Might as well have a thread for old time's sake, I guess?
The Lions have brilliantly decided to start playing mind games (http://espn.go.com/blog/detroit-lions/post/_/id/23398/the-lions-told-miles-killebrew-they-didnt-want-him-then-drafted-him) with their draft prospects to "see how they respond."
By most accounts the Bears had a very good draft. Maybe I'll catch one game this season after all. Time will tell, don't hold me to it.
/thread
/season
/can't wait to see how they fuck up the #3 pick
I love how no one replied to this thread all season. Almost as if we knew ahead of time they weren't worth watching.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 01, 2017, 03:13:26 PM
I love how no one replied to this thread all season. Almost as if we knew ahead of time they weren't worth watching.
This was the first year since 1991 that I hadn't attended at least 1 Bears game at Soldier Field--1991 being the only other year I didn't attend since I started going in 1979. I should add that I was a sophomore in college in 1991 and just didn't have the ability to make it in to the city for a game, weekends tending to be pretty busy times in college. This year I had no interest and made no effort.
In Week 3 this year, when the Bears played Sunday night against Dallas, I chose to watch a relatively-meaningless Cubs/Cardinals game (at least it was meaningful for the Cardinals and it was fun to watch an incentiveless Cubs team hammer another nail into their coffin). Twice I flipped over to the Bears game and both times it was at commercial break, meaning that for the first time in my life, when I was at home and otherwise completely able to follow the entire game, that I neither saw nor heard a single play.
3 1/2 weeks later, the Bears were playing Green Bay while the Cubs and Dodgers were playing in Game 5. Even though the Bears were already proven to be bad by then and the Cubs were approaching a historic precipice, one would understand if I flipped over a few times between innings if for no other reason than to exhale during the Cubs game. But this time I didn't even attempt to flip over once, which I feel says more about my lack of interest in the Bears than how engrossed I was with the Cubs game. The point is, that for the second time this season--and ever-- while having unfettered access to the Bears game I essentially chose not to watch a single play.
Needless to say I'm fairly confident that this was the least Bears football I've ever watched--or listened to--in a season.
This franchise has won 2 NFL championships since 1947. That's now 70 full seasons. Perennial laughingstock franchises in Cleveland and Detroit have both won more NFL titles in that time. Now that the Cubs have flung the monkey off their back, it'd be nice if the Bears stopped flying under the radar. This franchise now has been bad for a
far greater period of time than they've been good. Their 28 year head-start from 1920 until 1947 as the premier brand in the NFL is so far in the rearview mirror it might as well have never existed.
70 years, 2 championships. When're people going to start giving this franchise shit like they did the Cubs for all those years--or, at the very least,
stop giving them a pass?
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on January 01, 2017, 09:08:45 PM
70 years, 2 championships. When're people going to start giving this franchise shit like they did the Cubs for all those years--or, at the very least, stop giving them a pass?
"The Bears announced attendance at 39,837, leaving 21,663 vacant seats. Judging by the eye test, that number seemed low." (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/ct-bears-ugly-christmas-picture-haugh-spt-1225-20161224-column.html)
All together, I think I've watched less than a quarter of the Bears in the last two years. Part of that is just me developing a general distaste for the NFL, but I'm sure it doesn't help that my favorite team is completely irrelevant. It's hard to see myself really getting back into football again.
I'm fine with that.
I'm officially declaring victory on the Cutler Era.
Obviously there were multiple other factors, but he was the captain of the ship when everyone decided they didn't care about football anymore, and that's more than I ever imagined could be ascribed to him.
Quote from: PenFoe on January 02, 2017, 11:22:10 AM
I'm officially declaring victory on the Cutler Era.
Obviously there were multiple other factors, but he was the captain of the ship when everyone decided they didn't care about football anymore, and that's more than I ever imagined could be ascribed to him.
He probably should've raped a few women.
I know that nobody cares anymore, but Mike Glennon is pretty bad and this isn't going to go well.
Quote from: PenFoe on March 09, 2017, 10:50:10 AM
I know that nobody cares anymore, but Mike Glennon is pretty bad and this isn't going to go well.
If we're fortunate, the team really sucks this year, an inevitable housecleaning from Phillips on down is evident around Halloween, around which time Virginia passes peacefully. Her ten children at different stages in life, different goals, different interests, and different liquidity statuses might be willing to listen to an ego-driven billionaire who could make a lot of their problems go away and truly allow the Bears to rebuild correctly.
