jason

Or Ron Turner, or Mike Tice. The fact remains, Cutler has been destroyed every year he's been in Chicago. Like I just replied to scs...I hope you're right.

And every year for the past 6 or so I've said the same thing when an eternal optimist like yourself says what you have said. I hope you're right. If you are right in 2013, it will be the first time I have been wrong about the OL in that same time period. You can understand why I won't hold my breath waiting on OL success until it's given a serious look and upgraded significantly.

I don't disagree about the snowball, which is why I don't talk often about the FA moves I could have made if I were GM. Sometimes. But the problem is we will never know what would have happened if someone else were in charge. There are some things that would have unequivocally changed the course of the franchise. For instance, I was crazy about Moss in 98, and absolutely hated the Enis pick. I was adamant about trading down several spots and getting Moss. That would have undoubtedly turned out better for the Bears than what actually happened. BTW - I was a huge fan of Hines Ward that year also. Imagine that, a WR corp of Moss and Ward. That would have set the Bears up for years. Also agreed that it's a moot point, but that's the point of this board. We discuss and debate moot points because we obviously aren't in the organization. That's why the "go get a GM job" thing pisses me off; it's a moot point about a moot point.

Week 1: (Sun., Sept. 8) Bengals at Bears, 1 p.m. - WIN Week 2: (Sun., Sept. 15) Vikings at Bears, 1 p.m. - WIN Week 3: (Sun., Sept. 22) Bears at Steelers, 8:30 p.m. - LOSS Week 4: (Sun., Sept. 29) Bears at Lions, 1 p.m. - WIN Week 5: (Sun., Oct. 6) Saints at Bears, 1 p.m. - LOSS Week 6: (Thur., Oct. 10) Giants at Bears, 8:25 p.m. - LOSS Week 7: (Sun., Oct. 20) Bears at Redskins, 1 p.m. - WIN Week 8: BYE Week 9: (Mon., Nov. 4) Bears at Packers, 8:40 p.m. - LOSS Week 10: (Sun., Nov. 10) Lions at Bears, 1 p.m. - WIN Week 11: (Sun., Nov. 17) Ravens at Bears, 1 p.m. - LOSS Week 12: (Sun., Nov. 24) Bears at Rams, 1 p.m. - WIN Week 13: (Sun., Dec. 1) Bears at Vikings, 1 p.m. - WIN Week 14: (Mon., Dec. 9) Cowboys at Bears, 8:40 p.m. - WIN Week 15: (Sun., Dec. 15) Bears at Browns, 1 p.m. - WIN Week 16: (Sun., Dec. 22) Bears at Eagles, 1 p.m. - LOSS Week 17: (Sun., Dec. 29) Packers at Bears, 1 p.m. - WIN I see 10-6. The Steelers are always a tough game, especially in Pittsburgh. The Saints are nasty, and will just outscore the Bears. Same for the Giants, but add in a probable beating for Cutler. Monday nighter against the Packers? Yeah, that one is easy to predict. Ravens lost a lot, but they're still very good. And I just don't see the Bears ripping off 6 straight wins to finish the season, so the game at Philly seems like the most likely hiccup.

I recently spoke to a CFL executive about Trestman's offense, and he described it as aggressive in the passing game with a tendency to go 15-18 straight plays without a rushing attempt. Assuming Trestman stays true to his CFL principles in the NFL -- and all indications are he will -- passing volume is going to be at an all-time high in the Windy City. That's scary. For Cutler's health.

Eifert might make the catch over Hayward, but is unlikely to break away. A smaller, faster guy like Rodriguez might catch the pass in stride and never get touched. If all passes are jump balls or fade routes, sure, go with the taller player. Otherwise, it's but one measurable to consider.

I know, I know, I know. This infatuation with height. Again. Just like last year. The Bears should not sign any WR or TE from here on out unless that dude is 6'6" or taller. But since you and many others are such a fan of the two TE system, here's an interesting comparison (measurables from wikipedia): Aaron Hernandez - 6'2", 245lbs = Evan Rodriguez - 6'2", 239lbs Rob Gronkowski - 6'6", 265lbs = Martellus Bennett - 6'6", 265lbs That is downright uncanny.

Completely agreed. It's just one of the reasons I hate the idea of Tavon Austin to the Bears in the first round.

