Final Thoughts on Chicago Sports

Bears Draft Results: Who needs a QB, anyways?

So the draft was this weekend and the Bears, I must admit, did OK where it matters most:  the first three rounds.  In general, though, the draft was a bit perplexing to this Bears fan.  How can they not take a Quarterback?  At all?  But lets jump back a moment and talk about the picks that were good.

What I Liked
It's hard to disagree with the pick of Tackle Chris Williams from Vanderbilt in the first round.  That's what everybody expected and almost everybody wanted.  It's not sexy, but it's a safe pick and I expect him to be a fixture on the left side of the line for the next ten years.  The only thing surprising about this pick was that the Bears didn't trade down.  Three of the top five tackles were still on the board and you know how Jerry Angelo loves stockpiling picks.  Whatever, they decided to take the guy they really wanted and they didn't get stuck with Cade McNown again.  (The last time they traded down in the first round when there were five obviously-targeted players available.)

I also like the Matt Forte pick.  Initially, I was rooting hard for either Brian Brohm or Ray Rice here.  And with both of those guys available, seeing Forte's name was a bit of a disappointment.  But I've really come around on this pick, and after further review I see no reason to think that Rice will be better than Forte.  This guy was a stud at Tulane.  Check him out on youtube.  Cedric Benson, watch your back.  (Then again, you can take these youtube clips with a grain of salt.  See here and here.  Just saying.)

There's nothing not to like about WR Earl Bennett, either.  There were no sure thing #1 receivers in this draft, and this guy, being the all-time SEC leader, is as good a bet as just about any of the guys taken.  Mel Kiper compared him favorably to Hines Ward, and there's nothing not to like about that comparison. 

Craig Stelz, a Safety from LSU, fills Jerry's quota for best defensive back he can find from the state of Louisiana.  Angelo always drafts a d-back from the Lou.  (See Kevin Payne, Chris Harris, Charles Tillman, and Bobby Gray.)  The only thing I worry about this guy is they say he doesn't have enough speed to keep up with NFL receivers.  I hope "they" are wrong, and the comparison to Doug Plank is more apt.

Tank Redux
The Bears used their second third-round pick on Marcus Harrison, a talented-but-troubled DT from Arkansas.  He's already had his three strikes on the legal front, and some injury history to boot.  Its really hard not to compare this kid to Tank Johnson.  Poor thing didn't know selling weed and ecstasy were illegal.  Three times.  Hope he's learned his lesson!  He's a beast with monster upside, but I can't help but think the Bears probably made a mistake with this pick.

The Perplexing Part
How can they not draft a Quarterback?  Do they not need a Quarterback?  I'm pretty sure that none of the QBs in the draft, Matt Ryan included, will be better than Grossman or Orton in 2008.  However, there were many guys with lots of long-term upside available, and you would think a team with 12 picks could spare one of them on a third string quarterback.  The only thing that I can think of is the Ron Turner factor.  Another lousy year on offense means he's out of a job, and his West Coast Offense may go the way of the dodo.  Don't want to spend money on a guy who might not fit the next system.  I'm really reaching here, but that's all I can think of.  Well, that and the fact that they might have underestimated how quickly their preferred QB would get drafted and screwed themselves by passing on him.  That's probably more likely.

Also curious, the picks at "non need" positions.  Do the Bears need a Corner or a Tight End?  No and no.  Yet they used a pair of 5th rounders on these positions (Zack Bowman and Kellen Davis).  They "need" a Guard, and there were plenty of good ones available.  These are intriguing prospects, though, so these picks are semi defensible when you're in "draft the best player available" mode.  Bowman was previously regarded as a first round talent before he blew out both of his knees.  (Its a good thing corners don't need good knees!)

As for the last five picks, all in the seventh round, you can sum them up best by saying "throw a bunch of crap up against the wall and see what sticks."  One or two of these guys might pan out, but probably on Special Teams at most and there's no real harm having a few more bodies in camp.  Of the quintet, Adams, Barton, and Monk are the most intriguing.

And that's about it.  All in all, it was a productive draft albeit a draft with one gaping hole.  I just can't get past the fact that they didn't draft a QB.  Oh well, there's always next year, and I bet we'll be picking high. 

Bear down.

Bears Draft Preview

My preference for the Bears draft conforms with that of the conventional media:  Take a Left Tackle with the #14 pick.  As far as I'm concerned, any of the top four guys will do (Long, Clady, Otah, Williams -- Long's already gone, of course).  I'm a little leery of the fifth guy (Cherilus), though I hear the Bears are high on him.  I'm leery because he's from BC and the Bears history of drafting linemen from BC is not stellar.  Just like I don't want another runningback from Texas.  Or Penn State for that matter.  Or a Receiver from Michigan. 

