Controlled Chaos

With respect to that deep ball to Hester...Rex put that ball where he needed to. You saw Hester kick into his next gear when he saw where the ball was. That's the gear he should be running from jump. What was he only going 85-90% because he didn't want to blow by the DB?? If Hester is running full out he catches the pass. If you want to blame Rex as I heard tons of callers and people on this board do, then it's because of a pre existing bias. You can always sloow down your route if you have to to adjust to the ball, but you run full out until that point....not the other way around. Other than that, Rex played a pretty piss poor game.

Pointing out that DB's have more tackles than Urlacher when teams are throwing more passes against the Bears (375) than any other team is just stoopid. Yeah Graham and Payne have more tackles....because they're allowing passes to be caught!!

An adjustment at halftime would be a first for this coaching staff, so I wouldnt put too much weight into that. The other concern should be our pass rush....REFUCKINDICULOUS

Urlacher would thrive in another scheme. This fuckin Tampa 2 is horseshit and a waste of his talents. I love his quotes when being asked about Detroit running the Tampa 2. By answering that he gave us the same fuckin reason it isn't working for the Bears. Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher is blunt when asked if the Tampa Two is passé. "I don't think it is, if you play it the way it's supposed to be played," Urlacher said Wednesday in another conference call. "I mean, if you don't have the players to do it, it's not going to work. But if you've got the players to do it, it's going to be successful." "There are some ways to beat this defense," Urlacher said. "Teams have figured it out. But the No. 1 thing is pressure on the quarterback. It fixes all those problems." To stop the run, you need good gap discipline. You must do your job and plug your gap, not try to do too much and go after the ball. "The hardest thing for me was when the ball is going one way and I'm going the other way to my gap," Urlacher said. "Because it's such a gap-control defense, if you don't go to your gap, you're going to get gashed. I always want to go to the ball, but you have to go to your gap. Sometimes your gap is away from the football." So lets take one of the best most freakish players to ever play the position and have him basically play a 3rd safety on passing downs and then on the runs, make him go to his gap, whether the ball is there or not. Brilliant!!! Everybody has breakdowns. Lions running back Kevin Smith scored a 12-yard touchdown against Chicago because a Bear wasn't in his gap, Urlacher said Of course there's breakdowns, because players want to make plays. They want highlights on ESPN...they want to get up and pat themselves on the back for the crowd. They don't want to just stay in a gap even when the ball is going another way. So if someone like Urlacher is disciplined and stays in his gap, but someone like Harris gets tall, trying to make a move and get in the back field, but winds up getting pushed 8 yards out of his gap. Then people complain Uralcher was nowhere near the ball. I hate this defense and I guaranfuckintee so does Urlacher.

Da Coach is on the McCain-Palin Team Watch video at link Mike Ditka uses locker room flair at Pennsylvania rally Updated 3:04 PM CST, Fri, Oct 31, 2008 Mike Ditka steps up for the McCain/Palin ticket at a campaign stop in Pennsylvania. Da Coach showed his passion. He had his usual flair. It was something right out of a 1985 locker room speech to the Chicago Bears. "Don't talk about what you're going to do," Mike Ditka told the crowd at a Pennsylvania rally Friday. "Prove you can do something." As Ditka stood on stage with presidential candidate John McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin, he looked almost Presidential himself...or at least Senatorial. If you don't believe us, watch the speech yourself. You may not remember, but Illinois and national Republican leaders asked Ditka to run for the United States Senate back in 2004 against a political up-and-comer: Barack Obama.

So if someone doesn't vote Obama they're racist? That's a pretty big brush you're painting with. I guess when your talking/typing behind a computer screen it's easy to get away with such ignorant and slanderous comments. Do you ever get off your computer and make it to a Bears game? I'd love to get your take on things face to face some time.

