StrangeSox

Where do you judge the player talent level of the Bears relative to those teams?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 01:43 PM) Rex Grossman is an abnormal quarterback, they are lucky the offense scored at all. Krenzel/Quinn/whoever, Grossman, Orton at QB, an above-average but not special RB and mediocre WR's. Not exactly a recipe for success.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 01:33 PM) he took an average team to the NFC championship game That is why it was forgotten. And the Angelo hate surely hasn't faded. I think enough people have come around on Lovie and see him as doing a good job with what he's given. You can look at that from another view, though. Look at who was on this offense in his tenure. Look at what he had at skill positions. A bunch of garbage and Thomas Jone. Woo. That he managed to do so well on the defensive and ST side of things and get those teams into the playoffs is a positive, not a negative.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 12:57 PM) The Sandusky situation has me thinking. It was written that the government needed more than a he said he said proof to take down Sandusky. Sandusky was a revered figure in the communty, working for a premier, well respected, company. He also had a great reputation in the community and a list of charitible and community projects that was exemplary. Should that make a difference in prosecuting someone? I don't think the question is clear. Should that make a difference in deciding whether or not to prosecute someone or to investigate claims against them? or Should character be brought up at trial as relevant information wrt allegations and credibility?

Those are both pretty good burns.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 12:42 PM) Mmm, k. I forgot NFL head coaches still teach fundamentals and lack any assistant coaches to help them. You're completely overvaluing what Lovie does on a daily basis. I purposefully did the same with Tebow. That was the point. It's still not a good comparison. "Being a leader" is a minor aspect of playing QB, something to get you from good-to-great but definitely doesn't make up for being terrible at QB. Conversely, "being a leader" is a very important aspect of the HC's job. In-game decisions are also important, and no one is arguing that Lovie is good at those. We're all sort of laughing that your positions keeps requiring you to discount every positive thing about this team under Lovie's tenure and focus specifically on the things he's not good at. He's an above-average coach who generally fields a winning team. He has a coaching philosophy that has worked well for the defense and ST, which is not surprising given his background. His offenses have been less than desirable, but a major factor in that is a GM who doesn't give him decent personnel. He has assembled a great cast of assistant coaches around him who have embraced his approach and get the players to perform. The game-planning for the Bears has improved over his tenure and he rarely comes out of the gate getting out-coached. His second-half adjustments need improvement, but he's not routinely blowing leads in the 4th quarter like other team do--the issue is usually more an inability to adjust and come back than to hang on to a lead. The TO's on this team are frustrating, and he's made some bad clock-management calls in the past. He has one of the worst challenge records, challenging plays that are clearly not going to be overturned and not challenging plays that easily would be. On both of those issues, though, the problem stems from people under Lovie and not Lovie himself. The TO problems this year have come from a bad play relay system for the offense. The challenges are reviewed and advised by people in the booth. Now, he is responsible for reforming and fixing problems, but he's not throwing the red flag based entirely on his own view of the play. You want to call him average? OK. His length of tenure and record speak otherwise, but he's not in the upper echelon of coaches. That's different from what you came in here saying, that he's "average at best," has been "lucky" in all of his successes, and that he has 4 or 5 future HOF players on the roster and is underachieving.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 10:40 AM) By your guys' logic Tebow should be considered a good QB. He makes bad to terrible QB decisions, and he can't really throw the ball, but hey he prays a lot and gets his guys motivated to play for him and just wins! No, your argument keeps forcing you to discount everything an NFL head coach does outside of calling timeouts and challenges and half-time adjustments. Saying that Lovie is bad at a few things important to coaching but good at other, equally important things is not the same as saying Tebow is a good QB because he motivates his team while sucking at playing QB.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 17, 2011 -> 09:49 AM) All i've said is that he's not "good" like people are claiming. He's "average." Which means that any "good" coach would/would have done better. You said "incredibly average at best"

QUOTE (G&T @ Nov 16, 2011 -> 02:00 PM) I think if he we both trustee and beneficiary the asset could be reached to the extent of his interest. In other words, you can't hide assets in a trust while retaining the benefit and management of the assets. But that's all dependent on form, state law, etc. But your concept is right. I can't think of a real reason to take the form they did except to prevent Joe's creditors from reaching it. And the form they took is pretty much airtight regardless of the state. Why is that legal? Seems ripe for abuse.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 16, 2011 -> 03:05 PM) The discount double check? [/hatethatcommericalsomuch] I don't hate it nearly as much as culpepper's dumb thing he used to do

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 16, 2011 -> 11:35 AM) gosox, have you ever seen such polite respect from bears fans as this year. I learned something about myself, personally. I just hated Brett Favre completely. Now that you just have an amazing QB who is reasonably nice and plays beautifully, I really don't hate them. I just want to see them lose. I hate his dumb belt thing but otherwise have a ton of respect for him.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 16, 2011 -> 08:52 AM) 4 weeks ago this board was in meltdown and everyone was in agreement with me. I don't think so. 4 weeks ago everyone was pissed at Martz and Angelo, not Lovie

