jason

Defining "wrong" is subjective. I'm sure there families don't think it's "wrong" when they put food on the table. Again, when they sign they should know. If they don't, they're too ignorant to have that much money and responsibility. That's B,C, and D. As for E, they are responsible...for taking photographs.

The paparazzi vehicle does not drive without the celebrity fuel. You blame the photographer for doing his job - no matter how much you dislike it - but don't really blame Cutler for providing the impetus? If Cutler smiles the entire time or simply ignores the guy, we never see the photos. I don't care what Cutler did, and I obviously don't care if Cutler is a Boy Scout, but I also don't see how someone in his position can get upset about someone wanting to take his photograph because he is in the position. It's circular logic. 1a. Cutler is a celebrity 1b. Cutler married a celebrity 2. Photographer takes photo of celebrity 3. Cutler gets mad at photographer, whose job is to take photos of celebrities (see steps 1a & 1b) Can't be famous without fame.

I'm disagreeing with whether or not Cutler et. al. have a moral justification to flip a photographer when it's the celebrity that causes the photographer, not the other way around. They knew what they were signing up for when they put their John Hancock on the dotted line. And if they didn't realize the price of riches and fame had a few bumps and bruises, then I have even less sympathy for them than I do now (which is already infinitesimal). These people live in fantasy worlds we can only imagine, where nearly everyone around them caters to their needs, gives them freebies at every turn, and there is still the not so minor detail of getting paid millions and millions to either play a game or the oh so difficult task of acting in front of a camera. The lawsuit stuff I agree with; it's pathetic. But I don't agree with the concept the paparazzi deserve derision. This is simply supply and demand, and they are doing a job like any other. If anything I'd say the athletes and celebrities who live in a utopian bubble, where they expect all the good and none of the bad that results from their status, are the people deserving derision. (proverb: have your cake and eat it too) If I were rich I'd be the happiest and most friendly guy you ever met, and I'd probably know most of the paparazzi people by their first name. Then when their presence truly bugged me because I was having a bad day, or whatever, I'd kindly ask them to just give me a little space today for some really cool shots tomorrow. (proverb: more than one way to skin a cat) If they don't like the spotlight, they have plenty of other options out there, and I'm sure the professional sports and Hollywood ranks will have more than a few people who will gladly fill the absence.

Just giving you a hard time. But you're making too much out of the time Thomas spent in NY. He had almost four full years before that in Washington and Carolina where he did squat. And the Falcons weren't exactly stacked during Weems' tenure in Atlanta. He couldn't beat out Jenkins and Finneran; he's not that good. This is 100% about ST, but in a world where MSW is willing to play ST, he's preferred over either Thomas or Weems on a team that already has the greatest return man in NFL history.

I realize that; I was just giving wesson a hard time. If MSW didn't get picked up by a team he may have to bite his tongue and get in on some ST play. If so, he's a better option than Thomas at the very least. But then again, if frogs had wings...

First, you don't want another WR?! Did you know MSW is 6'2"?! C'mon!~!!! Also, MSW has a single year of 63 rec, 869yds, 7 TDs on a bad Jacksonville passing offense. In one season he's done almost exactly (4 less catches, more yards/TDs) what Weems and Thomas have done their entire careers.

I agree with Daventry, and disagree with you, on this one. Cutler may not like it. Celebrities may not like it. But the fact remains that they get paid ridiculous sums of money because people idolize, love, and want to know everything about the richest celebrities and athletes in the world. Marry up a celebrity and athlete and the stakes get higher. Where does this news come from? How do the pictures get taken? What other possible way does the void get filled? The simple answer is, it doesn't. It's part of being a famous and filthy rich celebrity or athlete. Don't like it? Get a job at Wendy's. One can't crave the spotlight while simultaneously shunning attention.

I'll avoid it for now, but somehow the "vet minimum"+"roster bonus" idea seems valid to for nearly every other player and every other position.

I hate Skip Bayless so much that when Jalen Rose - a player/personality I hate - called Bayless out I stopped hating Jalen Rose.

