jason

Personally, I think they should trade it. There is a ton of hype with this pick, and either Rose or Beasley will command a lot in a trade. On top of that, I don't know what the Bulls' identity is right now. I think they need a marquee player of some kind to go with the players they have. They have far too many similar players. They remind me of the Blazers from about 8-10 years ago. Tons of good players, but all about the same level. Besides, their backcourt is pretty good. Sure, Rose will probably be better, but Heinrich, Gordon, Duhon, and Sefolosha are pretty formidable. Nocioni, Thomas, Noah, and Deng are pretty damn good for forwards. They lack something serious at the center position. And since they don't have Jordan, I'm pretty sure they need a Center. What does that mean? They need to pull off a massive trade. First of all, Drew Gooden sucks, but is also highly overrated somehow. This goes double for Larry Hughes. He is one of the worst players for the Bulls. He may be better THAN some players, but he's the kind of guy that goes in to get "his shots", and doesn't seem to work well with the team, the offense...and he doesn't player defense either. A few team ideas: -Stoudamire from Phoenix - Look how easily they gave away Marion -Chandler from NO - He understands how to play now -Nene / Kenyon from Denver -Howard from Orlando - This would be a blockbuster, and probably unlikely -Bosh from Toronto - This would also be a blockbuster, but more likely considering Toronto's habit of dumping talent

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, as long as a player doesn't OJ someone, or do something similar, I don't really care. I haven't been one to say the Bears should cut a player because of their problems. I don't think they should have gotten rid of Tank. Unless a player is disruptive on the field or in the clubhouse, stirring the hornet's nest and causing problems related to teamwork and football, then I don't think they should be released. Does Tank's gun possession stuff cause more clubhouse drama than a bigtime contract dispute or an OTA holdout? I don't think so.

2. Why ask? It doesn't matter if the guy who "liked Forte" was with the Bears. I just chose the easiest person from memory since I'm a Bears fan. If the guy who allegedly liked Forte so much also has a track record of liking a bunch of busts, then his reliability declines, and there is a lessened amount of excitement about how much a certain guy with the Bears liked Forte.

You know, it's funny. I was just thinking to myself, "These guys have tons of talent, and even more potential." Then I thought to myself, "Yeah, but it doesn't matter, because they will not be used appropriately, and I'll be disappointed by the passing game yet again." Then I read your post. Dead on. The Bears have not had a competent OC who understood a potent passing game for quite some time. I truly believe the talent has been there, and has been horribly mismanaged.

I drink whenever Madden announces a game and mentions farv. It could be a week 3 game showcasing the Dolphins vs. the Browns and you can damn-well guarantee that farv will get at least two shout-outs.

1. I wonder who it was that was so in love with Forte? 2. I wonder what his track record is with other picks? Did he like Curtis Enis as well? 3. I wonder if it will matter how much thinner Benson looks and how impressive Forte is as a rookie if the OL still stinks?

My top five 1. Because people in Chicago, and Chicago sports fans in general, care more about the Bears than the Bulls. 2. Because Benson has been a pain in the ass from the on-set, and Noah has not. 3. Because Benson looks lethargic half of the time, and the rest of the time he looks slower. Noah on the other hand looks like he's had speed, not pot. 4. Because it's something almost expected out of basketball nowadays. The NBA is saturated with bad-apples, and one guy from the Mavericks basically came out and said this year that the majority of the league engages in illegal drug usage. 5. Because Benson was brought in to replace a guy who was nearly universally liked as a player and a teammate, while Noah wasn't necessarily replacing anyone specifically.

The best one I've ever heard was when a former pro player, a WR I think, said that the opponents sent some complementary female companions to his hotel room late at night on the day before the game. Win some, lose some.

''My reason for holding out was so ludicrous,'' he said. ''The Bears were trying to give me $1.5 million, and I held out 16 days for $300,000 more." This, in a nutshell, is my entire philosophy in regards to the athletes "trying to get paid" argument. It's just too bad that Salaam had to bomb out before he "got it".

That's a good question. I believe this will come out later on as well. The video didn't help one side either way, IMO. I suspect that it was accidentally leaked, or something similar.

I agree that the kid is soft. However, I also have seen enough that I hope he's not hurt this time and gets on the field a lot. I swear, every time this kid is on the field he looks bigger, stronger, and faster than anyone in the secondary. If he could just stay healthy he could be a huge contributor.

Agreed. The defense deserves some blame. But I give them a borderline pass because of injuries. Additionally, the Bears' inept offense leads to breakdowns by the defense, IMO. It's both physical exertion and mental exhaustion, knowing that your own team will probably not score over 20. Nonetheless, I'll assign them 25% of the blame. Offense gets a big fat 45%. Bad luck, 10%. Coaching, 20%. Dallas was just a better team. Period. C'mon man. You can't pin as much of it on the D as you try to. First of all, the initial touchdown only happend in the fourth because the Lions were on the doorstep when the 3rd ended (1). Griese gives up 7 (2). Then Devin Hester returns the kick for a touchdown. That gives the D no time to rest. Then Detroit marches for 7 (3). Next, wouldn't you know it, the Bears' O is three and out (no time to rest for the D). Detroit marches again (4). Then, thankfully, the Bears do something on offense and get a touchdown back. Of course, they are too far behind and have to kick the onside kick, which gets returned for a touchdown (5). So, sure, they didn't play well on D, but there were only two TD drives given up in the fourth. Not much to say about this other than the fact that I, and I'm sure many on this board, were screaming at the TV while watching this game. This was a defensive breakdown, but I put more of the blame on the coach than anything. How the hell someone doesn't stack the box against a one-dimensional team is beyond me. The Bears should have been playing with 9 in the box the entire second half. The cover-2 and the coaching got exposed. The Bears D while in the cover 2 has always had problems against the shifty type RBs and WRs. It just so happens that Morris is one of those RBs and Engram is one of those WRs. Furthermore, for some reason the cover-2, or our coaches, don't believe in bump-and-run coverage, even when the WR is slow as hell (i.e. Engram). This was also the game in which Holmgren infamously outcoached the Bears' coaches in every single way, punctuating it with the 4th down play that made the Bears look stupid. They should have done better, but Seattle is a good team and unless the Bears' coaching has an equal game, the injuries on D will be exposed. And they were. I agree that the D has to play better against backups. However, the first Washington TD was a direct result of a gimme INT by Griese. And this is the game in which the Bears' coaches or QB (Griese) simply refused to go down field and exploit any kind of possible explosive offense. It was a dink and dunk game that should have had the Bears with many more points. I think one of the announcers, maybe a commentator afterwards, said something to the effect of, "The Bears played cowardly on offense today. The simply wouldn't take a chance." Agreed.

