Chicago Fanatics Message Board :: View topic - 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread

y'know, they agree that they don't know if the Bears can draft defense, but they blithely assume competitiveness the next three years.

City of Fools wrote:

y'know, they agree that they don't know if the Bears can draft defense, but they blithely assume competitiveness the next three years.

Why wouldn't they? With this shit defense they were a win away from the playoffs. With the offense in place there is no reason not to think they won't be competitive in the next 3 years.

RFDC wrote:

City of Fools wrote:

y'know, they agree that they don't know if the Bears can draft defense, but they blithely assume competitiveness the next three years.

Why wouldn't they? With this shit defense they were a win away from the playoffs. With the offense in place there is no reason not to think they won't be competitive in the next 3 years.

yeah, I guess they can be a contender to make the playoffs, I don't think without a good revamp they're super bowl contenders, which should be all that matters.

With this shit defense they were a win away from the playoffs.

City of Fools wrote:

RFDC wrote:

City of Fools wrote:

y'know, they agree that they don't know if the Bears can draft defense, but they blithely assume competitiveness the next three years.

Why wouldn't they? With this shit defense they were a win away from the playoffs. With the offense in place there is no reason not to think they won't be competitive in the next 3 years.

yeah, I guess they can be a contender to make the playoffs, I don't think without a good revamp they're super bowl contenders, which should be all that matters.

The defense is going to be revamped.

RFDC wrote:

With this shit defense they were a win away from the playoffs.

Read: they went 8-8 in a season in which Aaron Rodgers missed 7 games and the Lions regressed so badly they fired their coach.

Dave In Champaign wrote:

RFDC wrote:

With this shit defense they were a win away from the playoffs.

Read: they went 8-8 in a season in which Aaron Rodgers missed 7 games and the Lions regressed so badly they fired their coach.

They were competitive.

RFDC wrote:

With this shit defense they were a win away from the playoffs.

Read: they went 8-8 in a season in which Aaron Rodgers missed 7 games and the Lions regressed so badly they fired their coach.

Dave In Champaign wrote:

RFDC wrote:

With this shit defense they were a win away from the playoffs.

Read: they went 8-8 in a season in which Aaron Rodgers missed 7 games and the Lions regressed so badly they fired their coach.

The Lions are a good coach with a new culture away from being a powerhouse for the next couple of years.

The firing of Jim Schwartz was/is the worst thing to happen to the Bears this off season.

One of the positives of the Cutler deal happening so early is we can be done with the Zaidman updates until next spring. I really wish they would just stop pretending he's not an employee of the Bears organization.

maybe but i don't know that there's a coach out there that will turn them around that quickly. and stafford can be extremely frustrating as a quarterback.

Dave In Champaign wrote:

RFDC wrote:

With this shit defense they were a win away from the playoffs.

Read: they went 8-8 in a season in which Aaron Rodgers missed 7 games and the Lions regressed so badly they fired their coach.

They were competitive.

Should someone tell these guys that Briggs plays weak-side LB?

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote:

Should someone tell these guys that Briggs plays weak-side LB?

"well, yeah, weak, yeah, weak side, that's what I meant, right"

Franky T wrote:

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote:

Should someone tell these guys that Briggs plays weak-side LB?

"well, yeah, weak, yeah, weak side, that's what I meant, right"

Is that how they tried to get out of it? Because weak is not what they meant. It started with talking about if Shea could play the sam linebacker, which I guess is what Emery intimated in his press conference. So Matt said something to the effect of "hmm....so could he replace Briggs" followed by some further "hmmms" by Terry. I didn't get a chance to hear how this deep analysis ended, but they definitely thought Briggs played the sam.

Author:	redskingreg [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:16 pm ]
Post subject:	1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
Matt sits in with Terry today. This is the OFFICIAL thread for today's show.

Author:	rogers park bryan [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
If you dont LOVE this Cutler deal, you are a moron For the love of god

Author:	8675309 [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
My 2014 goal is to read a headline that states "American Sports talker eaten by shark....after thrown in ocean by Mexican hotel staff"

Author:	City of Fools [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
y'know, they agree that they don't know if the Bears can draft defense, but they blithely assume competitiveness the next three years.

Author:	RFDC [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:48 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
City of Fools wrote: y'know, they agree that they don't know if the Bears can draft defense, but they blithely assume competitiveness the next three years. Why wouldn't they? With this shit defense they were a win away from the playoffs. With the offense in place there is no reason not to think they won't be competitive in the next 3 years.

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

1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=84216	Page 1 of 2

Author:	City of Fools [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
RFDC wrote: City of Fools wrote: y'know, they agree that they don't know if the Bears can draft defense, but they blithely assume competitiveness the next three years. Why wouldn't they? With this shit defense they were a win away from the playoffs. With the offense in place there is no reason not to think they won't be competitive in the next 3 years. yeah, I guess they can be a contender to make the playoffs, I don't think without a good revamp they're super bowl contenders, which should be all that matters.

Author:	Bucky Chris [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:01 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
City of Fools wrote: RFDC wrote: City of Fools wrote: y'know, they agree that they don't know if the Bears can draft defense, but they blithely assume competitiveness the next three years. Why wouldn't they? With this shit defense they were a win away from the playoffs. With the offense in place there is no reason not to think they won't be competitive in the next 3 years. yeah, I guess they can be a contender to make the playoffs, I don't think without a good revamp they're super bowl contenders, which should be all that matters. The defense is going to be revamped.

Author:	Dave In Champaign [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
RFDC wrote: With this shit defense they were a win away from the playoffs. Read: they went 8-8 in a season in which Aaron Rodgers missed 7 games and the Lions regressed so badly they fired their coach.

