Reading this made my blood boil

The latest Bears news and talk

Moderators: wab, RING4CHI, Pagan

User avatar
dplank
MVP
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Tue Jul 21, 2020 8:50 am

Interesting...also a good post! You guys have both presented interesting data on this. On the surface it looks to me like the most obvious answer is the truth here, which is that coaching absolutely matters when it comes to turnovers, but even so there is a pretty high degree of variability in the results year to year. It does appear as though it's a reasonable expectation that they wouldn't fall off a cliff though, as 1/4 managed to stay top5 and 1/2 stayed top10. We fell to the bottom third, in no scenario should that be acceptable nor should Pagano be given a pass on it because "turnovers were just going to fall". How much they fall is critical.

Rich, out of the 1/2 teams that stayed top10, were they all different teams or were any of them repeats?
Chuck Pagano's defensive rankings in 6 years with Indy: 26th, 20th, 11th, 26th, 30th, and 30th.
RichH55
Assistant Coach
Posts: 649
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:32 am

That I don't know Dplank (When I was looking up INT it seemed to be different)

Also - odd that I have to mention this - No one ever said Coaching, Scheme, Talent (OR health for that matter) doesn't matter - Never was said

That's a strawman

(and also basically does NOT apply very much to the 2018 v. 2019 discussion)

I think Vic was a very good coach, with a very good scheme -and the team was talented with a good degree of health

And like I said - even if all those things HAD continued (2019 with vic rather than Pagano) the turnovers were very, very likely coming down

In the 4 game sample size Yogi cites (if you don't want to call it cherry picked - fair enough) - it serves as a GREAT example of this - The Sack rate is VERY VERY HIGH (really unsustainable over the course of a season).
Yogi says 68 Sacks Pace - which is Super High - To put it in Perspective (Bears had 32 Sacks, and Steelers LED NFL with 54 - 68 is a monster number)

Turnover Pace Yogi cited - with that MONSTER unsustainable Sack number?

LESS THAN 2018.

The 2018 number was really big - which is hard to sustain year to year (hence why teams DON'T sustain it)


Think of it this way : You have a great Offense - they get rolling, get some breaks, stay healthy - Put up 42 Points that game.

Very likely they aren't doing that next game (For your point on Pagano - No reason they should fall off a cliff either) but even a 36 Point total (Really, really good!) is less than 42

I think maybe Yogi just doesn't understand how good 2018 was.
User avatar
dplank
MVP
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Tue Jul 21, 2020 10:51 am

RichH55 wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 9:32 am

Also - odd that I have to mention this - No one ever said Coaching, Scheme, Talent (OR health for that matter) doesn't matter - Never was said

That's a strawman
And you strawman'd the strawman! haha! I didn't accuse you of saying that dude.

There is a significant group on this board, a majority in fact, that have written off the turnover drop completely with a simple waive off of "they were always going to drop regardless of Pagano or Vic". You weren't in that group, you were in the more reasonable group that thought "yea, they were bound to come down, but they shouldn't have gone from best in the league to bottom third either".

So I was just restating that point which is now born out by fact and research that you and Yogi did. You guys are both right and the truth on this question is found in shades of grey. Had we gone from 1st to, say 6th in turnovers, I wouldn't have a gripe with Pagano about it. The shade of grey would fall more towards "they were always going to drop" type thinking. But when we fall from 1st to 22nd? I have it shading more towards "Pagano and his scheme had a negative impact on this defense". There's no absolute black/white answer here.
Chuck Pagano's defensive rankings in 6 years with Indy: 26th, 20th, 11th, 26th, 30th, and 30th.
RichH55
Assistant Coach
Posts: 649
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:38 am

I think the Pagano discussion is seperate.

We have a track record on Pagano (Suffice to say Buddy Ryan shouldn't be posted in any way in a response) before the Bears. Maybe the Ravens year mattered more (to me) for this exact situation (taking over someones quality unit and seeing what he does with that)

BUT can't ignore the whole record.

