Cubs will watch another drought end--just not theirs

As a Cubs fan, which would be worse: To see a team that had never before won a postseason series (the Rangers) win it all before the Cubs do? Or to see a team that hasn't won since 1954 when they were 3,000 miles away in New York take the title?

In the last seven years, we've seen the Red Sox end the Curse of the Bambino, the White Sox avenge the scandal of 1919, and the Phillies end a 100-season title drought in the city of Philadelphia. And this year, either the 38-year-old Rangers will get their first ring, or the Giants will get their first since moving across the country in 1957.

Oh well. I'd much rather see this situation than see the Yankees win it again or the suddenly dynastic Phillies take it.

NFL's evil empires start season slow

There's a lot to pay attention to in an NFL season (especially if you have a fantasy football team and pick every game based on the spread), but I am getting immense enjoyment out of the Vikings' and Cowboys' early struggles. The two teams are a combined 3-9. Add the Packers in and the three of them are just 7-12. It's like watching the Cardinals tread water while the Yankees and White Sox fall apart before the All-Star break. It's fantastic. On top of that, Romo is out 6-8 weeks while Brett Favre has a fractured ankle and a texting thumb that is apparently all too healthy. I'm certainly nervous about the team I love and their very tenuous hold on first place, but the flame of my sports-hate is burning brightly this season.

Humor Vault Headlines

Cliff Lee on MLB playoffs' low TV ratings: "That Vikings-Packers game was awesome."

Alex Smith discovers he's a really terrible quarterback by playing as the 49ers in Madden '11

Mike Quade on being named Cubs manager: "Who's Mike Quade?"

Bears fall on their faces, into tie for first

The Bears' situation--they look terrible but they find themselves tied for first in the division--brings forth an interesting philosophical sports question: How much evidence do you require in order to have faith in your favorite team? What's your threshold for belief? Can the evidence be limited to fortunate geographic positioning? As in, being in the horrendous NFC North? Or does your personal sports dogma require more? Like, maybe, a certain level of talent, success, and all around good play?

All of this is to say: Are you excited that the Bears are somehow tied for first through Week 7? Or do you think, as Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth do, that it's all a mirage? Do you think it possible for the Bears to take advantage of their fortune moving forward, or has the Bears' pathetic performance the last two weeks left you devoid of faith in your favorite football team?

Me? I'm hanging on by a thread. The NFC's just so damn awful. The Bears get a bye (while the Packers face the Jets on the road) followed by the Bills. There's a decent chance the Bears will be 5-3 and still in first, and I won't be able to give up just yet. I mean, would that sort of be like leading at the halfway point of a marathon against Stephen Hawking, Rosie O'Donnell and my one-year-old niece? Would it be somewhat akin to leading a beauty pageant in which two contestants are revealed to be crossdressing men and another answers the question "If you had a million dollars, how would you use it to make the world a better place?" by coming down off the stage and stabbing one of the judges repeatedly in the heart? Yes, it would be something like those things. But still, first place!

Oh, I just thought of another good philosophical sports question: What the f**k is wrong with Jay Cutler? Seriously, someone tell me what the f**k is wrong with Jay Cutler. He looks like a rookie out there. DeAngelo Hall--who, I would like to remind you, plays for the Redskins--caught more of Cutler's passes than did Greg Olsen, and as many as Earl Bennett. Seeking to diversify his turnover portfolio, Cutler also fumbled at the goal line. It seems pretty clear that, along with the offensive line, the big problem with the Bears offense isn't the play caller (Martz), but the play maker. Or rather, the guy who was brought to the team to make plays but seems to do so mostly for his opponents.

You know who had a higher QB rating than Cutler on Sunday? Ryan Fitzpatrick. And Matt Cassel. And Jason Campbell. And Matt Moore. And Josh Freeman. And Todd Bouman. And Colt McCoy. And keep in mind, that's not a function of the Bears going away from the pass or anything like that. Cutler threw for 281 yards and a touchdown, good for the ol' QB rating. But four picks and a fumble? Not good. Not good at all.

Even the karma the Bears had early in the season (Calvin Johnson' non-TD, the Packers' plethora of penalties) seems to have vanished. A pick six by D.J. Moore was called back due to a delay of game. The Redskins fumbled like 700 times but got all but one of them back. Lovie wasted a challenge on a close play at the goal line which made him reluctant to challenge Cutler's fumble on the very next play. Wait, that last one wasn't karma, that's just Lovie and his staff being morons when it comes to using challenges.

