jason

Ridiculous? Nobody sided with the Packers. Nobody mentioned their offense or defense in the original post. To say someone on this board is a "so-called Bears fan" - and the implication is that you're referring to me - is ridiculous. And to be quite frank, you shove it. I'm one of the most die-hard Bears fans you'll ever meet. My house is littered with Bears' gear. I got my entire family cheering for them. I turned relatives from Packer fans. My sister bought a Farv jersey and I made her return it. I taught non-football friends the Bears fight song. I sing the same song to my newborn. I travel every year from the southeast for at least one game. I went bare-chested and painted up to the coldest game in Bears history. What's ridiculous is your reading comprehension. If you don't realize from my linked post that the list from the packer's fan is nothing more than a bunch of worst-case scenario situations that have been commented on and agreed with by nearly this entire board, then you haven't been paying attention. One doesn't have to be a 100% optimist and team-defender to be a loyal fan. The team is not above being questioned. Every item on the list is a true statement. IF one of those items doesn't come true, the Bears will have a difficult time this year. BrianBear did a quick-and-dirty version of what it would like for a Bears fan to make a similar list for the Packers.

1. Cutler is concerned. Williams is moving back to LT. and the Bears OL was ranked 27th. It's a legit statement. 2. Flea agrees and Connorbear says there is baggage with Marshall. 3. selection7 says Jay has a pouty, mopey on-field demeanor 4. Mongo is concerned about our defense 5. An entire thread about the Bears' recent problems at Safety 6. Bears4Ever's worst fear is Mike Tice being our OC

I'm not trolling; I'm serious. Every one of the original debate points were made by Bears fans on this board. 1. The 7-3 record can be explained many ways. It's true the OL played better during the winning streak, but don't pretend they played great. This topic has been covered a hundred times in the past, and you could easily go back and see where individual games were broken down, graded, and discussed by more than one person. How can it be explained? The D, ST, QB, RB, WR, etc. made one more play in various games, and the OL didn't suck enough to cause the loss. 2. So you know Marshall personally? Where there is smoke there is fire. 3. I'm not debating the implications of the pouty face. I'm just saying it's true that Cutler has a pouty face almost all the time. That was the original point. There is no debating this. 4. You're losing track of what the original post was about. It was "The Bears will be good if..." And one of those ifs is whether the D can beat back father time for another year. They are, in NFL terms, older. The key pieces are getting older and don't have many more productive years left. So, the original point is completely valid. The Bears defense doesn't have many years left and they will be good as long as (read: if) they don't take that sudden negative turn many older players suddenly take. 5. Again, you aren't paying attention to the original post. The Bears will be good if the Safeties can actually play. There is nothing even remotely up for debate on this one, because, like most teams, the Bears will need good production from their safeties in order to field a good defense. What's so difficult to understand about that? They may be future studs (I hope so), two Fenciks (please let it be), but I won't hold my breath until they make the Pro Bowl, that's for damn sure. 6. The Tice thing is like evaluating backup QBs. And as the saying goes, everyone loves the backup QB. The fact remains that we don't know what Tice can or will do as an OC. He may talk positive, and feed us what we want to hear, and feed Cutler what he wants to hear, and then call a 80% run / 20% pass game. We simply don't know. It's not like we haven't been upset with OCs in the past. BTW - Did you notice I didn't mention the ending portion of the original packer post? I just mentioned the list. I think the Bears should be damn good, but that's if all of the above works out.

My point was that those numbers were in existence last season when the Bears had Barber, a RB who is very much similar to Bush in many ways. If the status quo exists, I see no particular reason why Forte's chances at the EZ won't be close to what they were. And that's where the luck factor plays in. I'm convinced his numbers will improve if he just gets a few good blocks inside the ten, and gets lucky a few times on the breakaway runs.

Which is why I hate the way the contracts are negotiated from the players' side. They want long term contracts AND all the money up front. The team obliges them because there is a give-and-take, and the team will get the benefit of the contract in the later years. But when those later years show up, and the pay is less, the player acts like he's been paid that much the entire time and completely forgets about the massive amount of front-loading done.

I was looking at TDs today and why Forte didn't have them. That's the major downside he's got when compared to other RBs with similar contracts. The results were surprising. First, remember he only played 10 full games, and the 1st qtr of the 11th game. On plays that originate outside the 10yd line, Forte was stopped inside the 10yd line, but before the goal-line on: -5 running plays -3 passing plays On plays that originate inside the 10yd line, Forte was stopped short of the goal-line on: -9 running plays (6 of the 9 plays were for zero or negative yards) -3 passing plays That's a lot of bad luck, and a lot of bad OL play. If either improves, expect Forte's TDs to be around 10. If either improves and he plays the entire year, he might just have an MVP type year.