ANYWAYS, the point I'm trying to make is that I want to see a mammoth tackle taken with that #14 pick.  Perry keeps saying he wants Mendenhall, and really, who wouldn't?  He's awesome.  But I keep coming back to the same thing: 

• If the Bears take Mendenhall first, what are their chances of finding a decent tackle in the later rounds?
• If the Bears take a tackle first, what are their chances of finding a decent runningback in the later rounds?

That's it in a nutshell.  Take the tackle, reap the rewards of everyone on offense playing better.  (Hopefully.)

Then, in the second round, I'd like to see the Bears get Brian Brohm.  If he's not available, try to get Ray Rice (or Jonathan Stewart if he's there, obviously).  If he's not available, skip out on QBs and RBs entirely until later and grab the best available offensive lineman, defensive tackle, or safety.  The rest of the RBs and QBs a big drop off, in my opinion, and you might as well wait if you're going to draft a project anyways.  As for the "project" QBs, I like Josh Johnson or Dennis Dixon.  I guess Booty wouldn't be a bad pick in the 3rd or 4th round either.  But then again, it's not like it matters. 

And that's basically it.  My strategy is to fill a few key positions, then draft all Defense.  Might as well try to get the defense dominant again, as that's the most likely way this team can contend this year.  Only need competence on offense.

Bear Down.  And don't draft losers.

Speaking of losers, did you see that Fox Sports ranked how the teams drafted over the past five years?  Bears ranked.....drumroll.....7th out of 32.  Seems awfully high to me, considering, but the Bears haven't been as bad really when you look at the raw number of successful picks.  This ranking is largely a result of 2004 being so good.  If they looked at 2005 or later exclusively, the results look a lot worse.  Time for Jerry to right the ship and draft like its 2004 again.  And start drafting offense like its defense.

 Bear Down.  That's right, a double Bear Down today for good luck.

Update (4/27/2008) - My review of the 2008 draft is up.

NFL Franchise QBs: How do the Bears stack up?

With the draft coming up, I was thinking about "franchise QBs" and why the Bears were so lousy at acquiring them.  I then started to wonder how the Bears stacked up against the other 31 NFL teams in terms of Quarterbacks and how bad they really were.  I mean, there's only so many Joe Montanas to go around, right?  So I developed a rating system, and then looked at all teams QBs over the last 30 years and gave them a point value.  (Thank you pro-football-reference.com)

First, here's how I broke down the Quarterbacks.

Type I - Franchise QBs (15 points)
I figured 8+ years as a starter, perennial Pro Bowler, championship caliber play.  15 points might seem excessive, but one Peyton Manning goes a long way.  Further, if the team in question came out of the 1970s on the heels of a franchise QB (even though he didn't quite fit into my time frame), I stretched a bit and included him.  Like I said, one Roger Staubach goes a long way.

Type II - Really Good  (8 points)
Good starter for 5-7 years, a few Pro Bowl appearances.  Your typical Donovan McNabb or Matt Hasselbeck.

Type III - Solid Starter (5 points)
A Legit starter for 3-4 years, maybe one Pro Bowl.  Jeff Blake.  Jim Harbaugh with the Colts.

Type IV - One Year Wonder (2 points)
Only 1 or 2 years with a team, but that one year was great (textbook Erik Kramer), or he won a Super Bowl (Doug Williams).  I also put young guys here who are on the current roster and are clearly marked as "the QB of the future", though they still might drop down a notch.  (Like Leinart and Cutler.)

Type V - Below Average, but still Legit (1 point)
This guy was a "bottom tier" type of QB, but he wasn't an embarrassment to the profession and lasted 1 or 2 years in the role.  Jim Harbaugh with the Bears.

0 points
Guys who started for a season or less and were so impressive they were immediately cut.  Bears like Chris Chandler, Kordell Stewart and Dave Krieg come to mind.  I didn't waste time listing these guys.

Note:
+/- means this is an active QB that might move up (or down) a notch when its all said and done.
Adj - When you see this number, such as *2, means this team has only been around half of the 30 years and in theory you should multiply their number times two.  Houston, thus, is *5.

Here's how the teams broke down with my rating system:

If the chart above means anything, and I highly suspect that it doesn't, but if it does, it means the Bears have really sucked at getting good QBs over the last 30 years.  I mean, I knew that, but going through the list of teams, I came to the realization that only one team is honestly worse than the Bears:

Ladies and Gentlemen, your Detroit Lions!  Only the Lions have had a worse QB history than the Bears.  The Bears at least had one guy start for a few years, make a single Pro Bowl, and even win a Super Bowl (Jim McMahon.)  The Lions have a bunch of Charlie Batches and that's it. 

