selection7

I like it. I'll be interested to see how backended it is too. Because keep in mind, it doesn't matter how many years the contract is, the Bears can always cut him, but the guaranteed money doesn't go away.

Who cares if they win some games but still can't compete for the title? That's the point. That black cloud isn't going away, Brees or not. What difference does it make if he's pissed really? If you've got to have a pissed elite starting QB, this would be the year to do it (not that he could be that particularly pissed. The saints not wanting to go as high as a $100MM, $60MM guaranteed, contract isn't exactly an insult). Now, I'm not arguing it wouldn't be nice to have Brees on hand to help keep the ship afloat for the year. But sometimes there's a difference between what you need and what you'd like. That is (was, at least) the Saints bargaining power. We, on the other hand, kind of do need Forte, because we've got so much else good going for us and a quickly closing window. Now is not the time to get worse when we don't have to. And if we're being honest, Bush is no replacement for Forte, even if he is a good bargaining tool. Having said that, I don't want the Bears to play their hand weaker than it is. Just like Brees, we can franchise him. Let me add that I think Brees is the beneficiary of Curt Warner, Favre, and Peyton all playing at elite levels at advanced ages within the last few years, and to that end, rightly so.

I thought the Saints management were in a good position. Guess not. It's not like the Saints are winning any super bowls this year...and the Saints can franchise Brees (and Brees can't hold out because in this ditched year the Saints could easily call his bluff). After Brees has his (almost surely) worse year this year than last year & is a year older, he won't be able to command as much on the open market. I figured the Saints would play that upper hand to the end and Brees would either give in or end up franchised.

You know what's also a big advantage in the NFL? Being good. If you think he's all that and a bag of chips, great. You can't prove it, we can't disprove it...we all hope it true. The height thing just distracts from from the overall question of how good is he (and yes, height is one factor). I like the idea, though, that having height on both sides of the ball is worth more than the sum of its parts, but I wouldn't get carried away. The annals of bad coaching are filled with decisions to start guys based on measureables over much better players because the coach got too excited to bother to ask "but can he play?"

That's a relief to hear it doesn't hit quite so close to home...but I'm sure like his cousin Devin, he'll still be hard to catch.

If you've already had a week off, why is one more day a big deal? Seems like it'd be better to save your home games for regular weeks. I also prefer later bye weeks, btw. But Mongo might have a point in that an earlier bye week gives the coaches a chance to make adjustments before it's too late.

Also Brandon Lloyd, a guy we let go, is ahead of our own Brandon Marshall. Whatever.

Cutler isn't popular? What's not to like? He's a settled-down family man and diabetes ambassador for cyring out loud!

And for those who didn't see it, here's a fun interview from that same day at the golf course with Kevin Butler and Robbie Gould. http://www.chicagobears.com/multimedia/ind...amp;play_clip=Y

I guess now it's our turn Mongo (there's no boxing gloves emoticon, ha)

Cutting through to the main topic of debate these last two pages (after you both stopped talking about Melton, that is)... Wesson, this started when you said "i am saying that some of the moves they make or needed to make can help this team win. Like getting four WR in the draft and FA....look back and see hoe YOU laughed at the idea." It's disingenuous to imply Thomas' and Weems' primary contributions were intended to be WR when we picked them up. I think that point was pretty clear (rudeness aside) when Jason said "My god how many times does this have to be explained to you? They did not get 4 WRs. They got two WRs, and two dudes who will play almost exclusively on ST." So now after the fact, you're leaning your argument on the technicality that they have "WR" next to their name and will be available as such if an emergency calls for it (and maybe as a dependable backup, but not in the near future, and only if we're lucky). THAT'S NOT what any reasonable person would say you were implying with your quote above. It's a straw-man argument since Jason never cared to argue whether they techinically have a WR designation and can contribute in emergency. If I was to criticise Jason, it would be that he went after a fairly unimportant part of your point (e.i., whether Thomas and Weems should be included in that lot), since the Marshall and Jeffery additions are clearly enough by themselves to illustrate your point about seeing our Bears' needs in the same way as Bears management. And doing that sidetracks the discussion. ...leftover irritation a previous spat you two have had probably. The only angle I think you could have argued on the Thomas/Weems thing, Wesson, would have been that while they may not be on this team to help us at WR, it also may not be entirely coincidence that they play WR on offense, because it could mean our coaches see our current WR depth as untalented and easily replaceable...that even Weems and Thomas aren't much of a downgrade and we can cut someone like Sanz or Knox to make space easier than we could at other positions. Jason would probably respond he ws never interested in debating depth though, but rather the best strategy to turn our weaknesses at starting positions into strengths instead, which gets back to the OL or WR at the top of the draft question from months ago.

This seems to be the crux of where you differ from the rest of us. You talk like you think a pro team has a choice. The truth is, if the guy is not ready to be a starter you can't just will it. Every team in the NFL passed on Alshon once, yet we drafted Cedric Benson 4th overall and we're still waiting on him to develop...in the sense of being a starting quality RB for us. Alshon'll either be good or he won't, and if our OL is stable enough, there's no reason coaches shouldn't be able to tell. What the fans or anyone would like to happen just isn't a factor, so there's no reason, either logically or historically, for coaches to make up their mind beforehand. Don't worry, Alshon will get his snaps. How good he is and how quickly he adjusts will determine how quickly he becomes starter, whether that be by opening day or...never.

