If you had told me before the season that I'd have lost interest in the Chicago Bears before they play their ninth game I would have called you a fucking lunatic. But you would have been right. And as I sit here on Tuesday night trying to find something meaningful to write about, I realize its impossible. For the first time in over two years, the Chicago Bears are playing a meaningless football game.
The Bears can still turn their season around, mind you, and I pray to God that they do. But Sunday means nothing. The Bears are 3-5 and FAVORED by a fieldgoal on the road. What does that say about the Oakland Raiders? If the Bears dominate Sunday (which they won't) it will be treated with a chorus of "it's about time." If they lose (which is possible)...be honest...would you be surprised?
If the Bears do win Sunday and have a chance to get to .500 next week, I'll bring back my signature optimism. But for the next five days, I'm going to keep it in my satchel. Mike Francesca has a rule about taking baseball teams seriously. "Talk to me when they get to .500." In other words, let's talk November 18th.
#2 Nicole is miserable in this blue city said . . .I've been saying this for three weeks now. 500 or nothing.
And first!
November 7, 2007
#3 Al in WI said . . .I almost argued with my neighbor just now about this exact topic but something held me back.
When I argue for my Bears I want to believe in my words. Except, this time I didn't feel my neighbor was wrong predicting we could lose this week. The only thing I could say was that Manning is a putz and I went home.
Damn Ron Turner for having his head up his butt.
Damn Lovie for being bipolar about which QB to believe in.
Damn Grossman for being a punching bag.
And Damn the Bolts the most because if I have to endure another January of "Believe in Blue" I'm going to jump off a tall ledge.November 7, 2007
#4 Viva said . . .Jeff, excellent post. I have felt this way since the Bears got beat at home by the Vikings on October 14th. And that is why I was less then euphoric over the drive to beat the eagles.
I was a believer up until then, even though I disagreed with the qb thing, I still thought the character of the team would bring us through it. And I thought the Green Bay win was a turning point. It wasn't.
For me the loss in Super Bowl XLI was dissapointing, and sad, but I wasn't bitter. I felt the team would make it back again, and this time be a better team. When they lost that sickening game to the vikings, I knew the dream was over. And for me that made the super bowl loss all the more bitter, and real.
So in other words, I hear you.........November 7, 2007
#5 Shady McBears Fan said . . .Lovie Smith is the benefactor of a very large contract because he had a lapdog press pushing Angelo and Phillips into a corner.
May Jay Glazer of foxsports.com be damned.
Just to be clear, Lovie was the least paid coach last year in the NFL becasue he was one of the least proven coaches in the NFL. And now, he is one of the highest paid coaches in the league, and one of the NFL's worst decision makers.
To make matters supremely worse, THE BEARS WILL BE TOO CHEAP TO BUY OUT HIS CONTRACT, so as a fan, we are stuck with rooting for a team that will not out perform its lackluster abilty to exploit their opponents weaknesses.
If you are reading this Lovie, do the right thing and bail out, just leave so we can get a real coach in here.
The best game plan you have ever devised was your contract extention (I remember your agent leaking to the press that the Bears were lowballing you). Come to think of it, that would probably be giving you too much credit. I think your agent devised that game plan and you signed off on it. Maybe the Bears should hire him to run the team.
I want Singletary!
November 7, 2007
#6 Max said . . .Not gonna lie, that was a pretty depressing post Jeff. I understand your point that this will be an ugly game between one terrible team and another team playing terribly. It could be the opposite of the Indy-New England game, which reminded me what good football looks like. This question will bug me my entire life: How could the Colts have remained an elite NFL football team while the Bears have fallen so far?
I also agree that this game is a no-win situation for the Bears. They win big, and it's about damn time. They win small, and it's like barely beating your kid sister in arm wrestling. They lose, and you can forget about the rest of the season.
Anyway, I don't think the game will be entirely meaningless. I for one will be interested to see what kind of changes, if any, will be made on offense. I'll also be looking forward to, hopefully, seeing the Interceptor back on the field, and what a week off can do for an underachieving team.