Other notes:

• Dallas and San Francisco have been the best teams for QBs, obviously, with two franchise QBs and at least one more that wasn't bad at all.  Surprisingly, Minnesota, Denver, and Oakland are right on their heels (though a big chunk of Oakland's success was with Ken Stabler in the 70s.)  
• Never would have guessed the Bengals would fare so well, but they've had a number of good QBs over the years, and a potential franchise guy in Palmer on the roster right now.  Even Arizona did OK on this stupid chart.  Surprising.  If the Bears only had Neil Lomax in the 80s...
• Philly has had three good QBs and nothing else worth talking about.  Weird.
• Tampa Bay is pretty much a carbon copy of the Bears, though Brad Johnson was a little more prolific overall than McMahon. 
• Miami is a wasteland outside of Marino.  But one Marino goes a long way. :)

Much like my review of lousy Bears draft picks, going over Bears QBs was mighty depressing.  I mean, their best QB was undoubtedly Jim McMahon and I really had to stretch to make him a Type III guy.  He only started 10+ games for the Bears twice.  It's the single Pro Bowl ('85) and Super Bowl win that got him his "III".  I think Jim Miller might have ended up a "III" had he not gotten hurt so much.  Kramer, too, probably.  But that's really it as far as decent Bears QBs go.  Pathetic.

Oh well, this Saturday we get to see who the Bears are going to make their next "Type IV" Quarterback.  Joe Flacco?  John David Booty?  The world anxiously awaits...

Too Bad Cubs Can't Play Pittsburgh Every Day

The Cubs have completely owned the Pirates this year; or PWNED them if you're an online gaming aficionado (which I'm not).  Two series, two sweeps.  They scored 26 runs in the last two games alone.  It doesn't get much more definitive than that.  Some things I like, other than the obvious:

• Starting pitching is slowly improving.  Hill, Marquis and Dempster all won games this series.  Even though two of those guys only pitched five innings (and the other guy threw six), five innings and a win is a hell of a lot better than 3 or 4 innings and a loss or no decision in the hands of the pen. 
• Ronnie Cedeno has been tremendous.  Great hitting, patience at the plate, and great baserunning of all things.  He's like a totally different guy, and he's playing like the guy we always heard about that hit .360 in AAA.  It'll be tough to bench him when Soriano gets back and DeRosa heads back to second.  The good news is he can play 2nd, 3rd or short in case of injury.  (Theriot has been on fire as well)  I even recall Cedeno playing some Center this spring, though I don't know how good he was in the field.  That's always an option for keeping him in the lineup as well.
• Aramis Ramirez is heating up.  Four hits today.  His average will be back up to normal within a week.
• Mark DeRosa has shed the anti-clutch label, too.  Sweet.  And Lee of course is pounding the ball like 2005.
• Nice to see the Cubs correct their mistake and recall Murton.  Not that he's done much yet, but it's still nice to see Orange Guy back and in the lineup while Soriano is out.

What's not to like?  Not much.  Just need to get Lilly going and stretch out the other starters a bit and everything will be hunky dory in Cubland.  Oh, and Soriano back, but honestly the team hasn't missed him at all. 

Now the Mets come to town and this is a real test for the Cubs.  They've had problems with good teams the last year and a half (like San Diego and the Phillies) while crushing the sisters of the poor (Pittsburgh).  Gotta start beating teams that might actually make the postseason.  Starting tonight.

EAMUS CATULI

ESPN's All-Time Draft Busts: Where are all the Bears?

ESPN has a big feature on the top 50 draft busts of all time.  I am both shocked and appalled that only two Bears made the list. (Curtis Enis at #20 and Cade McNown at #40.)  Its a sham and a mockery.  It's a shamockery. 

With that in mind, I'm going to present my own personal list of Biggest Draft Busts, but to make up for the Eastern Sports Network's slight, I'm only going to include Bears. 

Note: I'm only going to go back to 1990.  That's all I can take.  Further, I'm only going to look at picks in the first few rounds.  Later picks are pretty much a crapshoot anyways and there are virtually no expectations.  Finally, I'm going to hold off on putting current Bears on the list as they technically still have a chance to turn things around and produce.  So you're safe for now, Cedric.

1.   Curtis Enis (RB) - 1998, #1 (5th overall)  Gotta hand it to ESPN, at least they got the right Bear ranked highest.  I'd have put him in the top ten.

2.  Stan Thomas (T) - 1991, #1 (22nd overall)  You can sum up his two years in four words:  Holding, number 60, offense. 

3.  Cade McNown (QB) - 1999, #1 (12th overall)  He did have one or two good games, which is more than Stan Thomas or Curtis Enis can say. Still, the SF game where they didn't cross the fifty holds a special place in my heart.  On most franchises, Cade would have been #1. 

4.  Rashaan Salaam (RB) 1995, #1 (21st overall)  Heisman winner had a mediocre rookie year before he smoked his way out of the league.

5.  Marc Columbo (T) - 2002, #1 (29th overall) Too much time in the trainer's room to do anything.  But he's still in the league and starting for the Cowboys.

