jason

What I don't get is why you think Unga has some sort of unique skill set that doesn't overlap with Forte or Taylor, when the dude didn't even get drafted. Hell, if his skill set was that good, that unique, he more than likely would have been drafted...LIKE WOLFE. Also, it's not all about the OL...I don't believe that. But it sure as hell has a lot to do with it. And as long as the Bears' OL sucks, the RBs will not produce to their capacity.

Jolly is a dirtbag. I was at the Bears v. Packers game in Chicago, Week 16 in 2008. We heckled and yelled the entire game - which I believe had a direct effect on Mason Crosby missing a kick later - and Jolly was a complete unprofessional, challenging me and my friends to come onto the field and fight him. The guy is complete trash.

Hell, I didn't even know they were on sale. There goes my chances of getting tickets without getting robbed. Well...robbed more than through ticketmaster anyway.

I hope you're right. But what I see is a bigger, slower RB behind an OL that is not good at blocking, and worse at drive blocking. All the Unga pick does in a play like that is make the collision sound better as he's continually stuffed for no gain.

I view this as a Lovie decision, not a Martz decision. The addition of a RB is not necessary in a Martz offense because we have two RBs that can get short yardage, and we will have a ton of quick pass plays to get short yardage. If Martz is running the offense, the FB will not see much playing time. That is a FACT. The thing I've mentioned NUMEROUS times on this board is that WE JUST DON'T KNOW. I'd say if he made it this far, dominated in high school despite being told he was too small, dominated in college despite being told he was too small, then MAYBE, he might be another exception. They are rare, but he's in the NFL. Period. But until he's given the chance, we'll never know. When does Wolfe run? In the very rare downs that Unga would spell Forte and Taylor. To be quite honest, I don't see the reason for a third back with such a great 1-2 punch. But if there is a third, Wolfe adds more than Unga, IMHO. And this garbage about an all-purpose back...can it stop please. Aside from the run up the gut against the #1 rushing defense in the NFL, a play that didn't work with any RB behind the Bears OL against ANY defense the last couple years, he's done well when given the shot. I can't recall the game, but I remember Wolfe picking up the blitz fairly well a few times. The one that gets blown out of proportion, however, was when someone hurdled him in a freakish display of athleticism. He's less a liability than common misconception would have us believe. With Unga in, the Bears would be just as predictable as if Wolfe were in there. Guess what the play is! FB DIVE. Oh no, not this shit again. If you think Unga adds a more unique aspect to the offense then Wolfe, then I don't think you remember Wolfe in the open field. Whenever uniqueness Unga adds, Wolfe adds just as much. In my opinion, more. ESPECIALLY in a Martz offense where the field is spread so much.

Sadly, this can never be proven either way. But I don't see why you automatically assume Wolfe can't handle the workload. It's not like little RBs before haven't been able to do it. He's every bit the size of Darren Sproles, and 20 pounds stockier than Warrick Dunn. It's a BS presumption on something we've never seen. And, you called it right, I'm irritated if the pick up of a FB who didn't get drafted, and most likely won't see much playing time in the Mike Martz system, ends up costing the Bears a unique talent that has been incredibly underused and does nothing but bust his ass on special teams.

Which is sad...because Wolfe has NEVER been used appropriately, and he'll do more on special teams than Unga.

To summarize my thoughts, the reason the prison time does not work as a deterrent is that it's not hard enough. The reason there are still capital offense crimes in states that have the death penalty is that the death penalty is not used frequently enough or early enough. Perhaps others who are more weak-minded just need more convincing, more fear, more penalties. As for your private vs. public thoughts on smoking, let me put it the way it's been said numerous times. I can swing my fists legally, but the minute I swing and hit someone else is when it becomes illegal. Therefore, the smoking in a public place should be banned. Whether I choose to walk into the "fist" is inconsequential because A] I was affected, and B] It has been deemed illegal. The privilege to make good and bad decisions ends as soon as someone else is illegally affected. As for Justin Bieber, I completely agree. In general I agree with the Twilight comment as well, unless the person watches the movie to make fun of it.