I have to say, if the Bears manage to lose this game Sunday, I believe there is more benefit in packing it in for the season and playing the new-blood, rather than fruitlessly fighting it out with the day old bread. At least this way, they will be able to evaluate talent for the future instead of struggling to become, and remain, .500 or so team. The sooner they can call the 2007 over, the sooner they can focus on drafting that rookie impact player for 2008.
I still feel like the worst thing that could happen to this team, and yet the most likey, is that they continue the win-loss, win-loss, win-loss cha-cha and just miss the playoffs at .500 leaving a middle to late round draft pick.
And for the record, I still don't understand why people are asking for Lovie Smith to get fired. That's just plain retarded.
November 7, 2007
#7 Pissed Off said . . .Let me be absolutely 100% clear. Yes, this game is meaningless. Yes, its against an even worse Oakland team, and yet we still are not guranteed a win. Yes we are playing bad.
That said, I havent lost any interest in the Bears. I will say it again . . . I havent lost any interest in the Bears. Nor will i ever. Nor will any of you from the sounds of it. I still read this blog daily, the sun times and the tribue sports sections and Joniak's blog. I know most of you read more than those. I still sit in class day dreaming about Tommie taking someones head off, or Rashied making a winning catch. I think about how Mike Brown must feel, or how good Dusty could be when hes healthy. Lost interest??? Hell no. Could Orton be the future? Will the Bears be able to contain Jordan and Fargas? Will Vash play this week??? When is the next Hester or G-Reg touchdown and how awesome of a play is it going to be?
We have been spoiled these past few years, but come on, most of us here have been life long Bear fans, and lets face it, there have been some bad years. Yet yall keep reading, watching, praying, and dreaming about the Bears. . . So does this one game mean nothing? In the grand scheme of things, yes it does mean that. . . and heck, ill admit that the Bears have made me depressed alot this year. But, to me at least, this game is another chance to forget about everything else happening and scream for 3 hours at a television (and stupid raider fans) for my team to win. It doesnt always happen, but every Sunday still holds hope for me to be the happiest day ill have all week. . . . oh no, I havent lost interest. . . Never
Bear down.
November 7, 2007
#8 Phil from SATX said . . .I like the dose of reality. I would have been roasted had I said things like this a few weeks ago, which I did, and I was. This team is in the dumpster and any last glimmer of hope is being dismissed by Lovie's stubborness and failure to make some moves to get us excited. Is it over this year, based on what we've seen, hell yeah, mathematically, no. So unless something all of a sudden clicks, which I dont know why it would start now if it hasnt for the past couple of weeks, we are playing for the future and I hate playing for the future. This is the "what have you done for me lately" league, AKA the "win now" league. And thats precisely what we are not doing.
November 7, 2007
#9 Bill said . . .There's no doubt it's a somewhat different quality of interest and anticipation in this game. There are ways in which the NFL season is like watching your favorite college team, only there's much less room for error in college. Once they've posted their two losses, hopes of a national championship go away. You still look forward to watching them, but it's definitely not with the same excitement as before. Watching them do good things comes with a bittersweet, rueful backtrack - why couldn't we have done this before, when it still mattered?
It still does matter because of the very slim chance the Bears have of doing something meaningful this season. It also matters because it's a regular season Bears game. They all matter. But the feeling is not like the one going into the playoffs last year, or even going into the second Lions game this year.
Regarding the coach posts on the last thread, Bill echoed my thoughts on Lovie. Yes it's too early to dismiss the fact that the Bears were in the SB last year, and the 3 year rise he engineered. This year is a major disappointment. If the second half of this year turns around, then I think we're all still on the Lovie bandwagon. If the Bears play .500 ball the rest of the way (win one, lose one), then to me Lovie has the offseason and next year to fix it. If next year is better than this year, Lovie keeps going. If Lovie can't get it done next year (especially if the massive changes on offense don't occur), then we're all calling for the Bears to buy him out.
It's not retarded to question Lovie at this point, though. It's premature to say things like "Lovie can't coach" - his last 3 years have bought him some leeway on that, but the next season and a half will determine how good of a coach Lovie really is and whether he sticks around or suffers the fate of Wanny Jauron.
Still ready for the Bears to put together a 60 minute, 3 phases clicking game. The Raiders appear to be a great opponent to do it against.
Bears 31 Raiders 13 in some extremely specific scenario that I can't seem to get myself roused enough to create.
