Soxbadger

The thing is I dont think Mel Tucker is a bad defensive coordinator. Its not Tuckers fault that a ball lofted to the endzone found its way between Tillman and Conte. Peppers seemingly got old overnight, etc etc. Id love to be wrong, I thought the bears defensive would be fine this year. It just kind of went the route of the titanic.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 05:13 PM) Seriously, I have no idea how you can look at the modern NFL and say "it's impossible to completely overhaul one side of the ball in an offseason". The message of the modern NFL is exactly the opposit.e Its theoretically possible, but given the Bears current defense, you arent talking 1-2 players, they are going to need almost half a starting unit minimum. Its possible, but I just think 2 years is the general timeline for a turn around. Even the Bears offense, Jeffery/Marshall were brought in 2 years ago, not this year. Which people are forgetting.

So the Bears have young defensive linemen entering their prime like Cameron Jordan (24), Akiem Hicks (23) and Broderick Bunkley (29)? Plus in 2012 the signed Hawthorne and Lofton. So the process took 2 years, it wasnt just over night. Jordan and Hicks were 1st and 3rd round picks 2 years ago. Lofton and Hawthorne FAs 2 years ago. http://walterfootball.com/offseason2013no.php (edit) Lost, I just dont believe you can do it in one off-season, especially if Cutler is going to be taking up 15-20mil of cap.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 04:51 PM) If an offense as s***ty as the 2012 Bears can be turned around as fast as it was then the defense can be pulled from out of the depths of hell by 2014 too. That said does anyone know of a mercurial, misunderstood All-Pro DE with behavioral issues languishing away on a bad team that can be acquired with a third round pick? That worked once before. The reason the Bears offense had been s***ty was due to inept coaching. The reason the Bears defense is s***ty is because the players got old. One is considerably easier to fix than the other.

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 04:23 PM) Jay is an excellent fit and is, honestly, a lot like Rich Gannon - they act like him having a bigger arm than Gannon simply makes him "different" than Gannon. Jay happens to be highly talented. Sweet. He's a great fit for the offense we're running. I'm sure they'll consider everything, but it will be very difficult to sell letting the best QB we've ever had go with so many other veteran assets on offense. If I'm letting Jay go, I'm probably cutting Forte as well and going with Bush for the near future. You sure as s*** aren't going to stick a rookie on an offense with so many high-salaried stars Nice they have the stat I wanted, lets see: https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/...-time-to-throw/ Cutler actually performs in these stats better than I thought. Hes bottom third in time to throw, but over 50% of his passes are thrown in under 2.5 seconds. I dont really think hes like Gannon at all, but hes definitely not as bad as I thought. My guess is that Trestman would like 60%+ to be out within 2.5 seconds.

Ill trade for your company Shack, but only if youre my boss and I get access to your pool bi-monthly. Trading is actually fun, I spent a summer trading eurodollars through globex. Its one of the few jobs that I actually sometimes consider doing.

Learning? booo hiss boo hiss Nah actually I agree completely. The difference is most industries I cant help regular everyday people and go home knowing that I did more good than bad. Yeah it wont pay the bills, but at some point my brain was damaged into thinking that helping people is worth more than money.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 02:36 PM) I still like what I do, I just don't like not getting paid what I thought I'd be paid, on top of having to pay a s*** ton in loans. It doesn't help that I have a friend who made 150k+/year, paid off her loans in like 6 months, quit after a few years, and traveled the world for a year with her husband. Unless she was really lucky, she probably was a slave to the company. My friends who work at Winston have terrible lives. I always ask them what point is making money if they cant do anything fun with it. QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 02:45 PM) Instead of working so hard at law school, it sounds like you should have spent the effort on wooing your friend! So yeah, back when I was in HS I used to tell people I was going to law school so that I could find a more driven/career oriented girl and convince her that Id give up my career to take care of the kids. Its a great plan.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200000026...ing-uncertainty I guess what I was saying isnt to far fetched.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 02:14 PM) This! Especially for people who go straight through from undergrad to law school and have never really had to use that paycheck to budget. My parents saved and paid for my undergrad. Money I earned working during the summer took care of my expenses (read, cheap beer). Grad school was on me. There isn't a day that goes by where I don't regret the voluntary decision to go into debt. And I think my law school debt is probably fairly manageable by comparison to a lot of my peers. The other issue with law school is that there is a sense that there are plenty of big dollar legal jobs to go around out of law school and that just isn't the case. So plenty of 22 year olds signing that meaningless piece of paper with decades of repayment are assuming that they will have that 6 figure job out of school and repayment will be a breeze and are operating with faulty information. In conclusion, don't go to law school... People are really like this? I thought I was the most irresponsible person in college but its like the exact opposite of what I thought/did. I went to law school because I wanted to change the way people think/act. I really should have been a teacher, but law school was an easier sell than graduate school for whatever reason.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 01:58 PM) From my untrained eye, it seems that 100 years ago it took more capital, today it takes a good idea. In other words, we've moved from capital driving success to ideas driving success, and by extension, jobs. Not really. Andrew Carnegie was an immigrant whose family had to borrow money to come to the US. Back then it was ideas, now its just money and access.

