selection7

On the flipside, JA finally got a 1st round pick really right but missed on the 2nd and 3rd rounders (one of 'em). Is that preferrable to the opposite situation, which was Jerry Angelo's old M.O.?

Do you hear Monte Python's "Bright side of life" playing in the background as you say all that?

Don't be so sure. Jay Marrioti once told me personally he gets his writing inspiration from reading drawn out messageboard pissing matches (pun intended) on Bearstalk.

His leaving is a good omen for this upcoming season! Though it's partially because I purposely skipped over his stuff about half the time, still, he either stopped writing much about the Bears or they continued segregating his articles from the main group on the website because this past year I've rarely come across him writin about the Bears...less than once a week for sure. Now it'll go from

I don't like either Rex "lead us to the Super Bowl" or the Bears won "in spite of Rex". Both are too extreme. I would not say "Rex got us there" because, sure, he played a role, and save for his Bad Rex weeks, his role was more helpful than hurtful, but he wasn't leading the charge in terms of personal excellence or motivationd. On the other hand, the QB is the most important position on the team. There's maybe been only a few teams in NFL history that were good enough outside the QB positon that they could've gotten to the Super Bowl in spite of their QB. '05 Bears weren't one of them...and probably all those teams had serviceable QB's anyway, so I'd guess it's never happened.

Rex owed the Bears bigtime. He should have felt a loyalty to them after the way they've stuck with him. You'se guys are crazy if you don't think there's a decent chance he'll be starting before season's end. This is Chicago...injuries...remember? Really, we might have a better chance of finishing the season with Orton if he was 2nd string. So if history repeats itself then Rex'll get yet another shot; at the very least he'll be playing for a contract on another team next year.

So how big of a loss is Wilson? How was he coming along? What roles was he playing (special teams, etc.)?

Same issue came up on the official board. I don't know for sure about that TD play, but I do know Tillman admitted to blowing contain, which may have allowed the QB extra time that Brown wasn't banking on. Anyway, people really have to stop making paranoid predicitions and/or reactionary judgements based on one preseason game. Next week it'll probably be "Is Hester washed up? Can free agency still help us replace our crap D-line? Now that Orton is proven, who's the backup?" Granted, this is a Bears forum and such topics are fair game...just as long as people know to take it for what it's worth.

For two or three years now I've just wanted to see Rex make it through about 6 games without turnover issues. If he then only led 2 decent drives all day long, one resulting in a TD and one resulting in a FG, I would have been happy. Throw in another 10 points from special teams returns and/or interceptions/fumbles in automatic FG position and you've got 20 points per game and Rex proving he won't psychologically lose self-control. Too bad Rex never made it happen. Griese would probably still be here if he hadn't had all those turnovers that one game. Furthermore, I don't see Orton losing his job if he can lead drives for 10 points every game (again not counting Hester returns or turnovers in FG position, etc.) with only 1 pick per game and 1 lost fumble every 3 games...while controlling the clock for 28 minutes a game. None of that would be impressive for a typical NFL QB, but it would be enough for us for this season. [by the way, I mean that in the hypothetical sense where he has exactly those stats every week.]

Having skipped most of that last page...I agree with Crackerdog for the most part. Some of you fans may have gotten some of the things right that JA got wrong, but I'm sure you tend to grossly underestimate the number of decisions that JA gets right that you didn't even think about or have forgotten about. Plus, understand that every one of the other 31 teams is fighting for the same guys. JA can evaluate needs and pick out great replacements all day but realistically less than 25% of the time will that option be available (e.g. another team signs him by overpaying, the player doesn't fall to the draft pick where you felt comfortable he'd be, etc.). How good would you be if you had to settle for your third choice 3/4ths of the time? I don't agree with Crackerdog that Benson was the right choice at the time though. Ricky Williams proved there's no such thing as a sure thing and it made no sense in almost any other way unless you're going with dual backs, which I vocally supported until the day TJ was traded. I honestly am still not sure I understand what JA was thinking with that pick. I will say that I was too ignorant to KNOW I was right at the time and I just shrugged it off, so ultimately even being right about Ced (is he out of football now? Isn't TJ still the Jets starter?) is moot because I might not have overruled my scouts anyway.

Teams go after Rex because they don't think he can handle pressure. How many times have we seen this before? For Rex, he actually did pretty well, but that's probably not going to be good enough. Anyway, there were plenty of plays were Rex had time...enough to complete 60% of his passes anyway. Yes there were too many where Rex had no time but most of you are exagerrating bigtime. I've seen far, far worse on other NFL teams and a good bit worse on the Bears. If what you all were saying was true you'd be hearing more about Seattle's defensive line today. ...and the other team would have had more than 1 sack in the first half (all day actually, but 2nd half doesn't count). The bad news is that the day's worst OL play result came from Tait, so if we can't get solid, consistent play out of him then I agree, it's hopeless. At that point we're having to replace almost the whole OL. It is preseason though so it's better that the OL goes through this now while there's still time to improve.