November 7, 2007
#10 Hope for the future said . . .I agree that this is a "no win" game. If they win, everyone will say (rightfully) "big deal - they beat a bad team." If they lose - well...
I had bad feelings about this team not from a loss but from a win - the KC game. It was the home opener and they were NOT sharp. I worried that since they didn't have control of until it was finally over, they would struggle (or worse) all year.
November 7, 2007
#11 Mike said . . .1. Bear matriarch Virginia McCaskey passes away.
2. The McCaskey siblings fight for control of the franchise and somebody other than Michael is installed as President.
3. The Bears continue on their horseshit ways for a couple seasons.
4. The McCaskeys wind up selling the franchise because they no longer can afford to keep it for tax reasons.
5. A new owner is installed.
6. Sweaty Teddy Phillips and Jerry Angelo are let go.
7. A Bill Cowher type or a prominent offensive guru type is installed as head coach with a shitload of vested authority to get things done.
8. A top flight player personnel director guy is hired to work with the head coach and carry out talent acquisition.
9. Bears are back to being a quality playoff contender by 2013.
November 7, 2007
#12 GP said . . .Beating Oakland will be like being crowned the tallest midget. If the Bears and their fans get over-inflated after beating the Raiders and once again have delusional vision of making the playoffs, then we should all be taken out to the back of the barn and shot for being morons.
November 7, 2007
#13 B.A. Baracus said . . .I've gotta say that all the talk of geting rid of Lovie Smith is surprising to me. He made the playoff in back-to-back years, which hasn't happened since 1990 and 1991! It's also a pretty established fact by now that Super Bowl teams tend to suck the year after losing. I've got problems with Lovie (stubborness in sticking with Grossman, Archuleta, etc), but I remember the really lean years very, very well.
Also, I'd like to point out that the last 4 Super Bowls have been won by coaches with a defensive background. And if you factor in that Tampa Bay and Baltimore won Super Bowls with superb defenses under offensive "gurus" who had mediocre offenses, it becomes less certain that you want an offensive-minded head coach. The biggest difference between the Bears and the Patriots is Tom Brady. People forget that he was winning Super Bowls with much crappier talent than New England has today. And to me, the blame for most of our problems falls on Jerry Angelo, who can't bring in a good QB. In fairness to him, no one associated with the Bears since the 40's has ever brought in a great QB, but that's what we're missing. Our offensive drafts in general have been terrible, and we don't bring in the right veterans via trades either. He put together a pretty damn good (but not dominating like the 2000 Ravens) defense, but it doesn't look like that will be enough to win a Super Bowl.
November 7, 2007
#14 Scott said . . .The following are self-evident truths about the Bears.
1. The 2007 season is dunbar.
2. Ange-blo has shit the bed - Failure to pick a quality offensive player in the 1st or 2nd rounds over the last three years, save Greg Olson (and please don't bring up Mark B-adley or Suckric Benson), or sign a quality free agent in the last three years, results in a spastic and pitiful offense.
3. Reliance on O Linemen collecting Social Security benefits is misplaced.
4. Rex Grossman will never win a SB as a starter with the Bears.The following are my opinions:
1. Lovie's contract will not be bought out and he will continue to coach until his contract is fulfilled.
2. Suckric Benson will not be traded and will be here through the end of next year.
3. Ange-blo is Mark S-Hattley by a different name. Great D, crappy offense.
4. The McCaskey's are vampires - Woof Woof, Yesssss!!!!November 7, 2007
#15 Bill said . . .I watched this team when Krenzel was QB and that was only three years ago. Free agency, trades and untapped, underperforming talent can turn a team around in an extremely short time these days. Remember the Rams of Kurt Warner? They were nothing until they drafted Torry Holt, traded for Marshall Faulk and signed Trent Green. When Green got hurt they discovered a former Arena League player who happened to be an All-Pro MVP on their bench. This season is a goner but I refuse to believe we're looking at a six-year rebuilding project. Remember that Krenzel/Quinn/Hutchinson was the QB combo three short years ago. Only two years later we were in the Super Bowl. I'm a broken record on this but let's run Rex out there again. Maybe some bench time has helped straighten out his head. He certainly has the talent. Might be just the shot in the arm the O needs.
