BearFan PHX

This is like that moment in training camp where everyone gets chippy. They're sick of hitting each other, and want real contact.

Right on

Hey Grizz, I dont mean to imply that anyone that thinks Urlacher still had some left is a dick! You are entitled to your opinion, and you argue it well on here. It was more to Jason calling someone else a dick, and generally being one. You can share the same opinion he has, and do it in a different way, as you have. My apologies if you thought I meant you too.

Sheesh Jason is a dick. Dude, there are many decaffinated brands that taste almost as good as the real thing. Is Urlacher your Webb? Urlacher had nothing left in the tank, you could see it in the way he moved. And NO ONE gave him a contract. That's the facts of this. He got old, no matter how many of his jerseys you have, the Bears did the right thing. Frankly, the 2 million dollar offer was generous of them.

LOL scs, it is the mark of good character to be able to make fun of oneself. Nicely done

Mettenberger is gone to Ten

Fuller looks GREAT. He will be a great press and zone CB for us. He is a hard hitting player who can get the ball, and punish receivers. He will be terrific in run support. Frankly, he looks like a tougher hitter than Pryor. Keep in mind that we have guys on our defensive staff who were with Pryor for 4 years at college. They know him, so we had the best scouting on Pryor possible. I dont mean to say that Pryor isnt good, Im saying Fuller is better, and fits our scheme perfectly. For once we have a GM looking past the first four weeks of the season, thank god. You guys are going to love this player.

smart move. he wouldnt have made more than the minimum anywhere else at this point, so he ends up $100k richer for the workout bonus he keeps here. Plus I think he sees the direction this team is heading. We have a contender here folks.

OK, so hypothetically, who would have loved that trade? I think I would have.

I see Houston as an Alex Brown / Trace Armstrong type. He can play the left side, while Allen plays the right side. We use Young as a rotational pass rusher, and use all three on passing downs, moving Houston inside in those cases. I gotta say tho, this pretty much says that we aren't going to be a 3-4 team more than as a special package or something tricky.

He didn't agree, it was already in his contract that the Bears can do this unilaterally. I mean he agreed when he signed the original deal, but not this time, or the next time. Emery and Cliff Stein are rocking it.

I think we should run some of those 6 WR sets that worked so well in the CFL for Trestman

I think this opens us up to be able to take the best defensive lineman available at the 14th pick without regard to position. It also opens the possibility of taking the best defensive player at any position off the board at #14, which is a good position to be in, or rather the result of a BAD position, but flexible!

HAHAHAHA

Yes absolutely. We are better incrementally at each of these positions than we were last year. So you're right. I also understand the people who say that these guys aren't All Pros, and so they arent the eventual answer. Yes and no. You said it too, these guys won't be Seattle. But some of them may surprise us, and draft picks are still coming. If we can be a top 20 defense, we should be able to win some playoff games. But we are certainly building a team that we be even better next year, and we should be in really good cap shape then too. I'm excited at the way we're going. And you know what? I said it would take more than one year to revamp the OL, so maybe these guys will outperform even our optimistic but realistic point of view. Good post, scs!

I agree. I hope we trade down, and get 4 picks in the first three rounds.

That's cool TD, my whole point is that we dont need to agree on philosophy in order to be neighbors, and boardmates. And religion is responsible for the varying definitions of marriage, but you are correct, people's views on it are not always religious at all. Anyway respect to all here.

I think most of the confusion comes into play when making the distinction between having a legal right to your opinion and the right to argue it, and saying that all opinions are worthy of respect of agreement. It is crucial in a free society that people be able to argue for their views, especially if they are not widely held. At one time, the idea that the earth was round was held only by a small number of people, and they were persecuted for it. In order to have a healthy marketplace of ideas, it is imperative that all points of view be legal to express and debate, especially when they are fringe. Do I think that there is a chance that the Nazis are on to something, and that their ideals will prevail? No I sure don't. But I understand that ANY legal limits on free speech will inevitable result in political correctness that eventually WILL cripple the expression of important if radical ideas. Some will understand and agree with what I've just said, but amongst that group, many will fall into another mistake, and that is the idea that any opinion is valid, and deserves respect. This is not true at all. It is important that we be able to just as freely speak AGAINST ideas, such as Nazi-ism without limits. That's the symmetry of free speech. Every point of view isn't equally OK, that's moral relativism. So far, I'm only talking about speech. It is clear that we are a country of laws, and they (are supposed to) include protections of basic right, such as free speech, but also to have certain rights, among them the right to equal protections of rights under the law. If the law is to define something like marriage in a legal (and not religious) sense, i.e. there are tax implications, and shared ownership of property, then i think the constitution is quite clear. Gay legal marriage is an inevitability. Where confusion seems to occur is between the idea of Religious marriage vs. Legal Marriage. For example, two Protestants cannot be married by a Catholic priest in a Catholic church. Does the Catholic church recognize Protestant marriage in a religious sense? Probably not. But no one is confused when Protestants or Catholics get married in a legal way. In fact, if two people get married in a church ceremony, but do not fill out the forms for marriage licenses etc, they may well be married in the eyes of God, in the opnion of members of that church. But they are not legally married. Similarly, if two people go fill out a marriage license, and have a judge preside, they ARE legally married despite having had no religious ceremony at all. Therefore there are two different things here, religious marriage and legal marriage. It is completely appropriate for religious people to be against gay religious marriage, just as they may not respect a marriage performed by a judge. But it is a constitutionally guaranteed right for equal protection under the law, and that results in gay legal marriage as an absolute right so long as there is any such thing as legal marriage at all. When you see the distinctions, it is easy to understand that people are not necessarily bigots to express their religious beliefs, but rather that bigotry comes into play when they attempt to enforce these religious beliefs in an illegal way. It is important for bigots and enlightened alike to be able to speak and we should respect everyones right to an opinion, but be under no compulsions legal or social to respect every opinion. It really all makes sense, they used to teach this stuff is civics class. Political forces conspire on both sides to blur these distinctions, to make us angry to get us to vote for solutions. The fact is the Constitution has been working well for a long time, and we just need to stay aligned with how it works. Drawing us into opposing groups, those who hate gays and those who love gays is too simplistic. We should all recognize the legal rights, and feel free to hold any opinion about religion, philosophy, the best way to live one's own life etc. It's really not that hard.