I don't have much to add...other than to agree we would've had to seriously overpay Berrian and since we may get as high as a 3rd round supplemental pick out of Berrian, I'm ok with him being gone. Benson's fumble and Moose's non-attempt at competing for the jump ball/tackling after the pick were 2 of the biggest reasons we lost the Super Bowl so I'm not sad to see them go. As a veteran, I'm sure he made the other WR's around him better in practices but Booker can pick up that slack now. I just wanted to hear specific players mentioned. Faneca, Pennington, Henne, Brohm, Michael Turner. Not sure if Derek Anderson counts since I also seem to recall he didn't fully test the market. Bryant Johnson was the only WR mentioned I believe.

This started out as a reply to another post but I thought it'd be better as a topic of it's own. An earlier post was right that there's no shortage of negativity from fans about the Bears' problem positions. I can undertand why of course, but let's go on record with where we think the solutions were. I don't personally remember any real obvious QB or OL solutions this offseason, but I don't follow other teams' players much anyway so that doesn't mean much. The offseason is pretty much over so if a fan was going to assess what moves he/she thinks the Bears should have made this offseason, now is a better time than earlier in the year when some of those moves weren't really possible or required too much speculation but we didn't know it yet. ...the original reply. Obviously our personnel hasn't changed much on offense. But let me add not to forget that coaching and practicing to improve the players on your roster definitely is not NOTHING...and done effectively, it will certainly "stabilize". Drafting Chis Williams in the 1st round was definitley something[/i. Really, everything but TE was in need on offense, so Kevin Jones and Forte was also something. Maybe losing Benson was additon by subtraction even. Gaining Booker probably doesn't count since we lost Berrian. Nevertheless. Can you be more specific?

We've had enough O-line cast offs go on to be other team's starters to know that our O-line players are typically at least NFL quality. In years past we've had a solid O-line on paper and it didn't work out so it wouldn't surprise me if our questionable talent rose to the occassion...the opposite basically. Anyway, it 's true it's looking pretty rough, but you wouldn't appreciate the wins if it always seemed to come easy.

The bright side is it will be good for St. Clair and good for the Bears to know St. Clair's weakness/strengths better. It would be hard for Williams to not hit a rookie wall anyway if he played all 16 games. Maybe Williams being eased in is just as good, not that missing practice is good.

nice

This news floored me. I realize a nose was broken but Olin broke a jaw and didn't get suspended. It's Steve Smith too. If it had been a 2nd stringer they might have given him 4 games for all we know.

I don't mean out loud of course! At least I hope he's never said that, haha. It's something we do for him and I'm sure he does for himself. ...as he should, since having an inexperienced, mediocre QB is a legitimate point in justifying him as an OC. The more tools he's given, the more would be expected. I wasn't saying anything profound other than to point out that we can't forget that adding Favre would amp up the expectations on Turner in ways that he might not be entirely comfortable with.

2 comments I found sort of odd in this thread. 1st, rebuilding is not a word you use for the team that was one drive away from the Super Bowl last year...not even sort of. 2nd, the Bears reached the Super Bowl 2 years ago with Rex and made a good showing...and he didn't even have that good of a season, yet we "don't have a chance" at a Super Bowl with Rex or Kyle? You gotta think a comment like that through. Is Favre 38 yet? He's still not Warren Moon or Rich Gannon old and to say he lacks an injury history would be one of the great understatements in sports history. It's quite possible he has a couple of years left in him (he's coming off a great season after all so that's not just wild speculation) and it's quite possible the Bears have a couple of years left in their "window". The extra thing to consider though is that Favre is not a rookie and we don't have time to mold him in Turner's form, not that we'd want to even if we could. But how would Turner adjust his offense? Is he capable of doing so? To some extent I bet Turner is scared of having Favre. It would mean a lot of extra work for him and if a Favre-led offense didn't work out, he wouldn't have the inexperienced, mediocre QB excuse to fall back on. I'm sure it's somewhat comforting to Turner that the expectations for the Bears offense are currently low, relatively speaking.

Looks like I was not only wrong when I said Hester wouldn't get a new contract, but also not even a week passed before the signing. yikes! Nevertheless, I didn't anticipate the incredible amount of escalator money involved. ..makes the deal work for both parties. Maybe this is Angelo's (and possibly the NFL's) new M.O. with regard to contracts. It's becoming more and more common...and not just as a poison pill.

If a new deal gets done, then you can say you're right. Until then, it's not going to happen as far as I'm concerned. JA has never done it before so the only way he could pull it off without "shooting himself in the foot" is to redo the contract in a way that favors the Bears and then make media statements afterwards about how Hester is an exception. Hester might hold out, but like Briggs, he'll likely have to wait for a new deal. BTW, the scheme, the blockers, and Hester make the special teams incredible. And of course Hester is super valuable, but returner is just not a position you can hold a team hostage at...unless he's willing to sit out the whole year, which i'm sure he's not.

