More Audibles From the Long Snapper

Lots of posts this week, kids, due to lots of traffic/interest in the site.  I keep it coming with a second dose of Audibles...

Urlacher Wants Lovie Extended
Vaughn McClure reports that Brian Urlacher is now publicly lobbying for a contract extension for his head coach, Lovie Smith, and hopefully his opinion means nothing to the ownership of the Chicago Bears.  Brian Urlacher has been coached by two men: Dick Jauron and Lovie Smith.  Not surprising he believes Lovie is the man for the job.  There are very few worse times over the course of a season for this to be a topic of discussion.  Needless to say, the entire conversation is redundant currently.  If Lovie Smith beats the Green Bay Packers Sunday, he might be receiving a contract extension before kickoff of the Super Bowl in Dallas.
Martz Takes Blame for Week Seventeen  
Mad Mike is quoted in the Tribune, commenting on his work in the final week of the season: "Did not do a good job."  Biting self-criticism.  There's something very interesting about Mike Martz.  He's got a Jekyll & Hyde personality.  He's Jekyll when being interviewed by the press and Hyde when coaching football games.  This is the week for Martz to turn to the "C" chapter of the playbook.  Conservative.  Short passes, screens, runs.  Control the pace of play.  Take shots when they are there.
Packers Respect Hester a Great Deal
Mike McCarthy calls Devin Hester "the best player" on the Chicago Bears.  I don't know if he's right but he's certainly the best returner in the history of the NFL.  The Pack's ability in Week 17 to keep Hester contained and force the Bears to travel long fields was the reason the Bears struggled to score points.  The Bears are kind of a half-court offense.  If the Pack can repeat their success in the punt game, this time on the road, I'll be impressed.  
"F" the Curse

sicutlersmall.jpg

Comments

Leave a comment
  • First....BEAR DOWN

  • LDL extension...lets not put the cart before the proverbial horse...lets win first pay SECOND.

    Lets be Liberally Conservative with the play calling and we get a "WIN"

    Is GB afraid of this:
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2010-09/56399469.jpg

  • In the news:

    * McDaniels OC of the Rams

    * Samurai LB coach of the... wait for it... vikings. I think that's considered treason isn't it?

    * Cable to Seattle

  • In reply to MB30SD:

    THREE news items for you, btw...

  • In reply to MB30SD:

    MB..
    * Good Luck with that Rams..need to trade anyone? McNut Job can help you with it

    * Don't like it..Don't like not one bit

    * What's the law for opening up a can of whoopass there?

  • In reply to nicholsra:

    Give them Omiyale for Steven Jackson and we can use his cap space to get a real LT.

  • In reply to nicholsra:

    So yesterday, Goodell says, "The Owners and the NFLPA aren't meeting often enough".

    So, Roger, then get off your extremely well-compensated butt and DO SOMETHING about it!

    Sheesh.

    Talk about "Re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic"!

    "The NFL Goose That Lays The Golden Eggs" is tied to the railroad tracks with the Sunset Limited bearing down on it and and the Millionaires and Billionaires are squabbling over whether to use a knife or a pair of scissors to cut it loose.

    Don't you just wish you had that kind of money to just piss away?

  • In reply to Albertintucson:

    Well put. And yes.

  • In reply to Albertintucson:

    The problem is that Goodell is essentially a mouthpiece for the owners and so can't act in the best interest of the LEAGUE--labor plus management plus fans. This is why he regrets that the players filed a collusion claim about ownership, but has said nothing about how the owners refuse to document their dire economic need, and hence their decision to opt-out of the already agreed upon CBA that is not yet to expire. Or, for that matter, why Goodell wrings his hands about the need for all parties to make compromises but won't comment on why the owners never responded to the players' own proposal to reduce rookie salaries by strengthening the terms of a player's contract--i.e. 3 years means 3 years--and adjusting the overall benefits package.

    The owners are not interested in compromise. They want a higher percentage of the growing profits and an increased season to spike revenue, and they will lock out the players if both demands aren't met. The players have already proposed several compromise positions that the owners have simply ignored.

    Nothing gets me angrier than a bunch of know-nothings commenting on spoiled players this and spoiled players that--read a comment section on an article at ESPN treating the current labor dispute for a taste of this--when its the OWNERS who are forcing the players hand by demanding unreasonable concessions. It's the sports equivalent of Tea Party types getting all upset that Yolanda should be able to afford healthcare while they are being robbed blind by the banking industry every day. Just insane.

  • In reply to Albertintucson:

    Actually I picked a picture of Cutler in a Denver uniform on purpose. You see I live in Kansas City and in addition to being a full-time Bears fan I am a part-time Chiefs fan.
    While watching the Chiefs and tracking the AFC West, I have been a huge fan of Cutlers and his playing style for years BEFORE he came to Chicago(Though I have always loved the Bears).
    At that point when Chicago traded for him, I wouldn't rather have had any other QB in the entire league on the roster given the supporting cast around him.
    And Irish, that point is not very valid and not similar to those circumstances at ALL. Denver is neither our rival nor did Cutler go to them FROM Chicago AFTER winning a Superbowl for the Bears. Apples and Bowling Balls.

