BearFan PHX

OK, so hypothetically, who would have loved that trade? I think I would have.

I see Houston as an Alex Brown / Trace Armstrong type. He can play the left side, while Allen plays the right side. We use Young as a rotational pass rusher, and use all three on passing downs, moving Houston inside in those cases. I gotta say tho, this pretty much says that we aren't going to be a 3-4 team more than as a special package or something tricky.

He didn't agree, it was already in his contract that the Bears can do this unilaterally. I mean he agreed when he signed the original deal, but not this time, or the next time. Emery and Cliff Stein are rocking it.

I think we should run some of those 6 WR sets that worked so well in the CFL for Trestman

I think this opens us up to be able to take the best defensive lineman available at the 14th pick without regard to position. It also opens the possibility of taking the best defensive player at any position off the board at #14, which is a good position to be in, or rather the result of a BAD position, but flexible!

HAHAHAHA

Yes absolutely. We are better incrementally at each of these positions than we were last year. So you're right. I also understand the people who say that these guys aren't All Pros, and so they arent the eventual answer. Yes and no. You said it too, these guys won't be Seattle. But some of them may surprise us, and draft picks are still coming. If we can be a top 20 defense, we should be able to win some playoff games. But we are certainly building a team that we be even better next year, and we should be in really good cap shape then too. I'm excited at the way we're going. And you know what? I said it would take more than one year to revamp the OL, so maybe these guys will outperform even our optimistic but realistic point of view. Good post, scs!

I agree. I hope we trade down, and get 4 picks in the first three rounds.

That's cool TD, my whole point is that we dont need to agree on philosophy in order to be neighbors, and boardmates. And religion is responsible for the varying definitions of marriage, but you are correct, people's views on it are not always religious at all. Anyway respect to all here.

I think most of the confusion comes into play when making the distinction between having a legal right to your opinion and the right to argue it, and saying that all opinions are worthy of respect of agreement. It is crucial in a free society that people be able to argue for their views, especially if they are not widely held. At one time, the idea that the earth was round was held only by a small number of people, and they were persecuted for it. In order to have a healthy marketplace of ideas, it is imperative that all points of view be legal to express and debate, especially when they are fringe. Do I think that there is a chance that the Nazis are on to something, and that their ideals will prevail? No I sure don't. But I understand that ANY legal limits on free speech will inevitable result in political correctness that eventually WILL cripple the expression of important if radical ideas. Some will understand and agree with what I've just said, but amongst that group, many will fall into another mistake, and that is the idea that any opinion is valid, and deserves respect. This is not true at all. It is important that we be able to just as freely speak AGAINST ideas, such as Nazi-ism without limits. That's the symmetry of free speech. Every point of view isn't equally OK, that's moral relativism. So far, I'm only talking about speech. It is clear that we are a country of laws, and they (are supposed to) include protections of basic right, such as free speech, but also to have certain rights, among them the right to equal protections of rights under the law. If the law is to define something like marriage in a legal (and not religious) sense, i.e. there are tax implications, and shared ownership of property, then i think the constitution is quite clear. Gay legal marriage is an inevitability. Where confusion seems to occur is between the idea of Religious marriage vs. Legal Marriage. For example, two Protestants cannot be married by a Catholic priest in a Catholic church. Does the Catholic church recognize Protestant marriage in a religious sense? Probably not. But no one is confused when Protestants or Catholics get married in a legal way. In fact, if two people get married in a church ceremony, but do not fill out the forms for marriage licenses etc, they may well be married in the eyes of God, in the opnion of members of that church. But they are not legally married. Similarly, if two people go fill out a marriage license, and have a judge preside, they ARE legally married despite having had no religious ceremony at all. Therefore there are two different things here, religious marriage and legal marriage. It is completely appropriate for religious people to be against gay religious marriage, just as they may not respect a marriage performed by a judge. But it is a constitutionally guaranteed right for equal protection under the law, and that results in gay legal marriage as an absolute right so long as there is any such thing as legal marriage at all. When you see the distinctions, it is easy to understand that people are not necessarily bigots to express their religious beliefs, but rather that bigotry comes into play when they attempt to enforce these religious beliefs in an illegal way. It is important for bigots and enlightened alike to be able to speak and we should respect everyones right to an opinion, but be under no compulsions legal or social to respect every opinion. It really all makes sense, they used to teach this stuff is civics class. Political forces conspire on both sides to blur these distinctions, to make us angry to get us to vote for solutions. The fact is the Constitution has been working well for a long time, and we just need to stay aligned with how it works. Drawing us into opposing groups, those who hate gays and those who love gays is too simplistic. We should all recognize the legal rights, and feel free to hold any opinion about religion, philosophy, the best way to live one's own life etc. It's really not that hard.