It's amazing the Bears only lost by three. It felt like 30. Bring on the bye.

Let's end it on a positive note again:

Interim no more; Quade gets two-year deal

First word that came to mind when Bryan Duling texted me that Mike Quade had been named Cubs manager? Disappointed. (Word that I actually texted in response? "Dammit." My vocabulary doesn't get much of a workout in the texting arena.)

I've said before that managers/coaches are the hardest element to judge in sports. How do you separate a manger from his players? Eric Wedge won AL Manger of the Year in 2007 and was out of a job shortly thereafter. Same for Joe Girardi with the Marlins in 2006. Is Lovie Smith a great coach or a terrible one? Certainly both arguments have been made during his tenure in Chicago. Is Phil Jackson the greatest NBA coach ever or lucky to have had the names "Michael Jordan" and "Kobe Bryant" on his rosters?

I don't know the answers to these questions. But I do know that Ryne Sandberg put in

four good years in the Cubs minor league system, that he's lauded by the players he managed, and that he's managed just 37 fewer major league games than Mike Quade.

Prior to the 2003 season, the Cubs hired Dusty Baker, fresh off a World Series appearance and two years after he won Manager of the Year with the Giants. One word for that? Impressed. Impressed that Hendry lured one of the most respected managers in the game to Chicago after a stretch of no-name managers on the North Side.

Prior to the 2007 season, the Cubs hired Lou Piniella. He had struggled with the woeful Rays but was in the top 20 all-time for wins by a manager and was easily the biggest name out there at the time. One word? Excited. A fiery manager with a winning history and a World Series ring on his finger. Can't do much better than that.

And now, prior to the 2011 season, we have Mike Quade. He has managed 37 major league games. He was a third base coach less than three months ago. And he is not a Hall of Famer and does not have his jersey number flying from the right-field foul pole.

There's my bias sneaking its way in. But that's okay. A lot of Cubs fans wanted Sandberg in part because of his legacy with the team. Of course we would understand if he got passed over for someone who clearly deserved the job more. But Mike Quade? The third base coach?

Sandberg expressed an interest in managing back in 2006. Piniella was a much, much better option. So Hendry told Sandberg to pack his bags and hit the minors if he wanted to work his way up. He did. Then he got promoted. Then he got promoted again. He was over .500 as a minor league manager. He was named PCL Manager of the Year in 2010. In the last two years, he took a Double-A team to the league championship and produced the most victories in a 16-team Triple-A league. He has worked with many Cubs who will be on the 2011 roster.

And yet ... Mike Quade. Not Dusty Baker, not Lou Piniella, not Joe Girardi, not Joe Torre, but Mike Quade. Sandberg accepted Hendry's challenge, put in four successful years in the minors, and Hendry did nothing but open the door for him to leave the organization.

Now, we do have to be fair here. Quade managed the Iowa Cubs for four years. He's managed over 2,000 minor league games in total. It's fair to say that he, too, has paid his dues.

Look, Quade might be the perfect fit. In fact, a "no-name" manager might be just what the team needs. A few of the players endorsed him down the stretch. He led the team to a 24-13 record. He showed guts by benching Starlin Castro when he made a mental mistake. I can't sit here and tell you that Quade definitely won't be a good manager. And I can't tell you that Sandberg definitely would have succeeded with the Cubs.

But ... I'm disappointed. On the Ron Santo Always Getting Rejected by the Veterans Committee Scale, this is about a 5. I am absolutely crushed every other January when Santo fails to get into the Hall of Fame. This doesn't reach that level, but I am definitely disappointed and frustrated that the Cubs have a new manager and it's not Ryno.I'm disappointed that Sandberg likely will never get a chance to manage the Cubs. I'm disappointed that he worked his ass of for the organization for the last four years and got passed over for a third base coach who did well in a 37-game stretch with no pressure and a roster with an average age of about 23.

Which, by the way, is the number on that flag flying on the right-field foul pole. Sandberg was a hero as a Cubs player, but he won't have the chance to play hero from the dugout even though he deserved the job as much as any of the other candidates on Hendry's list.