My comments from last year and IMO it still holds true. This is what this team needs to do. They have the personnel they just don't have the coaching. Having Urlacher back up from the line of scrimmage on probably about 65% of the plays to cover his "zone" is ridiculous. Having him in designated spot instead of letting him read the QB, move around and use his speed is also stupid. Having him fight with linemen is assinine. I hate this scheme. One of the best LB in the game and he's a footnote because this staff doens't know how to use him. QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Dec 18 2007, 12:54 PM) I thought a big difference was how Toeaina and Kennedy ate up the blockers and allowed Urlacher and Briggs to make a shit load of plays. Hopefully this opens up the eyes of this dam coaching staff and makes them realize what they need to do. I read or heard somewhere after they picked these two guys up, that they needed them for bodies, but they don't fit the type of tackle this team likes. Bullshit... QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Dec 19 2007, 09:38 AM) and the system sucks is kinda what I'm getting at. If they want to play that way on passing downs and they have the bodies to do it then fine...but I think most first and second downs...you should have the big DT's in there and allow your LB's to use their speed and aggressiveness to make the plays. I don't know, I've just never been a huge fan of this scheme. It's bend don't break and predicated on turnovers, but if you don't get them...you're in trouble. Why have your best god dam player fighting with 300+ pound offensive linemen. Urlacher has some of the most freakish ability ever at the LB position and we have him grappling with guards and tackles, cause the Oline knows they can let our D line fly by them and before they know it the RB is past em and on to the second level. Coincidentally my dad just sent me this email...Like Father like Son I guess.... I think Urlacher really benefitted from having two more traditional "read and react" type of linemen playing in front of him on monday night. Matt Toeaina and Jimmy Kennedy are not the "3 technique" tackle types that Lovie likes, but he was in a bind for tackles and was forced into playing a couple of guys he wouldn't normally draft or play. Coincidentally, Brian had his best game of the year, making tackles in the hole, sideline to sideline, sacking the qb and he was rarely pushed around by a 320 pound lineman. Did Lovie notice that Brian had his best game of the year against the best rushing team and one of the best running backs in the nfl? I doubt he will change his philosophy, but it's pretty obvious that Brian's talents are amplified when he is allowed to move more freely to the ball like he did when he played behind Traylor and Washington. The 3 technique can work if you have strong, super quick tackles, like Tommie Harris was before his injury, but Tommie is not the same player, at least not yet. I've noticed him getting pushed back 10 yards and more in several games this year. If Tommie cannot return to his former self then Lovie should consider the more traditional defense or at least keep a couple of the bigger tackles like Minnesota uses ( #1 rush def.) On our roster. Remember we could not stop Joseph Addai in the not-so-super bowl.

Put Hass on the AR. Put Tommie on the bench until he is healthy.

Dude, try to control yourself. There could be a stalker case in the works.

The Real Obama, Part IV By Thomas Sowell Barack Obama's supporters often try to sidestep questions about his character and judgment by saying that we should stick to what they arbitrarily define as "the real issues." But Senator Obama's record on specific issues is as bad as his record of repeatedly allying himself over the years with people who make no attempt to hide their hatred of America. Among the so-called "real issues" are earmarks for Senators' pet projects, like the "bridge to nowhere." These are among the most indefensible parts of the inbred Washington political culture, which Obama has so often claimed to be against, as part of his promise of "change" to "clean up the mess in Washington." Yet Senator Obama not only voted in favor of the bridge to nowhere, he voted against anti-earmark amendments proposed by Senator John McCain. Obama has had more than two dozen of his own earmarks in the past fiscal year, and he knows the Senate well enough to know that, if he voted against the bridge to nowhere, his own earmarks might get nowhere. Those earmarks, incidentally, included a million dollars of the taxpayers' money for a facility where his wife works at the University of Chicago. Her salary rose by nearly $200,000 when her husband became a United States Senator — no doubt a shrewd investment by the university that paid off. When a highly publicized bridge collapse in Minnesota in 2007 led Senator Tom Coburn to propose taking money from federal spending on bicycle paths and use it for maintaining and repairing bridges instead, Senator Obama voted against it. The kind of people who vote for him want bike paths. Moreover, the very idea of taking money from one thing to use for something with a higher priority — something that we all have to do in our own personal lives — is foreign to the liberal big spenders in Washington. When they want more money for some purpose, they simply raise the tax rates. They don't cut spending somewhere else. The idea that Barack Obama is somehow different from other liberal-left politicians can only be based on his rhetoric, because his actual track record shows him to differ only in being further left than most liberals and at least as opportunistic. His talk, however, is another story. The speech that Obama gave at the 2004 Democratic convention — the speech that put him on the national map politically — was one which has been aptly described as a speech that would have been almost equally at home if it had been delivered at the Republican national convention. In the world of rhetoric — the world in which Obama is supreme — he is a moderate, reasonable man, reaching out to unite people and parties, dedicated to reform, opposed to special interests and a healer of the racial divide. It is only in the real world of action that Barack Obama is the direct opposite. He has pushed for federal subsidies for ethanol, for example, as other midwestern Senators have, since a lot of corn is grown in the midwest to be turned into ethanol. He is 100 percent behind the teachers' unions in their fight to preserve their grip on the public schools and exempt their members from being judged by performance instead of seniority — which is to say, he is throwing the students, and especially minority students — to the wolves. Senator Obama would never call voting for ethanol subsidies a vote for "special interests," any more than he called his total support of the teachers unions a matter of special interests, even though teachers unions are the biggest obstacle to changing the status quo in public schools that have failed American children in general and minority children in particular. Barack Obama's track record on so-called "real issues" is no better than his track record on issues of character and judgment. The media's track record of conveying the facts to the public is a travesty of their claims about "the public's right to know." If John McCain had made half as many gaffes as Barack Obama — "all 57 states," for example — they would be picturing him as senile. Meanwhile, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran supplying its terrorist surrogates with nukes does not interest the media nearly as much as scoring "gotchas" against Sarah Palin.