6.  John Thierry (LB) - 1994, #1, (11th overall)  An athlete, not a football player.  Bears wanted him to play DE.  Didn't work.

7.  Michael Haynes (DE) - 2003, #1, (13th overall)  Had a few mostly meaningless sacks, but couldn't beat out Alex Brown or Adewale Ogunleye for playing time.

8.  David Terrell (WR) - 2001, #1, (8th overall)  Who the hell drafts a Big Ten receiver 8th overall?

9.  Alonzo Spellman (DE) - 1991, #1, (22nd overall)  Grade A physical specimen, but he was/is certifiably insane.

10.  Todd Sauerbrun (P) - 1995, #2 (56th overall) Who the hell drafts a punter in the second round?  He mostly sucked here.  Moved on, made a few Pro Bowls and got busted for roids - not necessarily in that order.

11.  John Allred (TE) - 1997, #2, (38th overall) - A mediocre backup TE was the top pick for the Bears in probably the worst draft the Bears ever had.  They traded the top pick for Rick Mirer(!) and only Marcus Robinson did anything for the Bears from the class of '97.

12.  Marcus Spears (T) - 1994, #2, (39th overall) - cut after one lousy year.

13.  Roe Williams (CB) - 2002, #3, (72nd overall) - Dick Jauron explained him getting caught from behind by a lineman on a fumble recovery by saying "he wasn't able to get in an athletic rhythm". 

14.  Russell Davis (DE) - 1999, #2, (48th overall) - pretty much did zilch for the team.

15.  Carl Simpson (DT) - 1993, #2, (35th overall) - pretty much did zilch for the team.

And that's it.  I'm sorry, it's all I can take.  All I know is, ESPN owes the Bears an apology for not putting more Bears in the top 50.

Bears Offseason News: Latest on Harris, Hester and the 2008 Schedule

Lots going on with the Bears over the last seven days:

• Contract talks with Tommie Harris broke off.  There's lots of time left before the season starts, but this is not a good sign.  I don't think I'm overstating this by saying that it's imperative that the Bears extend Tommie Harris.  I predict a holdout, a disgruntled Harris, and a Bears "cave."  All will be fine in Harris-land by week 3 of the preseason.
• Devin Hester wants a new contract, too.  For some reason, he thinks he deserves a raise for being only 25 and already the best and most dynamic returner ever.  Is any Bear happy with his contract?  Wait, what's that?  The Bears are $16 million under the cap?  Let's see, $8M for Harris, $5M for Hester...then give the rest to Urlacher.   Done and done.  Stop being cheapskates, or nobody will ever sign here again.
• The schedule was released Tuesday, and the Bears have lots of opportunities to get embarrassed on national TV this year.  "MNF" and the new, true incarnation that is "SNF" have been largely a sore spot for Chicago for, well, my entire life.  They historically win something like 1-in-3 games under the lights, though frankly their night record doesn't even seem that good.  The Bears just have a habit of playing lousy ball on national TV.  The good news, as Lovie Smith stated, is that three of the night games this season will be played in Chicago, whereas the last few years have had night games predominately on the road. 

My thoughts on the schedule in general?  Pretty tough.  We've already known for months (if not years) which teams they were going to play this year (outside of the six tough divisional games):  AFC South, NFC South, and a pair of last place teams.  Now we know when.

The AFC South is tough.  Outside of Houston, there were three playoff teams in Indy, Jacksonville, and Tennessee.  (Though Tennessee doesn't exactly give me the heebee-jeebees.)  The NFC South isn't good but it's far from the worst division in football.  (Though it is notable that not a single player from that division made the Pro Bowl last season.)  Then the last place teams they will face are Philly (a team that may have been in last place but hardly fit the description of cellar dwellers) and St. Louis (who were banged up last year but fit the cellar-dwelling description to a tee.)   And that's it.

But I will say this, if they can somehow get off to a 4-3 start before the bye, they should be in good shape to make the playoffs.  The second half isn't "easy", no NFL schedule is.  But it's easy enough to envision that, provided the 4-3 was legit, that 10 wins will be in reach.  And that'd be plenty to make the playoffs.

I think I'm going to pass on giving my official prediction for the time being.  I'll just say that the Bears will win 7, plus or minus 3, meaning anywhere from 4-12 to 10-6.  But that prediction would probably cover 90% of the teams in the league, so I'm not exactly going out on a limb there.  Nothing but the best when you read MikeJ on CSB!

Checking in on Soriano and the Cubs

I've been out of the loop for a few days, literally, so its time to check in on the Chicago National League Ball Club.  Aka. Da Cubs.

After the sweep at Pittsburgh, I knew they were dead meat against Cole Hamels and the Phillies.  I didn't think they'd lose Friday with Big Z pitching, but what can you do?  I'll take the 4-2 road trip. 