HA!

Right on TD, I love the passion here, and we do not have to agree on everything to be friends and boardmates. Now if you were a PACKERS fan...

I disagree, and I respect your right to disagree with me too. But I will also defend my position, since I know it to be right, deep down in my bones. It's probably best to just move on from this issue, because i respect the board, and I'm not trying to bring politics here, but neither will I hold back if something is said on this or another topic that challenges my sense of morality, becasue at the end of the day what i beleive so strongly in is more important than my membership on an internet board. That said, I do not diminish how much I enjoy this board, of what a good one it is. So my preffered outcome would be to continue to debate Bears players and coaches, and the rest of the NFL, without acrimony or having to defend my beliefs. Im not offended, please dont misunderstand, I totally believe in others' right to hold their opinions too. I think Id rather just not have to defend mine, or have them called ignorant. Further, I did not make the comparison that I was called "ignorant" for. To destroy the differenc ein your analogy, that Robinson could not help it be known that he was black, that puts the onus of the decision on to his team owenr then, and would put him in a parallel position to Michael Sam. The point is I wont split hairs, or be put on the defensive by a PC application of the inference of racism. Im no shrinking violet, I am not afraid to hold an unpopular opinion, especially when I know in my moral code that I am right. It is precisely for this reason that i can respect other people who disagree with me. I am sure they hold their opinions from equally honest moral conviction. So again, maybe it's best to move on from this issue.

I dont think I did say that what gays go thru is the same as what Blacks went thru. What I DID say was that Jackie Robinson also came with "distractions" that weren't related to baseball or his team, but instead to a national discussion about civil rights. I dont even attempt to make a parallel in degree, simply that the argument that there might be a distraction to the team should cause someone to have to keep their mouth shut about their sexual orientation is ridiculous. Now that said, I respect anyone's right to feel however they do about politics, sexual preference etc. Personally, i strongly support gay rights, but I DO respect religious people who hold an opposite view. I dont agree with them, but I respect their right to think it. As for me being ignorant because i am in support of this kid coming out on his own terms, nope. Frankly, I think those that deride him for free speech, especially while he is not part of any team, and before any team makes an investment in him are out of line. That's my right to say too. But no matter how many of you attack me, no matter how carefully you hide your bias, you are still looking down on a young man who has chosen to make a brave decision to be the first openly gay NFL player. GOOD FOR HIM, and GOOD FOR GAY PEOPLE EVERYWHERE. That it might mess with some fantasy idea of an insulated football team, that's ridiculous. Football is sold as entertainment. It exists to bring the spotlight. Your code of silence is indefensible, although again, I respect your right to feel that way. To attack me for invoking other civil rights pioneers is some backwards PC jujitsu used to try to make me look racist? HA. Jackie Robinson, Martin Luther King, and all the rest would be in this kid's corner in 2014, and so should you.

Well the entire TOPIC is political. And Im sorry you find my statement ignorant, but I must say, right back at you. Given that gays still cannot legally marry in many states, I think it's fair to say that there is still a political issue, despite how open minded people like you want to make it so no one should talk about it.

To those who think he shouldnt have said anything, and kept his mouth shut, I wonder if you would have passed on Jackie Robinson too? The fact is that this is an important time for gay rights, and these kind of stories are important, not to football, but to society. I think it's great that he cqme out, and right now, after his college career and before the draft seems to be the most transparent, and least selfish time to do it. Good for him

Right On! I'm just saying if Webb is one of them, he's pretty ugly LOL Seriously, it's all in good fun, represent Bear love to the ladies!

