selection7

I know this isn't exactly the crowd for a defense of him, lol, but just pointing out technically it was ruled there was insufficient evidence for sexual harassment. I've even heard some comments that sending lewd photos between two adults doesn't necessarily constitute sexual harrassement; it depends on the circumstances. Also, that she waited two years would've hurt her case badly, even had the photos been "forensically" confirmed.

Ah, can't believe I forgot that one. I guess because I'm still hoping the owners will come to their senses. As wacky as it seems, if they have to have extra games, make a rule that says starters are not allowed to play (teams facing off would both have this limitation of course). That's fairly ridiculous too, but the alternative of sending teams in to the postseason even more beaten up is just not acceptable. I hate to be anything but positive about our wins this season, but it's no coincidence that our 2 best seasons in this last half decade were also our two least injured by far. If anything, the NFL needs to do more things to weight the correlation back in the favor of talent over injury luck. I'll take the luck this season obviously, but it diminishes the entertainment product the NFL is putting out there.

In no order: 1. Cornerbacks who are right on a guy and let him catch it anyway. You're right there...rip his arm off if you have to! Especially with the new rules requiring maintaining possesion, there's just no excuse. 2. The ubiquitous holding/clipping call on a return that had nothing to do with the play. 3. Giving QBs too much credit for losing/winning. Teams win games. 4. Fans whining. [yes, I get the irony here] 5. NFL selling out any opportunity to watch Bears football every week on the TV unless you switch providers to DirecTV. If they don't want my money or fandom enough to give me a reasonable way to purchase their product, then fine, I won't. By other means I still watch almost every week.

Was that Culter's best game as a Bear? I know he had the one wtf pick, but other than that he looked so in control and strong armed and shifty in the pocket. All in terrible weather. He should be proud.

His 3 TDs in that span is actually pretty good. On pace for 9 in a season. The 13 catches isnt' impressive though.

Very awesome. Redskins goin to tha... Supa-bowl!!

The two stingiest teams in the NFL are the Bears and the Packers (146 points allowed for both teams). Granted, defensive scores can factor in, but what the hell?! I knew we were doing well but this surprised me...especially to find that the two top Ds are both in our division. The blank we put on the Dolphins helped I'm sure. http://www.nfl.com/standings Of course only a few years ago we used to allow closer to 10 ppg rather than 14.6, but it's still impressive even if our schedule does get tougher from here on.

I see a miscommunication. I try not to be long-winded, but sometimes it's hard to explain things well and also be quick, so this time I'll be longwinded regardless. I said " Well, the real reality is we traded a bunch of high value picks and our QB for their QB and one low value pick. But it's not interesting to debate/question reality is it?... its fact. Because there can be no debate. It's right there on Wikipedia". What's in bold is what I was referring to as fact. At the core, my point is very not-profound...it's just that there can be no debate about what actually happend, i.e. fact. What can be debated is what should we have done. I didn't like that you were conflating what really happens with what should. But there are hypothetical exceptions, so I'll take your side for a moment. An example would be you could argue that what specifically Angelo (as opposed to the organization) should have done is to not be concerned about OL picks because McCkaskey wouldn't let him draft OL anyway, thus making the picks relatively meaningless, and admitting that sometimes you have to make decisions that defy conventional wisdom because you're forced to compensate for someone else's poor decision, which is the reality of life...and this statement mixes in reality while yet addressing the hypothetical in an appropriate way I'd say. But the reason this hypothetical doesn't apply is that the man who decided on the Cutler trade is also the same person who decides who to draft (Angelo!). So it's silly to ask what should Angelo have done on the trade but then conveniently leave out what JA should have done with the picks that were in the trade (and you take it a step further by not just ignoring it, but actively using it as a rebuttle against what he should have done). Explanation condensed, you have to ask yourself "Am I interested in what JA should have done with no caveats, or what JA should have done with the caveat that we won't consdier what he should have done with the draft picks? I think the latter question is not valid because the answer is meaningless... but if that's the question you're sure you want to ask and answer, you technically can, I'll admit. My problem with your post is I felt you are misleading people who read over it hastily and don't notice the difference between the two questions. As long as you're up front about it, I don't care. By the way, what with this "you're stating the Bears DEFINITELY would have picked OL"??? I never said that. I try not to put words in other peoples mouths and it irritates me when it's done to me. I clearly said you'd be fooling yourself to not THINK one of those picks would have gone to OL..."think" implies opinion. You could have said "well, we never go OL so I think we wouldn't have in that situation either". At least that would be a valid argument, even though I don't agree because it's never been more obvious that we need OL lately and having more picks would have allowed a freedom to go with a "best player availble" mentality some of the time, and a "need" strategy other times. Having very few quality picks constrains you. That's also the answer to your last question, though I'll admit the point you bring up is important to consider, that's not the same as saying it's convincing.

