selection7

"No charges for Brandon Marshall in New York nightclub incident" http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8292..._headline_stack

So...what is his salary?

Jason's point, while predictably pessimestic about our OL, isn't exactly controversial. It's conventional wisdom, so stop being obstinate. If you're patient, I'm sure he'll say something silly soon and you can go off on him then.

Well, Ed Jones was 6'9", so I'd say 6'10" qualifies as "too tall".

A few things Jason... a) "it's my job" is never an excuse unto itself. It it's wrong, then quit. If it's right, then don't b ) celebrities don't all sign on the dotted line to give up all semi-privacy (not being broadcast to millions doesn't exactly meet the standards of "privacy", but I'm sure many celebs would be thrilled to have at least that), so let's not act like they do. Some manipulate the press for their benefit, and for those I'm ambivalent, but Cutler, as you should know, is NOT one of those. He has done shockingly little to pursue product endorsements or to parlay his image into $. c) I normaly wouldn't give a damn who he married. In fact it would make me angry someone would even bring that up (is nothing sacred?), but in this case, he married a woman who most certainly ingratiated herself into the media to gain fame and make $...and...well, good point. I hadn't thought of that. Let's have some empathy for him though. He may actually be in love with her, and it's a shame then, knowing his personality, that she comes from where she does. d) I never said I had no blame for Cutler. You read my first parapraph? It's possible for both parties to have blame in an altercation, regardless of how the law ultimately treats it. Cutler flipping the bird in this case qualifies as a tiny incident, IMO, which is exactly what I called it. e) Simply saying A can't exist without B is not the same as saying A causes B. Now I'll admit I'm assuming the worst case scenario with the paps because it's too often true, but these paparrazi are grown men and women, and they are responsible for what they do, not some celebrity.

Ah, the fun of morality and ethics debates during a slow news cycle... IMO, it's hard to find fault in someone demanding some basic class out of our players. Did Cutler ask himself What Would Tebow Do? I think LT2_3's reasoning that Cutler maybe has some natural sourpuss face is very astute and possible to some extent, but it can't explain the degree to which apathy and negativity get expressed from the guy...nice try though. I'm not one of those who has a problem with it, btw. Cutler is hardly a thug. But while Cutler flipped the bird publicly, it was the photographer that made sure hundreds of thousands saw it, and it wouldn't have happened without the photographer's influence. I'm on the anti-paparrazi side of this argument in the end, and I think we should let this tiny incident be what it is and not make it into something more because of our perceptions about Jay's personality and history. I also think that any celebrity who has the balls to not treat the paparrazi lifestyle as acceptable and something we all should get used to should be celebrated. These celebreties who 'play nice' in hopes the paps will get their photos and leave...they only prop the whole thing up.

This made me laugh out loud, because it's true. But you know, I think it's often interesting to see what the official Chicago Bear news slant is, and we can reliably get it from Larry. Plus, he has the advantage of more access to Bears personnel, so I imagine he's a good source on neutral-type things (i.e., things that don't involve criticism or praise of the Bears).

well, I thought the "date famous" and "never let them see you (sweat)" jokes were funny at least. others were weak or crass.

During the last draft, ESPN did a piece on how Alabama's Mark Barron was special because these days any "safety" who can cover gets moved to CB (or maybe even RB) and any safety who's big and can play the run gets moved to LB, so college football's safety position is waning. The spread offense's dominance is supposedly causing this. I don't know if that's true, but that's roughly what the ESPN piece said. I get that we've not had deep talent at safety, but if that's true, you're better off sticking with the very first safety you draft and letting him get better over years. Imagine if we drafted a new QB every year, started him, then complained at the offseason that he just didn't meet out standards so we're benching him and drafting another one. There's a lot of ways to do it better...draft better talent, let someone stay starting at a position so they can grow, get better coaches to coach the talent better, stick to your guns with a veteran and make a young player earn the starting position...anything but the way the Bears have done it. And we've even had the problem some at CB too. If these guys are good enough to start, there's no reason they should be cut a couple of years later, or you're doing something wrong (compared to other clubs) that they were ever the best talent available at the time.

The official Bears forums are just too big. These forums are just big enough that there's always someone to represent a certain perspective, but not so many that the threads end up umpteen pages long and you have to hear every perspective 10 times from 10 different people. I sometimes still visit when these forums are slow, but to actually post replies there, you'll just get lost in the white noise.

I guess the thing I got tired of was...how can a guy be so good that he's starting by his rookie year (and none of these guys were first rounders, so you don't expect that), and yet the next year he's demoted, oftentimes for a new rookie for crying out loud. The coaches' ability to evaluate based on performance in Bears' practices must've been really terrible. It's one thing to not have an eye for talent in the draft, it's another to draft them anyway, start them, and it takes you a whole year to figure out they have no business starting. It's like a macro version of how we complain the Bears don't adjust at halftime. Adjust before the offseason, while you still have a chance.

"Hardin is just the latest safety to be drafted by the Bears, who have chosen one in eight consecutive drafts. Of the seven who came before Hardin, Conte, Al Afalava, Kevin Payne, Danieal Manning and Chris Harris all started as rookies." http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...8647,full.story Even if some of those were by injury, that's amazing that almost all of our rookie safeties end up starting during year one. Hardin is likely to be the seventh in eight years. The question is, what does that say about our secondary and our coaches?

