selection7

Yep. But you're just repeating what I said, though emphasizing the Bible. Just pointing out that apples to oranges examples of others cherry picking scripture without malice is not enough to be persuasive. It's important to note the difference between commonly debated topics such as slavery or women's rights from that of a somewhat profound, specific claim regarding Bin Laden. While it's not rational to assume that someone supporting the abolition of slavery is hiding some other motivation (other than slavery abolition) by not mentioning pro-slavery scripture, it is reasonable to assume that someone who takes a position that seems to fly in the face of a mountain of evidence and common sense about a topic that is ripe for misleading the less-informed while not mentioning the significant amount of scripture (indeed, more of it is pro-celebrating the death of evil) that seems to state the exact opposite is hiding some other motivation. That is, if I know that people already know the oppisite argument well and I know my position is not controversial, then applying conventional wisdom, I will not go to the trouble of being as thorough in my references to supporting scripture than when the case is the opposite. Yet this was not Mendenhall's thought process, which begs questions. [Keep in mind I found out later that Mendenhall is not Christian, so my talk of Biblical scripture is actually kind of moot now. It would take a knowledge of the Koran to properly debate if he was indeed misleading to hide his true motivations. But that didn't seem to be your point, so I addressed you without that consideration.] I agree that people with differing viewpoints may not be able to see the difference. I think your use of lack of 'class' is a misnomer however. Decorum maybe is more fitting. To put is simply, tt is ok to celebrate good winning over evil. If you feel otherwise that's a problem, and I'm sure we all agree on that much.

When I read your post I thought if he's taking umbrage to Tom Shannon's comment, he's really reading too much into it...and besides, Tom's right...he's not that type of guy. ...that is, the kind to show leadership when there is no precedent and it might not even be necessary. I believe Cutler knows what it takes to do his job, but don't expect him to be someone he's not. The story below reminded me of this topic. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81fd...le=HP_headlines

On a side note, a 4th rounder to move up two spots almost at the top of the 2nd round??? This ain't Jimmy Johnson's 1991 NFL anymore. We were about to get fleeced and I'm glad we didn't get the chance to be so cavalier with our picks out of desperation...something JA is clearly not scared to do.

The thing people with this view are missing is that there was a penalty. When you want to trade up to guarantee you get your man and you fail because the people you manage let you down, you run the risk of losing your guy to the team you failed to leapfrog. To suggest that because it worked out in terms of their pick, JA feels no penalty...is misguided thinking. Sometimes using an extreme example is a good way of establishing something exists, then leaving only the extent to be argued. Think of it this way. Had JA's, at that moment, been guaranteed to get Paea, but instead forced to endure the risk of being shot in the head as a result of russian roulette, would anyone dare say he wasn't penalized if JA got lucky and the chamber was blank? Of course not. They'd be screaming "that's too much!" The same is true here. His main punishment is the risk of not getting his guy. Secondarily, he looks bad to his boss and others. Thirdly, it harms his standing with other owners for future trades. Fourthly, I believe the Bears knew whomever they picked with that #4 would end up being known as "The Sting", lol, or something, and they ultimately felt pressured to trade him anyway...like the pick was 'hot', just out of peer pressure. The writer suggests that Newsome's ironic past trade fail was apples to oranges to JA's, and so bringing it up has no merit. I disagree, although it is apples to oranges. Yet another thing that is apples to oranges is the general manager's reactions. Newsome was arrogantly blunt in his stubborn rebuttle to his accusations; JA was almost stunningly contrite. When you act like an ass don't be surprised if no one has sympathy when you get that same shaft a few years later. Furthermore, what was Newsome thinking when 30 and then 10 seconds are left on the clock? If he didn't have a contigency plan, that's on him...especially since it should have been easy to just do what they were going to do anyway. Now this is just speculation, but I think he didn't really care because he felt strongly that the team behind them weren't taking their guy. He did want a free 4th rounder though. And when he didn't get it, he certainly wasn't shy about whining about it... after getting exactly the guy he wanted at a reduced price (because he dropped two slotted spots)...and well after JA personally phoned him with sincere apologies. Also, consider how the legal system and life itself are littered with examples of wrongdoings being significantly less punished if no harm comes. It's not a new approach; it's conventional wisdom. I agree we should be concerned that JA's team bungled things. It doesn't matter that it worked out this time. I'm not against there being further punishment of some nominal value. But the league must be consistent in the future and clear about their position now. However, to give a 4th to that chump after he got his man anyway at a reduced price and made a stink about it? Hell will freeze over, and I imagine JA is thinking just that.