Author:	City of Fools [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
Bucky Chris wrote: City of Fools wrote: RFDC wrote: City of Fools wrote: y'know, they agree that they don't know if the Bears can draft defense, but they blithely assume competitiveness the next three years. Why wouldn't they? With this shit defense they were a win away from the playoffs. With the offense in place there is no reason not to think they won't be competitive in the next 3 years. yeah, I guess they can be a contender to make the playoffs, I don't think without a good revamp they're super bowl contenders, which should be all that matters. The defense is going to be revamped. through the draft or free agency? That's the question.

Author:	RFDC [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
Dave In Champaign wrote: RFDC wrote: With this shit defense they were a win away from the playoffs. Read: they went 8-8 in a season in which Aaron Rodgers missed 7 games and the Lions regressed so badly they fired their coach. They were competitive.

Author:	CharlieFurbush [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
One of the positives of the Cutler deal happening so early is we can be done with the Zaidman updates until next spring. I really wish they would just stop pretending he's not an employee of the Bears organization.

Author:	SirTinkleButton [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
TB, Drinky, and Adam Hoge..3 people who cant speak PTFB!

Author:	redskingreg [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
Also, no WYC today. Instead, we will be blessed with Smug Arkush's presence. Maybe Beni can listen so we don't have to. I know I sure as shit won't hear a second of Hub.

Author:	W_Z [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
they reminded me a bit of the '08 saints. explosive offense but defense wasn't there. a caller had a point with regards to the signing. he said it was "irresponsible". considering jay can be injury prone and hasn't been a world beater when healthy, he shouldn't have gotten elite money. but cola wrote his thoughts off...not surprised. the comments about emery still talking are funny though.

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

Author:	Seacrest [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
Dave In Champaign wrote: RFDC wrote: With this shit defense they were a win away from the playoffs. Read: they went 8-8 in a season in which Aaron Rodgers missed 7 games and the Lions regressed so badly they fired their coach. The Lions are a good coach with a new culture away from being a powerhouse for the next couple of years. The firing of Jim Schwartz was/is the worst thing to happen to the Bears this off season.

Author:	RFDC [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
Seacrest wrote: Dave In Champaign wrote: RFDC wrote: With this shit defense they were a win away from the playoffs. Read: they went 8-8 in a season in which Aaron Rodgers missed 7 games and the Lions regressed so badly they fired their coach. The Lions are a good coach with a new culture away from being a powerhouse for the next couple of years. The firing of Jim Schwartz was/is the worst thing to happen to the Bears this off season. You really trust the Lions to hire a good coach? Not happening.

Author:	W_Z [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:13 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
maybe but i don't know that there's a coach out there that will turn them around that quickly. and stafford can be extremely frustrating as a quarterback.

Author:	312player [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
CharlieFurbush wrote: One of the positives of the Cutler deal happening so early is we can be done with the Zaidman updates until next spring. I really wish they would just stop pretending he's not an employee of the Bears organization. With all that deepthroating that red turd does ya think he would break a story once in a while.

Author:	W_Z [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:20 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
is that why his voice sounds like it does? i always wondered...

Author:	Seacrest [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
W_Z wrote: maybe but i don't know that there's a coach out there that will turn them around that quickly. and stafford can be extremely frustrating as a quarterback. Sounds like Cutler and the Bears a year ago. Except the Lions have a defense with a number of young studs.

Author:	312player [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
W_Z wrote: maybe but i don't know that there's a coach out there that will turn them around that quickly. and stafford can be extremely frustrating as a quarterback. If they hire a decent coach it will be like singletary-49ers - harbaugh niners...that lions team is loaded.

Author:	W_Z [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:40 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
i just wonder what coach is out there that could turn them around like that. harbaugh inherited a great team but he's also a great coach.

Author:	Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 5:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
RFDC wrote: Dave In Champaign wrote: RFDC wrote: With this shit defense they were a win away from the playoffs. Read: they went 8-8 in a season in which Aaron Rodgers missed 7 games and the Lions regressed so badly they fired their coach. They were competitive. Wanny told me they were a couple 4th and long stops and a made FG from being 11-5.

Author:	redskingreg [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 5:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
Matt criticizing someone for talking too much and using unnecessary words. Dan. Hey Dan. Dan. You hear me, Dan? Dan. Dan. Hey Dan. What are you saying, Dan? Dan. Dan. Dan.

Author:	Franky T [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: Should someone tell these guys that Briggs plays weak-side LB? "well, yeah, weak, yeah, weak side, that's what I meant, right"

Author:	Sneakers O'Toole [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 6:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
Franky T wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: Should someone tell these guys that Briggs plays weak-side LB? "well, yeah, weak, yeah, weak side, that's what I meant, right" Is that how they tried to get out of it? Because weak is not what they meant. It started with talking about if Shea could play the sam linebacker, which I guess is what Emery intimated in his press conference. So Matt said something to the effect of "hmm....so could he replace Briggs" followed by some further "hmmms" by Terry. I didn't get a chance to hear how this deep analysis ended, but they definitely thought Briggs played the sam.

Author:	Rod [ Thu Jan 02, 2014 6:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1/2: 'Don't Confuse Ike with an OFFICIAL Thread' Thread
Sneakers O'Toole wrote: Franky T wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: Should someone tell these guys that Briggs plays weak-side LB? "well, yeah, weak, yeah, weak side, that's what I meant, right" Is that how they tried to get out of it? Because weak is not what they meant. It started with talking about if Shea could play the sam linebacker, which I guess is what Emery intimated in his press conference. So Matt said something to the effect of "hmm....so could he replace Briggs" followed by some further "hmmms" by Terry. I didn't get a chance to hear how this deep analysis ended, but they definitely thought Briggs played the sam. They don't know the difference between a Will and a Sam? CALLING MATT BOWEN!!!!! Or that guy from Herman's Hermits.