Though the 2018 numbers were pretty much always going to Fall - But did they have to crater? Playing Eddie Jackson incorrectly doesn't help... Etc.

That is a debate to be had for sure

But this is literally - people shocked the 2018 numbers went down - when they were always coming down (Small decrease v. Large decrease very, very different propositions - But a decrease? That was coming)
RichH55
Assistant Coach
Posts: 649
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:42 am

Dplank - also curious on what your thoughts were on the 2017 Bears Defense (with Vic) - Not exactly a turnover machine

(*). Khalil Mack v. Sam Acho is so absolutely Night and Day - Ali or Tyson in his prime v. a 12 year old kid who isn't even good at Wii Boxing

But Hicks was still very good in 2017
User avatar
dplank
MVP
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:05 pm

Honestly it gives me hope. The combo factor of Hick+Mack seemed to change things in a big way from pre-2018 defenses, and so losing Hicks last year broke that up and maybe it's more the reason for the drop off than Pagano. I hope so. But if you look at Vic's LONG track record, you'll see he posted Top 5 turnover seasons a number of times, including a couple #1's (both here and SF). He also had some dips, his record the first few years in Chicago was awful as we had league worst talent. But over a long stretch Vic was routinely in the top half of the league, and frequently much higher than that. TO's were poor in Denver last year, so that counts as well.

Pagano has an 8 year history to look at, and it's UGLY IMO.
Chuck Pagano's defensive rankings in 6 years with Indy: 26th, 20th, 11th, 26th, 30th, and 30th.
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 825
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:24 pm

dplank wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:05 pm
Pagano has an 8 year history to look at, and it's UGLY IMO.
dplank, I'm curious about your take on Pagano's record on defense given that you make no distinction between his time as a DC and his time as a Head Coach when he wasn't the defensive play caller.

In your sig you even include 2012, his first year in Indianapolis when he missed most of the year after being diagnosed with leukaemia. Not counting that illness-affected season (11-5 mostly under Arians), he led his team to back-to-back 11-5 seasons before Luck's injuries started to kick in. He still managed two 8-8 seasons, winning 6 games with back up QBs in one of those, and then the wheels came off completely when Luck missed the whole of 2017 and Pagano was fired.

Overall, his record as a HC isn't a disaster and that was his job. He didn't act as the de facto DC. Instead he brought in Greg Manusky who had 5 years as a DC under his belt, 4 with the 49ers and 1 with the Chargers. So who is primarily responsible for the defensive performance, the HC or the DC/play caller? Do you assign more responsibility to Pagano because he is a defensive coach and therefore you expect him to take a more active role in that side of the ball as a HC?

The Colt's GM at the time had a terrible reputation when it came to defensive talent too, which didn't help. Even so they were middle of the pack for a couple of years (9th in points, 20th in yards, 16th in DVOA in 2013 and 19th in points, 11th in yards, 13th in DVOA in 2014). It was after Pagano fired Manusky the next year (25th in yards, 26th in points, 13th in DVOA) and promoted Ted Monachino that things really went off the rails.

Monachino is of course now coaching our OLBs, so clearly he has a close relationship with Pagano. Maybe he just wasn't cut out or ready to be a DC, which is perhaps more a reflection of Pagano's judgement than on his ability to run a defense, or may be Pagano took a more active role with an inexperienced DC and was therefore more responsible for the defense's failings. What I believe we do know is that Monachino called the plays.

The upshot is I don't think you can look at the records of Pagano's defenses when he was a HC and simply extrapolate that to conclude that he is a bad DC. The fact is that as a DC Pagano's record is very good:

2011 Baltimore Ravens: 3rd in points, 3rd in yards, 1st in DVOA
2019 Chicago Bears: 4th in points, 8th in yards, 8th in DVOA

In both cases he inherited outstanding defenses and there are no further years to determine whether he is able to sustain that success as a DC beyond one year. I suggest that it is simply too soon to judge him in that role in Chicago. Given the bizarre nature of this year, we may not be in a position to truly judge him until after the 2021 season assuming he is still with the team by then.
User avatar
dplank
MVP
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Thu Jul 23, 2020 10:07 am