The Bears don't redo contracts with multiple years left on them. Angelo has made that clear...save for an understandable exception where a NINE-year contract was signed, lol. Not only that. Hester is one year removed from being a rookie. Everyone knows rookies don't get to renegotiate because they "outplayed" their contract. Not only that, but Hester is making 2nd round draft pick money. That's not chump change for a rookie contract. I suppose if you ignore precedent there's probably an argument for someone like Hester, though having just barely started his NFL career, being able to renegotiate, but if the Bears set the precedent on that, Angelo is screwed. His bread and butter is getting valuable production out of 2-4th rounders on the cheap. ...some other GM or owner, maybe, but I can't see Angelo shooting himself in the foot like that. In the meantime, kickoff returner is a position that you can plug someone into relatively easily, so with our great special teams blocking, our return game should still be good without him and when he finally gives in, he can step back in without too much fuss. A Hester holdout doesn't worry me. I still haven't seen enough out of him at WR to to be much more than hopefull about that project.

It may just be the way Tommie feels about that sort of thing and although he didn't bite his tongue for fear of irritating Brigss/Url, that doesn't necessarily mean he said those things to specifically comment on Briggs or Urlacher. Instead maybe it was just a general comment about what he has decided is an important aspect to negotiation...something that he came to a conclusion to by watching Briggs and Url but not necessarily intending to call those two out. Even though the end effect is the same, it's still an important distinction. There was no question Favre was calling out that WR. Anyway, it's not like Tommie said those two were traitorous ingrates or something. Urlacher and Briggs are grown ups; It'd be really messed up if they made an issue out Tommie putting his money where his mouth is.

I wish you'd taken my advice and stopped trying to "clarify". I have a problem with your thinking. "A DUI does not mean the driver was drunk." Legally speaking you're wrong. But you know that. You apparently are suggesting you aren't intoxicated to the degree that mental and physical faculties are too impaired at .08+ for safe driving. You're saying you know yourself better than what courts and experts have deemed. Hypothetically you could be right. Has this theory been tested on you by a research team or something? Nope. Rationalize it all you want, you're still taking a chance...saying in your mind, it's worth the risk I'll kill or maim because (in the expert opinion of someone who's recently been drinking) the risk is low. That's fine if it was only you at danger, but you do not have the right to make that choice for someone else's and their wife and three little kids (or hell, even if it's just one guy and he's a lawyer). Rail against hypocrisy if you like. I don't like it either. But the solution to the hypocrisy is to stop driving drunk, not to keep our mouths shut, which is exactly what I meant when I called you misguided. Proclaiming you'd take your chances again if it ever comes up isn't exactly endearing either, but I'm not interested in making this argument about you. Also, I'm not completely black or white on it all in the sense that I recognize it's not nearly as irresponsible to be .08 as it is .18, as do court judges typically. Like Pixote apparently, I also can guarantee I've never driven with over a .08 BAL but it's moot. It might not be apples to apples because the onset only happens after you've been driving, often putting you in a bind because you don't want to pull over just anywhere and rest ('cause you might get killed like Michael Jordan's dad)...but I've driven when I was way too sleepy to have any business doing so. If the end result is me crippling some innocent for life, I don't see how it's all that different. These days, I refuse to put my own appraisal that the "risk is low" above other innocent people's safety and I sart looking for a place to rest or to properly wake up if I find myself in that situation. Hypothetically, even if one month from now I excercise bad judgement and once again drive while sleepier than I should be, it would still be no excuse for me to stop criticizing it. In othe words, I can guarantee you any hypocrisy will not stop me from saying it's wrong or criticizing someone for it. When I eventually questioned myself as to why my newfound clarity about driving in an impaired state evolved slowly over time rather than getting it from the get-go, I came to the conclusion that as a community, we don't stress enough (or maybe the problem is quality, not quantity) exactly what I've expressed in the paragraphs above...and even to the extent that people know it's wrong, it happens so frequently that people are lulled into a sort of "everybody does it sometimes...it just happens" sort of mentality. So even if miamibear refuses to understand, hopefully anyone else who bothered to read all this won't say, as I did once, "although I knew better, it just didn't hit home". [Thanks mods for allowing slightly offtopic, I've said now what I have to say.]

A breath test is immediate, so if you fail it, you can then have a blood sample taken. If the blood sample passes I can't see a judge choosing to believe the accuracy of a breathalyzer over a blood test. What am I missing? Seems like it's not rocket science. That's all assuming the Bears would've waited for the blood test results rather than just cutting him for poor judgement rather than an outright DUI. But as it turned out, he got cut anyway so in hindsight, I guess his only chance was to take the breath test.