  • In reply to A7Xthebest:

    Okay, like a Jets fan having a Packers clad Favre as an avatar that season then...

  • In reply to A7Xthebest:

    makes sense to me

  • In reply to Albertintucson:

    Is that a trick question?

  • In reply to Albertintucson:

    A throwback to 1963.....a very good year:

    http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/sports/nfl/bears/1963-chicago-bears-green-bay-packers-rivalry-players-20110119

  • In reply to Albertintucson:

    One more...

    This guy has SO MUCH STUFF (Walter's locker?????) He is going to get robbed.

    http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/good_day/chicago-bears-fan-bearadise-ron-sheppard-basement-20110119

  • In reply to MB30SD:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GindXu5rqco

  • In reply to MB30SD:

    but in fact we are dreaming of this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kXX0xxuF3A&feature=related

  • In reply to nicholsra:

    ?? seriously lame

  • In reply to MB30SD:

    I think this is the perfect time to bring up Lovie's contract. I commend Urlacher for standing up for his coach and bringing up the issue. It on everyone's mind anyway. It's clear to me that Lovie isn't going anywhere no matter what happens this weekend. It would spell the end of this teams morale if his contract wasn't renewed and there is no way that another coaching hire would be a step in the right direction given the position the Bears now find themselves in. Lets face it boys, Lovie is gonna be our Coach for at least 3 or 4 more years, he ain't going anywhere.

  • In reply to ImissButkus:

    trac.......... I see you thought line but, I believe we leave him hungry for more, as in one more game...a fat cat becomes lazy.(Tommie Harris, Cedric Benson you know the list)

    I really believe this year's changes came from the thought of him losing the best thing that has ever happened to him and that is Coach a Historic Franchise 'THE CHICAGO BEARS" I think it maybe possible that he realized he was way in over his head and he better turn the ship around and bring in some great minds..Love Rod, Martzy and Tice..best thing that has come to this franchise in a long time.

  • In reply to nicholsra:

    Agreed. I say keep the entire coaching staff as is.

  • In reply to sjvl:

    And the true genius of Lovie would be displayed by KEEPING IT ALL TOGETHER. I dont imagine too many head coaches that could keep THREE former head coaches working under him for the greater good.

    If Lovie can pull THAT off, the detractors better shut the hell up

  • In reply to Mastodon:

    no i will not dave!

    Should be interesting to see how many stay once they start getting courted after we win the sb.

    you KNOW the wizard is goooone the second someone offers him a gig.... if that were ever to happen.

    HeGone!

  • In reply to MB30SD:

    That's it. All 4 of our coaches are using this as their stepping stone back into the big seat. We win a SB and they're gone. Toub included.

  • In reply to IrishBearsFan:

    Maybe not. Cart before horse here.

  • In reply to ImissButkus:

    Regarding Urlacher: Yeah, I heard him say it again on "Mike & Mike" on the way in to work this morning.

    Regarding Hester: The weakest part of the Packers' game is special teams coverage. Kicking to DH will be like checking the gas tank with a lighted match and he's already torched them once this season.

    Regarding Martz: Apology accepted, Mike, but actions speak louder than words so show us something good this Sunday.

  • In reply to Albertintucson:

    He didn't apologise really :

    "We tried to create some things on first down with the passing game that I thought would be good and we just didn't execute very well."

    Translation : "I dialled up some good shit and they messed it up."

  • In reply to ImissButkus:

    Regarding the curse:

    Our National Anthem will offset any curse out there.

  • In reply to sjvl:

    Sad (yet interesting) note:

    Cornelison sang before the Washington game.

    Murr.

    In more important news:

    PACKERS. DEAD.

  • In reply to JohnGalt:

    Damn, Willie. Going to need some voodoo then.

  • In reply to JohnGalt:

    Puck the fackers!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siahUz9WCVk

  • In reply to sjvl:

    haha holy rotr did you catch that incredibly racist verse

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    I didn't write it, but you have to admit it's pretty funny.

  • In reply to sjvl:

    it's good; i've seen much worse

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    Cry "racist". The last gasp of someone that has nothing worthwhile to say.

  • In reply to Mastodon:

    Dude I didn't say I had a problem with it..... I was just surprised that they were that bold.

    "Speaking of Uncle Tom......I don't like a "kuhn", but I love me some white guys"

  • In reply to sjvl:

    It's kind of racist, but I overlooked that because it is pretty funny overall. And it is done by a group of guys of different races, so perhaps some sarcasm is at play here...

    The sentiment remains: Puck the fackers.

  • In reply to JohnGalt:

    I know the collective Blog outrage over all the media Cutler bashing was a few threads ago but Michael Silver's column at Yahoo Sports today has been the only positive one I've read so far:

    http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AqruZiKEbCwnrgxaVbZtbfFDubYF?slug=ms-fourquestions011911

    Maybe the nationaal media will start toning it down a bit after those few mouthfuls of crow most of them had to eat followiing Jay's performance in the Seatle game. Of course, if there's no follow-through this weekend, we'll be hearing all about it again...

