) Because it doesn't work with Apple accessories. Sadly, this is likely accurate. C'est la vie.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 11:30 AM) I dont know, I heard it on talk radio this morning. I am going to look into it because its such a good value. Any bad feedback thus far must be based purely on speculation, since not many outside Amazon have had their hands on it.

Modern Family has been really freaking good to start this year. I'd say last night's episode was better than anything from season 2.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 11:04 AM) The good news is that legitimate progress has been made over the last two weeks. The bad news is that Stern may have every intention of destroying the players union by dragging this out. Stern has the power. Sure, players can make 2.5 million (at best, Kobe) by playing 10 games overseas or whatever, but the marketability, exposure, and opportunity isn't there. The NBA needs a fix, and just like every other time a professional sports league has a lockout, the owners and the league have all the power because they are the ones writing the checks. I'd like to hope this is progress, and that we'll see some contract amnesty going down soon and Derrick Rose flying around the UC in November, but I'm not holding my breath.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 11:36 AM) Well, you said the Packers were continually competing for the Super Bowl. During his tenure they have one more win than the Packers and one more divisional title. If they actually won that Super Bowl they would pretty much be dead even as far as accomplishments go since he started coaching the Bears. I would think that would make them also a "consistent super bowl threat" You're not supporting your point at all. I've said 15 times in this f***ing conversation that the Bears defense has been great. I don't really understand why it's so hard for you to comprehend my statement that the complete ignorance of improving the offense (especially in an era defined by offense), is reprehensible and pisses me the f*** off. I'm not trying to start a Bears vs. Packers discussion, nor did single them out. I brought the Packers (along with others) up as an example of a BALANCED team that consistently competes. Hell, I greatly prefer how the Eagles have run their franchise the last 12 years than the Bears, simply because they can beat you two ways. Sure, it might not work out, but continually watching the Bears' defense play great while the offense is a clusterf*** is beyond f***ing annoying, and that's been my entire point with every post. Read. Please.

The worst part is thinking about the wall this team is going to hit when Urlacher finally falls off and when Peppers loses that step he's ever-so-close to losing. The team has drafted incredibly poorly, I don't see youth anywhere that we can consider ready to step up at linebacker or in the secondary, and we've already covered the offense. Dark days are a-comin'...

The entire f***ing problem is the complete lack of consideration toward the offensive side of the ball. The same thing gets repackaged time and time again and we're supposed to get excited about s***bomb wide receivers and either an extremely aged yet semi-effective offensive line, or what we've had the past two years which is a hodge podge of offensive line talent, including a 7th rounder starting that same year. It's a f***ing joke of epic proportions. Anyone who is satisfied is insane.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 11:08 AM) Again, this just fits into what the Bears want to sell you. Yes, this scheme works against the s***ty to average teams out there. Not the perennial powers like GB, NE, NO, IND, etc. Teams with actual offensive lines and good QB's. They get destroyed unless they get lucky with some fluke turnovers/special teams play. There is nothing wrong with the defensive scheme. The sample-size for games against the Pats and Colts is WAY too small to think about, while the Bears have handled Rodgers better than any other team. Also, the Bears' history against the Saints has been pretty stellar. Hell, they beat their asses down a couple times, including in the NFC Championship Game leading to the Super Bowl against the Colts.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 11:07 AM) Cutler's pretty clearly not at the Manning/Farve/Brady/Rogers level though. Maybe he could be, but he's not there yet. *Favre *Rodgers