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 16, 2011 -> 08:35 AM) No one is doing this and i've repeatedly argued that Ditka SHOULD have won more with what he had and ISN'T some great coach like people think. BTW SS, in the last 2.5 seasons including this one, Gould has increased his range, hitting longs of 52, 54 and 51. 10 of his 12 career 50+ FG's happened during this time. That's not Janikowski range, but it's not exactly amateur hour either. Complete credit must be given to Lovie for perfectly managing Gould, building confidence in him over the years by repeatedly setting him up for success and pushing him, slowly but surely, to expand his comfort zone. Lovie truly is a masterful coach.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 16, 2011 -> 08:27 AM) What's funny is that we all agree he's a terrible in-game coach. No, I think we all agree that he is not a good in-game coach, not that he's a terrible in-game coach. Where we disagree is your insistence on discounting every single positive quality about Lovie in order to make your argument.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 05:02 PM) Hey you're right, add another HOF candidate in Gould. One of the most accurate kickers of all time. I'm sure Lovie really coached him up to be the kicker he is today though right? Accurate, but also limited in range. Something that Lovie understands and uses Gould effectively within his range. By the time you're done, this team will have 20 HOF's and the '85 Bears will have nothing but scrubs, coached to greatness by the awesome power of Ditka.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 05:01 PM) This just proves my point. He's terrible at making COACHING decisions, but because he implements a scheme (like other coaches don't) and because he preaches tackling and generating turnovers (as if other coaches don't) he's good. GMAB guys. PLAYERS make the plays. Other coaches implement schemes and fail. Other coaches preach tackling and generating turnovers but don't have the same sustained success that Lovie as had. In-game decisions aren't the only or even necessarily the biggest responsibility a coach has. Your arguments here have relied on hand-waving away every one of his positives. Right, and Lovie does that pretty frequently on the defensive end of things. There's also roster and personality management. Has he gone through an abnormal number of coaches?

An IRL version of Celebrity Death Match

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 02:13 PM) he made exactly the argument i expected from people who claim its all fluke/luck. The Bears arent good only lucky/they never play anyone/benefit from hall of famers/take away urlacher and they suck/ turnovers are luck/superbowl run was luck/ditka is awesome. the end I like Lovie, i recognize he isnt perfect, but nobody could be that lucky for that long A few years ago I was on the "Lovie sucks!" bandwagon but have completely changed my mind on that. He's good, not great. He is awful as clock/TO management (though not getting the plays in is a different matter this year) and his challenges are generally pretty terrible. He sometimes gets out-coached in the 2nd half of games, failing to make the necessary adjustments at halftime. But, more often than not, he's been successful in developing and implementing his defensive schemes. He's gotten fantastic support around him (minus Martz) and gotten the most out of the cast of players he has.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 12:23 PM) This Lovie "love" is freaking hilarious. The guy is incredibly average at best. His in-game decisions are right up there with Andy Reid. Remove Devin Hester and a top 5 defense for the majority of his tenure and this team misses the playoffs every freaking year. Lovie is the luckiest coach in the league, no one else is even close. Look at some of the impressive wins this year against Atl and now Det. Defensive TO's into points and special teams. Fluke, fluke, fluke. That's the story of the Bears' success during his tenure. That's true for the SB run (mostly fluke) and last years NFC Champ run (all fluke). "If you make two of three aspects of his football team suck..." is not a good way to start a convincing argument.

When states are expected to return to pre-recession employment peaks:

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 01:20 PM) Well sure, breaking into the nuclear plant business is going to have IMMENSE regulatory hurdles, in addition to lots of technological and capital ones. That's where I was today and what came to mind, though it certainly isn't the only one. This paper examines regulatory barriers to entry in developing economies but conceptually they touch on developed ones as well: http://personal.lse.ac.uk/estrin/Publicati...20sept%2028.pdf

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 01:20 PM) Well sure, breaking into the nuclear plant business is going to have IMMENSE regulatory hurdles, in addition to lots of technological and capital ones. That's where I was today and what came to mind, though it certainly isn't the only one. This paper examines regulatory barriers to entry in developing economies but conceptually they touch on developed ones as well: http://personal.lse.ac.uk/estrin/Publicati...20sept%2028.pdf

I was speaking of regulatory space in general, not specifically in finance.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 01:05 PM) From first hand knowledge, it doesn't. Setting up a large-scale compliance apparatus is an expensive startup cost. Simply figuring out the regulations and the proper compliance is a hurdle.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 01:00 PM) That just isn't true. A significant firm went down, people will end up being prosecuted, count on it. I wasn't being very clear, sorry. I meant from MF people themselves, the classic non-apology apology, and perhaps from media stories, like the one linked. Just look at the phrase "somehow a shortfall happened." Shortfalls don't just happen, someone needs to perform an action for that to happen *edited for correctness