HAHAHA YES! your'e right! I misspoke (mistyped?). What I MEANT to say is that Id like to see some of the arguments that get carried past the point of sanity reduced due to a lessening of sexual frustration on the part of some posters LOL If my advice allows just one person to have their sexual energy directed towards a partner and not an epically terrible LT it'll be worth it

In my case it's not the wallet LOL I think it's about confidence. I think this is why girls like jerks. Jerks are confident. Most women would prefer a confident good guy over a jerk, but they prefer confidence over nice without it. If a girl goes on a date with you, she's thinking about sleeping with you. Maybe not that night, but she's interested. Usually guys screw it up by trying too hard. If you just relax, and show up like a friend, make her laugh, talk to her, and wait for her to tell you when it's time, you'll be amazed. I dont go on a date hoping she likes me or hoping I will kiss her, I just show up like Im sitting next to someones cousin at a wedding. Im going to have a good time and laugh no matter what, and if sparks happen, I'll notice. Now I know that this board is about football and not dating. But it's the offseason soon, and I'd like to see some of you get laid HAHAHA Back to football!

You guys need more confidence. I'm 48, and pretty damned fat and bimbos and hotties alike are interested. Seriously, you dont know what goes on in their pretty little heads

Oh come ON. If track records don't matter, then all your stats don't matter either, so you know that's a ridiculous argument. You have framed this as a competition between two supposedly opposing points of view. A ) Tucker's not at fault for last year because of injuries __OR__ B ) Tucker is at fault, and his track record shows he isn't good And that's just so you can "win" or "lose" a point. The truth is that A & B are not even close to mutually exclusive. YES Injuries were a big problem this year, and YES even a great DC could have major trouble with the number of injuries we saw on defense. BUT that doesn't mean that in evaluating what to do for the 2014 season that you don't look at all your options, including those that weren't available last year. In that way, Tucker's track record DOES matter. Also, with all those new guys, we didn't see a lot of learning going on. Again, if you have a guy who has done it before, i.e. has a track record, and he fails one year, you can say "huh that didn't work, but I still believe in my guy" a LOT easier than you can if that guy has never shown you he can do it. You've latched onto the injuries as the ONLY factor, and while it certainly was one, it IS fair to talk about Tucker as a candidate overall. He doesn't get a do-over from his entire career just because he had injuries last year. Now all that said, Trestman and Emery know they has an offense. Even a mediocre defense should take us to the playoffs, so there wasn't much risk in replacing Tucker, but they didn't. They know it will be a rare year where the entire scheme of the defense could be changed. You could get any guy running any scheme and install it this year. But they chose Tucker, presumably for the same reasons they liked him before. I don't know what that might be. His track record isn't stellar. But they have something in mind, and they know a lot more than we do, both in terms of Xs and Os and leadership in professional football. So I guess we'll see what Tucker's got. And I'm rooting for him. But a track record and/or seeing growth in young players this past year sure would go a long way in making me feel comfortable, and to put it in terms of this particular argument, either of those things might have gotten Tucker a quicker and more certain endorsement from the Bears.

Jim Tomsula makes a lot of sense. He's had leadership positions before, Head Coach of the Rhein Fire in 2006 and interim Head coach of the 49ers for one game after Singletary was fired. But also, he's a line coach, and that's where we need the most help. Just as Emery brought in Kromer a former OL coach to become OCoordinator, so might he bring in a DL coach to fix the Defnese, who also has the biggest woes on the D Line? It's an interesting theory, thanks for the name, scs. Anyone have any others?

No I wasn't being cryptic. I don't have a guy in mind. It just seems like if they were keeping Tucker 100% at this point, they'd have said so, so it stands to reason they are still looking, even if they do end up on Tucker. And if they're still looking, then it stands to reason they would have signed whoever they wanted quickly, unless he wasnt available to interview. So I think there's a good chance that we're at least interested in interviewing one or more people who are still in the playoffs. So I wonder who that might be. Any ideas?

I think we're waiting for a talented defensive assistant who is still in the playoffs Any guesses who that might be?

yeah its you at soldier field, it worked. Google how to clear your cache, or try reloading the page, or just waiting a few days too.