LittleHurt05

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 09:32 AM) I feel the worst for Brian Urlacher. This was his best chance to win a Super Bowl ring. I agree. And other than when Starks juked the hell out of him on to convert the 2nd & 15, he played a helluva game.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 08:49 AM) A true, legit #1 WR, of the level that there are probably only 5-10 in the NFL, it doesn't matter if they're double teamed. I'm not sure if Jackson is in that class, but he's potentially close. You can only depend on that so much, I think, you can't throw it up for grabs to him on nearly every passing play. That's gonna lead to trouble eventually I'm not sure if VJax is up there with Fitzgerald or AJ. I think he might be on the next tier, but it is close.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 08:38 AM) I actually believe you, but to play devil's advocate...if you have say, Vincent Jackson, suddenly those safety blitzes that hit Cutler don't exist any more, because no one's bringing up a safety to blitz when they know Jackson will just blow past them. And if the O-line does start to collapse, your QB can just whip the ball in their #1 receiver's direction and still have a good chance of a first down by letting the receiver do his job. In that situation, you are correct. But if your O-line can't handle a simple 4-man rush or one LB blitzing, theres only so many times you can chuck up to him. The defense then starts double teaming him and you will be in trouble.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 08:25 AM) But the contradiction is built into your post. None of the Bears receivers make plays for Cutler, but they never really get the chance to do so because the QB isn't protected. It'd be great to fix both, but if you can't...which one do you do? I don't know the answer to that. That's true. I guess that from what I've seen, I dont think these receivers are good enough to make plays for him given the chance, like a Jennings or Holmes type WR would. I think you fix the O-Line first. Bad receivers can get open and catch the ball given time. But if your QB is running for his life, a stud WR can only help so much. Plus, the improved line can also have a positive effect on your running game.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 08:07 AM) I guess the debate now is whether these guys will become better and more useful targets if you can keep Cutler upright for longer, or whether it'd be better to have a top flight safety blanket for Cutler that he can throw the ball to. Well if you can't keep him upright, then it won't matter how good his receivers are. Even the top QBs occassionally need their receivers to make plays for them, and it just seems like no one on the Bears can do that.

I need to stop going to playoff games. Since 04, they are 3-0 when I watch on TV, 0-2 when I am in attendance. Not a very good game for Lovie & Co. The timeout use at the end was bad again. That 3rd and 2 end around call ( which I believe was after a timeout) was one of the worst play calls I have ever seen. The fact that immobile Todd Collins has been the #2 QB all year with this O-line is a terrible decision. He played a game in a half, and they saw what he did in Carolina. I know Hanie's not ever gonna be a starter, but at least he can move a little bit and is younger. I'm not sure when Cutler's injury happened, but either way he did have an awful game when he was playing. That's whats disappointing, although the injury may have affected him. I was in the South end zone, and I remember seeing him on one drive in the 2nd, slowly struggling to get back in the huddle, you could tell something was bothering him. How about MJD calling out Cutler, saying he played all year with a bad knee. Um, as I recall, you missed the last two games of the year when your team was fighting for a playoff spot. Considering how bad the Bears looked in the preseson, overall it was good year. Never would have thought they would win the division and host the NFC Champ. game. I don't know how much longer the defense will be this good, they really need to get some help on that offense ASAP. They tend to draft on the defensive side more, and the talent disparity shows. Obviously they need some lineman, but a receiver or two is a must. They need a big #1 who can fight for a ball. Hester is just not a top receiver, Knox is small and not aggressive enough. I like Bennett, but he's more of a possession guy.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jan 23, 2011 -> 04:22 PM) Is Carson Palmer really in any position to demand a trade? Seriously though. Bengals fans are the ones who should be demanding that they trade Mr. Pick-Six. He was awful this year.

Abreu/Hunter/Wells is one of the best oufields in the league......in 2006. I'm still having a hard time believing that this trade happened, that its not an April Fools joke. Desperation at its finest.

Happy B-Day!!!