The real news happened last night when Alfonso Soriano pulled up lame with a calf.  It might be a bit early to pass judgement, but I'm going to call it like I see it.  The Soriano signing is a bust.  Not a major bust, but a bust nonetheless.  Yes, he had a decent year at the plate last season, he hit a bunch of bombs, and the Cubs made the playoffs.  But he's simply not worth $18 million a year if he's not able to steal bases.  With his third leg injury in the last 12 months, I think his days of 40/40 are long gone.  The best we can hope for is a .270/.330/.550 over the next three-or-four years and then a steady decline to worthlessness over the last few years of the deal.  Not terrible, but not $136 million dollars worth for sure.  And, I'm not positive, but did he hurt himself on "the hop"?  It sure seemed like it.  Talk about frustrating.

I still can't complain about the signing too much, though, because they needed to make a major splash in free agency after the horrible 2006 season.  I was spitting fire mad at the club that fall, like most Cubs fans, and the Soriano signing got me excited again.  And they ended up in the postseason in 2007 and are the favorites to repeat this year.  So I can't complain.  I'm just left to worry about what could have been.

Anyways, lets talk about the "now" as opposed to what might happen in 2012.  So I'll take this opportunity to criticize the team for their choice in Soriano's replacement.  Eric Patterson.  Patterson has started off slow in 2008, but he's more or less proven at AAA.  In a vacuum, he's not a bad choice to bring up.  And he's both left-handed and "versatile," which is the company line for choosing him.  But Matt Murton is rotting in Iowa for exactly this situation.  Injury to corner outfielder?  Bring up Orange Guy.  He's proven at the major league level and he's only capable of playing a corner outfield spot.  He's not an all-star by any stretch, but he's probably good enough to start for 10 or 12 teams in the majors and that's certainly good enough for the next 15-20 days or so while Soriano heals. 

And what was with the lineup tonight?  I like Mark DeRosa but he hits like a middle-infielder, not a corner outfielder.  By shifting DeRosa to left, they essentially chose to replace Alfonso Soriano with Mike Fontenot.  Fontenot's scrappy and useful off the bench, but he's a) no leadoff hitter, and b) no replacement for Soriano.  Then to hit him leadoff with Theriot second (and Reed Johnson 8th!) just compounds the problems.  Derrek Lee has been crushing the ball but has had very few baserunners to knock in because the team insists upon having its best potential table-setters hitting 5-6-7.  (Soriano's slump hasn't helped matters.)

Of course, the Cubs went out and scored 12 tonight with that odd lineup so I'm sure we're going to see it the next five days in a row.  (Lou is very Dusty-like when a lineup "works.")  I'm fine with it if they keep putting up 12, of course, but I'm not overly optimistic about scoring runs with the Cajun Connection hitting 1-2.  No offense to the scrappy LSU guys, of course, because they're fun to watch.  But they aren't ideal 1-2 guys, to say the least.

Anyways, the Cubs are now 9-5 and I'm bitching like they're 5-9.  I should have a cup of STFU and enjoy the games.

Two lucky wins in a row for Cubs

The Cubs just won their second game in a row that they had no right winning.  After blowing a 7-0 lead and leaving 15 men on base (in 12 innings) on Monday, they left another 15 on base today in 15 more innings of play.  Twenty-seven innings to beat the lowly Pirates twice.  (And man, do they stink.) 

I'm not going to complain, though.  A win is a win and if the Cubs end up winning the division by two games, I can think back and remember these two supremely frustrating shitfests.  These are the games they were losing last year, so if there's a silver lining, that's it.

Some more positives:

• Dempster was again awesome today.  In two starts, he's thrown 13 innings, giving up four hits, four walks, ten Ks, and one run.  Not bad at all.
• Bob Howry had two effective outings in a row, after his LVP last week.  Soriano is starting to snap out of it as well.
• Felix Pie had a game-winning hit -- off a left-hander no less -- and he was fired up.  Hopefully he gains some confidence from this.  I like Reed Johnson, but I really want to see if Pie is legit.  His ceiling is so much higher than Johnson's.
• Nice homer by Aramis in the 14th.  Too bad Hart gave it right back in the bottom half and extended the game.  I couldn't believe it.  I was about to start writing this post after Aramis' homer but I decided to hold off.  Glad I did.

Some negatives:

• Ted Lilly was crap again.  Can't hold a 7-run-lead?  Really?
• Pignatiello was so bad he was demoted to AAA after the game.  (8 pitches, 8 balls.)  Marshall's back and he got the save tonight.
• Wood blew his first save.  (Game one was not a save situation.)  He didn't have a hissy fit or anything (like some of the Cubs other pitchers would have) and overall he was throwing OK, so I think he'll be fine.
• Sloppy, sloppy defense all around.  Three infield errors on Monday just kept the brutal fourth inning going and going.
• If you look up the phrase "Anti-Clutch" in the dictionary, you'll see the "30 LOB" in these two games.