We'd still have had two firsts and a third. If you don't think we'd have spent even one of those on OL, you're the one fooling yourself. Even discounting that, you're the one mixing apples with oranges if you're gonna start with "well the reality is we wouldn't have gone OL anyway". Well, the real reality is we traded a bunch of high value picks and our QB for their QB and one low value pick. But it's not interesting to debate/question reality is it?... its fact. Because there can be no debate. It's right there on Wikipedia . The matter up for debate is what should we have done. If you think the Cutler trade was good, that's fine. But this defensive line of thinking you're employing has to be some sort of "logical fallacy' (and I'm not looking it up right now to check).

Um, no, actually. People don't usually complain that the O wasn't aggressive enough because there weren't enough stupid risks or bad reads. "A chance" isn't all-inclusive. It has to be a particular kind of chance. Catching the D off guard. Situational (3rd down, not when you're just a couple of firsts away from tying FG range and down to your last opportunity). When your WR has a half step. No WR considers being asked to play cornerback as "nice. he's giving me a chance." And remember what I said about Randy Moss. Still true. Yes. It's the toughest position on the field. But Cutler should know that better than you or I. It's supposed to be difficult. Even tougher because of his line. But a leader doesn't flake out and compound the situation. A leader props the others up long enough for them to get it together. It's a team sport. My final comment to make is that just because others go overboard in bashing our QB doesn't mean you should too...the other direction. I think Cutler has a natural defense mechanism against criticism. He doesn't need our excuses, just our support.

It's not the comments that I mind either. To some degree he's probably just overcompensating for the natural dip in confidence you'd feel after a bad game. But to some degree, I think he really is that cocky. Human beings are complicated...and he can be both at the same time. Also, he's not stupid. He had to know as it was in the process of coming out of his mouth that people would go after him for making such a comment, but he's probably thinking to himself "Wrongly or rightly. I do what I do to win games, and what some fan says on an internet forum is about 121st on the list of priorities for me, so why can't I just say what I think?" He's right. It made him sound stupid, but I think Cutler knew it sounded stupid and wasn't afraid. I unfortunately identify with Cutler's "screw-the-world and I don't care who doesn't like it" mentality, but I can also tell you that when you get to that point, what you're really looking for, without admitting it, is help...someone to have your back. If I was coach I'd sit him down and matter-of-factly say, "let's work together on getting you to play smart, taking your chances only when they're there, no exceptions. And I'll be taking the same take-care-of-business attutude with the rest of the O. Once we get you back out there, it's going to be exciting. you ready?" Keep it simple, no room for inner turmoil or dramatics. Cutler wants to win. He's not some Cade Mcnown in terms of attitude. As long as that will is there, you've got something to work with.

Well I know what to say. When a WR runs a poor route and doesn't get open, you don't throw it to that not open WR. When a DB who already has 3 picks plays a route as if he knew the play call presnap, you don't throw it his way anyway. What really happened is Knox thought "wow, Hall has this play in his back pocket, time for Cutler to checkdown", followed by "oh snap!, the knucklehead threw it anyway". It's disingenuous to paint that as Knox's fault somehow since even had he run full speed, the guy who had just picked 3 balls would have still been a half step in better position to catch the ball than Knox. That's not good decision making in a close game, and Knox isn't exactly Randy Moss in his prime with respect to jump balls. And I'm a guy who thinks fans are generally too hard on QBs so I'm almost always sticking up for them, but you can take it too far.