  • In reply to tobijohn:

    Well, if not positive, at least sympathetic...

  • In reply to ImissButkus:

    Great posts lately, Jefe and the rest of you. I'm so busy with work and family that I've barely been able to post. But it's all I think about. I have read everything (except the myriad of links you all put up).

    Great video GP. I loved it. I want more.

    To Cheesey. Your posts have been far less juvenile lately and have mostly contained sound football related arguments. Keep that up, and you're fine by me (as if you care). But sometimes, you blow my mind with your lack of objectivity. To say the bears are no better than the 12th best team is completely biased unreasonable analysis. We've got one of the best defenses in the land, great special teams, the best returner in the history of the game, pro bowlers and former probowlers and all pro's everywhere. We've got great coaching (mostly), no injuries, and great team chemistry. We have a gunslinger for a QB who kind of reminds me of Brett Favre (who I'm sure you used to worship). We nearly swept the North, the division who has sent a team to the NFC championship game every year but one since 2006 and one superbowl team (ours). We've beaten the Eagles, Cowboys, Jets, Vikings, and Packers (all favorites or media darlings). We match up well against you guys and are playing at home. If you don't acknowledge that we are a legitimate team, you're not trying. Meanwhile, I have no problem acknowledging that the Packers are a very good team with great WR's, great defensive players and coaches, and a helluva quarterback. They are a good team. I have no problem saying that. But we're better, and we'll show it on Sunday. And don't even use the injury excuse. We didn't get any apologies when we've lost many key players over the last few years to injury. We lost the Superbowl after losing our best defensive lineman and heart and soul of our secondary (if not team) in Mike Brown. Could we have won with them? I think so. But we're not making excuses. Injuries are part of the game. Get over it.

    As for the rest of you. Keep up the good work. I love this blog.

    By the way, they won't be using their throwbacks on Sunday. It has been announced.

    Boers and Bernstein are assholes who never let their callers make their arguments. But, I live out west, so I still listen.

    MB, not living in GB or being from GB does not preclude Cheesy from being a real Packer fan. I'm not from Chicago or anywhere close. But not a single one of you loves them more than me. No way, no how.

    Is it Sunday yet?

  • In reply to DocNitty34:

    Doc...Where did you hear about no throwbacks?

  • In reply to nicholsra:

    I'm kind of glad no throwbacks. I remember that cold rainy Halloween night in 1994 and it was one of the first if not THE first throwback uniform nights. The Packers beat the dog shit out of us that night and I get nervous about throwbacks ever since. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uetiZX-nIRQ The reason I remember that night so vividly is there was a plane crash that same night and it was the first night I experienced chest pains. A night to remember in many ways.

  • In reply to iamndmurff:

    Murph, I spent the whole game (and an hour on each side before and after) in the South Endzone in that hellish freezing rain working for.....wait for it.......ANDY FRAIN!!! In college I worked security at Soldier Field and the UC for games and concerts. The whole game(Butkus and Sayers had their jerseys retired at halftime) I had 4 shirtless packer fans with P A C and K on their chests that had to weigh at least 3/4 of a ton combined. I had 6 inches of water in my boots afterward, and a buddy left in the 3rd quarter with a mild case of hypothermia. GOOD TIMES.....GOOD TIMES. The throwbacks would have been the cat's ass on Sunday. That's a damn shame.

  • In reply to MattySouthside:

    Matty, what a great job to have if your a fan. What a bad job dealing with drunk sports fans.

  • In reply to nicholsra:

    I heard it on Boers and Bernstein. I think Hub said it.

  • In reply to nicholsra:

    Question for Cheesy: If we win on Sunday, are we one of the best teams then? If now, how much do we need to win by? If even that doesn't work, will a World Championship do? And if not that, what? Is it success on the football field that measures the greatness of the team? Or is it the quantifiable statistics? Is it having more offensive stars? What is it exactly that makes a team good. Specifically, who is the best team in the NFL this year, and why? If that team doesn't win the Superbowl, does it matter? Are they still the best?

  • In reply to DocNitty34:

    Let's just leave it alone. We're already allowing Cheesy to define the tone of the blog and he's just one stupid troll.

    If we win, he's long gone and we'll never hear from him again. You know it - I know it.

  • In reply to gpldan:

    Sorry, I helped contribute to that and I should know better. Eating a steak and drinking Gin for dinner does things to a man.

  • In reply to gpldan:

    I've skipped most of the posts today. Big Cheese accomplished his goal. Ignore him.

  • In reply to TheFifth:

    No kidding. Made one of us turn against another. I don't care what he says, I am no longer replying to his posts.

    Anyone? Anyone?

  • In reply to sjvl:

    Oh my God! He broke up the circle jerk! What are we gonna do?!?!?!?!? We're all supposed to be on the same team!! One mind!!!

  • In reply to gpldan:

    +1. You are so right, GP, and I've been a leading offender. I will scroll past those piles and no longer respond.