And that's it.  Another game in the Pitts tomorrow before heading to Philly on Friday.  They better not play like this in Philly or their going to get their hats handed to them.

In Regards to the Urlacher Holdout

Let it be known that I think Brian Urlacher's great. He's easily the best player the Bears have had since Mike Singletary retired, if not Payton, and I want nothing more than to see Brian retire in a Bears jersey.  I appreciate everything he's done for the organization, and he's been the face of the franchise for eight years. 

That said, the Bears should absolutely not give him a contract extension right now.  He's signed for four more seasons through 2011.  Last year was a down year for him, he's coming off neck surgery, and he's got an arthritic back.  What are the chances of him actually being a productive player for the Bears in 2012?  One-in-five, maybe?  

The bottom line is that Urlacher signed a contract.  Nobody forced him to sign anything.  When he signed the deal in 2002, that signing bonus looked awfully good.  Now, though, the annual salary is far from impressive.  But nobody held a gun to his head and told him to sign the deal.  If his agent was smart, he would have negotiated an player option to re-negotiate.  But he didn't do that and now Urlacher's stuck.  

Now, I should point out the fact that the Bears are severely under the cap this season.  If they want to give Brian a one-year extension for 2012 with a base salary of $1 million with a $10 or $12 million signing bonus to keep him quiet, er, I mean happy; I guess that's fine.  It's not a franchise crippler and the money going against the 2012 cap would be minimal.  Just save some cash for Tommie Harris and don't hurt the franchise in the long run. 

I guess the bottom line is that Joe Montana didn't finish his career with the 49ers.  Neither did Jerry Rice.  Emmitt Smith didn't retire a Cowboy, and Junior Seau didn't retire a Charger.  The NFL is a business, and if Urlacher doesn't want to honor his contract then all he can do is hold out.  If he wants to play that game, let him.  Just don't do anything crazy.

Cubs Week One Awards

The Cubs won two-of-three from Houston this weekend to finish their first week with a record of 3-3.  With nearly 4% of the season in the books, I think we're overdue for some awards:

Rookie of the Week:  Kosuke Fukudome.  What an amazing debut.  Every at-bat at Wrigley Field was electric, and its amazing how the crowd has warmed up to him so fast.  He's probably already gotten more standing O's than Jacque Jones had in the previous two years combined.  I guess the crowd likes you when you get on base at a near .600 clip with clutch hits and stellar defense.  Hope he keeps it up, and I hope the crowd doesn't turn on him quickly when he eventually cools off.

MVP:  Derrek Lee.  He was directly responsible for both Saturday and Sunday's win, with a 4-for-4 with a HR Saturday and the game-winning HR Sunday.  He's on fire.  Even when he makes an out, he's smoking the ball.

Least Valuable Player: Bobby Howry.  Normally pitchers don't get in on the action for MVP/LVP awards, but Howry has managed to be terrible in each of his three games, and he got the "L" in the "would have been a classic if they actually won" opener.  I'm pretty sure he'll snap out of it, but the supposed ace setup man has been awful.

Worst Week for a Guy I'm Not Worried About:  Alfonso Soriano.  Before today, he had the LVP practically wrapped up.  But his homer and his assist at the plate were key in today's 3-2 win.  The rest of the day he continued to look awful, but they very well might have lost without those two contributions. 

Worst Week for a Guy I'm Worried About:  Felix Pie.  He had a few hits, but for the most part he looked clueless.  Where's the guy that tore up Spring Training?  The guy that hit .362 at AAA last year?  He's looked just as bad as he did last September, when he couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat.  Reed Johnson didn't really accomplish anything more than Pie in his two starts, but he at least looked like a professional at the plate.  I suspect that's why Lou gave him back-to-back starts against righties even though there's two lefties coming up in the next two games.  If Lou holds true to his original plans for a platoon, that'll be four straight games for Johnson.  On paper, Pie deserves to play.  But it's hard to fault Lou after actually watching Pie for the first few games.

Best Timing:  Carlos Marmol.  He's good when they need him to be good, he's shaky when he's got room to be shaky.

Worst Timing:  Mark DeRosa.  He hit .350 with a homer and three RBIs, which sounds great.  But he left a lot of people on base and/or hit into double plays at the absolute worst times. 

Best Performance by a Fifth Starter (at best):  Ryan Dempster. 

Worst Performance by a Fifth Starter (at best):  Jason Marquis. 

Guy I'm Still Happy We Signed:  Jon Leiber.  He gave up two runs in his only appearance (and got the loss), but he didn't really get hit that hard and looked a lot better than his numbers would suggest. 

