jason

Oh, I KNOW you aren't laughing at someone else being called a drama queen since you damn near recorded a video of yourself crying and stomping your feet the last time something upset you on the old board.

What I've posted is 100% truth. I received no ESPN app updates about the subject and didn't see the news on the major news sources yet. So it was on twitter. Sorry to say, but I rarely use twitter because it's too time-consuming and I'm not a journalist desperate to be part of the wave of breaking news within seconds of something taking place. You've proven jack shit, except for the facts that you have reading comprehension issues and apparently can't tell time. My post with the what-if: Jun 26 2013, 09:58 AM The thread in your link: Jun 26 2013, 10:17 AM Your comment in that thread: Jun 26 2013, 11:59 AM Your comment, "Given that the Patriots have certainly proven over time to not be worried about distractions, this move is a clear signal that Hernandez is going to be charged with something serious." That means, and I'll go slow just for you, that not only was the thread started an hour later than my post, but a full 2 hours after I posted the what-if, you, apparently, didn't know what Hernandez was going to be charged with. THEREFORE, the what-if was completely valid since your post proves the situation, at that point anyway, to be hypothetical, which is the entire purpose of a what-if question. As for knowing that since the Patriots cut him he was definitely going to be charged with something much more serious, that's ridiculous. The Patriots having been doing things their own way for quite some time, and nearly none of their moves are par for the course. They've moved on from good players that others want, and signed toxic players. The Patriots aren't predictable. I mean, how much more do you need it spelled out? Aside from balta's post which I honestly didn't see, I've proven you wrong on the time (see above) as well as whether or not the Patriots M.O. can be consistently predicted. All you have is a good prediction. Congrats, you got that right. I admit you are the prognosticator of all prognosticators. Maybe you will prove yourself from here on out by telling everyone exactly what all the Patriots' moves mean and what they will do in the future.

Wow. It has to be constantly spelled.out.for.you. I posted the "what if" before the announcement of him being cut was all over major news sources. I just didn't happen to read balta's comment. They released him roughly 90 minutes after he was arrested. Figure it took a little bit of time to make it to the major news sources' front pages. I was on TalkBears and posted the comment before that time. The situation is hypothetical. Go look up that word and get back to me. Are you saying that just because a player is cut by the Patriots that the Bears should completely ignore him because he's definitely guilty of murder? Gotcha.

I don't forget it. I just don't recognize it as equal or necessary attention. The OL was neglected during the entire Lovie tenure. A bandaid, even a first rounder, doesn't help much when 3 or 4 of the other players suck. If this O doesn't live up to the potential, I can only surmise three realistic possibilities: 1. Cutler chokes - Possible given his degraded mechanics and new system 2. The OL stinks - Probable given the changeover, rookie, and remaining players who aren't good 3. Injuries - Let's hope not If it's #1, the Bears have issues. And I don't know what the right answer is since he's still the most talented QB the Bears have probably ever had. If it's #2, then the Bears need to divide their time and effort into plugging new holes while also focusing on remaining holes. A 2nd or 3rd rounder at Guard, or maybe a 3rd/4th at Center might be in order depending on who is available.

For me, two first round picks is not putting a premium on a position, or a position group. And this board has seen - many times - the breakdown and disparity between OL and DL picks. The latter received much more valued picks overall. It's been done by round, by draft trade chart value, and every other way possible. It's been said before, and I still believe it to be true; JA and Lovie felt burned by Williams, and never really wanted to put much into OL. Add that to Lovie's desire to always keep his defense stocked, and the deficiency remained.

The sad thing is, I've nodded in agreement with just about every pick in this thread. It just shows how many dreadful players the Bears have had in recent memory.

Sigh. Again. Reading comprehension. Suppose the evidence shows it was a big misunderstanding, and he was as involved in this as Ray Lewis was in his event. See where it says "Suppose the evidence shows it was"? Well, "was" is a word that indicates past-tense. Here's a good primer for you. Later on in that sentence, I use the word "was" again, to further support the idea of past-tense. Both of those words, along with the meaning of the entire sentence, indicates that we'd have to be talking about this in the future for it to be past tense - especially true for the time-frame I posted the original comment. Not only that, but the evidence would have to be compiled and researched before it could show anything, which pretty much means the comment is about a future scenario where one would be looking back on the evidence. It's obviously all moot now, but my god man. Seriously, you're originally from a non-English speaking foreign country, right?