Lovie had just challenged the previous play, besides, the play you're referring to happened in the 3rd quarter. But you're right, it was a TD. Nevertheless, its missing the point to argue that Cutler shouldn't "look like himself". He's done more than not look like himself lately. The point is, while its ok to be dissapointed, there's no reason to be angry. Maybe if you paid $1200 bucks for season tickets, but then your problem is more with the owners/players association and their philosophy about price point with respect to revenue/salaries, hehe.

Things are bleak right now, but its only really the last 3 starts Cutler has played badly (over the last 10 games) and he's got a new offensive coordinator. He still has an 80s QB rating I'm sure (93.7 before today). Besides, be dissapointed, but why be angry with him? He's playing hard, taking responsibility and not throwing teamates under the bus, and putting the time in at practice apparently too. Angelo's the one who traded away the two 1st round picks (and more) that could have been used on OL for Cutler. Cutler's just playing ball, as always.

Nothing new. Granted, Rex Grossman forced a lot of throws back in the day but it used to blow my mind how little effort our WRs would put out if they weren't wide open. If I remember correctly, Moose Muhammad just giving up on a right sideline route was the beginning of the end of our Superbowl appearance. At the very least, that cornerback should have been tackled where he caught the ball rather than getting a pick-6 out of it. I think it's because we don't normally have great WRs here in Chicago so we're just hoping for WRs who'll at least run the right routes and catch...playing smart is thought of as having your cake and eating it too, so the coaches don't even bother to teach it.

That really is an offensive slur against the specially abled you know... ...to put them in the same category as Frank Omiyale!

Interesting article saying the Army has a breakthrough that allows them to identify proteins that leak into the blood after brain trauma, effectively making concussion diagnosis a simple blood test. Relevant to Cutler for obvious reasons. http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/me...rain15_ST_N.htm

Actually it doesn't. It supports exactly my argument. Not your point or another point, but my point. Also, a point I haven't made yet but another columnist did, if you want to compare situations, you have to also compare why Cutler only managed 6 points better QB rating last year than an injured Orton...and why Chris Simms tanked this year (forcing Orton back early) playing on that Denver O that is supposedly so easy to run as to keep Orton's successes from showing proof that the most critical missed the boat on Orton bigtime. It works both ways and that sort of thinking is one I'm plenty confident debating. Orton's QB rating in his last 3 games is 89, 95, and 92. Throwing out his emergency and injured 2nd half appearance, his low QB ratings are 55 and 71, then he's had 135, 115, 97, 118, 92, 84, & 101 on top of the last three games. You were better off arguing that his success makes no difference. Another should have worded it better then? Now consider my last posts and consider how you replied. The closest you got to "yeah, you're right" was admitting that you probably should have said Orton wasn't great instead of "good". What does that say about you? I'm not sure myself, that's why I threw out deluding yourself or lying.

Actually, that's exactly what you're doing. Any other of your commentary wrt this will be considered with this in mind, which is fine, but it would be better if you'd admit it. I shouldn't have to repeat myself. "Not having the arm to attempt even one deep pass per game on average (Orton had 11 in 15 games) suggests a weak arm my friend." Context matters. Saying "well I should have worded it better" would be reasonable, but you didn't even do that. "and the rest of the scrubs" is inclusive of what precedes it. You're basically saying but that's not what I meant. Only you can know for sure, but your benefit of the doubt is gone at this point and that's not my fault. Wow, I was wondering how many topics/posts I'd have to go through with you to get you to admit you were wrong about anything. At least you've done it now and I commend you, at least I "probably" commend you. Your rebuttles don't even come close to allowing you to start talking like that. You have to earn it. Remember what I said about not telling me it never happened? It doesn't work that way. The straw man rears his ugly head. That doens't work on me. It never has, so stop trying. If your point is that no one talks of Orton having a good arm (though you use the "can make all the throws" to make it go down easier), then actaully yes I have heard that. I heard the sportscaster talk of Pep or Ron having to get Orton to come off the ball on his shorter throws so his recievers can catch it. I've heard talk that Orton's arm was up there with Rex's. Best yet, check http://bleacherreport.com/articles/221109-...us-the-evidence I know you spend more of your day than I do chasing down Bears' news so I don't believe your claim of ignorance.

