iamshack

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 09:37 AM) You're sorta dancing around the issue so I'll ask it more specifically...Do you think they're overpaid? My issue with firemen is that there is a list thousands of people long in Chicago to become one. I'd say they are overpaid. Many of them also have second jobs because of the schedule they work. And let me just add, I'm not saying it isn't an honorable profession because they are overpaid. I'm just saying they are overpaid.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 09:34 AM) As a general rule, the best announcers and particularly the best PBP guys, are on the radio and not TV. I remember listening to the Bears radio team growing up, I love me some Hub. Hard to find good PBP guys on TV. Also, this coming from a total amatuer and someone who knows very little about hockey... I was impressed by the PBP guy on TV for the recent B-Hawks Stanley Cup championship. Seems to me that PBP in Hockey would be especially hard to do. Yeah, they can barely even breathe, and the action can go for minutes on end without a stoppage...it's pretty impressive.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 09:01 AM) The NBA has some really, really good pairings, the Van Gundy/Jackson/Breen trio really does a good job with games. I don't like the way Jackson and Van Gundy disagree intentionally....I guess I don't really care for Jackson at all...seems like he is all about style than substance now, saying something catchy as they go to a commercial break...

QUOTE (3E8 @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 10:19 PM) I think Peavy looks like the bomb defuser in Hurt Locker. Jeremy Renner... I actually think he looks like the lovechild of Mark Buehrle and Daniel Craig...but Peavy isn't a bad one either...

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 08:25 AM) I agree that the team would be better off if he can be a good starter. I hope and think he can be a good starter. However, if it turns out that he is not but is an effective reliever I don't think it is a wasted pick. Your previous point said it's a wasted pick if he is not in the rotation. The draft is so inexact that if the team get an effective player at any position it is a good pick. If he can start, great. Make him a starter. If he is more well-suited to be a closer or elite setup man, that will work too. What, we should try and force him to do one thing or the other based upon where he was drafted? Is that what is being argued here? Couldn't agree with you more...if a guy turns into a serviceable or better mlb player, you're ahead of the game, as far as the draft goes.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 12:05 AM) I like Gus Johnson for the NCAA tournament but not for anything else. I like Nessler. I cant stand the CBS college football crew of Verne and Gary Danielson. Ohhhh myyyyyy Goooooooddneesssssss why? On another note, I actually like McCarver, but we've gone over this before. I guess I am the only one

I'm on Oregon.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 12:10 PM) I'll need you around to hold my hand through this show. It's a shame, because I love Duck's character...I wish he were in the show more.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 11:08 AM) I didn't realize he was blitzed. It just seems odd that he pulled that whole deal together and was promised to be president and was never to be seen again. They set him up. They knew he would make a fool of himself if they got him drinking again and just used him. Then when he flipped out in the meeting, that was their excuse to send him packing.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 11:04 AM) Yeah that's the one I'm referring to. I didn't hear any decisions on getting rid of Duck. Well didn't you notice that he was absolutely blitzed and made a complete ass of himself?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 11:01 AM) Are you referring to the meeting where Don says he's leaving if Duck will run the show? If so, Don leaves the room and shortly after Duck is asked to step out. There was no discussion after that about that they, the leaders, would decide. Was there the meeting where Duck sits with the guys from the European company in the conference room where they discuss how things will be operated?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 10:55 AM) I'm having some issues with continuity. For instance, there was the whole big deal that Duck would be the president of the newly merged company and he just never appears again. And no one even mentions his name anymore. I'm not exactly sure where you're at or when things happen, but didn't you see the part that resulted in him not being the president?

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 01:23 AM) Defensive my ass. I'm getting sick of this s***. This place is turning into WSI right before my eyes. I think the Sox have had a good but not great offseason. And I'm getting chastised for it. It's my opinion. I have not gotten confrontational with anybody that thinks the Sox have had a GREAT offseason. I'm not in love with the moves we made either, but come on, you don't think you're using a little bit of overkill here? Just seems like you're surprised that you're being challenged so much...well that's what happens when you take the extreme minority opinion and are vocal about it, to boot. I don't have any problem with you voicing your opinion - heck, contrasting/conflicting opinions are what make message boards great for debate and discussion. But it just seems like you're shocked that people are fighting you tooth and nail about it, and so your frustration with that is carrying over into your position. I, for one, hope you keep up with the criticism, because it keeps those of us wearing the White Sox-colored glasses in check; just don't take it so personally...

QUOTE (G&T @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 09:18 AM) Considering the Saints got 10 points on the road, it isn't really a lot of love to give the Bears 10 points at home. Frankly, I'm as nervous about this game as any. It rides on whether Cutler can be good enough and not turn the ball over. Doesn't matter who they play. I think it'll get bet down. The Saints were giving 10-11 points, meaning the oddsmakers thought they were close to 2 td's better than Seattle (home field advantage is usually about 3 points for the home team). The Bears are giving 10 points as well, meaning the oddsmakers are saying the Bears are about a td better. I guess it makes sense. They certainly aren't putting a whole lot on the Seahawks being able to make a repeat performance.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 07:28 AM) So if you are a Packers fan and you beat the Falcons, don't you have to root for the Bears on Sunday? Do you really want to have to win in Qwest Field to get to the Super Bowl? I think I'd much rather play at the nearby divisional rival, where I may be more comfortable playing, then at that madhouse in the Pacific Northwest. I'm sure if they beat the Falcons Saturday they will cheer on Seattle. They may argue that the Bears suck, but I would think they would rather play Seattle at Qwest than the Bears in Soldier Field. Bears are 10 point favorites Sunday. SeaChickens getting no love from the oddsmakers away from Qwest, and suddenly the Bears getting some respect from Vegas. Bears were 6.5 point favorites the first time around in October...

