Alaskan Grizzly

Just to clarify where all this was going. First, the comment I made was 'tongue in cheek' and said in jest. I did not say that Chicago should fire Trestman. Nor did I say the Bears should hire back Smith. The original poster posed the thought that defense seemed to have made a difference in the last few Super Bowls. I said "we should have kept Lovie" mostly because he was good a D and who knows, maybe could improved upon his 10-6 record this last year? The point is moot because like Jason's comments and many others, to include my own, are all speculative in nature. He's in Tampa now and I wish him luck. Despite Bear Trap's suggestion I don't have a 'love affair' with Lovie just an appreciation of who he is and his style of coaching. I met him once while at the DFW airport. Although it was a very brief conversation he seemed to be a very personable guy and unassuming. From what I hear from players who have been coached by him they too say he's a stand up guy. Hence why I suggset he's a good "COACH". With Trestman I don't know him as well as a fan. Will he prove to be a 'keeper'? Only time will tell. I realize one year does not a career make. (I'm not part of the Cleveland Browns management for pete's sake). And for what its worth I have much more need for a plumber than I do a psychologist. To you I say, good day.

Gentleman's wager Mad. How 'bout it?

Like I said, we will never know. But perhaps he's learned from his mistakes (?) With the hiring of Jeff Tedford, it appears he's reaching out beyond his 'circle of friends' to have someone who actually knows offense give it a try. What's to say he would not have done that in Chicago? Again, speculation....more on my part. Like earlier, because of the extensive use of the word "probably" this is all speculative. And since this post started with how the strength of defense seemed to have mattered in the last few Super Bowl (I know it did in '85) that was why I made the comment. And as I pointed out...it was 'tongue in cheek'. You make a logical counter and appreciate the insightful response.

Cheers to you Daventry. I agree, most in person here would probably get along pretty well. Especially when discussing American football of which the best team known is the Bears. Further I have no doubt that we'd get along even better should libations be introduced. You are one of those I thought of when I said I've had disagreements with only to come out at the other end having an appreciation for each other's opinion. I don't do well with the "touchy feely" stuff but do appreciate the varied opinions, despite how wrong some might be. On this particular matter what started as a 'tongue in cheek' comment has started a life of its own. But as SCS must carry the burden of his infatuation for J. Webb so too must I for Lovie. LMAO

Hmmm..most negative comments are directed towards imbicilic people like you. Because you insert your ridiculous banter when you see fit. Censored or not. Over the history of this board I have disagreed with many people for many things. Howver the majority of those people I have managed to make peace with in some fashion. You and I apparently have not. Which is totally cool. You don't challenge me in any way shape or form and despite your thinkiing otherwise, there has been no real "heat" to receieve. You really give yourself too much credit. Your blind arrogance only comes to light when you make pigheaded comments like "igloos and darkness" about Alaska. Do me a favor and pick up a book someday, you might be surprised what's in it. Hell come up and visit sometime. You'd be equally surprised how great Alaska really is. I'd even encourage you to come up during the summer when its 'easier' to get around and not nearly as harsh.

Jason, its times like this when I understand why Cracker gets on you so much. All you're doing is speculatiing. 'Coulda' been worse, 'woulda' scored this and that.... What we do know is that the team ended up at 8-8 under Trestman's first year. Which by itself isn't all that bad but considering Lovie was fired after having a 10-6 season the year prior and this last seeason was supposed to be an improvement? In my opinion, the jury's still out on Trestman since not only is he supposed to be this 'great offensive guru' but also the Head coach. In theory, the defense should improve under his regime. So far what have we seen other than a significant plummet in defense aided by the losses not only due to injuries but also stalwart players like Urlacher and probaby Tillman this year? The head coach should have a better handle on this. Before I get too far off track I'll tell you what I believe. Tampa Bay will end up doing better than Chicago next year. That's what I believe, not that's what will happen (I try to avoid making assinine guarantees like my buddy Stinger). Why is that, because I believe Lovie is the better coach than is Trestman. I cannot and will not specualte beyond that only time will tell whether I'm right or wrong.

Just like we can't get away from someone being moronic. Your wit defies intelligence or originality. Nicely done.

Shoulda kept Lovie....just sayin.

Since you indirectly called my sister a "fanatic(al) moron" I have to ask how those same fans felt about John Elway since he only won two of the five Super Bowls he played in? Seems he's still pretty popular there. My question about your choice to back Seattle and since many consider them (Seahawks) to be a bunch of classless thugs, so too would their fans be?

Sister is a huge Denver fan so I'll be supporting her team. That and she recently moved there. Not sure how you can't like Manning. But then again you are Cracker so I shouldn't be all that surprised. I agree about Seattle. There are suddenly Seahawks fans everywhere you turn up here. I just returned from Florida yesterday and there were people all over sporting gear and talking Seahawks. Sickening. Whodda thunk that Kellen Davis could be a Super Bowl champion before the rest of his former team? That is enough to dislike Seattle.

Wasn't part of the lure of Slausen to be able to play Center if need? Not that he would be the long term solution...but he did sigma new deal. I too like the idea of keeping Garza. He's been around for quite some time and still is a contributing member. Drafting his "replacement" might be necessary or like Slausen someone young in FA who like Slausen could play more than one role. Why again can't a long snapper also play center? I never understood that.

Or perhaps Jason was trying to make the comparison that because Urlacher was who he was ' on the field' so too was Tillman able to be who he was on the field. Regardless of what either is 'off the field' shouldn't mean one should be demeaned at the expense of the other. I'm just sayin' And you're telling me that you have an issue with "having sex with bimbos"?

I seem to recall Urlacher always getting the title of ' overrated' year after year. Hmmm... But you're right, you can probably find an anchor for less in the draft.