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 11:05 AM) I've come around on Lovie lately. He still makes some dumb moves with TO's and reviews, but his defensive scheme is solid more often than not. I have zero complaints about Lovie, other than falling in love with former players like Pace and Archuletta... and of course being linked to this Martz fiasco.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 11:04 AM) True. Once again, a star QB links the two eras though. That's the biggest problem with the Bears, their well-documented lack of a signal caller. A good QB would have helped cover the other offensive problems. Look at the Colts. Manning willed average teams to the playoffs every year. The Ravens are similar to the Bears, that they have had outstanding defenses but the offense has slowed them down. They did win the one Super Bowl but that's it. The Bears addressed the QB situation, yet hte same problems have persisted because the team still lacks competent receivers as targets. Angelo even one-upped himself, bc he gave away Cutler's best weapon in Greg Olsen because mad man Mike Martz doesn't like throwing to TE's. It's working out exceedingly well, this whole plan of making it 2 on 11 with Cutler and Forte, isn't it?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 11:03 AM) When he wasn't ignoring them, Angelo was drafting guys like Inglesias and Bauzin and Wolfe in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. ...and paying Hester like he's Terrell f***ing Owens in his prime.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 11:03 AM) If Angelo could have provided at least a competent offense to go with the stellar defense, the Bears would have won at least two SB's in the last decade if not more. He should have been fired about 3 years ago for failing to address the o-line and receiver situations (along with Lovie, who is absolutely worthless and one of the worst game managers in the league). It's pretty simply IMO. We're one of the best football markets in the country. Yet we've consistently gotten s*** for DECADES on the offensive side of the ball. Completely inexcusable. I'm tired of defending this franchise as one that actually cares about winning. They don't. They want their fans to think that they care, but they don't. They keep up the defense + running the ball = success mantra because it sounds good to claim that we're one of the top franchises for wins the last decade. But anyone that watches the games knows that the Bears have been incredibly lucky to have won anything under the Angelo-Lovie regime. HOF MLB, perennial pro-bowl OLB, one of the best field goal kickers in history, and the best return man in history. Remove those guys and we're the Lions. f***ing pathetic. Hey look... someone with reading comprehension understands my point instead of blindly defending the Bears. Nice post.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 11:00 AM) More often than not, not every year. Those opportunities were squandered by Angelo's terrible drafting and refusal/inability to address the offense. This is my entire point. One or two correct personnel moves to address the O-Line, and giving Cutler one legit WR, and we'd be talking about a team with much higher upside. I said, the Bears have been good the past decade. They have completely ignored their glaring holes continually which kept them from becoming a legitimate Super Bowl contender year in and year out.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 10:56 AM) Would it then be fair to say the Bears have been a super bowl threat for Lovie's entire tenure? No, because they certainly haven't, that's my entire point. They have failed to address the offense continually. After that Super Bowl appearance in 2006, they could have addressed their needs. Instead, they did nothing. And anyone who wants to tell me the Bears, with their injury luck and strength of schedule last year, deserve credit for beating a 7-9 Seahawks team to get to the NFC Championship Game can just skip that. If they'd had an offensive line and one WR worth a damn, they could have wont he Super Bowl. Then, with tons of cap room and players available, the Bears ignored the same glaring holes and have their franchise QB on the brink of breaking as we watch the same team play good defense with a complete lack of offensive ability.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 10:56 AM) Because they had Brett Favre for 15+ years. End of discussion. We're actually talking past the Favre era into the Rodgers era, which you have to give them credit for...

The Bears haven't had a receiver with 1,000 yards since Marty Booker in 2002. Nine f***ing years? That's complete ignorance of a problem and trying to sell fans on Hester/Muhammed/Williams as legit #1's when they either don't know the position are are WELL past their primes.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 10:32 AM) GMAB man, the "Next level" with the Packers/Saints? Patriots I'll grant you but they have one incredible QB that keys the whole thing, and still they haven't won a Super Bowl since 2004, so by your own standard there's something wrong. The Saints had that Conference championship run in 2006, then dropped to 7-9 and 8-8 and missed the playoffs the next 2 seasons before finally snapping together their super bowl run. The Packers went 6-10 as recently as 2008, struggled mightily with their offensive line throughout 2009, and frankly nearly missed the playoffs in 2010. The only thing different here with the Bears compared to those 2 teams is that the Bears didn't finish the Super Bowl win. All 3 of those teams have had down/inconsistent seasons, playoff runs that ended in disappointment, etc., the only difference is a Super Bowl win. Dude, the Packers have been a consistent Super Bowl threat for like 15+ years. Even through personnel changes. They are run properly. Sure, you are going to have down years, but they've found different ways to win. The Bears have been one f***ing note (when competing) for a very long time. All D, no O. And nothing has changed. That's an organizational problem.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 08:53 AM) Winning football games with an intelligent, bend but don't break defense is not a sexy thing in this league, but it is more effective than almost anyone is willing to admit. Inaccurate. You'd be hard-pressed to find a knowledgeable fan who had a problem admitting that the Bears defense has been damn-solid over the past decade. The Bears have made their runs, they've made the playoffs, hell a Super Bowl, but the same problem has persisted. Instead of shooting to the next-level, you know, where the Packers/Saints/Patriots have resided for some time despite numerous personnel changes, they have stayed exactly the same... cover-2, bend don't break effective defense and an offense that is utterly pathetic. Yes, it's been a successful run for the Bears and certainly better than the 90s, but that doesn't mean they've capitalized on the possibilities. The fact remains, the Bears are 25+ years removed from their last Superbowl win. That's a long f***ing time.