Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=83987
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Dave In Champaign [ Sun Dec 22, 2013 11:55 pm ]
Post subject:  12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

Quote:
Remember in college when you and friends would stay up late in a smoky room filled with pizza boxes and conceive of the coolest things ever, writing them down in mad scribbles so as not to lose these epiphanies of pure genius, each one more mind-blowingly awesome than the last, with some other English major adding a complicated layer of observation that totally connected EVERYTHING?

That was about five minutes before tonight’s game started.

Remember waking up the next morning, avoiding stepping on pizza crusts and your roommate’s arm only to slip into a puddle of puke, then re-reading all that was so important to be recorded for posterity and realizing that it was completely stupid and embarrassing and crumpling it up and throwing it away?

That was the end of the first quarter, and the rest of the game was the rest of the day drinking Gatorade and eating out of an Arby’s bag in kind of a mental purgatory. It was a good time, but not all real.

The Bears are kinda good, but not that good. We knew that.

We’ve been waiting all day for Sunday night, and we’re dealing with it the next morning.

This is sub-Simmons writing.

McCown's relief appearance should buy them at least a half-show's worth of blaming Literally Every Bears Fan (Just Look At Twitter) for wanting him to start against Green Bay instead of Cutler. Eventually they may actually blame Cutler and Trestman for something, but no guarantees.

I'm traveling tomorrow, so have at it, friends and neighbors.

Author:  Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Sun Dec 22, 2013 11:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

I don't remember any of that in college.

And we were kind of smart.

Author:  Rod [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote:
I don't remember any of that in college.

And we were kind of smart.


That must be something they do at Duke. I was too busy getting fucked up while watching the Vertebrats play at Mabel's.

Author:  Dave In Champaign [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 9:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

Oh, before I forget: this is a friendly reminder that about a year ago, Prof. Football told us that Chip Kelly's offense "couldn't work in the NFL."

Author:  rogers park bryan [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 9:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

No one does what he described


No one

Author:  Kirkwood [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 9:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

Why is vomit present? :lol:

And I've never heard of needing Gatorade after a what he may be describing as a marathon smoke sesh. I was never a pot smoker so maybe I don't have all the info.

Author:  rogers park bryan [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 9:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

Kirkwood wrote:
Why is vomit present? :lol:

And if people did sit around getting stoned, and then decided to have a brainstorming session, they wouldnt write anything down.


This fuckin guy...

Author:  Curious Hair [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 10:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

Kirkwood wrote:
Why is vomit present? :lol:

And I've never heard of needing Gatorade after a what he may be describing as a marathon smoke sesh. I was never a pot smoker so maybe I don't have all the info.


It was just product placement. Monetize everyblog. Stay tuned for next week, when Meaningful NFL Football is described as almost as good as a night at Hub 51.

Author:  Don Tiny [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 10:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

Dave In Champaign wrote:
Oh, before I forget: this is a friendly reminder that about a year ago, Prof. Football told us that Chip Kelly's offense "couldn't work in the NFL."


Clearly you were listening to your imaginary radio.

CH - :lol: :lol:

Author:  rogers park bryan [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 10:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

Don Tiny wrote:
Dave In Champaign wrote:
Oh, before I forget: this is a friendly reminder that about a year ago, Prof. Football told us that Chip Kelly's offense "couldn't work in the NFL."


Clearly you were listening to your imaginary radio.

CH - :lol: :lol:

Ill bet this would be met with "It's not the same offense he ran at Oregon. He's changed it and now it works in Big Boy Football"

Author:  leashyourkids [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 10:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

All my acid-induced thoughts were gold. Speak for yourself, Bernstein.

Author:  bigfan [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 11:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

Just because you are a writer, doesnt make you a good or even average person on radio, or even someone I want to listen to.

Just because you are on the radio, doesnt make you a writer. Or even if your wife writes your thoughts (LIGHT EM UP!)

I have read very few things or heard very few, who I enjoy both listening and reading their thoughts.

Simmons, is a great example of a great writer I could care less to hear from.

Author:  Tad Queasy [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 11:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

Dave In Champaign wrote:
Oh, before I forget: this is a friendly reminder that about a year ago, Prof. Football told us that Chip Kelly's offense "couldn't work in the NFL."