The Real Obama, Part III By Thomas Sowell What about those "real issues" that Barack Obama's supporters in the media say we should get back to, whenever some new unsavory fact about his past comes out? Surely education is a real issue, with American school children consistently scoring below those in other countries, and children in minority communities faring worst of all. What about Senator Obama's position on this real issue? As with other issues, he has talked one way and acted the opposite way. The education situation in Obama's home base of Chicago is one of the worst in the nation for the children — and one of the best for the unionized teachers. Fewer than one-third of Chicago's high-school juniors meet the statewide standards on tests. Only 6 percent of the youngsters who enter Chicago high schools become college graduates by the time they are 25 years old. The problem is not money: Chicago spends more than $10,000 per student. Chicago teachers are doing well. A beginning teacher, fresh out of college, earns more than the city's median income and that can rise to more than $100,000 over the years. That's for teaching 6 hours a day, 9 months of the year. Moreover, a teacher's income is dependent on seniority and other such factors — and in no way dependent on whether their students are actually learning anything. Obama has said eloquent and lofty words about education, as he has about other things — for example, how it is "unacceptable in a country as wealthy as ours" that some children "are not getting a decent shot at life" because of the failing schools. In a predominantly black suburb of Chicago, where the average teacher's salary is $83,000 and one-fourth of the teachers make more than $100,000, Barack Obama noted that the school day ends at 1:30 PM. In his book "Dreams from My Father," Obama said candidly that black teachers and administrators "defend the status quo with the same skill and vigor as their white counterparts of two decades before." It is not a question of Obama's not knowing. He has demonstrated conclusively that he knows what is going on. But, for all his eloquent words, he has voted consistently for the teachers' unions and the status quo. "I owe those unions," he has said frankly. "When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I don't consider this corrupting in any way." Only other politicians' special interests are called "special interests" by Barack Obama, whose world-class ability to rationalize is his most frightening skill. Even when he verbally endorses the reform idea of merit pay for teachers, he cleverly re-defines merit so that it will be measured by teachers themselves, rather than by "arbitrary tests." In other words, Obama placates critics of the educational status quo by being for merit pay in words, while making those words meaningless, so as not to offend the teachers' unions. The failings of teachers are only part of the disaster of inner city public schools. Disruptive and violent students can make it impossible for even the best teachers to educate students. Administrators are reluctant to impose any serious punishment on those students who make it impossible for other students to learn. Partly this is because liberal judges can make it literally a federal case if more minority students are punished than others. In other words, if black males are punished more often than Asian American females, that can be enough to get the administrators drawn into a legal labyrinth, costing money and time, even if the punishment is eventually upheld. When a bill was introduced into the Illinois state legislature that would put more teeth into suspensions of misbehaving students, Barack Obama voted against that bill. A real reformer would want to crack down on both unruly students and unaccountable teachers. A clever politician would speak eloquently, demand "change" — and then vote for the status quo. Obama talks a great game.