November 7, 2007
#16 Al in WI said . . .It will kill us as Bear fans if Grossman turns into who we thought he could - but somewhere else.
It's a dilemma - as I read in an article today. Because if he goes out there and does well against weak teams with little pressure to perfrom well (that is, after the season is done anyway), what does that prove? Do we then sign him on promise again and maybe regret it next year? Obviously, we can't. It must make Angelo sick - and if it were me I'd be so pissed as Grossman for screwing this up that I'd cut him or at least make him third string.
November 7, 2007
#17 Phil from SATX said . . .Bill, I think this would be a good problem to have. It would depend a lot on what Grossman was able to do. If he takes over and leads us to the playoffs and wins a game or too playing well then he would get the big contract, and be the established #1 again into '08. If he doesn't get a chance to play again until after we're out of it, then I would think he'd have to win a competition with another veteran brought in from somewhere and/or Orton.
But you are right about the nightmare of him going to say Kansas City, and taking them to the playoffs.November 7, 2007
#18 Nicole is miserable in this blue city said . . .I'm guessing we don't see Grossman again for that very reason - the same reason we didn't see Griese last year as a true sub. Last year, they didn't want to invite a QB controversy. This year, they won't want to put Rex in a position where he can put pressure on the already-decided move of letting his contract expire. It would be different if they could turn Rex into trade bait and get something out of the failed exercise, but that seems extremely unlikely.
And they won't necessarily trust good play either even if they got it. I think Griese and Orton are the only QBs we're likely to see out there unless both get hurt. Despite a few feeble attempts at trying to suggest he's still an option for the team, they can't wait to put this chapter behind them. What would be interesting to know is how much pressure the McCaskeys will put on Philips and Angelo to get it right the next time - who knows, they may be on a very short leash themselves.
To the point about Rex playing well when the pressure's off, I don't think that would really come into play. It's not like the teams we have in the second half will be laying down, or not sending as hard blitzes as possible at Rex if he's back in there. He would still have to play much better than he did at the beginning of the season to succeed, even with no playoff expectations. I would be very interested to see him back there again (although it would be just for curiousity - Orton is the one we need to see for strategic purposes). I don't believe anything would be different for Rex - I don't think the game would have slowed down for him at all by sitting these last six weeks on the bench. And someone mentioned the KC game as a turning point - I totally agree. It was in that game, which we won, that Rex had the horrible second half with virtually no pressure on him (either blitzing pressure or point-in-the-game pressure). That was when I knew that Rex had not improved over last year, and that we were likely doomed for this year.
November 7, 2007
#19 Pissed Off said . . .I hate to be the bearer of more bad bear news if you guys didn't already know... check out the new time schedule for upcoming games. They moved more games today. Shock.
http://www.chicagobears.com/news/NewsStory.asp?story_id=4049
November 7, 2007
#20 Pissed Off said . . .I noticed that too Nicole. I f-ing hate 3 o'clock (Central) games. I hate them more than anything. Now we get the Raiders at three and then the Hawks at three. Maybe thats why this team sucks, Urlacher always said he preferred playing at noon. Supersticious stuff. 3pm games are evil. I want a new QB in there, wont happen I'm guessing but we can always hope for a halftime benching I guess. Lovies done that at least once before.
November 7, 2007
#21 Mike said . . .Just watched part 2 of the lovie interview and griese on da site. Every time I watch them and listen I get more pissed at them, especially grieseball. For the first time in years I actually have almost no desire to watch this game. Will I go out of my way to a certain establishment, grab a bite, drink a few beers and sit in an uncomfortable chair for 3+ hours watching this team play mediocre ball against the raiders? Of course. Somehow I just cant get away from this team, if we lose the next 5 in a row I will still be watcing the final 3 games. It feels more like an obligation to the team, even though I have none. Not sure whats going on there.