I don't disagree with a thing about the "your job" vs. "your opinion on a message board" thing, but my entire point is exactly what you wrote (bolded). I'm not saying any single person on this board could have done better than the upper echelon of GMs in the NFL (as a board collective I still think we'd have a shot), but I am saying many individuals could have done just as good of a job as the Bears' leaders (and several other teams')...something you appear to agree with. BTW - I think your point is interesting, and it's even more interesting considering the chances that JA and Lovie took. You'd think since their jobs were riding on it they'd take fewer flyers on mid-round guys from West Appalachian State A&M and use those picks on guys from the 4 or 5 major conferences because, those guys played against better competition and more future NFL players. If my job were directly related to it, you can guarantee a guy would have to be Randy Moss nasty before I started to seriously consider drafting him over someone from the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, WAC, etc.

I think you should quit being an antagonistic, sycophantic lemming who, out of one side of your mouth, questions the decisions of a franchise by posting and speculating on a message board about what the franchise should do, and out of the other side of your mouth make statements about us fans not being able to have informed opinions that could potentially be better than those in a position of influence. The fact that their inside knowledge doesn't produce consistent, successful results is enough to question them. You're falling into what's called the fallacy of the undistributed middle. The simple fact is, if you go back on this board you will find a litany of good and bad choices/decisions/draft pick scenarios made by board members. And the success rate - based upon the careers of those players on other teams - wouldn't be that different from the Chicago Bears over the same time period. And please, quit with the dumbass "you should go apply" line. It's been used before and it's completely unfeasible. Had I thought about it before, when I was younger and didn't have a career and/or family, I would have probably tried to do something in sports. As I'm sure many on this board would have. But the next guy without connections who decides midway into his 30s, "You know what? I'm going to go work my way up through and organization and become a GM!" will be the first guy to do it.

It's contradictory because we both acknowledge that A) The coaches/owners have a ton of insight and knowledge to which we are not privy, yet Lovie and crew continued to make horrible personnel decisions. You'd think with A being true, B wouldn't happen.

Not by me. I'd rather see Harvey Unga at FB, Rodriguez as the second TE that everyone seemingly covets, and then the Bears don't have to waste another pick on a TE.

I bolded one thing and italicized another. They are directly contradictory, which is why I don't trust NFL head honchos that much. Our limited knowledge scope may actually be beneficial because we don't factor in extras, superlatives, and personal feelings. What the front office types in the NFL do is essentially insider trading with piss-poor results. BTW - I don't disagree with the notion that Webb played better than Carimi last year. But I don't think it was a drastic difference, and the post-season talk has trumped up Webb far more than he deserves. Furthermore, I believe Carimi actually is better than Webb, but he got injured, got moved, and never really regained his equilibrium as a player.

It's only a win if they fill the RT hole. Otherwise it's just a shell game.

And yet there continue to be absolutely horrible teams in the NFL year in and year out. Never mind the copious scrimmages, practices, tape, and measurements, and people like Ryan Leaf still get drafted. They may know more, but they sure as hell don't do much with all that knowledge. I'm sorry but I'm just not going to blindly agree with the moves this staff makes - I've seen too many horrible moves to believe they are so all-knowing. Particularly from a noob GM and a NFL HC who admittedly doesn't know the NFL landscape as well as other GMs. There is a reason there saying "Can't see the forest for the trees" exists.

If that's the case, then I hope: 1) Cooper or Warmack is there in the first, and they take the starting RG job 2) Carimi is given a legit chance at RT (doesn't appear as such) and beats out Webb for the RT job What it already tells us, however, is the Bears will be going left a lot more than right.

If it's all based on film, then Webb shouldn't be the default RT.

I obviously like this one a lot better. I'm still not a big fan of Brown, but that first four sets up quite nicely.

It's definitely because of the draft. When he came out a lot of the mocks had the Bears taking him. The reason why? Oher was already gone. Even then everyone knew the Bears needed OL help.

And I hope almost the exact opposite. I hope Carimi is actually given a chance at RT, beats out Webb, and Webb becomes the swing tackle. Then the Bears can draft Cooper or Warmack if either fall, and the OL is immediately younger and improved: Bushrod - rookie - Garza - Slauson - Carimi.

I also hate this idea. Webb must be the best damn practice player in the world.

Are you at the minicamp?

Good point. I intended to mention that he threw the previous play caller (Tice) under the bus as well.

I dislike any draft that starts off with Arthur Brown. I just don't think he's a 1st rounder.

Worst case scenario, you're right. If Cooper, Warmack, and Ogletree are gone, it definitely changes things up. I do not want Brown in the first.