The Real Obama, Part II By Thomas Sowell A recent Republican campaign ad sarcastically described as Barack Obama's "one accomplishment" his supporting a bill to promote sex education in kindergarten. During an interview of a Republican spokesman, Tom Brokaw of NBC News replayed that ad and asked if that was something serious to be discussed in a presidential election campaign. It was a variation on an old theme about getting back to "the real issues," just as Brokaw's question was a variation on an increasingly widespread tendency among journalists to become a squad of Obama avengers, instead of reporters. Does it matter if Barack Obama is for sex education in kindergarten? It matters more than most things that are called "the real issues." Seemingly unrelated things can give important insights into someone's outlook and character. For example, after the Cold War was over, it came out that one of the things that caught the attention of Soviet leaders early on was President Ronald Reagan's breaking of the air traffic controllers' strike. Why were the Soviets concerned about a purely domestic American issue like an air traffic controllers' strike? Why was their attention not confined to "the real issues" between the United States and the Soviet Union? Because one of the biggest and realest of all issues is the outlook and character of the President of the United States. It would be hard to imagine any of Ronald Reagan's predecessors over the previous several decades — whether Republicans or Democrats — who would have broken a nationwide strike instead of caving in to the union's demands. This told the Soviet leaders what Reagan was made of, even before he got up and walked out of the room during negotiations with Mikhail Gorbachev. That too let the Soviet leaders know that they were not dealing with Jimmy Carter any more. There is no more real issue today than "Who is the real Barack Obama behind the image?" What does being in favor of sex education in kindergarten tell us about the outlook and character of this largely unknown man who has suddenly appeared on the national scene to claim the highest office in the land? It gives us an insight into the huge gulf between Senator Obama's election year image and what he has actually been for and against over the preceding decades. It also shows the huge gulf between his values and those of most other Americans. Many Americans would consider sex education for kindergartners to be absurd but there is more to it than that. What is called "sex education," whether for kindergartners or older children, is not education about biology but indoctrination in values that go against the traditional values that children learn in their families and in their communities. Obviously, the earlier this indoctrination begins, the better its chances of overriding traditional values. The question is not how urgently children in kindergarten need to be taught about sex but how important it is for indoctrinators to get an early start. The arrogance of third parties, who take it upon themselves to treat other people's children as a captive audience to brainwash with politically correct notions, while taking no responsibility for the consequences to those children or society, is part of the general vision of the left that pervades our education system. Sex education for kindergartners is just one of many issues on which Barack Obama has lined up consistently on the side of arrogant elitists of the far left. Senator Obama's words often sound very reasonable and moderate, as well as lofty and inspiring. But everything that he has actually done over the years places him unmistakably with the extreme left elitists. Sadly, many of those who are enchanted by his rhetoric are unlikely to check out the facts. But nothing is a more real or more important issue than whether what a candidate says is the direct opposite of what he has actually been doing for years. The old phrase, "a man of high ideals but no principles," is one that applies all too painfully to Barack Obama today. His words expressing lofty ideals may appeal to the gullible but his long history of having no principles makes him a danger of the first magnitude in the White House.