Several years ago, maybe 2009 or thereabouts, I remember Dan saying that he doesn't watch college football games involving teams that run the spread offense because he only watches college football to evaluate potential NFL talent, and since the spread offense will never be run in the NFL there is no point in him watching players who play in that type of offense.

Author:  Curious Hair [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 11:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

It was about the triple-spread, but yes, he did say that. To be fair, it didn't seem like it would take.

Author:  Curious Hair [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 11:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

bigfan wrote:
Just because you are a writer, doesnt make you a good or even average person on radio, or even someone I want to listen to.

Just because you are on the radio, doesnt make you a writer. Or even if your wife writes your thoughts (LIGHT EM UP!)

I have read very few things or heard very few, who I enjoy both listening and reading their thoughts.

Simmons, is a great example of a great writer I could care less to hear from.


Simmons is no better than Dan. They're both capable of nuggets of great writing, but more often than not just roll out garbage. The difference is that Dan approaches his writing in a fairly old-school manner, relatively speaking. Simmons is thoroughly of the internet age, and has never had to think about word count or column inches, so he labors under the idea that every thought that crosses his mind is fit to print. Dan kinda has this tendency, but for him it's manifested in those rambling frankensentences where he has to throw in two parentheticals, a cultural allusion, and a semicolon to reassure his faithful readers that don't worry, it all occurred to him before it occurred to you. Simmons is just unchecked wordbarf.

Author:  Don Tiny [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 11:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

Curious Hair wrote:
Simmons is no better than Dan. They're both capable of nuggets of great writing, but more often than not just roll out garbage. The difference is that Dan approaches his writing in a fairly old-school manner, relatively speaking. Simmons is thoroughly of the internet age, and has never had to think about word count or column inches, so he labors under the idea that every thought that crosses his mind is fit to print. Dan kinda has this tendency, but for him it's manifested in those rambling frankensentences where he has to throw in two parentheticals, a cultural allusion, and a semicolon to reassure his faithful readers that don't worry, it all occurred to him before it occurred to you. Simmons is just unchecked wordbarf.


You use your tongue purdier than a twenty-dollar whore.
:lol: :lol:

Author:  Kirkwood [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 11:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

Curious Hair wrote:
bigfan wrote:
Just because you are a writer, doesnt make you a good or even average person on radio, or even someone I want to listen to.

Just because you are on the radio, doesnt make you a writer. Or even if your wife writes your thoughts (LIGHT EM UP!)

I have read very few things or heard very few, who I enjoy both listening and reading their thoughts.

Simmons, is a great example of a great writer I could care less to hear from.


Simmons is no better than Dan. They're both capable of nuggets of great writing, but more often than not just roll out garbage. The difference is that Dan approaches his writing in a fairly old-school manner, relatively speaking. Simmons is thoroughly of the internet age, and has never had to think about word count or column inches, so he labors under the idea that every thought that crosses his mind is fit to print. Dan kinda has this tendency, but for him it's manifested in those rambling frankensentences where he has to throw in two parentheticals, a cultural allusion, and a semicolon to reassure his faithful readers that don't worry, it all occurred to him before it occurred to you. Simmons is just unchecked wordbarf.

Love simmons for that though. His worst columns are where he puts on his Bernstein hat and attempts to be serious and important (exchange emails with Malco Gladwell). The more goofier and ridiculous the better with Simmons.

Author:  Rod [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 11:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

After McCown threw up 45 points against the Cowboys all we heard all week from these two knuckleheads was how it was meaningless since Dallas allows 400+ yards per game. But the Great Jay Cutler can only put up 11 against a team that allows 390 yards a game? I guarantee you're going to hear all day that this loss wasn't Cutler's fault and if a caller disagrees he will be browbeaten and called football retarded.

By the way, Foles is a pretty good replacement level quarterback, isn't he? :lol:

Author:  RFDC [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 11:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

Dave In Champaign wrote:
Oh, before I forget: this is a friendly reminder that about a year ago, Prof. Football told us that Chip Kelly's offense "couldn't work in the NFL."

No actually he didn't.

He said he was intrigued by Kelly's offensive style. He was worried that after the debacle of other college coaches coming in with magic offenses that Kelly would not work out in the NFL. But he thought Kelly might be different than some of those others, but he did not think the Bears would take a gamble on someone like that.