  • In reply to DocNitty34:

    Man, ESPN and SI cannot leave Cutler alone. There are no Mark Sanchez stories this week.

    Here, they circle jerk and prove nothing other than to hear themselves talk
    http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/22908/double-coverage-the-cutler-trade-revisited

    Yet no mention if Orton could have even mastered the mechanics of the 7 step - not to mention that about 20% of throws Cutler has made off his back foot stepping backward, a technique that VERY few quarterbacks can even do (try it in your yard) just to stay alive under Tice taught Chris Williams where he could find his pair.

  • In reply to gpldan:

    Oh and it's mister Viking Seifert. I should have known.

  • In reply to gpldan:

    GP,

    Is that SI piece the fantasy football one where the author, I forget who he was, speculates "what Kyle Orton could have done with this team" (or words to that effect)? I kid you not. I had to read the sentence three times to make sure I wasn't just miscomprehending it.

  • In reply to gpldan:

    What a bummer reading this blog today. One person, Big Cheese, got into everyone's head today and ruined this blog. Everyone here needs to show discipline and shun him and not respond to any of his comments. Doing so will be harder on him than getting his ass kicked, because he will become irrelevant. Pretend as if he doesn't exist. It will drive him crazy.

  • In reply to TheFifth:

    exactly.

  • In reply to TheFifth:

    Who gives a fuck really Cor? He came in, everybody told him off, and continued their discussion about the game.

  • In reply to A7Xthebest:

    Do you realize that your pic is Cutler in a Denver uniform, ya?

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    Yeah. I'm sure he just accidentally chose that one while trying to select his avatar in the dark. He'll appreciate you pointing that out.

  • In reply to DocNitty34:

    It is a very valid point. Like Jimmy Mac in a GB uniform.

  • In reply to IrishBearsFan:

    A7 is from CO if i remember. he can have that avatar.

  • In reply to TheFifth:

    I think aside from a couple posts, he behaved himself quite well actually. He brought some football posts, had a nice little statistics debate, learned a bit about the line, and mostly, stuck with football. Look, he's the enemy, don't get me wrong, but he didn't get into my head. Besides, what would a rivalry week the size of this one be without a little Packer antagonism. Problem is, other trolls and some of his old posts, make it hard for anyone to take him seriously. I'll officially take him seriously if he comes back here after his team loses, acts like a man, and effectively shake our collective hand. If he doesn't, you have my word to never address a single troll on here again.

  • In reply to TheFifth:

    Guilty, your honor.

  • In reply to gpldan:

    I like KO, but no way get this far with him at the helm.

  • In reply to Albertintucson:

    If KO was still here, we'd also be two first round picks and a 3rd round to the good, probably high picks too. It's a complex argument, because we neither know where nor who we would have picked in that situation. Now if we picked a premier tackle, premier guard and some decent beast receiver in the third round ... what then ? It's a moot point, but a good conversation piece. Overall, we have a QB with a cannon, who's mobile. Does he make better decisions than Orton? No. Can he read defenses better than Orton? No. He's got size and he's got a cannon, and he's got stubborn-ness and can-do mentality. Orton wasn't renowned for his strength exactly, but he was smart. Orton's deep ball accuracy improved in Denver. His receivers or him? Jimmy Mac didn't have a cannon either, but I'd go to war with the guy and I'd put my life in his hands. Jimmy Mac or Vinny Testaverde?

  • In reply to IrishBearsFan:

    Only reason his deep ball would improve is because it was Denver. Kinda like hitters hit a better long ball in Denver. You kind of worry me that you can't let go of Kyle. Is it the neck beard look? LOL

  • In reply to IrishBearsFan:

    The Mac.

    No way we win some of the games this year that we did if KO was QB. Especially in the beginning. J's mobility is a big plus too.

    And no way JA hits on all 3 picks. More likely 1 would be very good at this point (big maybe), 1 would be ok and trying to get playing time and 1 would be a certified bust/injured. How is his last 1st rd O-line pick going? And that's if he would have even used all of the picks on O at all.

  • In reply to mikemuadib:

    I really like the fact Jay's performance last week is flying under the radar. He could easily be the next young and "unproven" talent to take his team to the dance(i.e. Eli Manning,Rapelessburger). I would love to force Troy Aikman to call Jay "Elite".

  • In reply to DocNitty34:

    Barring something bizarre, yes.
    1 point.
    N/A.
    N/A.
    Uhhh yes?
    Technically, no; they are just good indicators
    No, but that sure helps
    There are a shit ton of factors that "make a team good."

    Over the course of the whole year? Patriots... Best record, highest point differential, toughest difficult schedule of any team that made the playoffs. Some very impressive victories.

    Nope.
    Yes.

    All answers in my subjective opinion...obviously**

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    Thank you for honest, if not sometimes elusive, answers. From your answers, specifically the last two, I deduce being the best is completely irrelevant and unquantifiable. The Packers or Patriots can be the best. I don't care. I'm sure the bears don't care. All we care about is the trophy erroneously named Lombardi. One could argue the bears were the best team for a large part of the eighties. One ring is all anybody remembers. And rightfully so. Let it be decided on the field then. And the writers can decide who's best.