I don't like Hub either, but I respect and like him more than Mayer. I hate brown-nosers. If his job is to report on the Bears, he should do so as impartially as possible, regardless of whether or not the team is signing his paycheck. Tice could start Cutler at LT and Mayer would back it up while touting Tice's abilities as an OL "guru."

Every time I read one of Larry Mayer's pieces on the officials site I get irritated. If there were ever a bigger brown nose I've yet to see it. This guy thinks everything is great all the time, thinks there are no holes on the team, and whenever possible chooses his words in such a way as to give the staff and management a way to weasel out. So, it got me to thinking about other Chicago journalists, and I know a lot of people don't like Mariotti, but which one do you hate reading?

I'm staying out of the "include TE or not"-pissing match, but I would definitely like to address your rookie WR comments. Regardless of how PFW graded these guys, and/or Jeffery, the simple fact is both of the aforementioned WRs fell into a position perfect for rookie success. The Bengals had a garbage WR corp, and it was guaranteed that Green was going to be #1. Add in a rookie gun-slinger who they wanted to get lots of experience, and it's a recipe for rookie WR success. As for Jones, he was virtually guaranteed success for a different reason. With a strong running game, a consistent QB, an all-pro in Roddy White, and one of the best TEs in NFL history, it wasn't like a defense could cover everyone on their team. He was single-covered almost the entire year and their offense is much better than the Bears' offense. Expecting 50,650,8TDs from Jeffery could be possible, but I don't think it's anywhere as likely as the two used for comparison.

It's slightly immature, but I'm sure he's irritated by the paparazzi. Of course, I agree with a poster above: when you are a QB for the Chicago Bears and hook up with the star of the Hills, you can expect paparazzi. You may not like they being outside your house all day, but too bad, it's part of getting paid millions and millions of dollars. Deal with it. Apparently he deals with it with a single finger. It should come as no surprise this doesn't bother me; I'm the one who has been asking for TO and Moss for half a decade. I want players. Period.

I seriously laughed that you, of all people, are sticking up for a short player. Do you know realize your logic in this post is directly contradictory to the "tall WR" tangent you were on for the past month?

Wow. I can't believe I'm reading this. The whole notion of not being a good short yardage back is flawed when we know, for a fact, that the OL is not good. That the OL is in the bottom handful for negative rushes, QB hits, QB sacks, and just about every other OL measurable there is out there. Your scenario of 9 in the box and "get 2 yards" is valid, but that's still something a RB needs help on. If there is a DT or DE in the backfield on a consistent basis, you can't expect the RB to do everything. Even the "short yardage specialists" who are considered elite in that niche role typically get some push from their OL. I put this almost exclusively on the OL.

I bet Jamarcus Webb was behind the camera.

Ignore all the mocks from guys who don't have inside knowledge. We now know how the GMs ranked the NFL prospects this year. Now that they're positioning is known, who would you have drafted? 1. Reilly Reiff - OT - Iowa: I'm still amazed the Bears took, at best, the 4th rated DE, one who comes with question marks addressed by numerous publications, over the 2nd rated OT with minimal downside. 2. Alshon Jeffery - WR - SC: Nothing changed about the trade up or the selection. Easily the best pick of the draft. 3. Brandon Thompson - DT - Clemson: This guy is a beast, quick first move, solid production, killed it at the combine. He is good enough that he would have pushed for a starting job. 4. Bobbie Massie - OT - Miss: Pure BPA. The value at this point would have just been far too high. 6. Markelle Martin - FS - OKSt: Probably the best coverage S in the draft, and he hits hard. 7. Cam Johnson - DE - UVA: Great DE this late. Fast feet, explosive.

ParkerBear for GM! If that had happened I would have not posted for weeks afterwards because I would have been in the ICU because of a heart attack. And Cutler would have been in a room down the hall because of priaprism.