I'm not seeing this list as anything other than completely accurate. 1. The OL has sucked for multiple years. Cutler has been pounded more than a girl on the bang bus. 2. Marshall has a personality disorder, a DUI, suspicions of domestic abuse, more than one battery charge, and was stabbed by his wife. Not to mention other random run-ins with the law. 3. Cutler is a sour-puss. I don't know if this really matters on the field, and I think it's been played up, but some on this board have even said his demeanor affects the team. 4. The defense is getting old. The window is closing. 5. Until I see otherwise, I don't know for sure if the safeties can play. The Bears have been looking for a safety since Mike Brown left. 6. I don't know if intelligence is the issue - and I certainly don't think the Randy Ratio is a bad idea (giving the ball to the most talented player in the league as much as possible is bad?) - but we have yet to see him call an offensive gameplan. And judging from his personnel decisions on the OL, I can't say I'm very confident he will be able to produce a product much better than before.

Interesting analogy. Apt as well. Sod:Soldier Field :: OL:Offense

Ahhhh....THIS is the year that it all turns around! Finally the sod will hold up and not cause injuries or be called one of the worst fields in the NFL. Riiiiiiiiiight. http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/bears/post...-sod-to-hold-up

Amen. He should have signed the offer the currently have on the table, and he probably should have signed the one before that. Until Forte starts slamming it into the end zone more than a handful of times per year (hasn't had a 10 TD year since his rookie year), he can't expect to command the numbers that some others do. If he does, then he's being unrealistic and greedy, and causing unnecessary turmoil inside the Bears organization.

HAHAHA! That's great.

Sigh. You still don't grasp "all things being equal." You prove it when you try to use the same discussion point in your favor, and especially in the sentence I bolded above. I'll try one last time, and then I quit this thread forever. 1. If all things were equal, all players would have the same abilities. EVERY ability. 2. Therefore, if you were to go in and change a SINGLE attribute of a SINGLE player, and that attribute happened to be height, then, yes, that ONE guy would have an advantage. 3. But since all things ARE NOT equal, and all these guys do not come off an assembly line, height or weight does not, by itself, provide a player the advantage necessary to be superior. Yes, if you have to choose between two players who are nearly identical (see point #1), then you may as well go with the taller player. 4. This is why a player like Welker, who has superior speed, quickness, route running, hands, vision, etc. is better than someone who is taller but not as polished in the attributes mentioned. Yes, if you have to choose between Welker and Megatron, who also has superior speed, quickness, route running, hands, vision, strength, etc., you go with Megatron. At the same time, you always choose Welker over 6'5" David Nelson. Because all things aren't equal. 5. Not so surprisingly, the NFL guys do not simply go for the biggest or heaviest player. You could refer to my "All Wesson"-lineup posted several replies ago for proof. They are drafting guys who are tall and weigh a lot, but they are drafting them AHEAD of the guys who are the tallest and the heaviest. Why? Because all things aren't equal, and the added height or weight does not make up for the disadvantage those players have in other attributes. Guess who got drafted first out of 6'1" 207lbs Justin Blackmon and 6'3" 220lbs Michael Floyd?! Say it with me, all things are not equal, so the height/weight differential was not enough to make up for the other areas in which Michael Floyd was inferior to Justin Blackmon. Summary: If two guys have idential attributes in EVERY.SINGLE.WAY, then I agree with you. Grab the taller guy. But, that's not reality, and for the last time, all things aren't equal.

Don't be perplexed. I do not lack reading comprehension skills. I was simply posting something I read that pertains to the discussion. Another person's opinion, whether I agree with it or not. I actually believe what you believe about "all shapes and sizes," which is why the OMG HE'S TALLER SO HE'S BETTER WE CAN THROW JUMP BALLS ALL GAME! stuff is so nonsensical.

I decided to leave this post alone since the grasp of English is lacking, but I found an interesting tidbit from PFW (qouting a scout/coach/front office member) that relates: "In a lot of offenses, Wes Welker would be a slot guy only. He's smart and tough and likeable and gets the job done, but he is not close to being in the same category as a Greg Jennings or Calvin or Andre Johnson in the way of being a physically gifted receiver. Do you remember when Mike Furrey caught (nearly) 100 (passes) and Roy Williams was the only other receiver and then they picked Calvin Johnson with the second pick? Stats can really skew a players' view of talent. Remember when Houston was running the run-and-shoot with Drew Hill, Earnest Givens, and Haywood Jeffries? Jeffries had the most catches many years, but he caught a bunch of hitches and slants and was the third most talented receiver of the group. It's a similar story in New England."

From PFW (quoting an anonymous scout/coach/front office employee): "Watching Danieal Manning in Houston (last year), he has great instincts. He's a smart player. He just kept moving positions in Chicago. It was a question of development - not instincts. He is very talented." Not surprising.