You don't know that. Jeffery hasn't proved anything at the NFL level yet. One good thing about us losing TJ for Benson was that I never have to have that "we didn't draft him to sit on the bench argument" again...save for the QB position and maybe 1st rounders taking over at positions of weakness. If Alshon truly is very good, we should be able to see it on the field...in practice and in whatever opportunities he gets in games. We won't have to guess. We won't have to coddle him. He'll show us. If he won't, Bennett will likely remain the starter. Now, Bennett isn't Thomas Jones, but Alshon isn't a top5 draft pick like Cedric Benson was either. The end result is that this situation isn't somehow a special exception to the rule...it's the same, and I'm saying the same things now that I was then. Except for very few situations, only a fool of a coach just gifts a position away to a player who can't prove themselves on an NFL field in some fashion first. You can take that to the bank (I've always wanted to say that ). You should know I feel really good about Alshon, though. But all the "feeling good" about him in the world won't make him a starting quality NFL receiver.

How tough is our offense going to be to learn for a WR? Is it impossible to say with a new OC, or can we guess based on what know of Tice?

Obviously, I don't make any excuses for him. It somehow feels a little embarrasing for me, even, because he's a hometown guy, but here's an example of why I had previously had confidence his first DUI was a aberration: "Sources at the school described Blackmon as smart, hard-working and reliable. He wasn't late to meetings or workouts. He showed up on time, worked extremely hard and set a good example for the younger players on the team. The sources said Blackmon never let his national accolades go to his head. He was raised in a strict military family and always was accountable, both on and off the field. Scouts who interviewed Blackmon during the pre-draft process believed he was an honest, country kid who was easy to talk to and had nothing to hide. I talked to several of his teammates at various all-star games, and they were very positive in their comments about Blackmon. He wasn't described as a high-maintenance diva. Those who were close to the receiver actually described him as somewhat of a "nerd." http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8299...-make-a-mistake He's no thug. But then, you don't have to be a thug to be a menace.

I wonder if it's even possible to make that distinction. In other words, the "it's all a crapshoot. stop pretending to know more than you do" philosophy. I guarantee you Wes Welker didn't have a high ceiling when he was a rookie, yet he broke way through it. You could try to use stats to research it, but the reality is that players with perceived low-ceilings never get as many chances as those with high ceilings. In other words, the NFL is not an unbiased experiment. Anyway, I like the idea of seeing both as equally important and evaluating with that in mind. You don't want to miss your Brian Urlachers, but you don't want to get cute all the time and end up with a team that's otherwise full of athletes that just aren't ballers.

I was floored to hear about it. You might not know it, but he already had one a couple of years ago. That time he was barely drunk, and he's not known for being a head case. It was an "isolated" incident after a visit to a Dallas Cowboys game. Still not good, but we live in a society where people have trained themselves to think it's ok to "make a mistake once in a while" because "everybody does it". That attitude needs to change, but to some degree, I won't begrudge him being a product of his times. Nevertheless, a second offense...and WAY over the limit. You almost hope he's got a drinking problem, because the alternative, that he unilaterally decided it was worth the risk of maiming or killing half of some happy family is much worse than him having a disease (that leads to irresponsibility and apathy towards being self-destructive).

Forte better hope they aren't right about him only being #9, 'cause that not the kind of money he's asking for.

I just want to point out that after the Bush pickup, I went to the RAiders boards and many people were hardly in love with Bush there (though of course many others were dissapointed to lose him). We should feel good about having him but it can't be overstated that he's unproven as a feature back. Also, his ypc has declined three years in a row (4.8, 4.1, & 3.8) and I've read he's not a great blocker. A couple of people seemed to see him as a bit of a head case. So we'll see. I admit I don't know him. I don't pay attention to bad AFC teams.

Oh, I see now. So the only players that should care much about the infinite tagging thing are the QBs. Someone like Peyton could be had for only 14M/yr (which would increase in the future). But you'd still have to get him on your team first...so the Broncos couldn't have gone that route.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Tougher-Game-of-Tag.html There is no limit to how many times the same player can be franchise tagged. From National Football Post/Andrew Brandt- If a player is coming off a season as a Tag player or had a very high salary number in his previous year, he is still protected, as the Tag will be 120% of his previous year’s number. And, although if a player is tagged three consecutive seasons he must have the highest Tag number available, there is no limitation on the number of consecutive uses of the Franchise Tag on the same player. If the above is true, we really have nothing to worry about.

Ehhhhhhhh...what's a "money"? I already know what professional rations are though.

With regard to Cam, in recent years, several rookie QBs have had good rookie years only to not significantly improve or even regress after that. I don't get it, myself, other than to say that for those lucky enough to find a rhythm that works in year one, by year 2, the book is out on them...that and good/bad luck always plays a factor. I'm skeptical about him this year too. With regard to Cutler, every year our line starts out bad and Cutler plays inconsistent. We have reason for hope, but certainly no reason to know. Obviously, Tice and PE are betting heavily that they've got enough to support our skill players. So I guess I'm refusing to prognosticate, though I certainly feel Jay has it in him to play like a pro bowler. As always, we'll also need to keep the injury bug at bay...never a given.

Yeah, I hadn't paid that close of attention to McCoy, but his last two years are probably better than any season Forte has had, and he's 3 years younger.

Briggs, Forte, Urlacher, Peppers. I suppose Forte is less proven, so maybe instead of him, Tillman, but Tillman doesn't normally get that much attention from national media.