I'll get over it. I'll root for Quade to have success and frankly, I don't have much reason to believe he won't do just fine. (I mean, you know, except for the 77-win roster he inherits.) I liked Piniella enough, but I'm looking forward to a new era, a new personality, and hopefully a little less confusion and bewilderment from the manager. I'll be excited to see what Quade can do come Opening Day.

But for now, I'm disappointed.

Bears face third NFC East foe in near must-win game

The Bears are 4-2, so why would they need a win already? Because they still have to head to Lambeau this season. Because with a quick look at their schedule, you'll see teams like the Patriots, Jets and Eagles listed. There are only so many wins left on the docket, and with the Bears currently laying three points in a home game against the beatable Redskins, it's darn close to a must-win game.

Washington has been close to the definition of average so far this year. They stay in virtually every game but don't have the firepower to put away all their opponents. They beat a good Eagles team with strong defense but gave up 30 points to the Rams. They beat Green Bay in overtime but couldn't pull out a win against Indy. A blowout on either side in this Sunday's game seems unlikely--my guess is one team will need to make a big play late in the fourth to win it.

The two teams haven't locked horns since 2007, a 24-16 win for Washington at FedEx Field.

KEYS TO THE GAME

Wrap up. Important in any game, of course, but especially against Donovan McNabb and 218-pound bruiser Ryan Torain at running back. If the Bears get to McNabb, they need to bring him down. And the defense will need to gang tackle Torain and hit him low--he's not a big fan of falling down.

Run the ball. It's becoming painfully clear (literally) that the Bears need more balance on offense. It's one thing to believe (as I do) that balance is key to any successful offense, but the fact is, Cutler's gonna find himself in the ER if the Bears don't start keeping defenses honest. On top of that, you can run the ball on this Redskins team--they allowed Joseph Addai to run for 128 yards last week, his highest total since 2007. If the Colts can run the ball against Washington, the Bears can too.

Chris Cooley and Lance Briggs. Both are hurt, but both will probably play. Cooley is the Skins' second leading receiver while Briggs is key to the Bears' D. If either is significantly less than 100 percent, it's likely to impact the final score.

NFL Visions, Part 2

THINGS ARE LOOKING BLURRY

San Diego Chargers, 2-4
They really belong in the "down" category, but they're fortunate to be in a s**t division. And this team does have talent, right? How do they keep losing? I don't understand what's going on. That's why they're "blurry"--this team confuses the hell out of me. Is this just their typical slow start before a dominant second half? Or is this team just strangely sucky? If you're inclined to think they're just biding their time as usual, they better be done biding real soon: they face the Patriots, Titans and Texans in their next three.

Minnesota Vikings, 2-3
Lucky bastards got a win in the Craptastic Bowl, which keeps them alive. For now. And in a season where the whole NFC seems sort of poopy, the Vikings are unfortunately not out of it yet if they were to get their s**t together. I hope that does not happen.

Seattle Seahawks, 3-2

I really don't want to talk much about them because I currently hate them and their Bears-beating ways.

DON'T LOOK AT ME I'M HIDEOUS

Dallas Cowboys, 1-4
Compared to the Bills and the Panthers of the world, they're not actually hideous. But when AMERICA'S TEAM, a team with JERRY JONES as its owner, playing in a season in which THE FREAKIN' SUPER BOWL IS IN DALLAS, is 1-4, you're gonna have some problems. Plus, they're stuck in what seems to be the NFC's only good division. Don't be surprised if some actual, real-life cowboy down in Texas lassoes Tony Romo's ass as he's walking down the street. The Rangers are better than the Cowboys. I repeat, the Rangers are better than the Cowboys. Texans are not going to stand for that, y'all.

AFC West

The whole damn lot of 'em lost last week. All of 'em. And only one of them won the week before, and that's only because the Raiders and Chargers played each other.

The Chiefs are back to Earth after an unexpected 3-0 start. The Chargers continue to suffer head-scratching losses. The Broncos are nothing special. And the Raiders ... well, they're the Raiders.

But here's the real stat you need to know. This is the good stuff. I'm hookin' you up here. Combined, AFC West teams have fewer wins than the NFC West. That's right. The laughable, awful, amateur NFC West has one more win than the AFC West, and the AFC West has actually played one more game!

I'm sort of starting to hate this division. I was already a bit anti-Denver cuz of Orton. San Diego is always a confusing team and ultimately a tease even when they're good. Kansas City has been terrible for years, though I could get behind them this year if it turns out their 3-0 start wasn't a complete mirage. And unless you were born and raised inside the Oakland Coliseum--I mean if you literally spent at least 10 years of your life inside the stadium and were raised by the guy pictured to the right--then you can't like the Raiders. You just can't.