(On the downside, the first phone call I'd expect a smart owner to make upon buying the Bears would be to 773-404-2827, pressing # for the dial by name directory, and then the numbers 3-7-7-8-3-4-6. It's not without precedent.)
Realistically, the defense should be a shade better, and the team will go 5-11 with some marked improvement on the defensive side of the ball, possibly 7-9 if the running game does anything. Fox is probably gone, but Pace probably survives, and Ted Phillips and the rest of the real brass stay.
The Bears regime from 1986 until today (31 years and counting) in which the McCaskeys clearly have run the show has to be the worst-run period of any franchise in Chicago history, and that includes P.K. Wrigley's Cubs and Bill Wirtz's Blackhawks.
Quote from: Brownie on March 09, 2017, 12:03:46 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 09, 2017, 10:50:10 AM
I know that nobody cares anymore, but Mike Glennon is pretty bad and this isn't going to go well.
If we're fortunate, the team really sucks this year, an inevitable housecleaning from Phillips on down is evident around Halloween, around which time Virginia passes peacefully. Her ten children at different stages in life, different goals, different interests, and different liquidity statuses might be willing to listen to an ego-driven billionaire who could make a lot of their problems go away and truly allow the Bears to rebuild correctly.
(On the downside, the first phone call I'd expect a smart owner to make upon buying the Bears would be to 773-404-2827, pressing # for the dial by name directory, and then the numbers 3-7-7-8-3-4-6. It's not without precedent.)
Realistically, the defense should be a shade better, and the team will go 5-11 with some marked improvement on the defensive side of the ball, possibly 7-9 if the running game does anything. Fox is probably gone, but Pace probably survives, and Ted Phillips and the rest of the real brass stay.
The Bears regime from 1986 until today (31 years and counting) in which the McCaskeys clearly have run the show has to be the worst-run period of any franchise in Chicago history, and that includes P.K. Wrigley's Cubs and Bill Wirtz's Blackhawks.
Pretty much the only hope is that they still draft DeShaun Watson even with the Glennon signing and he fairly-miraculously turns out to be awesome.
But that won't happen.
They'll get a stud defender instead and he'll probably be good but they'll be bad.
$19 Million guaranteed? That's probably 2 years.
I'm on the side of the argument that says "Mike Glennon probably sucks, and will likely suck. Jay Cutler has been meh, and will be meh. However, there's a chance (probably between .0001% to 5%) that Mike Glennon will be better than Cutler has been. Why not take the chance on the unknown, when your known is something you're tired of?"
It's not like this prohibits them from signing other good players. They have a shit-ton of cap space. This doesn't prohibit them from drafting a QB, which most people say the guys in this draft aren't ready to start day 1. The Bears are done with Cutler. I think management/staff are just done with him. And what better options were available? Overpay with draft picks the Bears sorely need for Garappolo? It's almost as if the Bears were burned by such a thing in the past. Sign Romo? Well, that also requires Tony to want to come to the Bears. Brian Hoyer? There's an even less chance he'll be better than Cutler.
This move is completely unexciting, but to overreact and be angry about it? No, thanks.
If they don't draft a QB, I'll join you with the pitchforks.
Quote from: Yeti on March 09, 2017, 01:02:42 PM
$19 Million guaranteed? That's probably 2 years.
I'm on the side of the argument that says "Mike Glennon probably sucks, and will likely suck. Jay Cutler has been meh, and will be meh. However, there's a chance (probably between .0001% to 5%) that Mike Glennon will be better than Cutler has been. Why not take the chance on the unknown, when your known is something you're tired of?"
It's not like this prohibits them from signing other good players. They have a shit-ton of cap space. This doesn't prohibit them from drafting a QB, which most people say the guys in this draft aren't ready to start day 1. The Bears are done with Cutler. I think management/staff are just done with him. And what better options were available? Overpay with draft picks the Bears sorely need for Garappolo? It's almost as if the Bears were burned by such a thing in the past. Sign Romo? Well, that also requires Tony to want to come to the Bears. Brian Hoyer? There's an even less chance he'll be better than Cutler.
This move is completely unexciting, but to overreact and be angry about it? No, thanks.