November 7, 2007
#22 Big Earl said . . .What stymies forward progress within the Bears is perpetual denial and stubborness. Jerry Angelo is a sharp smart man, but he refuses to admit that he doesn't have a clue about offensive football and needs help in that department. It's maddening how long this organization stuck by Rex Grossman after handing him the keys with only pretend competition for the starting job. And now Angelo is tripping all over himself to defend Cedric Benson who is a bust on par with Hurtis Penis and Russian Salami. Angelo is a fool for thinking he didn't need to address an ancient offensive line too. Surely he must have realized that the Bears milked all that was to be milked out of that o-line and that the unit was due for a rapid descent. And what about the wide receivers? Absolutely terrible. In fact, the worst wide receiving corp in the NFL in the opinion of Peter King and Cris Collinsworth.
In football, like in life, faulty assessments and mistakes happens. What needs to happen is admission of mistakes and that certain players haven't worked out. It's called licking your wounds and moving on instead of wallowing in denial. Until the Bears fundamentally correct this dilemma we are always going to be hopeless.
And with all due respect, I could give a rat's ass that we were in the Super Bowl last season. It's almost as bad as the fact that we as Bear fans still ridiculously revel in the 1985 Bears. I was there for Super Bowl XX. It was great. Top of the mountain experience. But it is ancient fucking history. Time to move on. And time to move on from last season.
No more denial. No more stubborness. The offense is a clusterfuck and the defense has holes aplenty as well. Lets start working on them. The second half of the season should be about prepping and playing players that may be future answers. For example, not wasting fucking time luring Fred Miller out of his coma and propping him up at right tackle.
November 7, 2007
#23 Phil from SATX said . . .Bill, pull your head out of your ass. Do you honestly lay awake at night fearing that Rex Grossman will turn into something good elsewhere? He's terrible. Absolutely terrible. I have more fear that the ghost of Moses Moreno will come back to haunt us then I do Rex Grossman. Heck, I betcha Grossman has difficult time even finding a job next season.
November 7, 2007
#24 Bill said . . .This in from the Sun-Times
The Bears have the oldest starting offensive line in the NFL, a fact line coach Harry Hiestand is getting a bit tired of hearing. And he hears it every time there is a criticism of the line.
''If we were to give up three sacks in a game, it's just automatic that it's the line's fault,'' Hiestand said. ''Or if you rush for less than 100 yards, it's that they must stink.
''How the hell does anybody know unless you are sitting there studying the tape and know the protection that is called and who is responsible for what?''
I'll give him a little credit for the protection issue - the Bears obviously no longer have a great blocking back, or really even a good one. However, to me the issue with this line has been more about run blocking than pass blocking. It seems like he's saying it may not be his line's fault in either case.
I recognize Benson's flaws. However, there's no doubt that this line is simply atrocious at run blocking this year, and unlike pass blocking, they don't get to pass the buck on anyone for not opening holes - it's all on them.
I absolutely hate the fact that this guy doesn't sound like he's willing to take responsibility for having possibly the SHITTIEST LINE in ALL OF FOOTBALL this year. Hiestand wants to pass the buck, claim it's not as simple as us idiots think?
Get lost Hiestand. You're probably part of the problem.
Do any of our coaches truly take responsibility for the debacle of this season? I am really wondering.
November 7, 2007
#25 Bill said . . ."Do any of our coaches truly take responsibility for the debacle of this season? I am really wondering. "
Great post Phil; I read that article in the Times and got ill. We've got Angelo saying it's not Benson's fault and we've go tthe line coach saying it's not the line's fault.
So WTF - are they saying everything's just fine?? That the fans and the media are idiots for asking what's wrong?
LOVIE - once again I say it's time to be a LEADER. OBVIOUSLY there is something wrong. At least admit it. Is your line coach sayign it's Benson?? Better yet, tell your line coach to shut up - he sounds like an idiot and part of the problem, in my opinion. I never knew his name until today and now he's become Shopp-ian in my mind.
Big Earl - thanks for the suggestion. It was getting dark in there. And to answer your question, I do not lay awake at night worrying about Grossman. In fact, being a dyslexic insomniac, I only lay awake wondering if there is a doG.
Grossman had real potential and got messed up mentally. He plays scared. He didn't use to - and I mean going bacjk before 2006; before his injury in Minesotta scoring a TD. Maybe up to his injury in the preseason game when he was simply rolling out and got hit, but not hard.
Somewhere there was a list of many QBs no better than Grossman. He will surely get a contract next year and a chance to compete somehwhere.