The Real Obama By Thomas Sowell Critics of Senator Barack Obama make a strategic mistake when they talk about his "past associations." That just gives his many defenders in the media an opportunity to counter-attack against "guilt by association." We all have associations, whether at the office, in our neighborhood or in various recreational activities. Most of us neither know nor care what our associates believe or say about politics. Associations are very different from alliances. Allies are not just people who happen to be where you are or who happen to be doing the same things you do. You choose allies deliberately for a reason. The kind of allies you choose says something about you. Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, William Ayers and Antoin Rezko are not just people who happened to be at the same place at the same time as Barack Obama. They are people with whom he chose to ally himself for years, and with some of whom some serious money changed hands. Some gave political support, and some gave financial support, to Obama's election campaigns, and Obama in turn contributed either his own money or the taxpayers' money to some of them. That is a familiar political alliance— but an alliance is not just an "association" from being at the same place at the same time. Obama could have allied himself with all sorts of other people. But, time and again, he allied himself with people who openly expressed their hatred of America. No amount of flags on his campaign platforms this election year can change that. Unfortunately, all that most people know about Barack Obama is his own rhetoric and that of his critics. Moreover, some of his more irresponsible critics have made wild accusations— that he is not an American citizen or that he is a Muslim, for example. All that such false charges do is discredit Obama's critics in general. Fortunately, there is a documented, factual account of what Barack Obama has actually been doing over the years, as distinguished from what he has been saying during this election campaign, in a new best-selling book. That book is titled "The Case Against Barack Obama" by David Freddoso. He starts off in the introduction by repudiating those critics of Obama who "have been content merely to slander him— to claim falsely that he refuses to salute the U.S. flag or was sworn into office on a Koran, or that he was born in a foreign country." This is a serious book with 35 pages of documentation in the back to support the things said in the main text. In other words, if you don't believe what the author says, he lets you know where you can go check it out. Barack Obama's being the first serious black candidate for President of the United States is what most people consider remarkable but how he got there is at least equally surprising. The story of Obama's political career is not a pretty story. He won his first political victory by being the only candidate on the ballot— after hiring someone skilled at disqualifying the signers of opposing candidates' petitions, on whatever technicality he could come up with. Despite his words today about "change" and "cleaning up the mess in Washington," Obama was not on the side of reformers who were trying to change the status quo of corrupt, machine politics in Chicago and clean up the mess there. Obama came out in favor of the Daley machine and against reform candidates. Senator Obama is running on an image that is directly the opposite of what he has been doing for two decades. His escapes from his past have been as remarkable as the great escapes of Houdini. Why much of the public and the media have been so mesmerized by the words and the image of Obama, and so little interested in learning about the factual reality, was perhaps best explained by an official of the Democratic Party: "People don't come to Obama for what he's done, they come because of what they hope he can be." David Freddoso's book should be read by those people who want to know what the facts are. But neither this book nor anything else is likely to change the minds of Obama's true believers, who have made up their minds and don't want to be confused by the facts.

Do Facts Matter? By Thomas Sowell Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now. Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time. The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain— which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis. It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant? Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years— including the present year— denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis. It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis. Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago. Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter? We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't. Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter? Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis. Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him to the same standard as white CEOs. Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing! The Washington Post criticized the McCain campaign for calling Raines an adviser to Obama, even though that fact was reported in the Washington Post itself on July 16th. The technicality and the spin here is that Raines is not officially listed as an adviser. But someone who advises is an adviser, whether or not his name appears on a letterhead. The tie between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way. Obama has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd. But ties between Obama and Raines? Not if you read the mainstream media. Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported. The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack. They deserve to lose. But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.

No offense, Cracker, but you are as radical left as they come, so for you to comment on what sites are idiotic is ludicrous. Anything to the right of moveon.org is going to be idiotic to you. You are just as far left as Rush or Hannity are right. All I have heard from you is Repugs, Republican Filth, fool, Republican Ass-clown..... Who the freak do you think you are to be so degrading to other posters? Ever wonder why you're pretty much in here alone preaching to no one?

Exactly. And I don't blame Forte at all. He didn't drop it...Ruud got his arm in there... http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80af993c If it's a good pass it's 6.

He was crap. Yeah he completed some deep passes, but he can never get the ball to the receivers so they can get the YAC. Everyone has to stop and wait for the ball. Lloyd had to stop and make a catch, if he was led, it's 6. Booker had to stop to try and make a catch, if he was led, it's 6. Forte had to stop to try and make a catch, if he is led it's 6. You want to give Orton credit for a TD on this play??? Give me a break...it was a terrible pass. This offense is not good enough to let the few times receivers do get open pass them by. BTW if I was Gruden TB would be running the offense from the no huddle all the time. Clearly that is when Griese is at his best. He showed it when he was here and he showed it again today.

I don't buy that argument. There are plenty of WR with his speed, espescially slot guys...which is his position even though the Bears would never play him there. He's faster than Booker and he was faster than Moose last year...Speed is just one part of being a great receiver, and it's just sad so many coaches see it as the only part.

Hass was the best receiver on the team. He was the best receiver on the team last year as well. I'm glad Hub agrees, but I don't need to hear it from him to know that. Hopefully someone gives him his shot, cause he didn't get one here.

This makes too much sense....it won't happen. It's the same reason so many of us we're clamoring for Faneca. His presence is two fold. He performs his job at a high level and also is mentoring a rookie that you hope will be a cornerstone for years to come. Brown would bring some of that same Vet presence, while not performing up to the same level as Faneca...if he is healthy, he can do the job adequately.

and he's got football experience from the Program...

Even though Bruce may want to lay the smack down on me for making him a kicker....