I'm not big on excuses. If a former DC becomes HC, then I attribute the defense performance to him. If a former OC becomes HC, then I attribute the offense performance to him. Almost MORESO than if they were just DC, because the HC has more control over the overall roster, direction of the team and how they play, draft, etc. Here's a handful of examples that back up that claim. Bilicheck, do you attribute those great defenses they've had to him or to that fat poser up in Detroit? Obviously it's the dark master.
Parcells had various DC's after he and Bilicheck split, but they always performed. Lovie Smith, same deal, during his time here it was LOVIE's Tampa 2, even if someone else was the DC. Seattle/Pete Carroll, what happened there? Same thing, Dan Quinn is DC for a while and moves in, Seattle plays the exact same defense as before - it's Carroll's team. I could go on and on and on.

So no, I don't agree with this at all. Seems like excuse making / wishful thinking to me. Pagano is responsible for the defensive performance in Indy, which was abysmal. And you'll notice that I'm consistent about that, dinging Vic for Denver's poor turnover rate last year and not blaming Ed Donatell for it. That's Fangio's defense 100%, no sane person would argue that it's really Ed Donatell's defense. Do you know who Indy's DC was in Chuck's last year? Matt Eberflus. That's right, the immortal Matt Eberflus. Now, are you seriously arguing that the Colts 30th ranked defense should be hung on Matt Eberflus and not Chuck Pagano? Gimme a break man...
Chuck Pagano's defensive rankings in 6 years with Indy: 26th, 20th, 11th, 26th, 30th, and 30th.
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 825
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Thu Jul 23, 2020 3:28 pm

Do I know who Indy's DC was in Chuck's last year? Yes, and it wasn’t "the immortal Matt Eberflus" who was hired after Pagano was fired. If I recall correctly he was going to be the DC for McDaniels but when McDaniels did his infamous U-turn Reich decided to still offer Eberflus the job. The DC for the last two years of Pagano’s tenure was Monachino and the defense was undeniably bad as I acknowledged.

I just see a distinction between a HC and a co-ordinator when the HC isn’t also the play caller (unlike Belichick and Fangio). Pagano led his team to two 11-5 seasons, two division titles and an AFC Championship Game in back-to-back seasons but his defenses ranked 9th in points/20th in yards and 19th in points/11th in yards. As HC his responsibilities encompass the whole team, not just the defense. Most people would give him kudos for the wins rather than criticise him for the average defensive play.

I’m not making excuses for Pagano, I’m just keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on him until we’ve seen more of him leading the Bears defense. They started on fire last season; the first 4 games they played great. Even in London, after an awful first half, they turned it around in the second. Until the back-to-back screw ups by the special teams unit they looked for all the world as if they would hold the Raiders scoreless. They were solid but not spectacular the rest of the season, not helped by injuries and an inept offense that ranked a lowly 29th in three and outs.

Pagano has shown that with quality players he can run a top defense. He didn’t have that in Indianapolis but he does in Chicago. What he has yet to show is whether he can sustain a high level as opponents analyse and adjust to his play calling from one season to the next.
User avatar
dplank
MVP
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Fri Jul 24, 2020 8:02 am

Dude, the Vikings situation should make this abundantly clear to you. They have 2 DC's hahahahah! They have Co-defensive coordinators this year. Why? Because they don't really need an actual DC, Mike Zimmer is the DC and these guys are just assistant coaches for him. Ed Donatell is not really responsible for Denver's defense, he's just an assistant for Fangio. Getting that "DC title" helped Fangio lure a valuable assistant coach to his staff, but make no mistake it's still Fangio's defense.

Greg Manusky was an assistant to Pagano, it was Pagano's defense - he was brought to Indy as a 'defensive guru' to fix their shitty D that they had from all those Manning years. That was his job! This is a total cop out, really weak stuff IMO. Gee, let's ignore 6 shitty years when Pagano was in charge to run things his way and instead focus on two individual seasons where he took over someone else's team for 6 months...lol. Each situation has to be looked at individually. i.e. Is Matt LaFleur responsible for GB's defense? Obviously no, Pettine is. Their setup is just like ours actually....