Again, your grasp of the English language and basic concepts like time and date are severely lacking. I'm actually starting to wonder if English is your second language. Do you even think about more than the single sentence you read before posting, or do you actually consider the rest of a post, or the related information? Try looking at the date of when I posted the comment, and then look at the Hernandez case timeline. When I posted the comment things were far from certain and he hadn't even been arrested yet. At the point of my comment, it was unknown whether or not he was simply associated with the people who did it, whether he let them use his rental car, whether he destroyed the security footage or someone else did, or whether he actually pulled the trigger. All we knew at that point was that the police investigated, and Aaron Hernandez was being arrested. It could have been nothing more than obstruction of justice or tampering with evidence.

The list of things I don't understand may be long, but if you don't comprehend the easiest of English idioms like "falls flat on his face," then your list must be tremendous. As for your actual football comment, we've heard that same song and dance before, and all it go us was a Guard at Center, a Center at Guard, a Guard at Tackle, and bruises on Jay Cutler's ass. If the Bears want Long at RT in the future, they should start giving him reps ASAP. They shouldn't fool around and get cute with moving him from one position to another. You always hear players say that the game-time experience is essential to development. Otherwise, stick him at RG and let him maul for ten years.

100% agreed. It was great to see the front office put a premium on OL this year since it was the main problem for the Bears during Lovie's entire tenure. If they don't draft a Center next year I will be shocked. This board has had a debate about OL every year because there are many who had to be disproven before they believed it, but last year proved that gathering skill players doesn't work if the OL isn't holding up their end of the bargain. Maybe the new guys will try the approach I've talked about for years: build up the OL and the skill players don't have to be as good.

Just for clarification, that's not exactly my position...or maybe it is and we just have a semantic issue. I believe there is no real competition because Scott sucks, but Scott is getting snaps so Webb can actually get water, take a breather. So, in actuality, there is no competition, period. Competition implies multiple parties competing for the same object/position, which doesn't appear to be the case (i.e. falls flat on his face). Maybe it's just a matter of percentage? I believe Scott has about a .05% chance of winning the job. Therefore, he's not competing; he's just filling in while Webb breaks. If one were to believe Scott has a 1% chance (e.g. US vs. Russia hockey in 1980), then I suppose you could call it a competition...but I sure wouldn't go to Vegas on those odds.

Thank you. Jonathan Scott is not competition. No matter how anyone wants to twist it, he's essentially Weekend at Bernie's in a football uniform. If that's Webb's only "competition" then there is no real competition; it's just a guy giving Webb a breather. And that is why I think Pompeii's words (i.e. falls on his face) signals that lack of actual competition.

So you're saying I flip-flopped, but when I show you with great detail how you are wrong and my position has not changed, you reply with that comment? Talk about being proven wrong.

Every year I am wrong on this one. I always say, "This seems like the year," and then it's not. So what's different about this year? Bennett - I'm still not completely sold on him being such a huge move. Even though it's undebatable that he's an upgrade over Davis last year. Jeffery - Might be healthy this year? Bushrod - We get to see how much of a difference he makes. Long - Will the rook step up? Coaching - This is the biggest change. Let's hope this is the reverse jinx, but I don't see Cutler having that great of a season Right now the skill positions outside of Forte and Marshall are still relative question marks. And until we see otherwise, we should expect the OL to perform poorly. The thought of a rookie next to Webb should be plenty worrisome. I predict Cutler is slightly improved over last year. 3,500 yards, 23 touchdowns, 15 interceptions.

Agreed. This is one of the wildest offseasons in memory. Hernandez had character concerns coming in, and was able to resist urges for a few years, but ultimately he regressed.

Suppose the evidence shows it was a big misunderstanding, and he was as involved in this as Ray Lewis was in his event. You and that reading comprehension issue again.

Why speculate? A. The offseason is slow B. It's not every day an NFL football player is implicated in murder C. The purpose of this board is to discuss the Chicago Bears, and to a lesser extent, other teams/players in the NFL

I wouldn't mind seeing Rex in a backup role.

Now that ERod is gone, he just might be one of the missing puzzle pieces...assuming everything ended up rose-colored for him.

