BearFan PHX

HAHAHA YES! your'e right! I misspoke (mistyped?). What I MEANT to say is that Id like to see some of the arguments that get carried past the point of sanity reduced due to a lessening of sexual frustration on the part of some posters LOL If my advice allows just one person to have their sexual energy directed towards a partner and not an epically terrible LT it'll be worth it

In my case it's not the wallet LOL I think it's about confidence. I think this is why girls like jerks. Jerks are confident. Most women would prefer a confident good guy over a jerk, but they prefer confidence over nice without it. If a girl goes on a date with you, she's thinking about sleeping with you. Maybe not that night, but she's interested. Usually guys screw it up by trying too hard. If you just relax, and show up like a friend, make her laugh, talk to her, and wait for her to tell you when it's time, you'll be amazed. I dont go on a date hoping she likes me or hoping I will kiss her, I just show up like Im sitting next to someones cousin at a wedding. Im going to have a good time and laugh no matter what, and if sparks happen, I'll notice. Now I know that this board is about football and not dating. But it's the offseason soon, and I'd like to see some of you get laid HAHAHA Back to football!

You guys need more confidence. I'm 48, and pretty damned fat and bimbos and hotties alike are interested. Seriously, you dont know what goes on in their pretty little heads

Oh come ON. If track records don't matter, then all your stats don't matter either, so you know that's a ridiculous argument. You have framed this as a competition between two supposedly opposing points of view. A ) Tucker's not at fault for last year because of injuries __OR__ B ) Tucker is at fault, and his track record shows he isn't good And that's just so you can "win" or "lose" a point. The truth is that A & B are not even close to mutually exclusive. YES Injuries were a big problem this year, and YES even a great DC could have major trouble with the number of injuries we saw on defense. BUT that doesn't mean that in evaluating what to do for the 2014 season that you don't look at all your options, including those that weren't available last year. In that way, Tucker's track record DOES matter. Also, with all those new guys, we didn't see a lot of learning going on. Again, if you have a guy who has done it before, i.e. has a track record, and he fails one year, you can say "huh that didn't work, but I still believe in my guy" a LOT easier than you can if that guy has never shown you he can do it. You've latched onto the injuries as the ONLY factor, and while it certainly was one, it IS fair to talk about Tucker as a candidate overall. He doesn't get a do-over from his entire career just because he had injuries last year. Now all that said, Trestman and Emery know they has an offense. Even a mediocre defense should take us to the playoffs, so there wasn't much risk in replacing Tucker, but they didn't. They know it will be a rare year where the entire scheme of the defense could be changed. You could get any guy running any scheme and install it this year. But they chose Tucker, presumably for the same reasons they liked him before. I don't know what that might be. His track record isn't stellar. But they have something in mind, and they know a lot more than we do, both in terms of Xs and Os and leadership in professional football. So I guess we'll see what Tucker's got. And I'm rooting for him. But a track record and/or seeing growth in young players this past year sure would go a long way in making me feel comfortable, and to put it in terms of this particular argument, either of those things might have gotten Tucker a quicker and more certain endorsement from the Bears.

Jim Tomsula makes a lot of sense. He's had leadership positions before, Head Coach of the Rhein Fire in 2006 and interim Head coach of the 49ers for one game after Singletary was fired. But also, he's a line coach, and that's where we need the most help. Just as Emery brought in Kromer a former OL coach to become OCoordinator, so might he bring in a DL coach to fix the Defnese, who also has the biggest woes on the D Line? It's an interesting theory, thanks for the name, scs. Anyone have any others?

No I wasn't being cryptic. I don't have a guy in mind. It just seems like if they were keeping Tucker 100% at this point, they'd have said so, so it stands to reason they are still looking, even if they do end up on Tucker. And if they're still looking, then it stands to reason they would have signed whoever they wanted quickly, unless he wasnt available to interview. So I think there's a good chance that we're at least interested in interviewing one or more people who are still in the playoffs. So I wonder who that might be. Any ideas?

I think we're waiting for a talented defensive assistant who is still in the playoffs Any guesses who that might be?

yeah its you at soldier field, it worked. Google how to clear your cache, or try reloading the page, or just waiting a few days too.

Well, if you do that, then it becomes more expensive to cut him later. It sounds like they're willing to tie themselves to him for three years.

No, we remained a 1 gap front, which put McClellin, Conte and Wright into gaps that they didn't control. To another post: I don't think it's even feasibly possible to change the front mid-season. I do think Tucker had a hard time trying to keep an older system, but I understand why they tried. They couldn't fix both sides of the ball in one season anyway, so why not see what the vets could give you? Hell, without all the injuries we might have been pretty good. I say fire Tucker. I think they'll do it tomorrow. The new guy can build whatever system he wants to. Unlike last year, it's a pretty desirable job to get this year. Maybe we can attract a caliber of candidate that would have been less interested last year. I'd say that when they took the gamble last year to try to keep the 1 gap front, they knew that if it didnt work, they'd be in a much better position to build a defense ground up than they were last year. It's wide open on the defense. I wonder what's next. All of this makes me think we keep Cutler, with a little more discipline, and a strong defense, we could well win championships, even with his shortcomings.