Author:  Don Tiny [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 12:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

RFDC wrote:
Dave In Champaign wrote:
Oh, before I forget: this is a friendly reminder that about a year ago, Prof. Football told us that Chip Kelly's offense "couldn't work in the NFL."

No actually he didn't.

He said he was intrigued by Kelly's offensive style. He was worried that after the debacle of other college coaches coming in with magic offenses that Kelly would not work out in the NFL. But he thought Kelly might be different than some of those others, but he did not think the Bears would take a gamble on someone like that.


Hmmm .... well, imaginary radio it is then.

Author:  Jaw Breaker [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 1:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
By the way, Foles is a pretty good replacement level quarterback, isn't he? :lol:


Foles and McCown are similar in many ways, except for their age. If you flipped scenarios, would Foles now be the Bears starter (due to his age and potential) and would the Eagles have McCown on the bench behind Vick (due to McCown's age and perceived ceiling)?

Author:  billypootons [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 1:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

Jaw Breaker wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
By the way, Foles is a pretty good replacement level quarterback, isn't he? :lol:


Foles and McCown are similar in many ways, except for their age. If you flipped scenarios, would Foles now be the Bears starter (due to his age and potential) and would the Eagles have McCown on the bench behind Vick (due to McCown's age and perceived ceiling)?


Comparing foles to mccown is weak.. first off age does matter.... secondly Foles has an NFL arm and has played exceptionally well and has done a great job at protecting the football... vick was playing terribly and was a TO machine before his injury/benching happened... Cutler on the other hand was having his best season as a bear before getting hurt.

Author:  Jaw Breaker [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 1:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

billypootons wrote:
Jaw Breaker wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
By the way, Foles is a pretty good replacement level quarterback, isn't he? :lol:


Foles and McCown are similar in many ways, except for their age. If you flipped scenarios, would Foles now be the Bears starter (due to his age and potential) and would the Eagles have McCown on the bench behind Vick (due to McCown's age and perceived ceiling)?


Comparing foles to mccown is weak.. first off age does matter.... secondly Foles has an NFL arm and has played exceptionally well and has done a great job at protecting the football... vick was playing terribly and was a TO machine before his injury/benching happened... Cutler on the other hand was having his best season as a bear before getting hurt.


But does age matter THIS YEAR? If, for whatever reason, McCown is simply a better fit for this offense at this point in time, should it matter that he may (or may not) be on his last legs?

Author:  Rod [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 1:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

Their respective ages are immaterial for the current season. I want to know why Foles isn't "replacement level" but McCown is. Can a player ever overcome being "replacement level"? Since McCown has a higher QB rating than Cutler, is "replacement level" a good thing in this instance?

Author:  Curious Hair [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 2:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

Oh yeah, it's Bernstein/Rozner today! I forgot how much I like them together. Dan gets more "normal" with Rozner. I mean, not normal-normal, but like the old fun eccentric normal.

Author:  RFDC [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 2:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

Bernsie sounds like Nas.

He is not mad.

No reason why they should not beat the Packers.

Author:  Kirkwood [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 2:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

Fitting.

Author:  Hank Scorpio [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 2:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

Jaw Breaker wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
By the way, Foles is a pretty good replacement level quarterback, isn't he? :lol:


Foles and McCown are similar in many ways, except for their age. If you flipped scenarios, would Foles now be the Bears starter (due to his age and potential) and would the Eagles have McCown on the bench behind Vick (due to McCown's age and perceived ceiling)?



If McCown was the same age as Foles he would be starting and Cutler would be signing his contract with the Titans as soon as the season was over.

Author:  BigClem [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 2:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: And so it begins...

WSCR's Annual Holiday Cavalcade of Jews!

Author:  badrogue17 [ Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 12/23/13: The Sports Guy, Only Worse

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
After McCown threw up 45 points against the Cowboys all we heard all week from these two knuckleheads was how it was meaningless since Dallas allows 400+ yards per game. But the Great Jay Cutler can only put up 11 against a team that allows 390 yards a game? I guarantee you're going to hear all day that this loss wasn't Cutler's fault and if a caller disagrees he will be browbeaten and called football retarded.

By the way, Foles is a pretty good replacement level quarterback, isn't he? :lol:

Quite a few posters would say same thing. It's cool though . Don't you understand Jay was down 21 points? Totally precludes him from being able to move the ball.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/