If the team transitions to 3-4, I think someone like Raji would be prime for the NT spot. And it takes a good player away from the cheese whizzers.

Collectively speaking (NFC North); what we lost in a character like Shwartz (whom I hated) we gained in a character like Zimmer (whom I always thought was humorous). He is most definitely the 'anti-Frazier'.

Darn, just heard on the "Herd" this morning that Singletary would be leaving Minnesota at the end of the month. He would've been a nice option.

Thought of putting this in "NFC North" news. http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/chicago...:bleacherreport

I'm of two thoughts. First, the intention coming in was a good one. The D was no doubt the strongest piece of the team. Heck the year previous they were scoring more than some teams on offense were. So bowing to the vets of that very same defense and not "fixing what ain't broke" made sense...at the time. Perhaps Tucker was hamstrung because of that? Don't know, wasn't there when he and Emery and Trestman discussed it. Nevertheless, it was admirable. At that point the only real loss was Urlacher. Most of the pieces from the previous year were already in place and Emery acquired what and who he thought would be enough to sustain the run. Hindsight being what it is, we now know through injury the D could not keep up its ways. Which brings me to point two. The rookies and new players didn't seem to get it. Is that the fault of the players or the coaches? Heck is it the fault of the vets? I think, becuse players like Bostic and Greene appeared to regress instead of improve its because of a lack of coaching. Add that a few players were added along the way (Ratlif and Anderson to name two) and they too appeared to be playing on talent alone makes me believe that they weren't coached as they should have. I was personally glad that Tucker came out of the booth and coached from the sidelines. But even after he did, things didn't seem to improve. Players were out of position all too often. And desptie what was SOOO obvious to all of us fans, Conte still managed to play and eventually cost our team a win. That is piss poor playcalling/coaching and THAT is all on Tucker. Bottom line, I would prefer they change direction with the DC. I don't think Tucker is the answer. Not sure who is but pretty sure he's not.

Too bad he wasn't 'first ballot'. But at least he's in.

Couldn't agree more. When I hear people, or some players, complain about the hits and how dangerous they're getting I always think "what would Art Donovan say?" If you never heard him talk about playing football 'old school' you missed out on an awesome 'rant'. Sorry to have seen him go.

...And one might add that through the evolution of time so has the NFL. Since its 'founding' in 1920 it eventually merged with the AFL in the 1960's. After doing so there were 26 teams. Over time and after a few realignments, expansions and Oakland going to LA and back we find ourselves in the current format of 32 teams. As the league looks to expand itself into other markets it must somehow accomodate that growth. I don't like it either but I didn't like the loss of Lovie, the ever growing monster that is now offical replay, the red flag, penalties for hitting too hard, records being broken because of it, mock drafts and pre-mock drafts and on and on. But what is one to do?

....And Lovie Smith would have still been coach. Which I am good with but would wonder how would the offense be by now? For that matter (if playing hypothetical) how would the team have done in those playoff games? Appear in the Super Bowl again? hmmmmm... What could have been. Me too, the old adage of 'anything can happen in the playoffs' is so true. Look at Indy and SD from this last weekend. SD is still in the running after taking out a pretty strong team in Cincy. And Indy returned from a probable romping at the hands of KC in one of the most entertaining games of recent history. I heard somewhere at the conclusion of hte two Saturday games that it was the first time in playoff history that both games were determined by less than 3 points in each game. That is pretty telling. I agree to some degree of the "old school" way of thinking. But with the way the NFL is spreading, its only a matter of time. And you can't blame them (NFL and owners) for wanting to expand on a vey profitable venture. This just broadens that reach. I'm not a big fan of international inclusion but what's not to say it isn't the right move? Soccer is wordwide, baseball and basketball is worldwide, the NHL is internatiional why not the NFL?

Interesting take considering Urlacher was still a huge asset if for nothing else as a "leader" yet Briggs doesn't step up in the last two games and you're ready to cut bait...again. In response to AZ's comment though I for one am actually ok should Briggs leave. I don't think there will be much more reason for him to return this year. He's been a malcontent off and on for years and less 'leader quality' especially compared to URL. He'd be foolish if he didn't try and get to TB. To fill the void I think the logical choice is Peanut. He epitomizes the role and would be spectacular in leading the soon to be youth movement on D. If not him then maybe Jennings. He said he wanted to be a cornerstone guy, he got the contract now is the time. Beyond that I would think either Ratliff (even though he's new) or Anderson would be next in line.

Mad I for one don't see this as a "useless" article. What I see it as is a confirmation on what many here have said. Cutler is a mediocre level franchise QB and the Bears paid him to stay. The reason being is that in the better part of their 100 year existence the team hasn't had many let alone in the modern era. And the alternative is lack of good FAs, a decent elder back up with the option to find a the next Russel Wilson in the draft. The Bears essentially had to put up or shut up. They chose to put up. And for the record; to those QBs he was compared to Rodgers was sacked more times than was Cutler in one three year span. And there is no denying Cutler is turnover prone. If his history doesn't show it this year confirmed it, especially early on. And lastly, the point about injury is definitely one to consider. How many concussions, broken thumbs, torn groin and high ankle sprains have kept him out of games these last few years? Thats a risk, no matter how you slice it. Apparently one the Franchise is ok with moving forward.

Not sure you comprehended the "goofiness" I intended. Didn't say keep Podlesh (heck after this year why?) but was instead suggesting that Mannely probably would want more than some youngster currently on another teams practice squad or undrafted out of college. Is there a high demand for LSers? One of the reasons I liked Clutts was that he filled in pretty admirably as temp LSer when not playing FB. That's called efficiency. Some say "goofy".