Agreed. That is a VERY big stretch in my opinion. I don't think the drug laws were set up with racial intentions. They were set up with drug intentions, but it just happens to have affected some communities more than others. How can this be remedied? DON'T DO DRUGS. It really is that simple. One can't blame a police officer for arresting all of one kind of person when nearly each arrest is on a person committing crime. The focus should be on stopping crime, not stopping specific people committing crime. Hence, crimes being committed are being stopped. Side note: The argument is especially ridiculous when considering that Jamarcus Russell is a millionaire. I think you've contradicted yourself a bit. You admit that the people are weak, and abuse drugs because they are weak, but then claim that all they need is help. What's to stop them from abusing again after their help? The question is rhetorical because the answer is nothing. What we need is MUCH harsher penalties for things that are illegal, not coddling. The reason people continue to commit crime at alarming rates is that the penalties are not convincing or persuasive enough (i.e. chain gangs, hard labor, executions). FEAR of going to prison should be instilled in the population, not general apathy. Perhaps if people were actually afraid of prison, afraid of their punishments, then less crime would be committed. Of course, I'm not a big believer in rehabilitation. I believe in the fear of possible punishment over rehabilitation. Side note: I was in the Netherlands last month, and felt more unsafe in several skinny alleys than I do/did in Detroit, Memphis, and/or Chicago. Having said that, the comparison is false because A] Netherlands is a country that doesn't face nearly the type of turmoil we face on any level, and B] The saturation of drug use does not spread country-wide, but instead focuses almost primarily in Amsterdam. In principle, yet again, I agree. However, the public to a certain extent needs to be protected from itself. If something is illegal, then NO, as a private property owner you should not have the PRIVILEGE to allow smoking (because smoking is not a "right"). If you were allowed, then a very slippery slope is created where you as a bar owner get to determine various other things contradictory to laws that are in place. If a law is put in place to protect many from the destructive habits of others, then I'll probably be for it. It's the same reason people can drink, they can drive, but they can't drink and drive. Their bad habits negatively affect others. Side Note: Family has been hit by the cancer bug twice, and smoking/smokers really piss me off. I think smoking itself should be illegal because it's causing more deaths per year than anything else (i.e. heart diseases, cancer, respiratory diseases), which is aside from the fact that smokers think the world is their ashtray. Agreed (except on whether or not marijuana should be legal for any reason).

I honestly think it's an ignorant question. The irrefutable answer in my mind is YES. Before last year, the question would not have been answered. It's just an ignorant writer going on the stats column and poking holes in Cutler's game because of the interceptions. The only thing is, the writer didn't do the homework, and didn't review the tape, because we have conclusively seen that about 10 of the interceptions weren't even on Cutler. Take those ten away, and this discussion doesn't get started because of the improvements nearly every receiver had last year.

I agree with your initial point, and I mentioned as much since I said that if people didn't like it they could contact their various representatives. The fact remains, it's illegal. Therefore, nobody should complain too much about a law enforcement officer catching someone committing a crime. This may surprise you, but I agree with the second point. The only problem is, it's like communism: it only works in theory. If some legislation is not in place, others WILL be hurt. Just look at the fight smokers are going through right now, and the way they completely disregard the feelings/desires/well interests of others. To be quite honest, this is something that is never-ending between people who do not, and will not agree. But my stance is that a crime is a crime, and until otherwise noted, I don't have a problem with this arrest. Russell is a complete effing idiot; he pissed away millions, and I have no sympathy whatsoever for a guy who was given EVERYTHING because he won the genetic lottery and couldn't manage to get his head out of his ass long enough to do the right thing...which he continues to avoid like it's the plague.

You guys keep coming up with false equivalencies of "illegal" versus "should use police resources elsewhere." I never said that police had the time or resources to spend on things like this. I agree that there are probably other crimes going on that deserve more attention. But what he did is nonetheless a crime. A crime is a crime is a crime. Don't like it? Contact your local, state, and federal representative to fight against what you think shouldn't be illegal. Caveat: I have never abused any drugs, prescription or otherwise. I've never smoked a cigarette. I rarely drink, and when I do I go years without actually getting uncontrollably drunk. So I have a harder time empathizing with someone who was mixing an illegal substance with something else in order to make some sort of underground drug popularized by the hip hop community.

Agreed...it's slow. If someone has a problem with this, and would like the thread moved, I apologize beforehand. Admin...move it if someone complains. 1) Abuse of just about everything is bad. Agreed. The difference is, the abuse of what Russell abused is illegal. There is no ambiguity with this. 2) Am I comparing Russell's crime to Vick's crime? No. Am I comparing the concept of crime to the concept of crime? Obviously. He committed a crime. Where is the issue? Perhaps if crime were taken seriously in this country, then people would be afraid to do the little things (i.e. Russell), and cops could concentrate on big things (i.e. Vick). The problem is that various crimes, even big ones, are met with slaps on the wrist from the judicial system. So why change? Why not break the law if the penalty is so ridiculously minimal?