The problem here is that Nagy is an offensive guy (or, wait, I guess Mark Helfrich was actually responsible for our offense last year ;) ) Because Nagy focuses on offense, he needs an autonomous DC. This is a super common setup in the NFL these days, where you see a young HC that focuses on their side of the ball and they bring in a very experience coordinator to lead the other side. The coordinator on the same side of the ball as the HC is typically a nobody, some assistant coach they are grooming or a specialist of some sort. So Pagano has full control, it's his show, as it was in Indy. That's what has me concerned. Put Pagano in a different situation, where he's down a level as a position coach or a DC on a team where the real DC is the HC? No problems here at all. There are some old school HC's that did the traditional setup, where he ran the team but the OC and DC truly ran their sides of the ball completely - John Harbaugh comes to mind. John Fox was kinda that way, old school guy. But it's increasingly rare and not our situation here in Chicago. Pagano's role here is similar to his role in Indy because Nagy is hands off on defense.

Every situation has to be looked at individually. When you look at the Colts during Pagano's tenure, it's very, very clear that he was brought in to fix and be totally responsible for that defense. He failed at that in a big, big way. He fired his DC in 2016 because they sucked, replaced him with a homeboy in Monachino, and promptly posted back to back 30th ranked defenses before he was mercifully fired. Pardon me for not wanting to see a repeat of that here in Chicago!
Chuck Pagano's defensive rankings in 6 years with Indy: 26th, 20th, 11th, 26th, 30th, and 30th.
RichH55
Assistant Coach
Posts: 649
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Fri Jul 24, 2020 12:47 pm

I think the HC v. DC point is fair - TO A POINT - It can't be just ignored though

(Rod Marinelli comes pretty quickly to mind - and Dplank to me that is a good example)

BUT Marinelli also has quite the record on the Defensive side of the ball in that respect (Pagano actually has a pretty light track record in that respect)
User avatar
dplank
MVP
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Fri Jul 24, 2020 2:03 pm

RichH55 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 12:47 pm
I think the HC v. DC point is fair - TO A POINT - It can't be just ignored though

(Rod Marinelli comes pretty quickly to mind - and Dplank to me that is a good example)

BUT Marinelli also has quite the record on the Defensive side of the ball in that respect (Pagano actually has a pretty light track record in that respect)
As stated, and bolded, and italicized, and underlined - every situation has to be looked at on it's own. Broad stroke answers don't apply here as you can counter them with a singular example easily. In this case, anyone who knows anything about the Colts knows that Chuck Pagano was hired to coach that football team specifically to fix that defense. Period, full stop. He had two different coordinators in there, and was forced to fire his first one, then got axed himself. Those were HIS defenses in Indy, plain and simple. Any argument to the contrary comes from a perspective or angle, not reality.

FWIW, I have always thought Rod Marinelli SUCKED as a coordinator and even worse as a HC, he's purely a position coach IMO. A damn good one, but no more. I feel the same way about Pagano, although I'd rate Pagano as a HC/DC higher than rockin Rod. And I'd rate Rod as a better DL coach than Pagano as a DB coach.
Chuck Pagano's defensive rankings in 6 years with Indy: 26th, 20th, 11th, 26th, 30th, and 30th.
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Player of the Month
Posts: 385
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Mon Jul 27, 2020 2:19 pm

I wasn't going to reply to this thread again, but I had a question to ask Rich, so I thought I'd take the opportunity to further clarify my stance.

Rich claimed that it was obvious to everybody that the turnovers the Bears had in 2018 were unattainable in 2019 because those 2018 turnovers were predominantly, or at least substantially, the result of luck. To counter this, I examined both Buddy Ryan and Lovie Smith to determine whether turnovers could be sustained over time with coaching and scheme and personnel. Those two proved that they could.