Ooh, just found out he's apparently Islamic. The Koran is even more uncomfortably sanctioning of justified violence than the Bilble. And the vast majority of Muslims believe Osama's positions to be a perversion of the Koran at that. Now it's hard to even give him benefit of the doubt. That is, that it's not the Koran or his love of God that leads him, but his sympathy to Bin laden's cause. Yikes.

You're missing something here. Was Osama a terrorist or not? The answer is yes, and not a robin hood style terrorist but one born of hate, which I'm sure you'd concede. So don't confuse yourself with questioning whether some government is also evil or whether Osama was not singularly responsible; it makes no difference with respect to specifically this issue with Mendenhall. Obviously, it would hypothetically make a heckuva lot of difference with respect to other questions and answers that Mendenhall didn't bring up. But that kind of goes along with our point. I for one, am glad he's not on our team. I like to feel proud of my guys.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you're not happy when good triumphs over evil, you've got a serious problem. But let's take a biblical perspective... Proverbs 24:17-18 "Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles; lest the Lord see it and be displeased, and He turn away His anger from him." Written by Solomon, who was said to have been blessed with wisdom. The problem for Mendenhall is that we don't know if this is his reasoning, or if, more likely, he doesn't view it as happy because he doesn't have concern for the evil this man stood for and perpetuated until the day he died. A secondary problem for Mendenhall, and anyone else with this reasoning, is that he fails to distinguish between celebrating Osama's actual physical death without repentence...and celebrating the victory of good over evil, the end of a terror, the end of a defiance of God's will and the murder of His people by means of Bin Laden. All of which happened simultaneously. That the guy led his life the way he did and died by it is a travesty, and that hardly makes me joyous, and yes, news outlets may have dwelled on those who seemed to be celebrating vengeance towards Osama, but I personally got a little choked up because of the feeling that good had finally triumphed (in at least one important, and long overdue way) against evil, and because I knew the good that would come from those with evil intentions understanding that there will be consequences, in this life, for their acts. I'm not ashamed of having that reaction to say the least. Even worse for Mendenhall is that the bible plainly makes the opposite (seemingly contradictory) case for celebrating the death of the wicked too. So when you spout off how unseemly and unbiblical the celebrating is without acknowledging the other side of the coin, it makes it looks like you're cherry picking your scripture to agree with your real motivation, which could (allegedly) be to feel apathetic towards the torture, terror, and death of innocents. That makes Mendenhall come off essentially evil, so I'm not suprpised to see people react so strongly against his comments. Proverbs 11:10 "When it goes well with the rightous, the city rejoices; and when the wicked perish, there is glad shouting." ...also written by Solomon. It was a stupid thing to say, but he's young and I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt.

yup, good points.

It really says something about Tom Brady that the New England Patriots QB is 33 years old and still people are questioning why they'd bother drafting a QB. But also I think with the recent successes of Kurt Warner and Favre, people now view the position with a little more longevity than they would've, say, 5 years ago.

You always have to remind yourself that pundit's ratings boards are not God-given truth. Public concensus is better than a shot in the dark, but it only gets you maybe halfway to the truth...which is the same thing as saying half of public consensus is dead wrong. Also keep in mind that probably only a third of third rounders will ever amount to anything anyway. Statistically, whoever you wanted so badly would have probably been mediocre anyway. I forget about the last couple of years, but JA has had a history of success with mid-rounders, which means "too bad we don't have a 4th", but it also means that he might have seen something important in this kid that he'll be right about.

Since it wasn't the obvious pick, it must've been that he was (close to) the best player available on their draft board. That doesn't mean their draft board isn't crap, but it does mean there was reason to think it wasn't a reach to them, the exact opposite really...passing up higher players on your draft board is typically reaching.

Wow, considering that quote and how they weaseled out of the same thing recently even, I can't believe they even bothered to protest this. They've got no chance of it succeeding and they look bad.

