CrackerDog

If this is 100% accurate I can't imagine them doing anything but cut him. Even say a restructure where he gets a smaller bonus up front and then vet minimum salaries doesn't seem to make sense cap-wise. Now they may have something up their sleeves and they may think he played well enough to retain at a reduced price-tag, but this doesn't look like it'll come together if the Bears can honestly get out of this deal for only $4 mil of dead space in 2014 and 2015.

BTW, you're 100% right about this. I remember lots of years ago a buddy of mine was out with this group we used to hang with and I wasn't there. He asked this one gal if she was interested in me and she said something to the effect of "Cracker's too nice a guy." My buddy said, "No he's not, he's an asshole." He told me to just be myself and stop trying so hard and within a few weeks we were going out, etc. She was awesome in many many ways!

LOL! Well, I've had the same G/F now for 4 years, been divorced for 5 and that isn't an issue. But you saying you want to "see some of us get laid" is a little creepy dude.

Ha, I'm almost 50. Bimbos have better options.

I could be wrong but I think he meant "man" in terms of a "Man of the Year" type of context. Related to how Nut is associated with all sorts of charities and cool stuff and Urlacher had sex with bimbos, etc. Again, that's how I read it. Your mileage may vary. EDIT: Just saw that he replied and confirmed what I thought he meant. Sorry for the duplication.

So who you got in the Super Bowl? I guess I really don't care who wins but I assume it'll be the Broncos. I don't really like Manning but there are any number of reasons not to like that Seattle team. I do think it'll be a good game and getting together with friends for this event is always a lot of fun.

I think I've seen blog posts suggesting this based on Emery's comments about Peppers right after the season ended. But nothing definitive. I see Peppers' deal getting redone to where both sides are happy and he finishes his career as a Bear. We'll see.

I find it interesting. Just hope there isn't a "too many cooks in the kitchen" situation developing.

Not disputing the points he made but rather the ignorant manner in which he did so. Once again. He's constantly telling others how stupid they are by using words like ridiculous. It wasn't ridiculous to suggest those calls could've changed the momentum of the game and potentially the outcome. It's just that the poster above dared not be 100% clear in the way he phrased his post so Jason jumped on it. If he weren't such a tool 99% of the time, I wouldn't have responded to his post at all.

He did. JA's biggest problem, IMO, was his first round picks almost always flamed out. But I still give him credit for building a Superbowl team, a game we would've probably won if it weren't for us having Rex "Deer in the Headlights" Grossman at QB. PS. You forgot Forte. PSS. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the Bears have 5 guys in the Pro Bowl and the Pukers have 1.

Oh, STFU.

Ha! Not sure what that is. I think the only conjecture about switching to a 3-4 is due to SMc sucking so badly on the line they're looking to salvage that pick (and Emery's reputation) by moving him somewhere they think he can succeed. And I'm not a fan of changing things simply to make up for a bad pick by the GM. We're two years into the SMc experiement and the dude just plain blows. If there are other compelling reasons to make the switch, fine. Just make it work better than whatever it was we saw out there this season, for Christ's sake...

I agree with you more on the kids than on Sherman. Best article I've seen so far on Sherman is: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tommytomlinson...rman-interview/ With that said, I wish more athletes were like Sweetness. No showboating, no trash talking, just class. And Sherman didn't show any of that. However, the play happened a few seconds before the "interview" and he and Crabtree were clearly talking smack all game long. WHAT THE F*CK DID THEY EXPECT?!?!!! No excuse for Sherman, like SCS said though, he's just a product of his generation. I'm a parent and I work pretty hard at making sure my son knows that that shit ain't acceptable. If everyone did that, perhaps there'd be a little less of this BS out there in the NBA, NFL, etc.

Just imagine the shit he's taken! Builds character though...

Probably not very nice of us. Isn't Jason's husband a Packers fan?

I guess they inked him today.

He shouldn't have married the stupid bitch in the first place.

It'll be interesting to watch this one. They've had the talent for a long time.

I think both sides of this argument have made good points (except Jason) and I appreciate that. This has been one of the better threads in a long time.

Ha! There's truth to what you say above, Emery is certainly not without fault here. He's acknowledged that. I guess what I'm saying is I'd like to have seen better fundamentals which I do ascribe directly to coaching. So when a player, even a shitty one, is out of position over and over, or if an NFL player can't tackle, etc... I blame the coaches for the D and the buck doesn't stop, for me, with a few position coaches.

It's all guesswork but you and I feel very differently on this. I think Bears ownership doesn't want to be perceived as one that doesn't give people a chance to prove themselves. I'm sure they looked at the season and thought the same thing SCS and others did, that this guy was doing the best he could with a bad hand. I therefore think that even if Trestman wanted to move on, ownership would've said no. And it isn't even really abojut money although you have to consider it. No team wants to be saddled with paying guys they no longer employ. Obviously I'm not in the inner circle so it's all just an opinion. But Trestman has the reputation for dumping DC's so it wouldn't have suprised me if he did it again. Results are in! I think Emery and Trestman had an incentive to keep Tucker around. They don't want it to look like they made a decision just last year that's already proven to have been a bad one. So, you're probably right, they'd like to see this guy succeed to make themselves look better. But I still think the ultimate call here was probably at the McCaskey level.

Really? I know the biggest issue was rush D but damn if they couldn't get off the field on 3rd down (or 4th down against the Packers). No pass rush to speak of, poor tackling. I know there were injuries but Jesus man, this was supposed to be a bend but don't break D and it broke all season long. If Tucker wasn't smart enough to run it and get the basics right, why should we feel confident he'll get a D of his own creation right? What from his past gives you confidence in this guy? I know why the Bears organization (in this case it's, IMO, coming from the top, not necessarily Trestman or Emery but from ownership) is sticking with him. But I wonder why a fan of the team would want another ride on the Tucker-Go-Round after that absolutely abysmal season.

The standard we should have is if Belichick would've done better, we didn't live up to expectations. He's a prick but he's the best. Can you imagine THAT GUY fielding a defense this god-aweful no matter what injuries his team took? I cannot. His backups would've been better prepared. He would've changed whatever was necessary to the scheme to put the players he had in the best possible position to succeed. I hope I'm wrong and Tucker kicks major ass next season. But this doesn't sit well with me.

Horse shit. A few token guys get canned but the leader stays. Reminds me of the Reagan Administration. Oh well, as others have said, fix the D this year or the whole staff is subject to getting shitcanned. I understand the Bears are trying to be loyal to Tucker and not fire him after one incredibly jinxed season. With that said, they damn well better make major changes to personnel and scheme because this shit was downright embarrassing.

I'm rooting for Chico today but expect Jimmy H's team to win.