This is not intended to be mean, but you have reading comprehension issues. You do not appear to understand what "all other things being equal" or "in and of itself" means. Similarly, you still don't seem to understand the basic concepts of this discussion (i.e. height doesn't have to be a "disadvantage" for someone taller to lose to someone shorter).

Offense We better hope it's either Williams or Carimi, otherwise Cutler will take a beating again this year. Defense I'd say since people are high on Paea and Melton, it's a safe bet to say one of them will breakout.

I did notice, however, he had more TDs total than the number of TDs requiring someone to simply be taller and/or have great jumping ability. For the record, the two are not necessarily linked. In other words, it's possible for someone to be shorter, have greater jumping ability, and still win the jump ball. And that kind of invalidates the whole point of the video you most recently posted (especially since a lot of the highlights have virtually nothing to do with height). At least acknowledge that you understand the basic premise that height, in and of itself, is not necessarily an advantage, but all other things being equal (which only exists in a fantasy world), a taller player has an advantage over a shorter player. I only ask because you continue to ignore the basic concept, and only focus on the guys like Moss, Fitz, AJ, TO, and Megatron who are more than equal in many ways beyond simply their height.

What's funny about that video is that only eight of those TDs occurred because a player was taller or could jump higher. Hell, the first 11 had nothing to do with height. Out of the 8 TDs, there were 5 jump balls to Moss. And Moss can jump out of the gym; he's a genetic freak. Other than that, there are two fade passes (one each to Watson and Gaffney) that were directly affected by height, and one play that Moss made that was simply nasty in double coverage (the announcer called it a jump ball, but Moss actually caught it pretty low). So, 58 total TDs in that video. Eight were greatly aided by the WR height. If that's the best example you have, it's not a good one.

If that's your point, you should have just said so. We would all have understood it. But the way you've presented the info over and over makes it look like you think someone is better just because he's taller. Which isn't true because, all things aren't equal. Yes, if each player in the league has the same strength, quickness, jumping ability, dexterity, hand-eye coordination, similar hand width and strength, ability to keep speed out of a cut, etc., etc., etc., then the guy who is taller has an advantage. But, again, all things are not equal. Give me Welker over Gaffney 8 days out of the week. Same goes for just about all but 5 or 6 WRs in the NFL, because, all things aren't equal. These guys aren't Ford assembly line productions. They are different in too numerous ways to count. Which is why simply clamoring for a taller player - the David Terrell example is perfect because he was taller and wasn't very good - doesn't make sense. Taller and extremely talented? Sure. But just being tall doesn't make them better. For the last time, all things aren't equal. BTW - I love that the video you linked starts off with Welker juking a DB for a TD. Classic!

Me either. Football doesn't exist in a vaccuum, and laying out the hypotheticals like he does just doesn't make sense. Tall WRs get shutdown by shorter DBs too frequently to even quantify. The two or three times per game the tall WR has a physical advantage because of pure height - which may be less than that depending on scheme and/or comparative jumping ability of the WR/DB in question - makes the whole point nonsensical. All things being equal, yes, a taller WR has an advantage. But all things aren't equal. Give me a WR corp full of Wes Welkers and I'll give you an unstoppable offense like the 91 Houston Oilers. Conversely, give me a WR corp full of David Terrells and I'll show you a team that has to run a lot.

My favorite example of a height advantage:

Do you realize the bold part above is unquestionably contradictory? The word better means a player has an advantage.

LMAO. I object. Could they be two current ST players who will be used at WR because they used to play WR? Aside from that, there have been plenty of points made, and countered very clearly. Just rereading the entire thread becomes comical with how poorly the points are made. To summarize: 1. What is best for the team, with implications that the moves made will work out, is inconsequential since the Bears are batting about .500 the past decade. Continually pointing to the moves as if they are undebateable is entirely flawed given the Bears' history. 2. Weight and height do not automatically equate to on-field success. Period. 3. Being schemed to play a position you haven't played in several years - particularly if this position is fundamentally different than a player's current position - is entirely different than using a player in an emergency situation simply because he's athletic (i.e. Pats). In addition, the position for which a player is drafted, or where he played in college, means nearly nothing if the NFL doesn't view that player as that position anymore. A player is what he currently is, not what he was. It's the reason Urlacher isn't a Safety in the pros, and why many college LTs get moved inside when they make the NFL. This holds particular value when discussing the number of players brought in by the Bears to play a certain position. While some players have done things before, and may technically be a position by previous trade, the implication was that the Bears would sign four WRs to play WR, not four WRs so two of them could play ST (selection7 reinforced this point well). Similarly, not all players are equal, so bringing in one of the most dynamic players in history to prove a point about two guys who haven't cut it at their originally drafted positions is ridiculous.

That's the fun of it sometimes for me. Debating to see if either the opposing party can be reasoned with (not possible in this situation) or there is middle ground to be had.