But Rich continues to intentionally misapprehend those examples and claims that Buddy Ryan has no bearing in today's game. I guess that means he rejects Buddy's most basic precept that you have to pressure the QB as being relevant today. He obviously thinks that pressure makes no difference today and Khalil Mack has no bearing at all on our turnovers and is therefore worthless and should never have been signed. How does it feel Rich to have your own type of intentional obtuse rationale turned against you? Kind of stupid isn't it, one might even say, "ridiculous."

There are many reasons for turnovers, of which luck is one part, but I think a much more minor part than others. Health is another. Now, some might say that's luck too, and I guess you could look at it that way. But if you do, then you'd have to say that luck is the predominant force in football: offense and defense. I mean, would the Chiefs had won the Super Bowl last year if Mahomes got hurt? Guess they were lucky, huh? I think when you evaluate a team in preseason, you have to evaluate them on the personnel they have available at the time. It's really impossible to factor in health. How many of those articles that you found that claim our 2018 turnovers were unattainable actually predicted the injury to Hicks?

There are several other factors which haven't been mentioned here that impact turnovers. One is the offense you run. If you try to shorten the game with a ball control offense as Fox did, your defense is probably going to end up with fewer turnovers than you'd otherwise would. Or if your offense is so explosive it forces opposing offenses to take more risks, you're probably going to end up with more turnovers. The Chiefs' defense, with their offense explosiveness, probably gets more turnovers than they otherwise would. And that's not even including the nature of the defense itself. If a defense can't stop the run, they're probably going to get fewer turnovers because offenses will simply run it down their throats--what happened to the Bears in '19 with Hicks out.

Hell, even the influence of one player can impact turnovers. I think that it's more than a coincidence that the Panthers 39 turnovers in coincided with Peanuts one year with the team even though Peanut only directly contributed to one of their 15 fumble recoveries.

But despite all these other factors, I think that generally speaking, turnovers follow the best defenses and those that create the most pressure. Lovie Smith and Buddy Ryan proved that historically, and this has also been also more recently. The Bears in 2018 were the #1 defense in the league and #3 in sacks and had 36 turnovers. The Patriots were the #1 defense in '19 and and #7 in sacks and had 36 turnovers. The Steelers in '19 were #5 in defense but #1 in sacks with 52 and had 39 turnovers.

So tell me Rich, when you made your conclusion that our 2018 turnovers of 36 were absolutely "unattainable," did you think that we weren't one of the best defenses in the league? I mean if the Patriots and Steelers could reach that 36 number, surely we could too. Or did you think they were that much better than us? For myself, I honestly thought we were the best defense in the league, capable of bringing the most pressure. That's why I thought we would exceed that number. Unfortunately, I didn't account for the Hicks injury, but perhaps even more damning for me was that I honestly thought Leonard Floyd was going to break out. He didn't....

But since I'm now more than ninety percent certain that you didn't publicly proclaim our 2018 turnovers were unattainable in 2019, I wanted to give you that chance now. And this is the whole reason for this post: Do you think that our 2018 turnovers of 36 are "unattainable" by our 2020 defense? Have some balls and publicly declare your position rather than rely on some amorphous articles after the fact.

For myself, I think we can break 36 and if Pagano plays Quinn as a down DE rather than an OLB, I believe we will.
RichH55
Assistant Coach
Posts: 649
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:18 pm

Yep - Buddy Ryan and 1988 Stats don't matter for the discussion of whether the Bears were going to Fall off their 2018 Turnover pace.