  • In reply to DocNitty34:

    Yes, I think being the "best" is nauseatingly subjective. "Champion" is indisputable, and at the end of the year it really is the only thing that matters. Not all champions are the "best," but the better you are, the better your chances of becoming the champion. Especially in the NBA. There are much more opportunities, not only just within a single game, but also throughout a season and a post-season, for the talent to overwhelm.

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    So given your total argument; the year the Pats went 18-0 before losing to the Giants in the Superbowl; the Patriots were the best team in the NFL that season even though they didn't win the SB and the Giants who won the SuperBowl directly defeated the Patriots to win it?

    In 10 years no one will remember the Pats went undefeated that year, they will just see the Giants as the winner of the SuperBowl that season and know they were the best team that season. The best team in the NFL a given season is the winner of the Superbowl period, no BCS, nobodie's pointless power rankings, no stats, none of it means anything if you can't finish. Last year's Minnesota and GB teams prove that... GB.. omg how amazing is this Capers guy, look what hes done with a new scheme blah blah right and they go into the playoffs... and shit the bed allow like 50 f'n points and blow it, the queens last year all the pro bowlers on D, AP, Favre playing great and what happens but Favre reverts to form and throws a pick when he didn't even have to throw at all. The stats, the rankings, the spread... all of it is meaningless if you can't finish. So the top 4 teams in the league.. are the 4 that are left.. it is indisputable that one of these 4 teams will be the best team in the NFL for 2010-2011 and none of the rest of it matters.

  • In reply to dutsami:

    In my opinion, the winner of the superbowl is the champion, not necessarily the best team. The best team doesn't always win the game, but the winner is always crowned the champion.

  • In reply to DocNitty34:

    that SI cover holds a level of badassness i want to aspire to in life.

  • In reply to DocNitty34:

    I do think the time to discuss extending Lovie's contract is after we win the Super Bowl, not now.

    But the article in the link below is interesting. It's headline says it's about 10 changes that brought about the Bears team we have today. When you read it though, the continuing thread is that the one real change was Lovie and team management finally seeming to understand that many of their fans were right about needed changes, and making them, quickly.

    http://bleacherreport.com/tb/b7YLW

  • In reply to mikev:

    I actually think Lovie may have started reading 'Da Bears Blog. It's the only explanation that makes sense.

    If so, good job Lovie. Keep on keepin on.

  • In reply to mikev:

    Mike..+1

  • In reply to mikev:

    If he did, he must've went right out and bought some Viagra.

    "LDL?", he murmurs, "I'll show them."

  • In reply to mikev:

    You beat me to it - I was gonna post the link here, and was thinking the same thing "Lovie must be checking this blog"...

    Amazing how you hold other ppl accountable and make necessary adjustments when you're close to being fired.

  • In reply to mikev:

    Postash is an imbecile, and the linked is yet another jackass article. Is that dilwad your brother or something?

    I am SO FUCKING TIRED of reading yet another retard that refuses to understand that without paying Hester as a #1, he would ALREADY be playing for someone else.

  • In reply to Mastodon:

    Oh, sorry for the misspelling. If I was going to do that, I should have wrote Pot*ass*. What a fucking douchebag

  • In reply to Mastodon:

    His contract was incentive laden. He will not see more than half of it. Which is typical I suppose.

  • In reply to mikebdot:

    Of course, it still hurts our cap position.

  • In reply to mikebdot:

    http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/Bears/salaries/2009

    How many players there single-handedly win football games for us, though. I think he's in a fair spot.

  • In reply to DocNitty34:

    It's not far-fetched to rank the 11 teams I chose in front of the Bears. If they were playing at a neutral site, I'm almost positive they wouldn't be favored against any of them.

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    I don't doubt that. But being favored doesn't guarantee anything. Ask the Saints and the Pats. Even closer to home, ask the Falcons...

  • In reply to tobijohn:

    Of course not, but being favored does imply that the aggregate consensus (if at a neutral field under neutral circumstances) is that the favorite is a "better team/most likely to win" (I understand those two aren't the same thing). Therefore, I don't think it's ridiculous for me to rank those other teams ahead of the Bears. I think most people would.

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    I swear if I have to explain lines and favorites one more time I'm gonna put a bullet in something. Lines mean NOTHING about predicted outcome. They are a means to manipulate public perception and move cash in both directions so that the Casino's can hedge their money. The public perception is that Green Bay is the better team and so the bookmakers have to give them points to make sure betting happens both ways. Home field is generally only worth 1.5-2.5 points given equal teams, so with a line of 3.5 points favoring the Packers Vegas is saying that the public needs about 5 points in favor of the Packers in order to move money toward the Bears. Nothing more than that and Cheesy...please listen to and heed this advice:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q11lCnZgTwk

    This is culturally acceptable in Packer country.

  • In reply to buckbear:

    HEY DIPSHIT

    "Therefore, I don't think it's ridiculous for me to rank those other teams ahead of the Bears. I think most people would."

    i.e. PUBLIC PERCEPTION.

