jason

Oh, make no mistake; I understood you. I just think you're absolutely wrong. Take away Bushrod's awesome OGs and you'll still find he's pretty good. The same couldn't be said about Webb. However, I never wished you wouldn't post. Just that you would see reason - based upon ample game film of Webb sucking the previous couple years - and stop insisting he should start.

You must have seen a different video than me. It's pretty easy to pause the video and see where the crown of Bostic's helmet is in contact with the facemask of Bridgewater's helmet. He does that for the Bears and he's getting a penalty 90% of the time. And 100% of the time if it's against Rodgers.

Please. Don't even bring that rugby vs football shit in here. http://www.diffen.com/difference/American_Football_vs_Rugby NFL: 4600lbs of force Rugby: 1600lbs. of force They are fundamentally different games, but the sheer physics of two football players slamming into one another as often as they do and in the manner they do far outweighs the contact on a rugby field. It's not just the size, speed, and athleticism either; it's the rules and design of the game. In general, NFL players embrace the hit because if specific yards aren't gained they risk losing possession. In general, rugby players defer from the hit so as position the ball towards his own teammate, because the same type of yardage vs. repercussion don't exist.

I agree with the concept your are pointing to, but as long as football players are suing about head injuries, and as long as concussions are happening at an alarming rate across the country, the leaders of football will make every attempt to ban through harsh penalty the use of helmet-to-helmet contact. For instance, this year in college there is a massive change: Hit someone H2H and the player in the 1st half, and the player is ejected the rest of the game. Hit someone H2H in the second half and not only is the player ejected for the remainder of the game, but the entire first half of the next game as well.

My hope: OT: Bushrod, Carimi OG: Long, Slauson C: Garza

The bold part I agree with very much. Regardless of how incredibly wrong you are about Webb, the fact remains that some decisions by the team can be questioned simply because they never allow our alternate reality to play out into reality. Until that happens, we can never know if we were right or not. For instance, the Bears have apparently stated they do not want anything to do with Tebow. The majority of the board agrees. But that doesn't mean he wouldn't be a better option than McCown, or do better should Cutler go down. It's an unknown that can never truly be defended one way or the other. But that's the entire point of a message board. Otherwise it would be a whole bunch of braindead reporting of what the Bears did and each member of the board replying with, "Yep!" or "Uh-huh."

I can use google too. But in reference to your post: 1. Nothing but platitudes and a different team, excuses from a HC who had a garbage team and could be in danger of losing his job this season. 2. See #1. Also, this could be used against you. The Vikings had PERFECT OL continuity, yet they only managed 14th in points and 20th in yards while watching Adrian Peterson go for one of the best seasons by a RB in history. 3. Political correctness when saying, "The Bears' OL sucked" is not an option. 4. Actually disproves what you're trying to say. The Bears OL in 2009 (Pace-Omiyale-Kreutz-Garza-Williams) was horrible and they're 12th in continuity. 5. See #1, but more specifically a shallow, 1 out of 5 attempt to explain what was wrong with the Cowboys, when the answer is much more complex. Look, I'm not saying continuity isn't important. But talent trumps continuity. Why are you being so stupid about this? It's very simple. Take 5 great players who don't know one another and they'll do well. Let them play 3 years together and they will dominate. Take 5 guys from this board and they will suck. Let them play 10 years together and they will still suck. You can take continuity, and I'll take Bushrod replacing Webb. Funny that OL continuity is such an important issue, but DLs regularly rotate out and it's considered a smarter approach. Is DL continuity completely unimportant?

Like others, you confuse desire with a simple option. Desire is the best option, but since it's rarely attainable, and the Bears can't have Tom Brady as a backup, another option must be taken. In that regard, if it were up to me, I'd rather have Tebow as an option than McCown. That's all I'm saying. We saw enough of McCown in 2011 to know that he will never amount to more than a clipboard holder. Tebow proved much more in his limited time. There is no arguing this fact.

Changing the vibe around here, since there is nothing to talk about post-draft, I'd like to discuss what appears to be bad form by our new LB, Jon Bostic. I've heard guys from the NFL to DII officiating say they are trying to take the helmet/head out of hitting, and Bostic needs to make an adjustment. What's more, I watched his and there are several more high hits with bad form. He dips his head to hit, rarely sees his target, and doesn't wrap up. Unless he changes his technique, you can guarantee this guy is going to get penalties for the Bears.

I know you're not replying to me, but I'm certainly not saying that. Again, you paint the world too black and white. It's short-sited at best. If he were on the Bears I'd want him to improve in the first three quarters so that he's a decent backup QB who can throw when needed, and to keep the end of game heroics exactly as they are.

Regarding the bold, it's proof of two things: 1) That the Bears went into prevent and allowed short yardage throws and runs 2) That Tebow can complete short yardage throws And reaffirms my belief that if Cutler goes down, the Bears could potentially work shorter passes, especially with the WCO in town, with Tebow as a QB. Adding in his obvious running and leadership talents is just gravy. As for your question, my answer would be simple: You can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit. You can make it out of spoiled chicken and it won't taste that good, but you have to have the ingredients. McCown doesn't have them.

So your only concern with a Tebow pickup as nothing more than a #2 is the volume of the cries for Jay Cutler's replacement? Umm, OK then.

I think you're looking at it without giving yourself all options. You're saying continuity or talent. Think about it like math. If talent and continuity are both 1-10, then there is a delicate balance. 8 talent with 2 continuity is better than 3 talent with 7 continuity. It's not simply 8+2=10 and 3+7=10. I don't give a damn how long you and I play together, we aren't going to be better than even the worst offensive lineman in the entire NFL. In terms of players, however, you should explain 2010 to me. FOUR returning starters: Omiyale, Williams, Kreutz, and Garza.