November 7, 2007
#26 Pissed Off said . . .Damn it - I can't even tell a joke when I type it. I meant I'm a dyslexic AGNOSTIC insomniac, lying awake wondering if there is a doG.
November 7, 2007
#27 Angry McBears Fan said . . .Dont be a jerk big earl. And with all due respect, Rex will easily find a job next year, maybe even competing for a starting job somewhere. Look around the league, take of your Bears googles and you will see that lots of teams will easily take a chance on a guy like Rex. Look how long Joey Harrington has stuck around, nuff said.
November 7, 2007
#28 Bill said . . .Phil, it sounds like Lovie is taking some of the blame here:
http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/The+Way+We+Hear+It/WWHI/2007/wwhi2218.htm
I heard a quote from Cedric Benson on the other hand today. I'm telling you I'm getting sick of hearing this guy's not so subtle way of throwing his teammates under the bus instead of taking responsibility for his average (at best) play this season. He also believes that if he were in a 'different situation' or 'different scenario' he would be playing better. What the hell is that supposed to mean Benson? If you played for Minnesota you'd be a better player? Fuck you. Try forming a sentence without adding your patented stoned sounding "uhhhh" or "ummm" in there you fucking pile of shit.
If Cedric and the O-line can't get it going against a terrible Oakland run defense this week I say send him back to #2 on the RB depth chart. Even Ron Dayne was able to manage 100+ yards against Oakland.
November 7, 2007
#29 Al in WI said . . .Regarding the post from PRo Football Weekly...
WOW! It's a "must read".
November 7, 2007
#30 tommy said . . .Well said Po'd there are at least a dozen teams right now that would take a look at Grossman. Haugh makes the point in his Tuesday article on the trib by pointing out a list of horrid qb's that started last week.
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-071105haugh,1,1060293.column?coll=cs-bears-headlinesNovember 7, 2007
#31 Midway Monster said . . .Play like Dorks and you pay for it with schedule changes. Wonder how the Bears Braintrust er I mean Brainbust likes that. I too can't handle listening or watching Lovie's "Press Conferences" where lackey in house reporters apologetically ask nerfball questions that Lovie answers with sweet nothings.
November 7, 2007
#32 Shady McBears Fan said . . .
Call me crazy but I am in it till the very very end. I force my mind to be optimistic. Play by play... week by week... moment by moment.To paraphrase:
Whenever they's a fight so hungry Bear fans can eat, I'll be there. Whenever they's a cop beatin' up a Bear fan, I'll be there . . . . I'll be in the way Bear fans yell when they're mad an'-I'll be in the way Bear fans laugh when they're hungry an' they know supper's ready. An' when our fans eat the stuff they raise an' live in the houses they build-why, I'll be there.
-- Midway --
(Beat Oakland and go from there...)November 7, 2007
#33 Mike said . . .Midway sounds like you're an idealist and a TRUE Bears fan - even thought the poem or whatever that was made me laugh.
I don't mean it when I say Cedric Benson is a pile of shit.
I still have hope for you Cedric, I just hate hearing excuses at the expense of your teammates - especially from such an unproven (and expensive) player such as yourself.
I don't like excuses in general, and it's not fair to point any fingers towards any one individual. I think it's unfair Rex Grossman took Grossman took as much shit as he did when it's perfectly clear he wasn't the only player under-performing. I know it's cliché, but I'll say it anyway: Football is the ultimate team sport, you WIN as a team and you LOSE as a team.
Speaking of team sports, what is going on with the other sport in Chicago, Daa Bulls!
Somebody should make Da Bulls blog too, right?
November 8, 2007
#34 Put this in your pipe and smoke it said . . .Jerry Angelo, Lovie Smith and some of the coaches sure are getting defensive. Angelo defending Benson, the o-line coach defending his used up band of AARP brothers, Lovie defending Rex time and time and time again....
Like I said before what plagues this organization is an unwillingness to admit and correct mistakes. Nope. They'd rather live in denial and be stubborn. You can't be that way if you work in the front office or coach from the sidelines. The NFL is a cold cruel business. Today's marvelous strenth can be tomorrow's shit sandwich. Living in the past is for cowards and Angelo, Smith and some of the coaches wallow in it.