    And home field advantage is generally accepted as 3 points.

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    Hey FUCK KNUCKLE

    Patriots unbeatable!

    PUBLIC PERCEPTION

    Put it in your hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up faster. You are making my arguments for me and you're too stupid to even realize it.
    Do you know the difference between perception and reality...neither do bettors that's why Vegas has huge hotels, casions, fountains and lights and you still live in your mom's basement.

  • In reply to buckbear:

    "It's not far-fetched to rank the 11 teams I chose in front of the Bears. If they were playing at a neutral site, I'm almost positive they wouldn't be favored against any of them."

    My argument was not that "In reality, the bears are the 12th best team"....it was, "I'm pretty sure most people would agree with me that the Bears are the 12th best team in the league. PUBLIC PERCEPTION.

    I hate how stupid you are.

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    "aggregate consensus (if at a neutral field under neutral circumstances) is that the favorite is a 'better team/most likely to win'"

    Just because you say in the very next sentence that you understand those things aren't the same thing doesn't mean you do. Saying "I understand that not all three sided polygons aren't triangles" doesn't make mean that your statement is internally coherent, correspond to reality or in any other epistemological sense mean that it's true. Make sure your doxastic attitudes cohere or correspond please!

  • In reply to buckbear:

    Aggregate consensus = public perception.

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    Perhaps there is some equivocation going on in the word "public". "Public" is a Vegas term for a team that moves a lot of money. Dallas, Chicago, Green Bay etc. are "public" teams because they attract a lot of betting money even in "small" games. A "public" team moves Vegas odds a lot more than a non "public" team. When the public (not in quotes) perceives that a team is hot they will wager toward that team even if that perception is wrong. Vegas must move the line to deal with that perception whether or not the odds makers actually believe the public perception of the "public" team. Public perception and perceptions about a "public" team are not the same thing. Perceptions about a "public" team move money farther and cause the line to move more. Since both teams are "public" teams the perceptions of them in this game (right or wrong) move the line more. If this were an equally good Bengals team playing the Bears the line would be closer because the money would not be moving toward the Bengals and so Vegas would need to decrease the line to hedge their money. So don't confuse lines and favorites. Vegas knows that you will and that's how they make money. Pickers from publication use Vegas lines erroneously and cause this aggregate consensus you refer to to be a self fulfilling prophecy. Aggregate consensus does not equal public perception. Making an aggregate consensus causes a public perception. All of this to say that rankings are ridiculous.

  • In reply to buckbear:

    I understand how lines work. And I am very aware that the big market teams (Dallas GB Pitt Indy NE and CHI) have 'inflated' lines because of their larger fan bases. But I'm not disputing whether or not the lines are a perfect indicator of the probability of winning (but I would argue separately that it's as good as any other), all I did was use that notion (that the bears would not be favored against any of those teams) to imply that most people (regardless of their reasons) would bet against the Bears. And that would also include my assumption that if you would bet against the bears on a neutral field, you would "rank" them behind the team you are betting on.

  • In reply to buckbear:

    +1
    Betting spread ares about accountants balancing books and cutting losses.

  • In reply to IrishBearsFan:

    You can't give a guy that calls Indy a big market team a +1. You can't trust this guy talking odds. In fact my brotha ya just cant trust this troll.

  • In reply to iamndmurff:

    Indy is one of the most popular teams in the NFL. I haven't looked checked the numbers in a couple years but they were top 5 back then.

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    I do enjoy the fact that Da Blog is slowly robbing you of your naivety. As you continue to post here in an attempt to be relevant, you will continue to inch by inch, lose the darkness that has enveloped you for most of you life.

  • In reply to ImissButkus:

    I enjoyed how "Da Blog" robbed you of your reputation as they slandered the shit out of you after you went off on an epic ideological tirade.

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    To be honest, I didn't really enjoy it; I thought it was cheap. But I was trying to mock your post.

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    So you understand.

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    So you understand.

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    Slander is saying something that isn't true. The classic is "so, when did you stop beating your wife?"

    In Trac's case, he brought the political football to the picnic. We kicked it.

    i.e. not slander

  • In reply to gpldan:

    I suppose you are right. I probably should have used vilify, It would have been more appropriate.

  • In reply to gpldan:

    GP. I really wish you would be more accurate. You guys don't play fair, but why start now I guess?

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    If you believe in statistics, there's cause for hope. From Don Banks' column today:

    "It's the first NFC title game since 1989 to feature teams from the same division -- the 49ers crushed the rival Rams 30-3 that year -- and this is only the sixth time since the 1970 merger that division opponents have met to decide the NFC title. The best possible news for Bears fans is this: The home team is 5-0 in such NFC Championship Game rematches, with 49ers over Rams in 1989, Giants over Redskins in 1986, Redskins over Cowboys in 1982, Eagles over Cowboys in 1980, and Redskins over Cowboys again in 1972".

  • In reply to tobijohn:

    record are made to be broken, hopefully that is not the case this sunday.