If there is one person on this board who I knew wanted no part of Tebow, it's you. You have been firm for years in your disdain for any player who is not an Eagle Scout. Gotta give you credit for consistency.

That's a completely different argument. I do think there would be clamoring for Tebow as soon as Jay had a bad game. But I would hope the Bears fans are smarter than Jets fans, and the noise would be minimal. I would also hope the Bears organization is better than the Jets organization at managing the circus. What's the saying? The backup quarterback is the most popular guy in town? The only time this isn't true is when a team has a star at QB (e.g. NE, NYG, DEN) or when they have a horrible backup (e.g. CHI). If the Bears had a decent backup we'd hear the "replace Cutler" talk a lot more.

That is only partially true. If you put the following OL (in their primes) together they would dominate without continuity on day one so much that any RB in the NFL could produce a 2000yd season: Johnathan Ogden, John Hannah, Mike Webster, Larry Allen, Jackie Slater Continuity is not more important than overall talent. It's only more important when the talent is weaker.

COMPLETELY AGREE. As far as I'm concerned, when looking back at Emery's draft success, we basically have to discard year one if players don't work out.

The world isn't black and white. People don't think he's amazing. People think he's better than McCown.

Sorry, I still say that's incorrect. The Marion Barber run out of bounds was the final nail in the coffin, nothing more. The real downfall of the team during that game was a combination of prevent defense and gutless playcalling, both of which shortened the Bears TOP while giving the Broncos more chances. Thankfully, Lovie Smith's "three point lead protecting"-ass is no longer with the organization. No clue why a team would completely shut out an opponent with gameplan A for three quarters, and then completely change things around in the fourth quarter. Barber is nothing more than the goat in all of this.

Not the exact same thing. If Tebow has to throw 25 times, the Bears probably lose. But Tebow has more available options, which is why he was an offensive threat while playing for the Broncos. Otherwise teams would have been able to simply load up the box with 9 or 10 and say, "Beat us with the pass."

I just meant that he's unlikely to see time because he does what two other better receivers do. It's not like they're going to call his number very often when two better options are present. I don't think it was necessarily a bad pick, particularly for the round and value, but he's kind of stuck behind two superior players. He needs a niche, and his talents, unfortunately for him, do not find that niche on a team that already has Marshall and Jeffery.

The thing that stinks about this experiment this year is that the Bears finally did a pretty damn good job at drafting. They addressed positions of need without getting ridiculous, didn't draft some random DII developmental LB/DB/S, and got pretty good value for their picks. On top of that, they went with a theme that was very apparent: athleticism. There just doesn't appear to be very much flexibility for the Bears in this draft, considering the players available. If we had to do it over, however, I think the general idea is that Long isn't selected in the first. That means the Bears absolutely have to go OG elsewhere. And the only round that makes any sense is RD2, where Warford would have been available. The fourth round pick has no trailing OGs at all. So that pretty much makes any modified mock draft set up as: 1. ??? 2. Warford From there we have to establish any other player in the other rounds to maximize BPA+Need. If people want the 1st rounder to be Sharrif Floyd (that seems to be majority, and I dismiss Eifert as the Bears first round pick because it would have been stupid), then that means Khaseem Green is almost certainly the 4th rounder (LB major need and BPA considered). 1. Floyd, DT, UF 2. Warford, OG, UK 4. Green, LB, RUT So who is available after Jordan Mills in the 5th? Maybe Ricky Wagner? Maybe Ryan Swope? David Quisenberry? Seems like this board was in favor of Swope for the most part. 1. Floyd, DT, UF 2. Warford, OG, UK 4. Green, LB, RUT 5. Swope, WR, A&M Still a need at LB and OT. Some have called for a S. A backup QB has been talked about. A CB before Peanut retires? Maybe even that second TE that excites people. Pickings are slim. Bacarri Rambo (S, UGA)? Ryan Griffin (TE, UCONN)? Cornelius Washington might just be the BPA at that point, and he obviously fills a need. 1. Floyd, DT, UF 2. Warford, OG, UK 4. Green, LB, RUT 5. Swope, WR, A&M 6. Washington, LB, UGA The 7th round at that point is a no-brainer. Since Marquess Wilson probably won't see the field as it is now (too similar to Marshall and Jeffery), it would make sense to go with the BPA for this round, who also happens to fit a Bears need. 1. Floyd, DT, UF 2. Warford, OG, UK 4. Green, LB, RUT 5. Swope, WR, A&M 6. Washington, LB, UGA 7. Fragel, OT, OSU In my mind that's the best possible alternative draft, but I think what the Bears actually did is one of the best drafts we've seen in recent memory.

Don't fool yourself. If the Bears are in a situation where McCown throws it 25 times, they are definitely losing that game.

I'll chime in with another "these are bad arguments for your side of the debate." A risk on potentially the best QB of all time is not really a risk. You make that move every single day of the week, and twice on Sunday. There were indications that Manning would come back, it was just unknown at what level. Manning at 75% is better than most QBs in the league, much less Tebow. Everything the Jets do is null and void. That organization is a F'ing joke. To trade for him, never play him, create the media circus, see how badly Sanchez played, then leapfrog Tebow with a 3rd stringer, then see Tebow busting his ass more than anyone else in the offseason, then release him the day AFTER the draft? That's just unprofessional and appears to be personal.

Done.