That is 100% true (Especially when you know what they did or did not add - and who the DC was going to be) - You know like you were alive just before the 2019 season happened - when this discussion came from

Here's a part of the thread - And Yogi's simple inability to figure out basic things like numbers and statistics

"Health is another. Now, some might say that's luck too, " 2018 was particularly healthy for the Defense. This was always a part of the analysis

Yogi - During this 4 game span - when the Bears were playing great and were very healthy including Hicks (putting aside that the injury "luck" of 2018 was unlikely to continue)

Bears on pace for 68 Sacks Yogi: "For myself, I honestly thought we were the best defense in the league, capable of bringing the most pressure"

68 Sacks is a monster number - unsustainable over the course of a reason (* Perspective)

(*) Most Sacks last year were Steelers with 54 - Which is actually a very good number in today's NFL

For the Years (numbers according to Football Database) 2000- 2019
68 Would have been the HIGHEST total

2014-2019 Team Sack leaders year by year (54, 52, 48, 56, 52, 54)

1985 Bears - 64 Sacks
1986 Bears - 62 Sacks

SUFFICE TO SAY: It was not going to continue at that level of pressue and sacks

Now Yogi - what can we glean from that?

WELLLLLLLL - The Turnover rate for this ABSURD Sack number?

LESS than the 2018 team

Again - Less. With an All Time type pass rush (albeit 4 games)





Do you simply not get how hard it is - in this day and again - not say 1988 for no Fing reason - it is to get 36 Turnovers on Defense in a Season?

(I already know you don't - Maybe you can tell me how Red Grange would change that basic math though?)


B). BUT RICH THE STEELERS!!!!!

Ok.

Steelers Sacks by Year
2019: 54
2018: 52
2017: 56 (THIS IS A SACK HEAVY DEFENSE!)
And just for a couple of more years
2016: 38
2015: 48 (52 led the league that year)

Steelers Turnovers by Year
2019: 39. (WOWOWOOWO)

2018 - 15 (Yes you read that correctly). 2 Less Sacks than 2019 - 50%+ Less Turnovers

Outlier - Got to be Rich - Give me all the years you lying liar liar!!!!

Ok - 2017 - Now remember audience this year they had MORE Sacks then then did in 2019 - So computer put this Idiot Rich in his place!!!!!

2017 - Survey says !!! 22. (Yogi- 22 is considerably less than 39 or even 36)

2016 - relatively low sack total - 23 Turnovers (more than the 56 Sack season)

2015 - Pretty solid sack total but 4th most in the 5 year span - 30 Turnovers (again that's what 20% less than 36 (I think - feel free to double check my math)




POST TOO LONG MAKE IT SIMPLE!!!
36 Turnovers is very, very, very difficult to get to
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 20772
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:40 pm

I don't why this is still an argument. Of all the defenses to amass 30 or more turnovers in the last, oh....7 years, the only team to do it more than once was the Steelers.
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Player of the Month
Posts: 385
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:28 pm

Got it Rich. You think that pressure doesn't matter and Khalil Mack was a shitty trade and makes no difference. ;)

Are you going to answer my questions? Did you believe heading into 2019 that the Bears were one of the best defenses in the league? Did you think that the Pats and Steelers were better? Do you think that 36 turnovers are "unattainable" by this team? Or are you going to simply wait for the end of the season so you can point to some amorphous articles in hindsight?

Aren't the Chiefs "LUCKY" that Mahomes didn't get hurt? Think they'll be so "lucky" this year?

And AGAIN, are 36 turnovers "UNATTAINABLE" by the 2020 Chicago Bear defense? Enquiring minds want to know. Grow some balls.
RichH55
Assistant Coach
Posts: 649
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Tue Jul 28, 2020 4:05 pm

All those articles were pointed out to you BEFORE 2019 - it made no difference to the stupidity

Do you not think a Maholmes injury would effect the Chiefs Offense?? Really?


Lets bet on 36 - Done - Balls on table

36 is a push - you get the over I get the under

Same terms as before?

Or do you want to admit you were very dumb on this
User avatar
UOK
Site Admin
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 21227
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:07 am

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Tue Jul 28, 2020 4:44 pm

Whatever conversation was being had here is becoming personal attacks, so I'm shutting this one down.
Image

"None of us are in the board room, locker room, or on the sideline, so in a way, we don't know shit."
- Otis Day


Read UOK's Summary of the Average Angry Bears Fan

Return to “Halas Hall”