Ok guys this is unbelievable, to me anyway. While going back through my own posts to look up stuff for another thread I came across this post from last year at this time of the season. I forgot to save the hyperlink but look how incredibly close the wording (and the situations are) a full year apart compared to what I posted above. "Don't look now, but even if we don't win the division, there's only 3 teams ahead of us and 2 wildcard slots. Tampa, Atlanta, & Dallas. And Dallas has a killer schedule (Philly, Giants, & Baltimore) so I would count them out, especially after last Sunday's game." I'm a consistent optimist, if not imaginative, lol. BTW, Dallas lost last week, just like they did last year when I referred to "especially after last Sunday's game".

Actually you are. How does he know Cutler is much better than he's looked? Pro Bowl stamp. How did he so undervalue Orton playing injured with a mediocre supporting cast? No Pro Bowl stamp. Although I think you greatly overestimate how down JA was on Orton, nevertheless, if that's your assumption, then I think just it proves my point. Also, you use wordings like "never saw him as a franchise QB" and "he is simply a better QB". If that was all you ever said, nfo, we wouldn't be having this discussion, but that's been your m.o. in responses to me...to color your past statement in a less insulting light and to basically rebut accusations I never even made (a straw man argument). I'm very specifically talking about whether Cutler, and a fifth for Orton, two 1sts, & a third was a good deal considering our terrible OL needs. wrt this discusiion, I don't care if Orton isn't a franchise QB or Cutler is simply better, nor did I ever say otherwise. And why use such selective stats as arguments when there are so many to consider? For every stat you give, I can give you two why you undervalue Orton wrt Cutler. I'm not interested in trading off like that. Ok, that one made me laugh. A guy with an injured and surgically ravaged arm who is infamous for being noodle armed? This is exactly the type of stuff I'm talking about, Nfo. Apparently in your mind that was showing that you are fair minded? It doesn't come off that way to others...unless that was tongue in cheek. I hope so. I read a columnists column the other day where he non-chalantly tossed off that Cutler's boring numbers last week were, sure, the sort of thing you get from typical, boring Orton, but not good enough. I thought "yeah right", and sure enough, Orton has never thrown for single digit completions (Cutler's had 8...and we won) all season, and the one time he threw for as little as 11, he also had 2 TDs & no picks, 50 more passing yards and a 134 QB rating. In this very thread someone referred to Orton as nothing more than a checkdown QB (I forget the actual words used). Never mind the fact that Orton is hitting 40+% of his passes from both 20-30 yards out and 30-40 yards out on 29 pass atempts in those regions compared to Cutler's 34. I'm not being some conspiracy theorist here. People really do have distorted ideas.

First, I understand the logic that Angelo wouldn't have carried out due diligence with respect to OL drafting or wouldn't have had the wisdom to support Orton. But the nature of the question here is what should JA have done, so that's not a particularly interesting argument is it? and "he should have kept Orton and drafted OL" is an appropriate alternative for debate. I'm not sure you want to hang your hat on JAs alleged cluelessness as a basis for your recent Cutler/Orton arguments with me. Especially since your commentary has been well more derogatory than you ever admit when directly replying to me. This very thread...Orton would be a "gaping hole". I didn't have to look far did I? Earlier this season suggesting having Orton rather than Cutler's worst performance as a pro vs. GB wouldn't have won us that game we barely lost. And you made me do it! http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...ic=4563&hl= "He simply didn't have the arm to be a legit long ball QB, and thus took fewer chances." Not having the arm to attempt even one deep pass per game on average (Orton had 11 in 15 games) suggests a weak arm my friend. In your defense, you may not have meant it that disparagingly, but they were your words. http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...ic=5071&hl= "Second, I would say that it is harder to develop a young WR when you lack a good QB. With QBs like Rex, Orton and all the rest of the scrubs we have thrown out there, you need WRs to help prop up the QB..." There were more gems from you, Nfo. Some of them only take going through my past responses to you. The bottom line is that there was a throng of fans/media breathlessly praising our new savior QB while rewriting history and slagging off Orton to ridiculous extents (I had no problem with the ordinary type of slagging). You were, sure not always, but all too often, part of that. (To anyone) Have your opinions, be ridiculous if you want, you don't even have to eat crow if you'd rather just move on, but don't come back months later and try to sell me that it never happened. When you say things like "I never said Orton isn't a good QB" and "I think I've been pretty consistent in supporting Orton", you're either deluding yourself or lying.