That really only holds true on a large scale as it applies to the little guy, and when referring to this type of case (i.e. against cops), from the side of those against law enforcement. The cops do not just give out all of their evidence to the public. They wait it out and go to court. This is nearly universally true. It benefits them to have ample time to analyze every little aspect of their possible defense before simply tossing out a piece of evidence that, if in the hands of the plaintiff, could be modified or skewed to represent a different angle. Person against person, I agree with you. But when the cops are involved, I don't think they benefit nearly as much by releasing the video.

Or, it could be easily seen as the cops don't have to divulge information to the public or the news just because people are asking for it. It's not incumbent upon the cops to release the data until the time of the trial, or when otherwise requested by an authority ruling on the case. I don't know if we'll ever hear that tape.

I'm pretty sure that this statement is HIGHLY inaccurate. I could care less about the racing to be quite honest, but there is no way 20 horses had to be put down at one race. There would have been Congressional involvement for a travesty like that.

I love the fact that the original Joniak calls are in there. I swear, with a little offensive help last year, the Bears would have had a winning record. Even with all the injuries, they still would have been in contention. There is only the Dallas game out of all the losses that I felt the Bears were not in it. Every other game could have been the Bears' game with a little luck and a better offense.

Part dumb luck previous years. Last year was just a dirty play by an opponent.

Completely agree. And the owners can point to this as exhibit A when clarifying why they opted out of the extra years of the CBA.

I think the main two points the owners have are... 1) The rookie salaries are ridiculous, and need to be capped. There is no way in hell the Jamarcus Russells of the world should be able to hijack a franchise without ever playing a game, especially when there are solid veterans who get undervalued as a result. 2) There are not many businesses in the world that pay out 60% of their total revenues to employee salaries. Granted, the figures are speculation, and this is a business like no other, but it just seems high. And this doesn't even take into account several other aspects like the recent upswing in the "I need to restructure my contract halfway through the deal"-trend. I think the owners got it right on this one, and the players' salaries have gotten out of control.

The concept of trading Urlacher at this point is insane. While it's possible that the Bears may get a king's ransom for Urlacher, and the trade would pave the way towards fixing multiple problems on the team, it's just not the right thing to do. You don't get rid of the face of your franchise. You just don't do it. Now if this is several years down the line, and Urlacher is clearly holding beyond the point he should, then the idea is possible. But I just don't see that yet.

I've been telling friends this for years.

I disagree with this twofold. 1) The most obvious error in your statement is the comparison between Rex and Shoop. Whereas Rex has shown glimpses of competence, and possibly even all-pro play, Shoop pretty much sucked every day while he was with the Bears. At least when Rex messes up, it's because he's trying too hard, and attempting to make a play. When Shoop messed up - which was MUCH more often than Rex - it was more of the cower in fear variety. Until the defense starts to openly yell at Rex on the sideline for his errors, then there is no valid comparison. 2) I think the potential Rex has shown, and not the blind loyalty from JA, is what has given him the 1-year deal, and the potential for a long-term deal. When the Bears went to the Superbowl, Rex had several games where he looked like one of the top 5 QBs in the league. It's just that nobody remembers it, because the media would rather focus on the 3 or 4 games in which he looked like one of the worst QBs in the league.

Offense in shambles - true no QB - not true. Both Grossman and Orton have shown talent when given time and the support of a running game relying on a rookie LT - true, hopefully it doesn't kill the Bears relying on a rookie RB - not true, Benson will probably get the majority of the carries weak WR group - maybe. I think they have loads of potential, but... unproven OL - true, I think this is what kills the rest of the offensive production DL questions and injuries - true, unfortunately. Let's hope we have luck this year with the injuries

That's priceless. Also, FYI, I'm from hereforth referring to marijuana as "calming influence".

I'll take a shot... TD Passes - Grossman 22 (Turner has a over-cautious, firm grip on the offense all year) TD Runs - Benson 6 (Forte will be close) TD Receptions - Booker 6 (two or three others with 5 or 4) Rush Yards - Benson 950 (Forte will have 600-700) Rec. Yards - Bradley 750 (Hester, Booker, and Olsen all have 400-500) Pass Yards - Grossman 2500 (Orton only sees one game) Tackles - Briggs 125 (Less tackles because there are more healthy players) Interceptions - Brown 5 (Smack Brown is back!) Forced Fumbles - Urlacher 4 (Good year, stripping returns to Chicago) Sacks - Anderson 10 (Another solid year)