Um, Carimi is a LT. He said he has some experience at right because at Wisconsin they forced them to cross-train, but ultimately, playing him at RT would be a position change. The things I'm reading say he's got plenty of athleticism to play LT, his natural position. There's seems to be very little downside to this pick other than debatable other guys we could have selected.

Hey, if everybody praised the pick it would be boring, right? We don't have to all agree. It does seem a bit much to call it stupid to go for an OT that the offensive coach new well, that we were willing to trade up for, who says he wants to play LT, won the Outland Trophy, played four years against the highest level of competition, has a significant mean streak/self-confidence (and hopefully motivation will derive from that) and came from a school famous for it's great Oline. I didn't know the guy before the draft, but I'm loving what I'm hearing about the guy now. For some icing on the cake, looking at measurables, Gabe is significantly more strong and athletic than Sherrod is (who some predicted we'd take...and the Pukers actually did).

Great, thorough reply! That was my problem...I was thinking of the NFL as a single employer for which there are 32 different "plant managers", for example, to use an industry analogy. But, true, they are really 32 separate entities that mostly agree to work together. ...and now I understand the significance of MadLithuanian's reference to the owner's potential to each sell their teams to the NFL for 1$; under those wild circumstances they would all then become one company. That makes sense except if all three conditions must be met, what about closing your doors of business unreasonably constrains competition?? At first glance, that's seems ridiculous. If anything, competing leagues stand to gain bigtime! by an NFL holdout. The only thing to be unreasonably restrained would be the players salaries, lol. I could see the NFL arguing for the courts to especially recoginze the positive of just how much more competitive the pro football market would become if the NFL shut down for the forseeable future. Now, I can envison the existance of some sort of labor law that prevents companies from getting together and agreeing to not pay their employees over X amount, for example, regardless of whether the employees have the option to go elsewhere with their skills. That seems not the same as antitrust though.

Some counterpoints... How many center's have the kind of power to take on a Raji? How much does Olin have? Yeah, Williams might get pushed around but alot of centers' smaller size keeps them from being bullish run blockers...and Chris isn't even small. The great thing about center is that with good footwork preventing whiffs, you can let the guards drive open holes while you worry about captaining the offensive line (after all, you are the guy who snaps the ball, makes the line calls, and is the centerpiece about which the two sides of the line must work together). Significantly, the year he was drafted he had the highest wonderlic score (32) of any of the top linemen prospects. Admittedly, if you're getting pushed into the backfield on run plays then it doesn't matter how well you "run" the OL, you're a liability. But to go along with that potential for weakness, we might should also grant it's reasonable (with his skillset and in-game experience against the best pass rushers while he was an LT) that he could be a great pass blocker for a center. Still young too. I guess some of this talk will be moot in the unlikely event we draft a prototypical center high.

I also want to ask you, defiantgiant, since you obviously are or have been in the legal field, is the real issue here that these players have contracts? Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought an employer could be barred from firing employees who ask for too much money, but then I realised that the players are ok with the way things are now (though they'd be willing to make some changes, they nevertheless would find status quo acceptable), it's the owner's who really want change, so that means the owners signed contracts with these players and owners are now essentially refusing to honor them. At its core, all the legalese aside, is that why the NFL doesn't just get to say "players, go away"? Also, I see references from time to time of collusion or antitrust or whatever the right words are... This isn't exactly like the only 5 or 6 companies that make computer memory colluding to keep prices high. It wouldn't surprise me if the NFL represents well less than 5% of the professional football jobs out there. If Robbie Gould doesn't like it, the Toronto Argonauts and the Mobile Sharks have a spot saved for him. It seems really wild to me to suggest that the NFL holds a monopoly only because they pay their players so well. I thought about that with respect to underclassmen coming out early in the draft. Seems to me the NFL should be able to deny even seniors to come out early if they want. The NFL may not exactly be small business owners, but it their business nontheless. If Blaine Gabbert doesn't like it, he can join Robbie on the Mobile Sharks. Right?

Assuming it's true, good for Jay. Marrying a Hills "star" means it's statistically got about a 5% chance of lasting, but Jay is not a statistic. It proves someone likes him. Seriously though, assuming she's of good character, it should be good for him.