  • In reply to tobijohn:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/kerry_byrne/01/19/steelers-packers-super-bowl/index.html

    .....I think those are the statistics you might want to be most concerned with. I doubt any of those 5 home teams were as lousy as the Bears.

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    headcheese - i love reading material and watching clips of no name reporters that state absolutisms in their articles as they desperately try to get page views to make their careers. When they are wrong nothing happens and no one holds them accountable and they state more absolutisms in their next article or tv spot. it's cute.

  • In reply to hollywood1:

    Funny you should only respond to my post, which was just, in itself, a response to tobijohn-Kenobi. I posted the article not for the author's prognostication, but for the statistics outlined in said article. And I only did so to dispute Mr. kenobi's "statistics"-laden implication. Fighting fire with fire, so to speak.

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    You ever hear of regression toward the mean? Didn't think so.

  • In reply to buckbear:

    What the fuck does regression toward the mean have anything to do with my argument? Are you implying that the Packer's remarkable passer rating differential should regress toward the mean? Well that's all fine and dandy except that the phenomenon requires the element of luck or random chance. Duh. Are you trying to say that there was a large element of luck that influenced the Packers gaudy numbers over the last EIGHTEEN frickin' games? If there is any "regressing toward the mean" on sunday, it's the Bears winning percentage.

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    While obviously you don't have the same agenda as "no name reporters," the fact of the matter is that you aren't much different from them when it comes to accountability. You think the bears are going to win every single game. No one holds you accountable when the bears lose, or even when they get their asses kicked.

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    It's not about agenda. Loving your team isn't a job and therefore no one needs be accountable for that (even sad excuses like you). A "Sports Journalist" has a job and must answer for their public opinions and they rarely, if ever, do.

  • In reply to buckbear:

    I might be mistaken, but most people here are fed up with people like Peter King who make both long and short-term prognostications, that are often incorrect. Everyone gets pissed off because Peter King can pick the packers and the patriots and when he is wrong, he doesn't own up to the fact that he is wrong. Is that more or less the issue?

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    Not really. Its the "why?" element of their rankings/picks. Owning up to a wrong pick would just muddy the waters. Then people would sense. Oh he's really objective and willing to own up to his faults. But that's the rub. When editorializing is displayed as objective reporting it makes me kind of sad for people who buy into it. I happen to like Peter King more than the average blogger around here, but it's not because I think he is fair or objective or even really knows anything about Xs and Os. He has a lot of insider contacts and reports newsworthy player/personnel stories. Power Rankings and picks I can do without.

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    that's why i like it here cheese. there is a certain level of accountability. while i thought we were going to play the Giants hard, which we did, i was definitely blown away at the level of pressure by the Giants D combined with some of the worst playcalling by Martz ever. The result was obvious. There was plenty of people realizing the faults of the team on the blog following that game as well as the other losses. We all talked about what needed to change and low and behold the coaches noticed the same things and started to change them. It was cool to watch.

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    A team or a player who is on a particularly hot streak is more likely to NOT continue being hot. When a shooter in basketball hits 5 or 6 in a row most people would erroneously say "Give him the ball he's on fire" But the 6th or 7th shot is far less likely to go in. Its perception bias. Rodgers and the Packers are far less likely to continue their streak than the Bears. The Patriots are the biggest examples of this. In 2007 and this year as well they were playing to well for too long. Every player and team has a let down no exceptions. Just when perception is that they are unbeatable statistically is, in fact, when they are most beatable. Hitting streaks, points scoring streaks, hot streaks of all sorts are all more likely to end the longer they go on. That IS a fact.

  • In reply to buckbear:

    You are committing the number one fallacy of statistics. That "logic" is the reason casino's put that digital post of all the previous rolls at the roullette tables. So people can wait for 4 blacks to show up at a time and bet red, thinking their odds have increased, because the odds of 5 blacks in a row are so slim. Obviously, the odds of making 6 shots in a row is unlikely, but once you've made the first five, the odds of making the next one are not more or less than the previous one was....Except they actually are a little better when you aren't dealing exclusively with luck because in fact that person is "on fire" and he is playing at an elevated level, which can be assumed that is chances of making an individual shot are greater.

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    Streaks are perception bias...thank you for making my point for me...again!

  • In reply to buckbear:

    You suffer from serious comprehension issues.

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    I'm not trying to mock you or anything, but you just don't know what you're talking about. Listen to this (seriously):

    http://www.radiolab.org/2009/jun/15/

    Click on the listen button under "Seeking Patterns"

    then come back and tell me what you think about hot streaks.

  • In reply to buckbear:

    I quote from your very own source "it doesn't really matter if he's missed three or made three, the odds of him making the next shot are pretty much the same"

    They are making the same goddamn argument that I am, only they are treating the shooter as though he is not playing at an elevated level, (which I would probably argue, but that is beside the point). The point is when you look at the probability of something happening, you have to disregard what happened previously, because those events have no influence on what will happen next . (like in my roullette example, it doesn't matter if black has come up 15 times in a row, the odds of black coming up again is still 47.37%.