Yeah, Seau also made sure to leave his brain intact, it seems, so it could be studied.

Became a fan as a kid when the Bears won the Super Bowl. Walter Payton was my favorite player, who I identified with because I was a good runner (though I couldn't catch or throw, while of course Walter could do everything). I picked my handle well before these Bears messageboards. When spoken, selection7 sounds a little like Smashing Pumpkins, my favorite band from the '90s, which was just a result of my stream of conciousness brainstorming for a username (and it's just coincidence that the Bears and the Pumpkins are Chicago-based...I'm not from anywhere near Chicago). It also wasn't often already in use around the internet back then and it was vague, so it didn't peg me as any certain thing. I've been on these forums since it was bearstalk.com, not talkbears.com, but apparently these forums have been around since before that in another form too?

I agree about his blocking being key. Back when I played NCAA'11 on the PS3, I noticed that a quality method for picking up WRs was to just draft an extremely reciever-ish TE. Sure, they were bad blockers for a TE, but their blocking skill would be in the 40-60 range, which was three times higher than many WRs. ...so when I'd run sweeps or off-tackles with the runningback, instead of my lanky WR getting thrown to the ground, these "tweener" receivers would wall off their DB defender and 5 yard gains sometimes turned into 20yd gains or even TD runs. And their mediocre receiver skills and speed were good enough to make them good possession receivers (as long as they had a great hands rating). Now, I know that's just a silly video game, but nevertheless it made me more aware of the concept of having at least one side of the field where you've got receivers off the line who can control a CB or safety in a block to give an outside run the chance to turn upfield for big gains. If Rodriguez can do this, then Emery is right...it will necessitate teams having to stay in their base defense so that he has to block LBs rather than DBs. I guess we'll see. This is all assuming that he can be a dangerous receiver with LBs trying to cover him (the other way to have a mismatch), which actually is no guarantee either, or else what's the advantage of forcing teams to stay in their base defense?

The Turk is going to have a busy and un-enviable job with rosters bloating up to 90 players this year...only to have to cut half of 'em. That's a lot of players who'll get hopeful only to end up back in their hometown working for a living.

From a Sun-Times article, what does this mean? What that does to a defense is it forces them to stay in more of their base [defense] instead of bringing in a nickel or sub-package personnel and match up with a straight-seam tight end,” Emery said. “We really believe that Evan provides that for us.” ...mostly because I'm not sure how not being a "straight-seam" TE and also being very speedy but not big compared to most TEs is going to force the D to not put in their nickel package. Seems to me like opposing defenses should be just fine with their nickel package when Evan Rodriguez is in the game, which makes him basically just another WR with capable blocking skills.

Weren't Hardin's injuries of the broken bone nature? Unless he's suffering from osteoperosis, those are the best kind. Bones heal stronger than they were to begin with. It's ligament injuries that potentially leave a guy injury prone in the future and with a loss of speed/quickness. I'm not worried about his injury history at all. And from that light, and the possibility he might be good enough in coverage to play CB, I'm fine with waiting it out to see what Emery saw in him.

Post of the year. Douche is a little harsh for Lovie though, maybe "unresponsive/dead in the eyes". Seriously though, both Ditka and Buddy Ryan are available. Can you imagine the 46 D and a circa 1970s Dallas offense with our personnel? Old is the new new.

hmmm, 'guess Lucky wasn't in a joking mood?

It's easier than some people think. Try it, you all, it's liberating.

Sorry I deleted your post Luciano, but it lacked wit and charm...in short it just didn't scintillate, so it didn't make the cut, but keep trying.

Has anyone seen a report on whether this guy can block? ...at all? Also, just found out he had the highest vertical leap of any TE in this year's draft. Granted, that's because 4 players tied for the top spot with a 36 inch leap, but he was one of 'em (NFL.com didn't list him with a "top 3 performer" star in this category because they ranked the 4 tied players by name alphabetically...and Rodriguez starts with "R").

Huh? Do you mean it is laughable to say he has the same speed as Hernandez?? Our pick not only has "similar speed", he's possibly faster than Aaron Hernandez, who ran his 40-times in the high 4.5s to 4.6s. According to NFL.com. Rodriguez was one of the top 2 or 3 performers for a TE in 40-time, 3-cone, and the 20 & 60 yard shuttles (EDIT: & vertical leap). Not saying I like the pick, just pointing out the facts, he's obviously extremely quick and speedy. What I don't understand is... STRENGTHS: Rodriguez is a very reliable pass catcher who is a crafty route runner. He was a go-to look for Temple to pick up first downs and maneuver through defenders for extra yardage. He is quick off the ball and understands how to leverage his body. He is a smooth runner who looks natural in the open field. WEAKNESSES: Rodriguez is almost nonexistent in the pass game, and his athletic ability is suspect when attempting to get to the second level and block linebackers. WTH? After what they wrote for his strengths, where are they coming up with "nonexistent in the pass game" and "not an athlete" (especially knowing his 3 cone and shuttle drills were excellent)?

Indeed, he's shorting millions of shares of Bears' stock as we speak. Crazy like a fox.