Kind of unrelated but I thought it kind of interesting and didn't care to make a new topic. Two of this writer's top 10 all time NFL busts (they're all from the post-free agency era though) are Bear picks. Enis and Terrell. Each draft slot is ranked separately though...that is, it's suggesting Enis was worse than any other #5 pick only...similar for David Terrell at #8. http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_...?urn=nfl-wp1194 To be fair, both had talent, but their contracts and future contract expectations were way too high for what realistically they were bringing to the table.

No kidding they won't. And it won't be the first or the last time. They'll make their own bed and lie in it because they can't help themselves. You're off the mark to say they have no reason though. It's why I said they "need" to lower prices. They can't grow to their potential if they only take as much money is on the table right now. When you have something with that kind of potential, you cultivate it. The nature of most capitalsim is never to go for the bigger gain in the longrun, I get that...those CEO's and shareholders will be gone by then anyway. But NFL owners are more stable so it behooves them to see the forest for the trees, economically speaking. The satellite deal is the perfect example. They're losing so much future money on that deal...probably even in the short term. Relatively speaking, NFL football is still just something some people pay attention to on Sundays. NCAA football is probably even more popular. If they cultivated what they have the NFL would be so popular it would make today's game look like field hockey.

Yes, if true, and I have no idea myself what the truth is, but I've read the players union thinks there's funny bookkeeping going on and that the owners have yet to reveal their full records, which players think is fishy. Also, saying the "players" take such a high percentage of revenue is misleading, only a small handfull do, the others will have to get a job after their 4 year NFL career. ...which isn't the worst thing since that's what normal people do, but considering football is a team game and a minority of players are making 30 times that, it leaves this fan with less positive feelings about the game. With respect to rookies, it also has become a joke since bad teams having a high pick no longer are getting much advantage because they'll have to pay their rook so much even if he's a bust; that's not an argument against the salary cap that enables it, but an argument for a rookie cap, that is, a cap within a cap. Beyond that, both players and owners need to decide to lower ticket prices and expand the ability for fans who don't have that one satellite tv provider to get payperview, even at the expense of their sweetheart deal with the tv provider. They don't have a problem with record high revenues of course, they do have a problem with pricing out normal families and shooting themselves in the foot by taking more money now with the tradeoff of less fans later because less could watch whatever team they might have become hardcore fans of (potential for the kind of fans that buys tickets!). If players & owners want to be petty in the face of record revenue and miss out on much of the money they love so much this season, I won't be cyring into my pillow.

Apparently he was healthy when he retired. At this point he's had years off to rest his body. If I thought he had been taking care of himself like an athlete than I'd probably guess right now he's physically better off than many 30 year-old RBs who have taken 8 straight years of beatings...but since he's only doing it for the money, I doubt it, and that's the problem.

Although it still remains to be seen if the amount given up for Cutler made it worth it (which is fine, I'm patient and hopeful), I gotta agree on Peppers and not enough credit has been given on this one...unless we just lucked into him wanting to come here. It's been since our Super Bowl squad since I've known what it's like to have a truly dominant DE. Angelo landed him, and contrary to the occasional negative Nancy article, he has lived up to expectations, and very importantly, solidifies a position, allowing us to target other needs and it seems has made a better player out of Israel on the opposite end. He's even a positive influence in terms of character on the field, which apparently wasn't always 100% true. Even though he was expensive, after year 1 it seems to be a grade A effort to pick him up. I'm holding out hope that regardless of whether they deserve extensions, JA/Lovie are learning from their mistakes and sharpening their tools. Bill Belicheck wasn't a success in Cleveland. Hypothetically, it would be irritating to see Lovie win Super Bowls with some other team and years later write about how much he learned from his first coaching experience with the Bears. I know that's getting very hypothetical.

They may have won the NFC and SB, but they still lost the division...truth, that makes them losers! And they fell short if the goal is beat the [rival], win the division, win the SB. So Lovie is not impressed. Now it's time for all their free agents to cash in and can go be overpaid to play on other teams. Detroit will finish with a higher record and we won't have to worry about almost beating them with our 3rd string QB. You know, just an unbiased commentary...

YAY!