Guys Who Don't Seem as Exciting as Last Year:  Ryan Theriot and Geovanny Soto.  Even though he doesn't have a lot of hits, Soto has hit the ball hard most of the time and I suspect he'll be every bit the hitter we expect him to be.  But his defense was lousy this week and his arm was even worse.  Didn't see that one coming.  As for Theriot, he's been doing an awfully good Neifi impression, and I'll leave it at that.

Guys Who are More Exciting than Last Year:  Kerry Wood.  He's pretty much been a non-factor since 2004, and his three saves were great to see.  Other than the high profile blowup in the opener, he's been pretty much perfect. 

Time for the first road trip.  "Opening Week" ends tomorrow with Pittsburgh's home opener.  Then they're off Tuesday before continuing the series Wednesday.  That's crap scheduling if I've ever heard of it, but hey, that's Major League Baseball for ya.

Have a good one.

Book Review: Hammerin' Hank, George Almighty, and the Say Hey Kid

I like reading sports books, as you may well remember from this post a few weeks ago.  One thing I realized when compiling that list is how baseball-centric my reading choices are (at least when it comes to sports books).  I enjoy football as much as anybody, but I bet I've read five baseball books for every football book I've read.  Why does baseball seem to be winning the literature war?  I don't have a definitive answer, but I bet there are a number of factors:

• The reverence for the past.  Nobody really cares about about football or basketball from the first half of the 1900s at all, probably because those games have changed so much in the last fifty years.  With baseball, the game that Babe Ruth played still looks an awful lot like the game you see today.  
• The casual pace of the game.  There's no constant ticking clock, and a game has time to get into a rhythm just like a great dramatic movie.  Three up, three down.  Bases loaded, nobody out.  Game-ending strikeouts.  Walk-offs.
• The length of the season.  You can cram a lot of stories into a 162 game season.
• The stats.  Every single pitch is tracked and the outcome of every single play will be captured in the box score forever.

Football may be America's New Pastime, but baseball is still in its blood.

With that in mind, I got a copy of a new book by John Rosengren last week titled "Hammerin' Hank, George Almighty, and the Say Hey Kid: The Year that Changed Baseball Forever."  It's about the 1973 season and how it was a pivotal season in baseball history.  I was skeptical that the season really "changed the game forever," because, as previously noted, the game in 1972 still looks an awful lot like the game today.  I was even more skeptical after I read the introduction where the author more or less stated that this was THE YEAR for him.  What I mean by THE YEAR is that it's basically the year that the author fell in love with the game.  For me, that year was 1987. 

I'd been basically watching Cubs baseball with my Dad since birth, but I didn't really pay attention until 1984.  I started to memorize the lineups and really started to comprehend the nuances of the game.  Over the next few years, I discovered my favorite player (Ryno), started collecting baseball cards, started looking at box scores in the newspaper daily, and generally became a well-informed fan.  But in 1987 the arrival of Andre Dawson and his 49 homers took my fandom to a whole new level.  What can I say? I dug the long ball.  And I started to love the game. 

So anyways, 1973 was pretty much THE YEAR for the author, so I was leery of his decision to chronicle that particular season.  Then I dug into the book.  Turns out Rosengren is probably right; an awful lot of big things happened that year:

• Hank Aaron closed in on Babe Ruth's career home run record.  The intense media pressure, not to mention all of the hate mail he received, was a lot for Hank to endure.  Not only was Hank receiving death threats, but so were his parents and his kids.  Can you imagine?  He ended the season just one home run short of Ruth.
• The legendary Willie Mays played his last season with the Mets, and he was a shell of his former self.
• Reggie Jackson won the MVP award and his first postseason MVP award (with the A's) on his way to becoming Mr. October.  Jackson was a new breed of superstar.  His hubris (which was not unlike your typical T.O. of today) was a stark contrast to the stoic, classy Mays (and Aaron for that matter).  They squared off in the World Series in a "changing of the guard" of sorts.
• George Steinbrenner bought the Yankees, bringing league-high payrolls and a new era of meddling ownership to baseball.  Not only was he just getting his feet wet in the Major League ranks, but he also was convicted of campaign contribution laws and obstruction in '73.  Yes, King George was a convicted felon.
• Baseball was still recovering from it's first strike (in 1972), suffered its first lockout, and was two years away from the official start of free agency. 
• The DH was introduced.  This is a change that affected how the game was played on the field greatly.  A lot of people still think the leagues should decide and conform to a single rule.  DH for both leagues or DH for neither.  I like it the way it is. It adds flavor. 
• Nolan Ryan threw a pair of no-hitters on his way to a single-season record 383 strikeouts. 
• Yogi Berra uttered his famous phrase, "It ain't over till it's over" about his Mets team that made a miracle run down the stretch to win a tight pennant race.  Actually, he literally said "It's never over until it's over" but the media tweaked it and ran with it.  I guess Yogi was right when he said "I never said half the things I said."
• Mustaches!  Charlie Finley, the crazy/cheapskate jerk of an owner and master of self-promotion, gave his (A's) players a bonus if they would grow a mustache, violating the unwritten rule of no facial hair in the big leagues.  Seriously, there were virtually no mustaches in baseball until 1973.