Buffalo Bills, 0-5

Let's see. This week they head to Baltimore. Loss. Then they go to Kansas City, who may not be for real but Arrowhead is a tough place to play. Loss. Then they get the Bears in Toronto after the Bears' bye week. Loss. Then they get the Lions at home. Lo--. Wait, what? The Lions at home? I think the Lions can definitely take down the Bills, but we have to declare this the first potentially winnable game for the Bills. In Week 10. Ouch.

Carolina Panthers, 0-5

They get San Fran, St. Louis and Tampa Bay three of the next four weeks, so they might just snag a win or two in the next month here. Or maybe not. Because they're now going back to Matt Moore, and Steve Smith is still injured.

My fantasy team
Holy Lord. I was under the impression when I joined a fantasy football league that you're supposed to win sometimes and lose sometimes. You know, you win some you lose some. But I'm the 2008 Lions and 1976 Buccaneers rolled up into one. I'm 0-6. I'm the only winless team in the league. I've scored an atrociously small number of points, though I do have two more than Trevor. Luckily, I've already traded a few of my players for draft picks and "keepers" for next year. But nevertheless, my fantasy team is hideous.

NFL Visions, Part 1

THINGS ARE LOOKING UP

New York Jets, 5-1
Apparently LaDanian Tomlinson is not done playing football--he's averaging 5.3 yards per carry and is clearly Running Back Numero Uno in New York. Having lost 10-9 in Week 1 against Baltimore, they're two points away from a 6-0 record.

Philadelphia Eagles, 4-2
It's hard to have a quarterback controversy when one guy (Vick) has a QB rating of 108 and the other guy (Kolb) has thrown for 201, 253 and 326 yards in the last three games. Now comes the tough part: at Tennessee and then home against Indy.

Parity
Mercury Morris and the '72 Dolphins got to celebrate extremely early this season, in Week 5. It's the first time since 1970 that no team made it to 4-0 to begin the season. In fact, there are only three one-loss teams remaining through six weeks. If you can tell me right now that you're sure of which teams will face off in the Super Bowl, then I can tell you you're a damned dirty liar. And I don't like to be lied to.

Baltimore Ravens, 4-2
I know they lost to the Patriots this week, but their two losses on the season were by a combined eight points, both of them on the road. They've also defeated the Steelers, the Jets and Broncos. Their defense continues to be strong, and with their offense now coming around, things are looking up. So is their schedule: they get the Bills next week followed by a bye.

THINGS ARE LOOKING DOWN

Cincinnati Bengals, 2-3

After beating a strong Ravens teams and then defeating the Panthers comfortably, the 2-1 Bengals looked like they might have enough talent to make noise this season. So, naturally, they proceeded to lose to the Browns and the Buccaneers. How about a trip to Atlanta followed by games against Miami, Pittsburgh and Indianapolis to help you get better? No? You'd rather not? By the way, is it just me or have T.O. and Ochocinco been absurdly boring this season? They're actually doing pretty well, but why no crazy touchdown celebrations? Why no infighting? Why haven't either one of them drawn a felony charge yet? ENTERTAIN ME!

NFC North
The Bears sit at a respectable 4-2 after a bad loss, yet they still lead the Packers (3-3) and the Vikings (2-3). And of course the Lions aren't going to do anything to help the division's status. They appear to have eaten some bad cheese up in Green Bay--this team that was supposed to be 13-3 already has three losses? And though the Vikings got a much-needed win on Sunday, their offensive line still looks awful. The two underachieving teams will face off this Sunday night.

Denver Broncos, 2-4
I kind of lose track of the Broncos every week. What are those oxygen-deprived, neck-bearded crazies up to? Usually they're losing. Trying hard, it seems, but losing. But get this: the best teams they'll play between now and Week 16, based on current record, are the Chiefs and Cardinals, who are each 3-2. Seriously. Look at this schedule:

vs. Oakland
@ San Francisco
vs. Kansas City
@ San Diego
vs. St. Louis
@ Kansas City
@ Arizona
@ Oakland

How is that possible? The Broncos haven't looked all that great, but don't give up on them yet with that schedule, in that division.