If they don't draft a QB, I'll join you with the pitchforks.
TL;DR: they suck and are going to suck and you should stop caring.
Quote from: Brownie on March 09, 2017, 12:03:46 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 09, 2017, 10:50:10 AM
I know that nobody cares anymore, but Mike Glennon is pretty bad and this isn't going to go well.
If we're fortunate, the team really sucks this year, an inevitable housecleaning from Phillips on down is evident around Halloween, around which time Virginia passes peacefully. Her ten children at different stages in life, different goals, different interests, and different liquidity statuses might be willing to listen to an ego-driven billionaire who could make a lot of their problems go away and truly allow the Bears to rebuild correctly.
(On the downside, the first phone call I'd expect a smart owner to make upon buying the Bears would be to 773-404-2827, pressing # for the dial by name directory, and then the numbers 3-7-7-8-3-4-6. It's not without precedent.)
Realistically, the defense should be a shade better, and the team will go 5-11 with some marked improvement on the defensive side of the ball, possibly 7-9 if the running game does anything. Fox is probably gone, but Pace probably survives, and Ted Phillips and the rest of the real brass stay.
The Bears regime from 1986 until today (31 years and counting) in which the McCaskeys clearly have run the show has to be the worst-run period of any franchise in Chicago history, and that includes P.K. Wrigley's Cubs and Bill Wirtz's Blackhawks. the NFL will fold.
Who cares'd.
Quote from: Yeti on March 09, 2017, 01:02:42 PM
This move is completely unexciting, but to overreact and be angry about it? No, thanks.
If they don't draft a QB, I'll join you with the pitchforks.
Yep. They need a guy to play quarterback next year. Cutler wasn't going to be that guy. Glennon is a guy. It might as well be Glennon.
But they better draft a QB in the first three rounds. If they don't it's time to burn Halas Hall to the ground.
Quote from: Tony on March 12, 2017, 10:38:00 AM
Quote from: Yeti on March 09, 2017, 01:02:42 PM
This move is completely unexciting, but to overreact and be angry about it? No, thanks.
If they don't draft a QB, I'll join you with the pitchforks.
Yep. They need a guy to play quarterback next year. Cutler wasn't going to be that guy. Glennon is a guy. It might as well be Glennon.
But they better draft a QB in the first three rounds. If they don't it's time to burn Halas Hall to the ground.
Honest question: why, exactly, was Cutler never going to be that guy? I mean I know that the fans hate him and he's been a disappointment, on balance, but what would've been the harm in having him come back? He's actually better than Glennon, if that sort of thing means anything anymore.
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on March 12, 2017, 12:27:15 PM
Quote from: Tony on March 12, 2017, 10:38:00 AM
Quote from: Yeti on March 09, 2017, 01:02:42 PM
This move is completely unexciting, but to overreact and be angry about it? No, thanks.
If they don't draft a QB, I'll join you with the pitchforks.
Yep. They need a guy to play quarterback next year. Cutler wasn't going to be that guy. Glennon is a guy. It might as well be Glennon.
But they better draft a QB in the first three rounds. If they don't it's time to burn Halas Hall to the ground.
Honest question: why, exactly, was Cutler never going to be that guy? I mean I know that the fans hate him and he's been a disappointment, on balance, but what would've been the harm in having him come back? He's actually better than Glennon, if that sort of thing means anything anymore.
Because I assume the decision makers think he's a penis and they're sick of him. I wouldn't care either way. I still like him, but I'm also sick of the same old story. Either way the only QB that matters is who they draft. And I'm not sure it matters if Cutler or Glennon are any good anyway. Maybe it's better to be really bad one more year.
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on March 12, 2017, 12:27:15 PM
Quote from: Tony on March 12, 2017, 10:38:00 AM
Quote from: Yeti on March 09, 2017, 01:02:42 PM
This move is completely unexciting, but to overreact and be angry about it? No, thanks.
If they don't draft a QB, I'll join you with the pitchforks.
Yep. They need a guy to play quarterback next year. Cutler wasn't going to be that guy. Glennon is a guy. It might as well be Glennon.
But they better draft a QB in the first three rounds. If they don't it's time to burn Halas Hall to the ground.