Yeah, you're right "Freedom of Speech" is a legal protection from the government, and not individuals. However, it also stands for a generally long held cultural tradition of having tolerance for other people's religions. Also, in some cases being fired from a job for a religious view is illegal in that it's discriminatory. Now me personally, I lean more Libertarian than anything, so I have no problem with the guy saying it OR the network removing him OR them caving to pressure from the consumers. It's all good as far as I'm concerned. I'm just saying, I'm 100% for gay rights, and at the same time, I don't think he said anything terribly bad either.

double post

Gay rights have come a long way in the last 20 years. Gay rights are a no-brainer, and I do think most people would accept a gay player and those that wouldn't would be challenged in their beliefs by having powerful role models. That said, I still think people have a right to their religious opinions as well. When the Duck Dynasty guy said what he said, I thought he had a right to feel that way. Freedom of speech and religion is really important in any democracy, and that includes people with whom you may disagree. Still and all, Gay Marriage is a done deal, it's obviously constitutional, and given time, I don't think many people will be any more upset by it than they are by mixed race marriages, or mixed religion marriages, and that % of people diminishes greatly with every generation. I hope Rodgers IS gay, that'd be great. Even if no one did laugh at my Xmas message coming out as a Packer fan LOL

Yeah I agree, I know we fight sometimes, but like any family, we stick together too. Also, like any family, sometimes one member has to say something that's hard for the rest to hear. I have to come out to all of you tonight. I know some of you won't accept this, but I need to be myself, and i hope in the spirit of Christmas, youc an all accept for for who I am. It's taken me a long time to work up the courage to tell you all this, but a heart wants what it wants, and I can't live the lie any more. Therefore, I need to tell you all that I love you, and there something about me you need to know. Despite having acted very manly here, and participating in the conversations, I have been hiding a part of myself. So I need to tell you guys now the truth. I'm a Packers fan. HAHAHA no I'm not! Merry Christmas you Bear loving people!! Kyle

Exactly

OK, Im still not sold on Cutler. I know how it FEELS with him in there. I wonder if he will ever stop making throws into double coverage. Still, the stats don't lie, and they tell a different story. I dunno. I just dunno. http://voices.suntimes.com/sports/interact...e-quarterbacks/

Yup.

I actually don't really disagree with Cracker. The word moxy was misused in my post. I meant that for HIM, going to the scary place might be doing less, playing within the offense more. You're right, the best and worst things you can say about Cutler are that hes tough, bullheaded, a competitor. He gets compared to Brett Favre, some say he has a gunslinger's mentality. For better or worse, that is definitely tough, so Cracker is right. What I meant, was that he needs to show that he can run the system the way Trestman wants it. Cutler looks heroic to me at times, but rarely smooth. For Trestman, this decision will define the QB position for his tenure as coach. I can't see him taking a guy with physical tools who won't do the progressions the way Trestman wants it done. So the question for Trestman, and for me too, is can Cutler do that? Or maybe will Cutler do that? I'm sure that if Trestman thinks he can get into Cutler's head and mold him where he wants to go, that Cutler will be a Bear for a long time and win a Super Bowl. I don't see them in meetings etc. I don't know what Trestman thinks about Cutler's play, and what his ceiling is. Good thing is, Trestman knows, so I'm inclined to follow whatever he does. ANyway, Im not particularly optimistic about Cutler's ability to do this, but if he does it, I will certainly cheer for him. Cracker was right tho, people who question Cutler's heart are wrong, and Im not one of them, even if I sound like I was. Still, I'd be thrilled with a rookie under McCown and a revamped defense next year if that's where Emery and Trestman take us.

Well I think you've hit it right on the head, and the people FOR Cutler and the people AGAINST him, are all saying the same thing. We're all saying let's SEE if Cutler can get more disciplined and play within himself and the offense like McCown did. What separates us is our prediction. But that's OK cuz if he doesn't mature quick, most of the PRO Cutler people will agree when Trestman goes another way, and if Cutler DOES "grow up" and execute Trestman's system, then Emery will keep him, and all the people AGAINST him will be converted. Basically, it's wait and see. But here's the thing. Two more games is enough to see if he's failing, but not if he's succeeding. They will look at ALL the tape on Cutler, and every week he leaves us with a mixed bag, and keeps the question open, is another week towards his end in Chicago. Trestman knows what good QB play is, and there's no way he's going to hitch his future as an NFL head coach to a guy that won't run his plays the way he wants them run. Jay better show some real moxy, and extend this 2 game audition so as to get more good playoff performances on tape. If he does that, then he will prove he can still develop, and the sky is the limit for him and Trestman. If not, I'm all behind whatever Trestman and Emery decide. I mean, if I was appointed GM of the Bears today, knowing only what I know now, and I had to decide what to do about Cutler, my first phone call would be to Trestman.