What I'm going to take away from this book is the stories.  That's what I like about most baseball books, really. It's a chance to sit down and enjoy a piece of the game's rich history.  Going through this book, I felt like I lived through the entire season, even though it was two years before I was born.  You don't really get that from looking at old box scores and baseball-reference.com.  Now I fully understand what it was like to watch Reggie Jackson at the peak of his powers, why people hang their head when talking about the final seasons of Willie Mays, and how George Steinbrenner built his ivory tower.  It's a good read and worth your time.

Bears Re-Sign McGowan; "Hester Rule" Shot Down; and Ocho Cinco

The NFL Owners Meetings are going on this week, and a pair of rules that directly affect the Bears were discussed:

• The "untouched fumbled snap from under center" rule, which helped the Bears win a game against Philly, was overturned.  If you don't remember, an Olin Kreutz snap slid past Griese untouched (while Griese was under center).  Philly recovered and returned it to the six.  But hold your horses.  The Ref called back the play on account of an obscure rule stating the QB must touch the ball under center for the snap to be valid.  The coaches didn't know the rule and neither did the announcers.  But nevertheless, it WAS the rule and it helped the Bears win the game.  But the other day they over-turned the rule.  That sloppy snap happens again this year, and the Bears will lose the ball.  Something to note with Grossman coming back next season.
• There was a proposal that would have prevented teams from intentionally punting out of bounds (to avoid dynamic returners like Hester.)  They voted that proposal down, though, so look for Hester to get about one returnable ball every two weeks.  Way to showcase your league's talent, NFL!

In other news, the Bears re-signed Brandon McGowan for one-year, $1.4 million dollars and have an offer sheet out to Rashied Davis.  I'm all for both moves.  McGowan was pretty solid at the end of last season (2nd on team in tackles over last 4 weeks), and at the minimum he's a good backup/Mike Brown insurance.  I'd still draft a safety, though.

As for Davis, the offer is only for $900 grand, and I don't see anybody matching it.  I like the offer, though.  He knows the system, and he knows the routes.  That's more than Booker, Lloyd, or Hester can say; and the Bears will need all the experienced route runners they can find next season. 

Also, forget about Ocho Cinco.  Chad Johnson was interviewed on SportsCenter last night and I remembered how much of a moron he is.  I suppose he can catch a football well enough, but he can't articulate his way out of a wet paper bag.  And he annoys the crap out of me.  I can imagine what he's like in the locker room.  "What, that's it?"  "Nothing, I mean, I don't know."  Thanks, Chad. 

Bear down.

Cubs Ready to Push Panic Button

The Cubs lost rather definitively to the Brewers today by a score of 8-2.  They had some hits, but they always seemed to do the right things at the wrong time.  For example, in an inning where they had a homer, a double, and a walk, they managed just one run.  Reverse those and they have 3.  Then, when DeRosa's up with 2 on and no outs, he hits into a double play; yet the next inning he manages a double with nobody on.  The whole team was just anti-clutch, if you will. 

The bullpen was lousy, too.  Pretty much all of them pitched today, and pretty much all of them stunk.  I don't know what's up with that.  Lilly was no rose either.

What concerns me most, though, is the post-game comments from Lou.  Lou wants to go back and have Soriano lead off.  After two stinking games.  (And they were stinking games for Alfonso.)  Isn't that a bit constipated, though?  Two games, ten at-bats?  That's how long the experiment is going to last? 

I think the problem stems from the aborted Brian Roberts trade.  Lou only dropped Soriano down this spring because he was hearing that the Roberts trade was all but done, and it was just a matter of when.  He wanted to get Soriano used to hitting second, so he jumped the gun with the move.  But second was never really the best spot for him, anyways, as he doesn't make enough contact and he's certainly not the guy up there if you need to move runners along.  (not that I necessarily advocate that strategy, but it's clear he's not the right guy for that particular job.)  On paper, he's the perfect number five hitter right now.  If he doesn't have speed (with the lingering quad injury), all he has is his power.  Not enough patience to bat up top, and just enough power to protect Aramis.  But I think the real problem is Soriano's approach.  He pretty much needs fastballs to thrive, and he theoretically sees tons of them batting first or second (in front of Lee).  If he bats fifth, he won't get the fastballs and he might regress to a 2006 version of Jacque Jones.  Some decent pop, average average, low OBP.  So I guess this is a roundabout way of saying that Lou might be making the right decision by putting Soriano back at leadoff.  He'll get the fastballs he needs, he'll be happy, and the Cubs will go back to starting games off 1-0.  And there is certainly nothing wrong with that.