November 8, 2007
#35 Midway Monster said . . .Offseason needs.
1. Two (at a minimum) starter grade offensive lineman
2. A viable running back
3. A short-term QB
4. A long-term QB (snicker)
5. Two viable NFL quality wide receivers
6. A outside linebacker
7. A safety
8. A defensive end to replace the overrated overpaid pile of shit named Adewale Ogunleye
===
That there is a shitload of needs. No fucking way even half of those needs get filled via the draft, free agency, trades. Hence why the Bears are staring at a multi-fucking-year rebuilding program. Of course Angelo and Lovie will vehemently oppose such observation and say a patch here and there combined with good luck in the health department will magically transform this shit sandwich at that 2008 will be the land of milk and honey. It might get even better than that. Virginia McCaskey is getting close to death. Once she goes then we probably have Michael pencil-neck douchebag dillhole McCaskey to look forward all over again. Remember the Michael McCaskey years???
November 8, 2007
#36 Shady McBears Fan said . . .Shady:
Its from The Grapes of Wrath.
-- Midway --
November 8, 2007
#37 BearDown1982 said . . .Good book.
November 8, 2007
#38 Nicole is miserable in this blue city said . . .Apparently the Raiders plan on kicking to Devin this Sunday...at least we have that to look forward to.
November 8, 2007
#39 Bill said . . .Beardown: They might try to kick it to Hester and I'm guessing they make that mistake just once.
November 8, 2007
#40 Scott said . . .The Raiders are still the Raiders. I think Devin better watch out; I don't want to be doom and gloom, but a cheap shot to handle him wouldn't shock me.
November 8, 2007
#41 Phil from SATX said . . .Mike, I disagree with you about the organizations admissions of mistakes. Terry Shea was dimissed after one year with Lovie. Quinn was benched almost immediately, Hutchinson was dumped after a couple of bad pre-season games in favor of Orton. They do admit mistakes. Right now, though, there just aren't many options. Who do you play instead of Archuleta. The whole defensive backfield has been injured at some point this year. I have confidence that the needs of the team will be addressed objectively in the offseason. But, during this season they're stuck with who they have. Labeling players as underperformers during the season makes the bad worse. They're just trying to put lipstick on this pig and get through the season. I expect wholesale changes once this very frustrating season is over.
November 8, 2007
#42 Rancid said . . .Man, that is a VERY disturbing story in Pro Football Weekly. Coincides with many things we've been saying here, and points out an issue none of us have ever talked about, a claim that Lovie now has a greater say in personnel matters, and that may be biting us.
I'm not saying that just because the article says it's so, it's so, but the comment about the guy at the Rams and Dan Bazuin - claiming that he would have been cut if he wasn't injured? Could that possibly have be true?
Oh, me hopes that that is a bunch of spurious correlations. Unfortunately I can only point to a few good personnel/coaching decisions this year - the decision to bench Rex in my opinion was the right one (and a difficult one), the decision to use Hester on offense (even if he hasn't effectively been deployed because of our bad coordinat0r), the fixing of the D. Manning screwup (actually two of these are fixing previous screwups, so you can't give too much credit).
All the rest have been bad. Demotion of Bradley, refusal to use AP more despite horrible CB stats, refusal to use your 3rd round draft pick in Wolfe for screens and dumpoffs, demoting Alex Brown for Mark Anderson, moving D. Manning to cornerback, making no changes whatsoever on the O-line despite horrendous play. Add to this the coaching personnel moves which haven't panned out (including the non-move of keeping RT - which MANY of us were calling for at the end of last year despite going to the SB - go back and check the archives if you don't believe me), strange decisions about supporting bad-playing players (CB and the Oline) while dogging your best one ("I don't know what Brian U is talking about - he's good to go").
I'm concerned.
November 8, 2007
#43 Midway Monster said . . .I liked Scotts post as well as Phils last one. We as fans do need to be careful about what we complain about. We have a right to be upset when possible changes don't happen, but there's no reason for Lovie to call out a player who, while playing like crap, doesn't have an adequate replacement. The Oline sucks and needs a ton of help, they've lost it for sure, but theres no real Plan B there. I agree with trying Beekman once we're defenitely dead (similar to using Orton), but he's a totally unknown quantity, so it's hard to say it should happen now. The only changes that need to happen and aren't is starting to split the RB time more and possibly a little shake-up at WR. Other than that, these guys just have to work with what they have. And for crying out loud, FIRE RT the day the season ends. Hell, fire him in the post-game press conference. I don't care, but this MUST be his last season with the Bears.