The two long term choices are: Go with Cutler Let Cutler go and draft a rookie while McCown starts. The decision hinges not on Cutlers talent, which we all can see, but on whether Trestman and Emery believe he can acquire discipline and play within the system. This year we DID see improvement in Cutler's discipline, but, in my opinion, not enough. I'm sure the coaching staff wants to see if he will continue to grwo in that direction. He has three games to prove he won't try to squeeze the ball into bad places, and hold on to it too long. Listen, Jay Cutler is physically better than Joe Montana, OK? But he's not Joe Montana, or Tom Brady, or Peyton Manning etc etc Let's also not overlook McCown's superior pocket presence. That more than anything has been the reason he has looked so good. So yes, starting Cutler again is the right thing to do, even if McCown is the better choice for the rest of this year. I think Jay is on a short leash, and the coaches are looking to let him play himself into a long term contract, not with flashes of talent, but by proving he can play within himself and the offense win OR lose. Or, if he doesn't, there won't be any controversy when they let him go next year. Had they kept him on the bench and started McCown, we still wouldn't be winning a super bowl this year, and we would be in a much murkier position going into the offseason. My prediction is that Cutler performs well, but keeps making poor choices, and McCown starts while we develop a young QB next year. We brought Trestman here to create a killer offense, and he has shown that he can that, so let's let him choose his own QB, especially when the wonder boy plays so recklessly, and McCown provides such a good example of how a lesser athlete can be successful if he plays smart disciplined football. For the record, I would be thrilled if the light came on for Cutler and he started playing disciplined football. I'd keep THAT guy in a heartbeat. I just wouldn't bet on it.

I dunno, I support taking a knee at the end of a game when I'm winning even though it doesn't produce positive yards. I support running out the clock, even not going to a long 3rd down to punt instead. I don't feel strongly either way, but I can understand rooting for a strategic gain even if it means a tactical loss. We all want to see the Bears become a dominant team. I really do think Trestman and Emery are on a good path.

Right on, guys. Happy Thanksgiving to everyone here, even those that would trade the Turkey

I just think there was an emphasis on building muscle rather than how flexible people are, and it might have something to do with all the injuries. If I oversold the idea to make the "article" more interesting, then well... yeah maybe

Why are the Bears struggling so hard to win games this year? The Offensive and Defensive rosters were full of experienced talent, and we finally had coaches with a scheme that can put up points. The answer was the Bears biggest offseason loss, and it's someone you might never have heard of. Rusty Jones was the Bears Strength and Conditioning coach from 2005 through spring of 2013. During that time, the Bears were relatively injury free. Here's a Story from Sports Illustrated about Rusty Jones, and his philosophy of training to avoid injuries, as contrasted with training to gain maximum strength. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writ...programs/1.html Rusty retired this past year, and we brought in Mike Clark from Kansas City. He was described as being of the opposing school of thought, and interested in "maximizing power and explosion" in the players. http://www.windycitygridiron.com/2013/6/3/...r-and-explosion Now we are looking at that same roster of experienced players on the sideline with injuries, missing at least some games. Melton, Paea, McLellin, Briggs, DJ Williams, Tillman, Peppers comprise the heart of the defense and all have missed games due to injury this season. On Offense, Jay Cutler is out with muscle pulls and now an ankle that was probably injured due to limited movement because of his groin. In fact, none of these players broke a bone. In all cases it was a pulled or ruptured muscle or tendon. If all those players had remained healthy on defense, I wonder what our defense would like like now, as they started to gel. I wonder what the destination of the healthy 2013 Bears squad would have been. How badly do we miss Rusty Jones?

I think the real point here isn't Cutler vs McCown, It's Cutler vs someone else, maybe a rookie. We see Cutler is a tremendous athlete. We know that if he made good decisions, he could be one of the best. We also see that Cutler doesn't play within himself, and tries to do too much McCown's success is just evidence that the Trestman system will work better than a gunslinger, even with a 2nd tier QB running it. Imagine what it would look like if Cutler ran it correctly. Amazing, but is that really one of the choices? Can Cutler learn? Certainly this staff will know the answer to that better than we can. McCown's success serves to highlight that if Cutler continues to make bad decisions, and this INCLUDES audible-ing away form Matt Forte and the run too much, that we might be looking for a new QB next year, and in that case, maybe McCown will steer the ship while the rookie learns? Would Cutler play with heart for the Franchise tag one year, after the Bears draft a rookie QB in the first round? Cutler is better than most QBs in the league, but I'm not sure he's better in the long run than a top rookie candidate with a Trestman graduate degree. McCowns success raises that question more than a direct threat to Cutler. Very interesting stuff.