All nice pickups. A good way to fill out the roster, get some fodder, and potentially find a gem. But let's not kid ourselves, the chances of any of these guys sticking, much less doing well, are slim. There is a reason they were not drafted. This ain't the 50s and the 60s where scouting was so unadvanced that guys like Dent slipped to the 8th round. The success percentage of undrafted players is lesser and lesser as we compare to lower and lower rounds. I hope a few of them turn out great, but I'm not holding my breath.

I highlighted the most important word. It's like taking a dump; everything is fine as long as it's regular. The Bears were one of the worst teams in negative rushes last year, and if there were a "RB met in the backfield but managed to get 1 yard after absorbing/avoiding the hit and falling forward"-statistic, I'm quite sure they'd be in the bottom of that one.

As long as Lovie is around, that philosophy will not change. The Bears get a 14 point lead at any point in the game? Expect them to change game-play.

Wrong. I watched all the games last year, and most of the games more than one time. Webb sucked. He had a decent stretch here and there, but he was nowhere near consistent or as good as you try to pretend he was. It's revisionist history. We do this crap every year. We talk about how bad players are on a game-by-game basis, then when the next season starts there are people who forget, and act as if what happened didn't. The reason the Chicago vs. GB example is apples and oranges are various. First and foremost, they have Aaron Rogers, a better QB. Second, they have a better offensive system that better utilizes quick routes (been that way for years and years). Third, they have more capable WRs. The combination of the above makes their situation completely different. The way the sacks stat was used was an example of why the sacks weren't that bad because after all, look how good the Packers offense was! That's obviously a stupid argument, therefore, applese/oranges. AZ54 hit on something though...which is what I've alluded to above...a stud OL isn't necessary for offensive success. We have seen it happen before. But you have to have a bunch of other pieces perfectly in place to overcome the OL's shortcomings. Before the Bears didn't have that. This year they do. But keep in mind, the QB is still the key. If he goes down, the offense fails. And we've yet to really see the OL protect Cutler consistently. There are countless times from last year where he ran for his life and got rid of the ball because of pressure, but I have yet to see a comprehensive stat for that. Plain and simple: if the offense fails, it's the OL's fault.

The Bears can now trot out the following: QB: Cutler RBs: Forte, Bush WRs: Marshall, Bennett, Jeffery, Hester, Knox(?) TEs: Davis, Rodriguez There appear to be no excuses left over this year. What are your expectations for the offense? Top half of the league? Top ten of the league? What I do know is this: 2012 is the year we finally get to settle the age-old debate on TalkBears about whether amassing enough skill-position players can overcome a weak OL. Unless Webb has an epiphany, Louis turns better than average, Garza finds the fountain of youth, and the two high draft picks stay healthy, I think this will be yet another year where the Bears have a below-average offense, but hang around near the middle of the pack because an opportunistic defense and an stellar special teams.

Fine with me, because no matter how many Tice nut-huggers there are in the media, he didn't do very much with the OL last year, and it pretty much sucked except one small stretch of games. It comes as no surprise the OL sucked for multiple years before that as well. I'd have more faith in the professional staff if the Bears had the Patriots track record of success. But they don't. And Cutler has been killed the entire time he's been in Chicago.

10 games is better, but now you're mixing apples and oranges by comparing the Bears' offense to the Packers' offense. You try the comparison to say, "Hey, if the Packers can be so good, then it can't be the OL!" The problem is, the Packers had a better QB and better WR corp last year...not to mention the fact that you're only considering the passing aspect of OL play. You're not even factoring in the running game, where the Bears gained decent yards despite having the 3rd most negative rushes. 5th worst in sacks 5th worst in hits 3rd worst in negative rushes Only two other teams had such a horrible combination of the three factors: St. Louis and Seattle. I'm not saying the injuries didn't play a part. They certainly did. What I'm saying is, comparing them to the Packers doesn't work, and trying to make heads or tails out of last year is difficult if you don't look at the whole picture. They were bad just about the entire year. When the Bears were on a winning streak they were certainly playing better, but they weren't playing good. OL remains the major question mark going into this season.