I'm seeing a lot of bashing of our WRs. Remember, it's very easy to bash the WRs poor production when the OL is screwing up, the RB has a 3.3 yard average, and your QB is leading the league in picks. back in the day I was saying a) we should give the ST blocking more credit and how much trouble he'll have being asked to learn a new position this late in his football life (I wasn't wrong, per se, but I definitely underestimated him). Now, ironically, I'm having to type a reply to defend him. Watching him on the field, his quickness does get him separation (and he is still very quick), his athleticism absolutely translates (I love his hustle too), and he has much better hands than I ever would have guessed possible two years ago. How long has he been playing the position? I hate to use a loaded word but I can't think of a better one now...don't be myopic about this. If we get to the point where we have a working offense, having a guy like him will become very important. If by some chance Knox is a replacement, it's just dumb luck, not because his qualities are easy to replace. And remember, at this time last year we thought we had a gem in Corey Graham...the year before that it was someone else. To clarify, I agree with everyone saying he's worth more to us at this point than we'd get for a draft pick (unless we can get Dan Snyder in on a bidding war, lol) that we would just have to spend on a WR if we weren't in dire need of OL. Also, I'm not ready to give up on (before we've had a chance to field an offense that can take advantage of it) the idea of Knox, Hester, & Olson all on the field at once causing fits because they're all as fast as it gets at their positions.

Nfo, you're basically making the argument that JA needs the "pro bowl" stamp to know he's got talent with a struggling QB...when the OL is that poor. That's an argument I've never heard you make before, but I suppose you could be right. JA isn't known for his offensive player evaluation prowess. I'd like to think (since Cutler's our QB now) that he'd need less OL talent to succeed than Orton, but two first rounders and a 3rd less? ....it doesn't seem likely since Orton had a 92 qb rating going into his mid-season injury last year on a mediocre OL with sub-par rushing and this year has about that again if you take out his emergency game he played injured (in which his play was still light years ahead of that game's starter Chris Simms, for reference, and proof that any QB cannot make it on with Denver's O). In JA's defense, and I've never heard you make this argument, but I always keep it in the back of my mind...I don't think JA ever intended to give up two 1sts, a 3rd, and his up and coming QB with another year left on his cheap-ass contract (that would have given us marvelous depth). Dan Snyder did that to us and JA had the balls to up the ante anyway. Unfortunately, it may have cost him his job. Though consider that having rooks on the OL may have granted Orton some benefit of the doubt in JA's mind, if you're really going to look at him as that simple minded. By next year they'd be 2nd year guys and we'd have another 1st round rookie to mix in (though drafting out of pure need can be dangerous, admittedly, as is that much OL youth, but beggars can't be choosers). I will say this though, you're making an interesting point while still keeping your overall opinion, which is just fine...but I remember you specifically lumping Orton in with our past QB failures at the beginning of the year. I believe "scrub" was the word you used. A couple of months before that you called him weak-armed, which I only remember because it shocked me knowing that you, while I don't agree with your analysis every time, are one of the most knowledgeable on the forums. You never responded to me in that post. Even your post in this thread referred to Orton as a "gaping hole". You just like to use dramatic language then, is that it? Whatever then, I believe you when you say you never disliked Orton, but I'm still calling you out on a little revisionist history. Orton would still be a Bear this year if he had refused to play hurt last year. That's my opinion. He wasn't just banged up, he was hobbling. Although your point that he wouldn't have survived this year isn't without merit, it's tough to predict what could have happened with those draft picks adding to the mix and that also providing some benefit of the doubt.

Thanks for the writeup noots.