    Ultimately, this is largely unrelated to the phenomenon of regression to the mean.

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    I hope we didn't just lose the game.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/news/story?id=6038513

  • In reply to ImissButkus:

    Trac. Why can you not resist going there? Why? Have you learned nothing?

  • In reply to DocNitty34:

    He just can't leave it alone. He's worse than a Notre Dame grad...

  • In reply to gpldan:

    I can think of a lot of things to be worse than that are more hideous. Perhaps a Democrat? A Republican for that matter too.

    "The two real political parties in America are the Winners and the Losers. The people don't acknowledge this. They claim membership in two imaginary parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, instead."

    "I have to say this in defense of humankind: No matter in what era in history, including the Garden of Eden, everybody just got there. And, except for the Garden of Eden, there were already all these crazy games going on, which could make you act crazy, even if you weren

  • In reply to buckbear:

    Love me some Kurt.

    Just watched The Secret of Oz from 2008 I think. Must-see for anyone who gives a damn about how they're being robbed blind every day of their lives. Idiot puppets like Obama - or whoever sits in the chair - selling the scam year in year out. Take control of your money supply back from private bankers. Why don't people get it? This ends tomorrow if the people want it.

  • In reply to IrishBearsFan:

    Some of you guys need to get out more. Jeez.

  • In reply to DocNitty34:

    What, that every time that ass clown touches something, it turns to crap.

  • In reply to ImissButkus:

    Just think of me as your crazy Uncle Doc.

  • In reply to ImissButkus:

    No thanks.

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    This thought just crossed my mind. We squeaked a win over the Fudge the first go around. They squeaked a win over us the last time. What if we blow their doors off come Sunday and it's a laugher? That gentlemen, would be the perfect outcome and it very well may happen. I can hear the announcers already. Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    tobijohn-kenobi. I like that.

  • In reply to hollywood1:

    kinda like some trolls

  • In reply to brocklanders:

    Nice cover to the Sports IlLustrated. Is that out right now? Im gonna buy it and frame it for my ManCave one day.

  • In reply to Grizzly559:

    They will reprint it full size and frame it for you. When the Bears win this game the demand is going to make for long lead times.

    http://www.sicovers.com/product.aspx?pid=2408&p=SPR20110124Bears&utm_source=sivault&utm_medium=showcover&utm_campain=icrefer&xid=sivcover

  • In reply to mikev:

    Yup, that is an awesome cover. I'll buy it, but only frame once we win the SB. If not, it's going in the box with the 2006 junk.

  • In reply to KissMyButkus:

    I just told my lady that same thing. It gonna be a sweet picture if we do win, cause then I will be telling my kids and grandkids about that day, when The Bears beat the packers for the Championship and then won the SB!

  • In reply to DocNitty34:

    i know doc, i was being a smartass... remember i live in sd and wasnt born anywhere near chi

  • In reply to MB30SD:

    Damn Smart Ass. smh.

  • In reply to DocNitty34:

    First time poster. Long time follower. Love this blog, best Bears fans on the web. That said...Bears win 27-17 in an epic battle.
    Bear Down!

  • In reply to adampigott:

    Welcome Pig. You're not a narc are ya?

    Just kidding. Stay a while but don't commit the horrid mistake of ever proclaiming yourself the #1 bears fan. And watch the lol's. House rules.

    lololol

    God I'm bored. Worst part about living out west, by the time I get a chance to join the party, most of you lazy fuckers have gone to bed.

    bear down,go bears

    You out there #16? Come join us for this most magnificent week of football revelry.

  • In reply to DocNitty34:

    I think #16 was one of those cancer kids that Aaron Rodgers hates, wasn't he?

  • In reply to gpldan:

    Ya know, Rodgers does look a bit like Dr. Kevorkian. I see a real future for him. Cancer aint going away.

  • In reply to DocNitty34:

    I see another Golden Globe in Pacino's future!

  • In reply to gpldan:

    Wasn't a bad download. It was okay. Why isn't true Grit up for anything? Not mentioned in the globes, too late for consideration? Social Network was great and The King's Speech was okay, but the rest were shit.

  • In reply to DocNitty34:

    Not one person is giving the Bear's a chance in hell.

    Good. Sounds like we can win!!!!

  • In reply to DocNitty34:

    He's staking out your mom's house Doc. He reckons she's Nancy Botwin.

  • In reply to IrishBearsFan:

    thumbs up on the weeds reference.

  • In reply to MB30SD:

    Nice work as always on the radio appearance, Jeff.

    It was painful listening to the host bitch about the cheering during the anthem for the five minutes before you came on, though.

  • In reply to MB30SD:

    From Douche Steemer King predictions

    Bears fans: King predicts in this week's issue that the Packers will beat the Bears again (this time when it counts for both teams) and earn a Super Bowl berth against New England, where he says they will lose 30-24 to the Patriots.

    oooppss.. hey find a clue douche...I think FudgePeckers don't want King predicting anything for them . He couldn't find a clue even if his hands were glue to it.. hhhheeeeeeehhhhhhhheeeeeeeee

Leave a comment