Honest question: why, exactly, was Cutler never going to be that guy? I mean I know that the fans hate him and he's been a disappointment, on balance, but what would've been the harm in having him come back? He's actually better than Glennon, if that sort of thing means anything anymore.
Because K Cut is a anti-vax loon and puts Pace's kids at risk.
Quote from: PenFoe on March 09, 2017, 12:13:18 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 09, 2017, 12:03:46 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 09, 2017, 10:50:10 AM
I know that nobody cares anymore, but Mike Glennon is pretty bad and this isn't going to go well.
If we're fortunate, the team really sucks this year, an inevitable housecleaning from Phillips on down is evident around Halloween, around which time Virginia passes peacefully. Her ten children at different stages in life, different goals, different interests, and different liquidity statuses might be willing to listen to an ego-driven billionaire who could make a lot of their problems go away and truly allow the Bears to rebuild correctly.
(On the downside, the first phone call I'd expect a smart owner to make upon buying the Bears would be to 773-404-2827, pressing # for the dial by name directory, and then the numbers 3-7-7-8-3-4-6. It's not without precedent.)
Realistically, the defense should be a shade better, and the team will go 5-11 with some marked improvement on the defensive side of the ball, possibly 7-9 if the running game does anything. Fox is probably gone, but Pace probably survives, and Ted Phillips and the rest of the real brass stay.
The Bears regime from 1986 until today (31 years and counting) in which the McCaskeys clearly have run the show has to be the worst-run period of any franchise in Chicago history, and that includes P.K. Wrigley's Cubs and Bill Wirtz's Blackhawks.
Pretty much the only hope is that they still draft DeShaun Watson the top QB on their draft board even with the Glennon signing and he fairly-miraculously turns out to be awesome.
But that won't happen.
They'll get a stud defender instead and he'll probably be good but they'll be bad.
FYPF
Had the assholes found a way to roll over to the 49ers last season, they could've had Trubinsky without giving up anything. I know the 49ers were wretched, and someone has to win, but why last year's team played to win that late in the season is mind boggling.
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on April 28, 2017, 12:59:58 AM
Had the assholes found a way to roll over to the 49ers last season, they could've had Trubinsky without giving up anything. I know the 49ers were wretched, and someone has to win, but why last year's team played to win that late in the season is mind boggling.
Caveat that this has nothing to do with one's ability to enjoy sports any more than anyone else, but it seems obvious to me that you've never actually played SPORTS. Just an observation.
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on April 28, 2017, 07:16:22 AM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on April 28, 2017, 12:59:58 AM
Had the assholes found a way to roll over to the 49ers last season, they could've had Trubinsky without giving up anything. I know the 49ers were wretched, and someone has to win, but why last year's team played to win that late in the season is mind boggling.
Caveat that this has nothing to do with one's ability to enjoy sports any more than anyone else, but it seems obvious to me that you've never actually played SPORTS. Just an observation.
No, those players on the field should have definitely thought about the draft, and thought "meh, let's be awful so they can draft someone to replace me"
Quote from: Yeti on April 28, 2017, 07:43:19 AM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on April 28, 2017, 07:16:22 AM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on April 28, 2017, 12:59:58 AM
Had the assholes found a way to roll over to the 49ers last season, they could've had Trubinsky without giving up anything. I know the 49ers were wretched, and someone has to win, but why last year's team played to win that late in the season is mind boggling.
Caveat that this has nothing to do with one's ability to enjoy sports any more than anyone else, but it seems obvious to me that you've never actually played SPORTS. Just an observation.
No, those players on the field should have definitely thought about the draft, and thought "meh, let's be awful so they can draft someone to replace me"
Matt Barkley started that game and threw a whopping 18 passes. They ran the ball 40 times with a rookie runningback. I could not pick any of the four leading receivers for the Bears in that game out of a lineup. They WERE tanking, the 49ers were just better at it. They couldn't have lost that game if they had wanted to, and they probably did.
Quote from: SKO on April 28, 2017, 09:41:08 AM
Quote from: Yeti on April 28, 2017, 07:43:19 AM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on April 28, 2017, 07:16:22 AM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on April 28, 2017, 12:59:58 AM
Had the assholes found a way to roll over to the 49ers last season, they could've had Trubinsky without giving up anything. I know the 49ers were wretched, and someone has to win, but why last year's team played to win that late in the season is mind boggling.