Sigh...try looking back in this thread a bit. Show me where the inconsistency is. I can't help it if you still have reading comprehension issues. Sounds like while there may be a lot of OLinemen in for competition, there isn't much competition being thrown Webb's way at RT. I don't see anything in there about him being solid, because he wasn't. That's implication that the competition isn't really any competition. ...then all the bodies mean nothing because there is no competition. - Consistency. It's not what we think. It's what we're replying to in regards to what an insider thinks. What you believe doesn't mean a lot right now because you haven't seen the team. Neither have we. But Pompeii has, and he seems to believe that Webb is basically being handed the job without competition. - When Pompeii says, "falls on his face," that's what those words mean in every English language definition of the idiom. Consistent. Those two things put together are probably the basis for his comments about Webb basically being handed the job. Consistent. The implication of "falls on his face" is that Webb would have to screw up royally to even have a shot of losing his job. That, plus the fact that it's difficult to screw up royally in practice against your own team, one that is obviously not going to play 100% as if it were a real opponent, pretty much means he's being handed the job without legitimate competition. Consistent. And regardless of what you say Cracker, that's basically what Pompeii is saying when he states that Webb would have to fall on his face to lose the job. There is literally no other way to interpret the Pompeii statement. Fall flat on your face means embarrassing failure. So, if Pompeii is right, Webb could screw up considerably, as long as it's not egregious, and the job is still his. If that's competition, then we must use a different dictionary. Consistent. For the final time, the entire thread seems to have spiraled because of the Pompeii article, and if you can't see that his words are synonymous with "no real competition," then I question your grasp on the English language. Consistent. I'm obviously suggesting the former, which is why I started the line of thought with, "Webb basically being handed the job." Surely other people are getting snaps, but it's just that the other people getting snaps aren't worth a damn. It's like lining up the worst basketball player in the NBA next to a midget and saying they have an equal shot at the starting position. That's simple half-truth. Consistent. It's certainly a GM and HC level issue if the only challenger to Webb, a guy who has been one of the worst OLinemen in the NFL over the course of the last few years, is a journeyman scrub. That says, despite the fact that they use the word, there is no real competition. It's an illusion of competition.

The quote(again): What are the chances somebody beats out J’Marcus Webb at RT? Is he locked in? -- @stcollins23, from Twitter The only way someone beats out Webb is if Webb falls on his face in camp. I’d be surprised if that happened. Webb probably has to show a little something just because he is dealing with an entirely new group of coaches. And he will have competition from Jonathan Scott, who is a consistent, veteran pro. Scott won’t fall on his face, and I would bet on that. But it’s Webb’s job to lose. Apparently you don't see the part that says, "falls on his face in camp." All you see is the word competition, when, in fact, it's not really competition. It's Jonathan Freaking Scott. Scott is a body. That's it. He's been on four teams in six years, and has never been confused for good. He's a dude who doesn't rattle cages, shows up early at OTAs, shakes hands, learns the playbook, and then performs poorly, but not poorly enough that people notice him. That is not competition.

Serious question: Suppose the evidence shows it was a big misunderstanding, and he was as involved in this as Ray Lewis was in his event. Would you be for/against the Bears pursuing Hernandez?

For the last time, it's not necessarily what I believe. This all goes back to what Pompeii said. None of us has seen practices. Pompeii has. The difference between that and something like "Onobun will play a significant role," - if he even said that - is that the former is a matter of simply counting reps and looking at competition, the latter is an unknown projection. Unless Pompeii is just speaking out of his ass - something I've granted as a possibility - then we have to assume he's speaking about what he's seen in terms of snaps and competition. Why else would he put something about Webb being a virtual lock for the position?

I'm guessing this is a pretty accurate representation of last year with Tice. "Left Tackle. Hmmm, Left Tackle. Easy. J'amarcus knocked me off the blocking sled and chipped my toof." "Left Guard, ya know, uh, Spencer was a pretty decent center with Seattle, and he didn't look very good at right guard last year...I know! Starting Left Guard! And if that doesn't work, I'll just plug in Chilo Rachal. That dude is a reliable veteran." "Center. This one is easy. Damn good guard for ten straight years, I'm gonna use him at Center again. Garza is my man." "I don't really know what to do here. I'll flip a coin: Heads for Lance Louis, tails for Edwin Williams. Anybody got a quarter I can borrow?" "Stupid Angelo and Lovie are gonna make me start Gabe Carimi just cuz he's a first round draft pick. (kicks ground) If I had my way it'd be James Brown - his music rocks. Or maybe even Jonathan Scott; I like dudes with two first names."

I'll ignore cracker since he's not reading paragraphs when replying. Respect is mutual, but there is obvious disagreement with this mini-subject. I'm obviously suggesting the former, which is why I started the line of thought with, "Webb basically being handed the job." Surely other people are getting snaps, but it's just that the other people getting snaps aren't worth a damn. It's like lining up the worst basketball player in the NBA next to a midget and saying they have an equal shot at the starting position. That's simple half-truth. The coaches aren't actively lying to the media; they're simply using half-truth and coach-speak. Of course they're going to tell the media there is competition at every position. Ask them about QB and RB and they'll say the same thing, even though we know it's not true, and nobody is supplanting Cutler or Forte. It's just an easier thing to say for them when referring to players who are not absolutely locked into a position as a starter. In terms of Webb, they can say it because they know the fans expect it; but, at the same time, they know the "competition" they are providing to Webb is the midget basketball player. Hence Pompeii's article and the meaning of the words "fall flat on your face," as if there is another acceptable English-language interpretation at all.