By "prioritization issues" I assume you mean "Jamarcus Russell would rather do drugs than work his fat ass into shape and learn the playbook well enough to make a strong enough impact that the Raiders didn't cut him." It's not cocaine, but people have died from the drug's abuse. Here's the wiki on the drug This may seem minor to some, but starting low is how the cops work towards getting the big criminals who fund massive criminal activities, like Mike Vick.

Game. Set. Match. Thanks for all the highlights. I'm getting hyped for the season already. The thought of a Jay Cutler throwing to Knox, Hester, Aromashodu, Iglesias, Bennett, Olsen, Forte, and Taylor...IN A MARTZ OFFENSE...has me absolutely salivating.

I guess that's one way of looking at it. Like being the tallest midget. Agreed, however, that the coaches aren't going to give the truth to the media. They're more likely to blow smoke.

What the hell is Tice smoking? Olin has not been elite for 3 or 4 years, at least. And we're a good ways off from Williams getting credit like that. The true indication is the battle at the other three spots. It's scary to think that there are THREE spots in which nobody is good enough to keep their job from last year.

I'd like to pin it to his kidney...provided he has an extra one to spare.

You could be right, but if DA comes out minicamp as the clear cut #1, combining his surge at the end of last season will have many salivating for a "sleeper."

Aromashodu will be ranked the highest, and he'll be somewhere around 30th. Then Hester around 40th. The others will be free agent pickups.

Show me where TO has caused a problem while on the field. Oh, and BTW, it's "throwing a QB under the bus after a championship run"...that eventually ended with a loss. Therefore, it's not a true "championship" run. I agree that the coaches and much of the front office are idiots, but IDK what you're talking about with the OL. It's rarely addressed, and the one mistake (Colombo) is not really a mistake...it's an unfortunate injury. As for the Cardinals' player, I have no clue which starter was formerly with the Bears. I'm missing something here.

When things were going well in both places, you barely heard a peep out of TO. I don't know where you are getting the reverse angle from. TO's reactions, from what I have seen over many, many games, always seem to be negative when the team loses, and he feels he could have helped the team more. Both of those teams were winning teams...but both ultimately lost.

I'll summarize for the sake of argument... -TO and Randy Moss are hard to handle OFF the field, but not so much ON the field. Your points are almost always things that happen OFF the field. I saw TO do the stuff you mention in Dallas, but nowhere else. I have not heard of the fight in the Eagles locker room being caused by TO. -Both WRs may have been locker room problems, or interview problems, but that is an organizational problem that should be handled in house. -If a team has a problem with a player, then the coach and the organization need to handle it. If the combined will/authority can't control the player, then it's poor management. This is true in all organizations. We'll always disagree, but I think you guys put too much into this off the field junk. If the dude is putting up 10 TDs or more every year, then he's a damn player. And that's what I want to see on the Bears: players. I want the Bears to win more than I want them to have a bunch of good guys. Notice that I was COMPLETELY against drafting Benson, once he was on the team I was equally against getting rid of him because I thought it was a bad move ("bad" guy or not). If the Bears from yesteryear had to deal with today's sensitive, PC climate, where every decision is questioned and everything is overanalyzed, you guys would not remember players like Butkus or Ditka fondly...because they would have been run out of town.

I wonder if Forte is happy with Smith's performance...because most people aren't. Side note: I follow Forte on Twitter, and it appears that every day he is pushing himself when working out. Good news.

Often, because it is important. And since the OL sucked last year, it's up to the QB and the WRs. The key word in your statement is "solid." I agree; often you can get solid players. But rarely do you get superstars who don't have a little bit of "me first" in them, maybe more. Randy Moss sure seems to be doing fine in New England. Terrell Owens sure seems to do well when his teams are winning. Both have no issues getting along with teammates while ON the field. That's what I care about. I'm not saying they'll be perfect, but neither has punched a teammate in the face like another person on our team. None has helped split the team against another teammate. Agreed. That's why I said it was too late in my original reply to this thread. The problem is, just about this entire board has said no to TO for multiple years, even back to the old board, despite the fact that we had bums like Dez White and others at WR. TO was available in 2004 when the Bears had Thomas Jones lead the team with receiving. A RB led the team. RM was available in 2005 when the Bears had Muhsin Muhammed lead the team with a weak 64 receptions. TO was available in 2006 when the Bears had Muhsin Muhammed lead the team with a weak 60 receptions. RM was available in 2007 when the Bears had Bernard Berrian lead the team with 71 receptions, not bad, but not #1 quality. The point is, EACH year those two stars were available, the Bears needed WR help in a VERY bad way. Each year they were ignored...much like the team seems to ignore the OL.