jason

Love the pressure the front four is getting thus far. Peppers, Melton, Big Toe...looking great.

No way!!!! Carimi didn't do great on that play, but his performance had ZERO to do with the fact that Webb's guy burned his ass, got around the corner, and hit Cutler clean. You can't blame Carimi for not having the opening for Jay to step into on a play that Webb got completely destroyed. If so, then you have to blame the rest of the OL for the sack as well...which is stupid. That was Webb 100%. And just as I hit "Complete Edit" Webb gets his ass burned again, in the exact same way.

Side Notes: -Goose is a moron. Webb got burned on the sack, but he kept blaming Carimi. -Johnston is a moron. He said the Bears have always been a good RB screen team. That shows a criminal level of stupidity and lack of preparation.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! AWESOME PLAY CALL, FINALLY GOT A RB SCREEN TO WORK, AND GREAT DOWN FIELD BLOCKING!!!

And the NFL continues a bullshit double-standard with protecting QBs. If it's a megastar they want to promote, a butterfly landing on his shoulderpad draws a roughing penalty. If it's Jay Cutler and he gets hit OBVIOUSLY late, he needs to "toughen up and quit whining."

I also noticed that there was a convenient space for Cutler to step into as the DEs came crashing around. That is promising because that means the interior of the OL isn't getting caved in. Now if we can just get some holes opened up for Forte the rest of the NFL will be shitting themselves about this offense.

Appreciate the link, but what I don't get is WHY people started singing? Why did the crowd start getting amped up? It's so unique and I wonder why exactly fans started cheering so widely during the NA.

Love the play calling for the most part, but an end-around to Sanzenbacher is a horrible call. If it doesn't work with the fastest WR, it certainly won't work with the slowest WR.

Remind me again how the whole phenomenon of everyone cheering while he sings it starts again?

I don't even understand why it's a move! It should have NEVER CHANGED!

I can live with you having your own version, since it's essentially the same analogy I used. Although, I think Crowton also ends up with an edible dish, but there's probably not enough chives (e.g. run) to counteract the metric ton of cheese he used (e.g. pass). The only thing you forgot is that Shoop DEFINITELY burns himself somewhere during the contest. (There is no way I can let him off the hook for the countless plays that everyone in the universe knew were wrong for the down, distance, game situation, personnel, defense, weather, Farmer's Almanac, and stellar alignment.) Shoop definitely burns himself. I'm thinking at least a square foot of 2nd degree burns to his hand, arm, or face.

The rise is minimal. But I will provide these analogies... Crowton = The guy who tries to compete in a cooking competition, only has 2 eggs and a potato, and insists he's going to make chili. He's destined to fail, but at least he's trying. Shoop = The guy who, despite having 2 eggs and a potato, is too dumb and/or afraid to actually compete in a cooking competition after signing up for it, so he decides to boil water and ends up scalding his hand when he repeatedly checks the water temperature. Both are probably going to fail, but only the former has the possibility of making someone happy with the ingredients provided. And since we Bears' fans have been starving for offense for so long, I was/am happy to have at least a baked potato and scrambled eggs. Personally, I'm tired of boiled water. Side note: The Crowton analogy can be applied to Martz to some extent.

Of course...this would be the first year in a long time that I wasted a high pick on a QB. I hope it's a bogus report.

I didn't really laugh, but at least I give them credit for having someone on staff who appears to be familiar with Bears' football: Voices yell at Lovie for his decisions during"...crucial game situations involving clock management, replay challenges, fourth-down play-calls, and decisions regarding when to use Devin Hester."

The Bears have a Full Back. It's just that in the Martz offense he lines up on the line of scrimmage and he's called a Tight End. I'm a big fan of bruising Full Backs. This is the one major problem I have with the Martz offense.

There may not be loyalty, but it's far from a 50/50 split. I'd say the Bears' FO was pretty damn loyal when they gave Lance Briggs a massive 6-year deal that made him one of the highest paid LBs in the NFL. Even remotely siding with Briggs in this situation shows a lack of understanding of the equity of NFL contracts and negotiations, not to mention complete blindness on who is actually being disloyal.

Lance Briggs

Aside from straight up calling Briggs ignorant and greedy, I agree with the article (except the quotes from Briggs). Year 1 - $9 million: Year 2 - $9 million: Year 3 - $8 million Year 4 - 3.65 million Year 5 - 3.65 million Year 6 - 3.65 million

Judging from the fact you're still debating, you clearly don't grasp the differences being discussed. I think it's been said more than one time in this thread. Beginning of contract: -# of years - benefits player & team -bonus - benefits player -front-loaded contract - benefits player End of contract -# of years - benefits player & team -lack of bonus - benefits team -front-loaded contract - benefits team The owners can cut the players, but by the time they cut the players the owners are already at a loss. If they cut the players they don't get the benefit of the later years of productivity which are essentially promised by the player yet unfulfilled. Don't you see how that automatically puts the owners at a disadvantage? They were promised X (contract length) years of service, but only received X-Y (years of productivity) years of service. And you might counter, "they don't have to cut the players." That's correct, but now you're putting the owners in the position paying for a sinking boat. Poor investments are cut before they cost even more money than they already have. In Briggs' situation, he's already ahead on the deal. He got the length, bonus, and front-loading. The team got the promise of the length. Right now, Briggs is ahead 3-1, maybe 3-2 if you want to consider the team's option to cut, but the player is still ahead in the deal. Not to mention the fact that the team takes the greater share of the risk. To argue for Briggs just doesn't make sense when you think of it all logically.

Completely disagreed. I can't believe you honestly believe what you just wrote. To even equate the average joe asking for a raise to how an NFL player holds their team hostage for a raise is utterly ridiculous. And so is his tweet. His tweet does NOT make sense.

Not a huge surprise, but with the recent Briggs news it might be smart to keep an extra LB around. Also, with the not-so-recent flaws on the OL, it might be smart to keep a promising, young Center around.

I'm so sick of hearing this shit over and over and over. The player and the team negotiate for a non-guaranteed contract. The player wants: 1-Lots of money 2-Lots of front-end money (i.e. bonus, higher salaried initial years) 3-Lots of guaranteed money 4-The security of a long-term contract The team wants nearly the opposite. So what happens? 1,2,3, AND 4 get agreed upon, but once 1-3 are satisfied, and the contract is finally to the team's advantage, suddenly the player is not happy with the contract. If players were being honest and forthcoming, they would either A]Offer to have their contracts restructured when they don't play up to previous standards, and/or B] Exclusively seek 1-year deals that yield the highest salary. Until their is one year left on his contract (a common timeline for negotiation and restructuring), Briggs needs to get his ass on the field and shut his mouth. I know what the opposite says, "But the team can cut him!" And they do. Which is the main reason why it's not guaranteed and why the player negotiated for the front end money and bonus.

Is that indicative of the board, the team, or both? Seems to me the traits of the team drive the actions of the board. And if we're all still singing the same tunes, then it probably means the team hasn't addressed the variety of issues that the collective at talkbears finds paramount.

You've clearly been lurking.

Sarcasm or not, my friend who is a diehard Seahawks fan thought it was hilarious that the Bears picked up Spencer. He mentioned that Spencer had a hard enough getting starts on the Seahawks, and asked if we were up for another Rick Mirer trade. I don't view that as a very good sign.