Caveat that this has nothing to do with one's ability to enjoy sports any more than anyone else, but it seems obvious to me that you've never actually played SPORTS. Just an observation.
No, those players on the field should have definitely thought about the draft, and thought "meh, let's be awful so they can draft someone to replace me"
Matt Barkley started that game and threw a whopping 18 passes. They ran the ball 40 times with a rookie runningback. I could not pick any of the four leading receivers for the Bears in that game out of a lineup. They WERE tanking, the 49ers were just better at it. They couldn't have lost that game if they had wanted to, and they probably did.
Yep. Gabbert threw 10 passes. Hyde only ran 20 times. I do question why the Bears gave Howard 32 carries and Langford only 1. Giving Langford the ball more would have been a far better tanking strategy.
So, we are just assuming that John Fox was going to purposely lose? And what would people have said if the Bears/Niners game turned into this: http://www.espn.com/olympics/summer/2012/badminton/story/_/id/8221408/2012-london-olympics-eight-badminton-players-disqualified-trying-lose-matches
Also, the 49ers were better at tanking?
They kicked a 50yd FG the following week to tie the Jets with 30 seconds left. They ultimately lost in Overtime, but they were supposedly the team "trying" to tank, and barely lost a game.
And then they lost by 2 points to Seattle in the final game of the season. They're great at tanking
Maybe they ran Hyde 20 times against the Bears and only passed 15 times (10 BG, 5 CK) because the Bears run defense was atrocious and the Bears pass defense was better than average. A tanking team should have passed more if they were truly trying to lose. Also, Gabbert didn't play until the 4th quarter and attempted 10 passes. Any team trying to win would pass heavily when they're down in the 4th quarter... And why's that? They're trying to come back.
I don't think you really demonstrated that the 49ers were "better" at tanking.
Quote from: Yeti on April 28, 2017, 10:48:55 AM
Also, the 49ers were better at tanking?
They kicked a 50yd FG the following week to tie the Jets with 30 seconds left. They ultimately lost in Overtime, but they were supposedly the team "trying" to tank, and barely lost a game.
And then they lost by 2 points to Seattle in the final game of the season. They're great at tanking
Maybe they ran Hyde 20 times against the Bears and only passed 15 times (10 BG, 5 CK) because the Bears run defense was atrocious and the Bears pass defense was better than average. A tanking team should have passed more if they were truly trying to lose. Also, Gabbert didn't play until the 4th quarter and attempted 10 passes. Any team trying to win would pass heavily when they're down in the 4th quarter... And why's that? They're trying to come back.
I don't think you really demonstrated that the 49ers were "better" at tanking.
For the purpose of clarity when I say "the Bears probably DID want/try to lose that game" I meant the braintrust,not the guys on the field. By "better at tanking" I just meant both teams fielded the shittiest roster they could and the 49ers was still worse. Tanking is a front office strategy, it's not on the players. Theo Epstein absolutely tanked by putting out a lineup where Junior Lake was the most viable option in LF, it's not like anyone expects Lake to go up there and K on purpose.
Once the game begins the tanking is irrelevant, you naturally want players to be competing to the best of their ability if only because they're impossibly to evaluate if they aren't, as you noted. Simply by fielding a lineup that features Matt Barkley at QB and Cameron Meredith as your #1 receiver, you are probably trying to tank, if that guy is better than the 49ers alternative, there's no one to blame there.
You guys taking CFiHP seriously is way funnier than the reactions to the draft on Twitter.
Quote from: Oleg on April 28, 2017, 04:17:03 PM
You guys taking CFiHP seriously is way funnier than the reactions to the draft on Twitter.
I thought his post was right on.
Quote from: CBStew on April 28, 2017, 08:07:12 PM
Quote from: Oleg on April 28, 2017, 04:17:03 PM
You guys taking CFiHP seriously is way funnier than the reactions to the draft on Twitter.
I thought his post was right on.
Even the "Trubinsky" part?
Quote from: Shooter on April 28, 2017, 10:50:06 PM
Quote from: CBStew on April 28, 2017, 08:07:12 PM
Quote from: Oleg on April 28, 2017, 04:17:03 PM
You guys taking CFiHP seriously is way funnier than the reactions to the draft on Twitter.
I thought his post was right on.
Even the "Trubinsky" part?
Tomato. tomatoe.