HA!

Right on TD, I love the passion here, and we do not have to agree on everything to be friends and boardmates. Now if you were a PACKERS fan...

I disagree, and I respect your right to disagree with me too. But I will also defend my position, since I know it to be right, deep down in my bones. It's probably best to just move on from this issue, because i respect the board, and I'm not trying to bring politics here, but neither will I hold back if something is said on this or another topic that challenges my sense of morality, becasue at the end of the day what i beleive so strongly in is more important than my membership on an internet board. That said, I do not diminish how much I enjoy this board, of what a good one it is. So my preffered outcome would be to continue to debate Bears players and coaches, and the rest of the NFL, without acrimony or having to defend my beliefs. Im not offended, please dont misunderstand, I totally believe in others' right to hold their opinions too. I think Id rather just not have to defend mine, or have them called ignorant. Further, I did not make the comparison that I was called "ignorant" for. To destroy the differenc ein your analogy, that Robinson could not help it be known that he was black, that puts the onus of the decision on to his team owenr then, and would put him in a parallel position to Michael Sam. The point is I wont split hairs, or be put on the defensive by a PC application of the inference of racism. Im no shrinking violet, I am not afraid to hold an unpopular opinion, especially when I know in my moral code that I am right. It is precisely for this reason that i can respect other people who disagree with me. I am sure they hold their opinions from equally honest moral conviction. So again, maybe it's best to move on from this issue.

I dont think I did say that what gays go thru is the same as what Blacks went thru. What I DID say was that Jackie Robinson also came with "distractions" that weren't related to baseball or his team, but instead to a national discussion about civil rights. I dont even attempt to make a parallel in degree, simply that the argument that there might be a distraction to the team should cause someone to have to keep their mouth shut about their sexual orientation is ridiculous. Now that said, I respect anyone's right to feel however they do about politics, sexual preference etc. Personally, i strongly support gay rights, but I DO respect religious people who hold an opposite view. I dont agree with them, but I respect their right to think it. As for me being ignorant because i am in support of this kid coming out on his own terms, nope. Frankly, I think those that deride him for free speech, especially while he is not part of any team, and before any team makes an investment in him are out of line. That's my right to say too. But no matter how many of you attack me, no matter how carefully you hide your bias, you are still looking down on a young man who has chosen to make a brave decision to be the first openly gay NFL player. GOOD FOR HIM, and GOOD FOR GAY PEOPLE EVERYWHERE. That it might mess with some fantasy idea of an insulated football team, that's ridiculous. Football is sold as entertainment. It exists to bring the spotlight. Your code of silence is indefensible, although again, I respect your right to feel that way. To attack me for invoking other civil rights pioneers is some backwards PC jujitsu used to try to make me look racist? HA. Jackie Robinson, Martin Luther King, and all the rest would be in this kid's corner in 2014, and so should you.

Well the entire TOPIC is political. And Im sorry you find my statement ignorant, but I must say, right back at you. Given that gays still cannot legally marry in many states, I think it's fair to say that there is still a political issue, despite how open minded people like you want to make it so no one should talk about it.

To those who think he shouldnt have said anything, and kept his mouth shut, I wonder if you would have passed on Jackie Robinson too? The fact is that this is an important time for gay rights, and these kind of stories are important, not to football, but to society. I think it's great that he cqme out, and right now, after his college career and before the draft seems to be the most transparent, and least selfish time to do it. Good for him

Right On! I'm just saying if Webb is one of them, he's pretty ugly LOL Seriously, it's all in good fun, represent Bear love to the ladies!