Everything creates jobs. Sometimes I hate myself because I cant remember this one economist, but basically the idea was that everything adds to the pie. That a criminal is a job creator because criminals = police, security systems, jails, judges, lawyers, etc.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 01:01 PM) Because your parents were going to pay for it? That's a totally different discussion. Not really. Its the same idea as to why I didnt go to a Masters Program that I would have had to take loans for. QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 01:01 PM) I think you're right on here. We just went through this with my brother-in-law - he had the choice of staying in state, and having most of college paid for, or going out of state to USC, and paying a lot more out of his own pocket. Then we got into the discussion of a graduate degree. 18 year old's don't have a good concept of money and what it will cost later, what the loans will look like, etc. Until you're living it, it's hard to really understand it. I also doubt most people's parents explain it as well as we did to my brother-in-law and went through numbers, etc. They say great, more school, I'm proud of you, but the kids don't have any idea what they are actually getting themselves into. I dont know, this was really common for me in High School. Friend X went to Illinois instead of Wisconsin because his parents said theyd buy him a car if he stayed in state. I tried to negotiate a deal with my parents that theyd give me money to stay instate, but they refused. So I went to Wisconsin. I mean it may have been a while ago, but my friends and I lived it. Most kids went with what was going to be paid for. The few that did not were excessively hard working/driven/motivated and they were doing it for a reason, IE school has #1 ranked program. I guess its possible that kids who werent going to top tier schools were making random decisions that made no economical sense, but I really dont have a clue.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 12:43 PM) 1% was clearly an exaggeration. You were making it sound like people that go to law school do so after evaluating the cost of going to school. I totally disagree. The focus is on salary potential and employment rate post-graduation. If it cost 100k a year and you think that you can get a good paying job afterwards, you're going to do it. Whether you can afford it is irrelevant since you're taking out loans anyway (or, at least 80-90% of students will) I cant speak for everyone, but cost of graduate school was the main factor in my decision.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 12:39 PM) I really doubt there are a whole lot of folks that did that represented in these numbers. That really isnt the point. The point is that law school is becoming prohibitively expensive which will cause people who have to take loans to potentially not go to law school. QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 12:44 PM) Not many parents would be that financial savvy to pull of something like that. My parents were told how to do this by the High School I went to because they suggest parents do it for undergrad as well.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 12:30 PM) Here are the % of law students who walk away from law school with debt: http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandrevi...d-debt-rankings Not seeing a lot of low percents there. First those numbers are much higher than 1%. Second look at schools like U of Miami (private schools where money matters) and you are already down to 80%. Then add to the fact that those numbers dont mean anything... IE I took law school loans because my parents asked me to. While I was in law school they were 0 interest (ie free money). During that time period my parents invested the tuition into cds/bonds/etc. When I left law school I had X debt. The day before the deferment ended my parents paid the entire amount. Thus while I left school with debt, I never really had it. It was just a scheme to get free interest. So on that report I would have had "debt" even though it wasnt real.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 12:26 PM) I don't think the price going up has changed anyone's decision not to go to law school the last decade. Until you get the degree you're just signing a meaningless piece of paper obligating you to decades of repayment. At 18 or 22 you're more concerned about the hot blonde that just smiled at you at the financial aid office. I disagree. QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 12:27 PM) Well I think it's pretty clear that that isn't a good thing, except for perhaps the folks who can afford to "invest" (have exclusive access) in it. Right, its just a good old boys network. You keep the barrier of entry high.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 12:21 PM) I think the argument is that the education route isn't as much of a slam dunk in an uncertain and stagnant economy that it might have been before. At least not advanced degrees. Right, which is why people with money can afford to invest in it, where people without money cant.

So the outcome will be less people who need loans go to medical/law and more people who have money do, regardless of how smart or talented they are. Im not sure what you guys are arguing here. When your parents are offering you 3 more years of vacation, you dont really have to worry about your friends at the iron plant or what they are making.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 11:41 AM) I bet approximately 1% of people that go to med school/law school are able to actually afford it. The rest sign away their financial freedom for decades take out loans. That number seems extremely low. I can only speak from my experience, but of the people I know, its closer to 50% had their parents pay.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 22, 2013 -> 09:21 AM) +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 I regret law school every day (and I regret my wife getting a masters), and will continue to do so for another 12-15 years. At least once those payments go away we'll be able to buy a lake house. And here is where the wealthy have an advantage again. You make law school/med/etc so price prohibitive that it no longer becomes where the best and smartest go, it becomes where the people who can afford it go.

Good luck, always thought he was a fun guy.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 03:09 PM) So now you are talking about giving up a high second round pick as well as the inevitable contract extension as well. You are talking about bringing in a legitimately good, potential top 10 quarterback in the league. Cutler, BTW, is all of 1 year older than Alex Smith. This is the $64,000 question. If you are going to try and win a Superbowl in the next 3-5 years, then re-sign Cutler and be resigned to the idea that you are hitching your wagon to him. I think their offense is too good to simply blow it up. Just and rebuild and retool a defense on the fly. Maybe it's time to switch schemes on defense. Well if it was up to me the Bears would have drafted a young QB years ago (I argued for some guy named Russel Wilson). But given what the Bears have, id still likely go the young route. I just like to have at least 1 young QB on the roster with promise. I just cant justify Cutler at $15mil plus for 5-7 years, which is what he will want. 1 year franchise, sure, but that means you have 1 year to find your next QB.

I dont know why you mentioned Matt Flynn. A Matt Flynn type signing would be the last thing I would ever suggest (player who is bad in college, does not prove himself in NFL, gets hyped by being a back up.) I could be persuaded into a Alex Smith signing (1st round draft pick, some success in NFL, years of experience), but never Matt Flynn. As for McCown, hes not a long term answer. But the question is, what are the Bears doing? Are they trying to win in the next 1-3 years, or are they trying to win in the next 3-5.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 02:17 PM) The playing calling really changed to recognize the change at QB. Everything became much shorter and quicker. They ran that quick out to the WR a bunch of times. It is my understanding that is Trestman's preferred offense. He just had slightly changed it for Cutler.