November 8, 2007
#44 Bill said . . .You want motivation?
The Oakland "we know that we know we'll miss the playoffs again" Raiders still have a hunger to win games that we ought to envy. Lane Kiffin boasted that they will kick directly to Hester this week: "It's no fun to kick it out of bounds, so we're going to see how well we can cover". This guy is like Rocky, all bloody but still waving the 'come-on... come-on' hands to Apollo Creed (not that we play like Creed).
Okay, so I say if the Raiders are going to play to our strength (Hester) and throw down the gloves.... then: GAME ON.
Come on Bear Fans- Chant with me "F these guys! F these guys".
-- Midway --
(still in it to win this year)November 8, 2007
#45 AfroCelt said . . .In 1963 the Bears won the NFL Championship. They would not win another until the 1985 season. It was generally accepted that the championship "drought" was a long time indeed.
We are now at the exact same point. (I don't know why that never occurred ot me until now.) We are 22 seasons later.
No comment really; things are different; there are 32 teams now; it would take at least 32 years for all teams to win one etc.
I guess the 22 years it took from '63 to '85 seemed longer to me than this past 22 years. But that's what happens when you get older; 22 years is a smaller fraction of my life now then it was back in 1985.
November 8, 2007
#46 Phil from SATX said . . .Well, I find out that my father (lives in Chicago) has tickets to see his favorite team (Green Bay, where I regrettably live for now) and wants me to go....I guess I could go and see Favre without the oral commentary...and see the Rookie of the year AP tearing things up....should I?
November 8, 2007
#47 Pissed Off said . . .Yes and yes AfroCelt. I think you said you've been there before, if not a million times yes, but even so, a chance to see HOF BF and future HOF'er AP is totally worth it - especially if the Pack loses!
Go AP!
November 8, 2007
#48 Bill said . . .Shady, this is da bears blog and though you may be a bulls fan, plenty of people on here arent even in the Chicago area and couldnt give two shits about the bulls. Arent they 0-4?
Afro go to the game wearing Bears gear. At least when you get shit you can say you beat the PACK! I am bored right now. I have virtually nothing to write about because there is not much positive or negative for that matter to talk about that hasnt already been beat into the ground. Thanks to shady it made me remember that the basketball season is upon us and I can foucus a bit more on my favorite team since this team is doing nothing for me right now.
November 8, 2007
#49 Midway Monster said . . .Lambeau Field was voted #1 stadium for overall fan expereince in SI. Man - how can a stadium with bleacher seats be voted #1? Well, it's a lot of factors that go in it - including ticket price and price of food and drinks and tailgating and the team itself.
Needless to say, the Bears were down the list using those criteria. About 20 I think. Mainly due to the expense, the team's record, and the lack of a neighborhood anywhere near Soldier Field.
I guess Lambeau is the same as Wrigley Field. The "experience" is far greater than the actual experience (small concourse, hard to get to, expensive).
November 8, 2007
#50 Nicole is miserable in this blue city said . . .AfroCelt: Don't go. Screw the Pack!!
-- Midway --
November 8, 2007
#51 Al in WI said . . .Afro: I vote you go.
Spend time with dear ol' dad any chance you get, regardless of the arena. Too many pros that outweigh the cons. Spending time with your dad, watching a game while wearing your bears gear at Lambeau will be a great memory to cherish for years to come. Have fun!November 8, 2007
Breaking News: Bears place Ruben Brown on IR with a shoulder issue ending his season.
I guess this means Metcalf will finally get a long look. Brown gave us two really solid seasons late in his career. So, I wish him well, as he's likely done as a Bear.November 8, 2007
Here at DaBearsBlog, you are free to kill us or the Bears as you so wish. You are not free, however, to be an asshole. So if you spew racism or ill-meaning foul language (cursing about football is just fine) or anything of that ilk, your comments ain't gonna last long, jerk.