BearFan PHX

LOL I generally dont get mad at people for expressing a contrary point of view! My beef with Jason goes back a long way, and is based on a million examples Ive seen both to me and others. The rest of you are unlikely to get me angry. But yeah, Jason is a prick.

Doubtful, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna take crap from a little punk like Jason.

Yeah fu-ck you. You DID edit a post of mine, you rewrote words and attributed them to me, as a power hungry admin. Crybaby? Nah, Id just kick your ass if you did it to my face. You're a contentious and arrogant little prick. If admins dont like this language, lets start with the guy who initiated it. Seriously, grow some fu-cking hair on your balls before you try to challenge me. And IM a Crybaby LOL

Im not SO surprised that an Alaskan speaks Hawaiian, after all theyre right next to each other down there in the gulf of Mexico, just look at any map. Sometimes you just have to take a minute to THINK about things, ya know?

You know, you're absolutely right about this. They DID ask Marinelli to stay, and is they were doing that, it stands to reason that they were going to let him keep as much continuity as possible. The also DID offer Urlacher a contract, and it was better than any other offer he received. I think it's evident that the Bears were open to Urlacher returning in some scenarios. So to say they just turned their backs on him, it's really not the case. Some may feel that they should have given him $5 million and given him the season as his personal farewell tour. I get that, he was a hero and a leader on the team for a good while. But like all athletes, he got his glory on the field as the result of his ability and efforts, and when those fade, so does your value to that year's team. I don't think you have to let an athlete play past the point where they can contribute just to honor their legacy. I don't think you should have to overpay them either. No, the same ruthless competitive spirit of sports that made Urlacher what he is also dictates that a time comes to say maybe you're not what you once were. The Bears gave Urlacher a middle ground offer, but the person that really closed the door on his return was Marinelli, not the Bears. Once the decision was made to go with Tucker, it was right to let Urlacher go. He does have a history of speaking his mind when he's unhappy, and his declining play wasnt worth the risk OR $5 million off of the cap to rebuild a new defense. Look at how Peppers may have given up too. His play certainly declined whether by attitude or age. He was another stud that made the Bears awesome, but given his play last year, I am thrilled to have Jared Allen in his place this year. If you want to throw urlacher scenarios around, consider Peppers as a model of what could have been. And it's funny. I would MUCH rather have dinner with Peppers than Allen. But that's not the point. Winning is.

This is like that moment in training camp where everyone gets chippy. They're sick of hitting each other, and want real contact.

Right on

Hey Grizz, I dont mean to imply that anyone that thinks Urlacher still had some left is a dick! You are entitled to your opinion, and you argue it well on here. It was more to Jason calling someone else a dick, and generally being one. You can share the same opinion he has, and do it in a different way, as you have. My apologies if you thought I meant you too.

Sheesh Jason is a dick. Dude, there are many decaffinated brands that taste almost as good as the real thing. Is Urlacher your Webb? Urlacher had nothing left in the tank, you could see it in the way he moved. And NO ONE gave him a contract. That's the facts of this. He got old, no matter how many of his jerseys you have, the Bears did the right thing. Frankly, the 2 million dollar offer was generous of them.

LOL scs, it is the mark of good character to be able to make fun of oneself. Nicely done

Mettenberger is gone to Ten

Fuller looks GREAT. He will be a great press and zone CB for us. He is a hard hitting player who can get the ball, and punish receivers. He will be terrific in run support. Frankly, he looks like a tougher hitter than Pryor. Keep in mind that we have guys on our defensive staff who were with Pryor for 4 years at college. They know him, so we had the best scouting on Pryor possible. I dont mean to say that Pryor isnt good, Im saying Fuller is better, and fits our scheme perfectly. For once we have a GM looking past the first four weeks of the season, thank god. You guys are going to love this player.

smart move. he wouldnt have made more than the minimum anywhere else at this point, so he ends up $100k richer for the workout bonus he keeps here. Plus I think he sees the direction this team is heading. We have a contender here folks.

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!