I just watched the A-Team. I know most of you guys are probably just a little too young to have watched the original when it was on NBC on Friday nights. I loved the casting when I saw the trailer, and watching the movie, the actors obviously studied the television show to try and learn their characters, which was nice for a change. Obviously it was really corny and there was too much CGI involved, but I still enjoyed the hell out of it. Brought back a lot of great memories.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 11:57 PM) And wtf is that supposed to mean? Has my spelling gotten worse? Has my grammar fallen off? Has my VO-CAB-U-LARY taken a hit? Oh, I know. I don't kiss the White Sox collective asses every two seconds. Santos was not a product of the system. What are we debating? This is fact. Now I give them props for being able to, at least for 1 year, get decent production out of him. Thornton was 5 years ago. Again, I give them props for that and have for years. But the train doesn't come to a halt because of a nice move you made five years ago. So what exactly does count, J4L? Surely the Rockies should get no credit for CarGo...since he wasn't part of their system... Come on...you're being way too defensive here...

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 10:52 PM) If they run the ball well, of course they'll have a good chance to win. Then you'll have to lock it down in other areas too obviously. But offensively, if they can get enough pressure off of Cutler and make the Seahawks guess on defense, I think this offense will do their part. We've all seen what Jay Cutler can do when he is given time and that's what a good running game can give Cutler. I'm not saying I'm not even going to watch the game and just call it a win or anything. I'm just saying the Bears should have a really good chance to win against the Seahawks. Did you break down the Saints/Seahawks game too? Because I'd love to see your thoughts on that prior to the game too... I agree, they should beat the Seahawks. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about the rest.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 10:42 PM) They ran the ball a lot less last week against Green Bay. I think the ratio was like 40 to 20 or something along those lines. Forte ran the ball very well too. I don't know what Martz was really trying to do. The key to the Bears' success on offense is definitely the running game. If you look at Forte's numbers since the bye, they look a lot better: Before bye: 90 attempts, 352 yards, 3.9 yards/attempt, 12.9 attempts/game. If you were to take away Forte's 22 rush 166 yard game against Carolina, he'd be averaging 2.7 yards per carry and 11 carries per game. That's absolutely atrocious. After bye: 147 attempts, 717 yards, 4.9 yards/attempt, 16.3 attempts/game. Forte only had one really bad game since the bye and that was against New England. So if Seattle was actually good at stopping the run, which they are not, I'd be concerned. Right now, I'm feeling pretty good about next Sunday. Hey, I'm not trying to rain on your parade. I hope we kick their ass too. But it seems to me you're trying to say we can just run the ball against them and we'll win. It's just not anywhere near that simple.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 11:16 PM) I guess I'll be outnumbered here, but go Seahawks! I'm glad my team doesn't have to rely on Cutler. Do you Bears fans have faith in Cutler? Look man, I'm happy for you and all, but seriously, you think it is a good idea to be posting stuff like that that is designed to inflame people? It's great to cheer on your team, and you have every right to do it, but come on...no need to start with that stuff...

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 10:08 PM) The Bears ran the ball 14 times that game. Having no rushing attack absolutely screwed that o-line because it made the offense so predictable. It's probably not going to be the same thing this time around. As for that Redskins the game, the Bears moved the ball decently. They just choked when they got into the red zone and Cutler got turnover-happy. Both of the games are before the scheme changes and I think it's pretty easy to see that the Bears from after that point are much different performance-wise. I couldn't disagree more. What scheme change are you talking about? The realization that it helps your offensive line if you run the ball more? What I have seen is a pattern. When teams are able to slow down the Bears running game, the Bears get forced into 3rd and longs, and then the blitzes come, and Cutler panics. When the Bears are able to run the ball effectively, they keep 2nd and 3rd down manageable, the downs are not so clearly passing downs or passing plays that take a long time to develop, and our offense is able to function and sometimes even flourish, because they do have some talent. But I haven't seen a whole lot that shows that some major shift has been made in terms of a game plan or a philosophy, other than trying to commit to the running game more. We have seen the collapses as late as in the New England game and the game last week against the Packers. What happened to our scheme then?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 09:41 PM) Boooooring. I agree. I would have preferred a rematch of the Pats/Ravens game from last year. Although maybe we will see that in the AFC Championship.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 09:31 PM) I don't see how you can hold it against them that the greatest return man in the NFL history made it a closer game. I'm not holding it against them. You pointed out some things in an effort to make the loss seem in some ways, more palatable. I pointed out something to make it less.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 09:13 PM) Bears were 0-12 on 3rd down and gave up a safety and 6 sacks to the Seahawks and lost by 3 points. Yeah, but they also returned a punt for a td with 2 minutes left to make it a closer game. And secondly, it's not like those 3rd down stats and sacks allowed stats are all that out of the ordinary for the Bears. They had several games like that.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 08:52 PM) I've seen them all. If they were going up against a better defense, I would be concerned. But this is a Seahawks team that was 26th in defensive EPA (expected points added). They're 27th in defensive passing EPA and 20th in defensive running EPA. If you look at the traditional yards/game stats, you'll get similar results. I'm not all that concerned that they might overwhelm our crappy o-line. Because they haven't really overwhelmed anyone all season. But they were already shut down by this defense. How is it so easy to ignore that? And what about the Redskins? What was their defense ranked in EPA (Damn you for bringing advanced metrics to football now, you bastard!