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 01:25 PM) Simmons is using the term rival wrong. He's using it like "Dunder Mifflin's paper rival's any other paper brand", which would mean equals. Whereas when people say the Bears and Packers are rivals or have a rivalry they are saying that they have been competing for the same goal for many years. Just because one side is more successful at the moment or over time does not mean there isnt a rivalry. For the last 60 years the Bears and Packers have been rivals for the NFC North or NFC title or however you slice it. Absolutely no way to correctly use the term rivals without it applying to Packers and Bears. Exactly. The way he describes it, OSU-Michigan football isn't a rivalry right now cause OSU has been dominating & Michigan hasn't been competing for any titles. You can say that the Bears/Packers rivalry hasnt been relevant recently, but not that it doesnt exist. EDIT: He's missing the fact that rivalries endure. Once Manning/Belichek are gone, no one is gonna give a s*** about Colts/Patriots. 30 years from now, Bears/Packers will still be heated.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 10:21 AM) He's on Boston now, if that hasn't changed, it will by May 1. And because of that Red Sox jersey, he will probably become overrated by August 1

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 10:21 AM) Jamarcus Webb will be doing the old bear hug on Matthews half the game. Let's see if they call it. For sure. And from a man that size, that's a damn big bear hug. (I knew what you meant, just a little pregame smack talk)

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 10:12 AM) Carlos Gonzalez? Why in green? There is no rating high enough to describe how good he is, so he will be forever underrated.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 09:54 AM) Same goes for Clay Matthews. Holding Forte & Olsen when they run routes? All the time...

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 09:32 AM) Colin Cowherd chiming in this morning that should the Bears beat GB on Sunday, they would be the worst Super Bowl team ever. He then backed off a bit... And said the 05/06 Bears team might be worse... Adding that 2nd part is just purposely trying to talk s*** about the Chicago Bears and nothing else.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 08:37 AM) It kinda depends on what the team signing him is expecting. If they're expecting what appears to be a very durable #2-ish starter, who might well snap off a top of the league season at some point if he ever has a stretch where control of his changeup doesn't leave him, then they're right on. If they're signing him expecting to be their Roy Halladay, they might not get that. I think he ought to be looking at maybe a little longer of a contract than John Lackey got from Boston, similar money per year though. He hasn't yet been a true ace, so breaking $20 million would be silly, but if you got him at about $15 per year for a while, you might well get 200 innings a year of an ERA in the high 3's, and for a high spending team, that'd be totally acceptable. Plus, so far, there's really no reason to be concerned about his health, which is the biggest positive; if you get him pitching every year of his contract, you're gold. For some reason, I think he might break the bank and get real close to $20 million if he stays on the same path. It's not often such a young durable lefty with his numbers is available on the market. That's ace money that he probably won't live up to. That being said, for a high spending team like you mentioned, it kinda works differently. It still would be considered an "overpay" but as long as he stays healthy, a team like the Yankees or Sawx could easily live with the contract.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 07:42 AM) No power and K's at a rate that would make Adam Dunn point and laugh. He sucks. Never understood the hype to begin with. I bet the last name had a lot to do with the hype.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 08:28 AM) This, people, is why some have been advocating trading Danks. I'm a big fan of Danks, but I have a feeling whoever signs him is gonna extremely overpay for him and not get their money's worth.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 20, 2011 -> 10:51 AM) Perhaps we should demand that he show us his Sox fan certificate. That's a tattoo of Hawk Harrelson on your left ass cheek right?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 20, 2011 -> 07:34 AM) I would assume he's a little busy in his role to be memorizing the 53 man roster but what do I know. Are you trying to say there's more important stuff in this world than da Beloved??? Blasphemy!!!! Bears! I totally understand that knowing all the Chinese diplomats attending his State dinner would be a tad bit more important. But from what I remember, he couldn't name a single Sox player and called it Cominskey Field. Just saying, if you are gonna play the fan like that, spend 2-3 minutes before the interview to straighten out a fact or two.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 19, 2011 -> 07:37 PM) Not sure if he said he's joking or not but President Obama said if the Bears are in the Super Bowl he's going. http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AkIQ...obama-superbowl I wonder if he'll be able to name more Bears players than he did White Sox....or at least pronounce Soldier Field correctly

Bears

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 19, 2011 -> 10:07 AM) I move for a rule change on this site. I believe the nickname TCQ should be banned entirely. Unless someone is referring to something from the 2008 season, then I agree that term should never be used.

Here's the full article that will appear in SI Edit: Here is a single page version

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 04:34 PM) This bit is very, very, very vague on what is in it...but it sounds like Selena Roberts has an enormous piece coming out in next week's issue of Sports Illustrated on Lance Armstrong and the juice. Sweet. If the s*** finally hits the fan with all of Lance's steroid use, I'd be the happiest person this side of Boers & Bernstein.