Y2Jimmy0 Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 And all these posts need to be in the NFL thread haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxsoxsoxsox Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 01:12 PM) Benching the highest paid player in the league is going to need the OK from the GM and someone in ownership. No chance Trestman went rogue on that decision. Well you'd think they'd have a plan to do it. If they were gonna clean house. I guess I gave them too much credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Rumor: Bears benched Cutler because they have reached agreement on a deal which would send him to Tennessee http://national.suntimes.com/national-spor...nnessee-titans/ No idea validity of this but literally 4 people at work came by in last 5 minutes asking me if it was true, haha, so apparently this has been pretty widely reported. Probably a lot of junk but I presume nothing is to prevent teams from discussing hypothetical trades even though deadline hasn't been reached so I could see a scenario where that is the case. I just question why we would allow our current management team to make any sort of deal, unless of course, some people are sticking around (or the McCaskey's feel so strongly / needed this type of assurance that they could move him with the logic being they had to know 100% that they could dump Cutler because that would lessen the blow of the costs they'd have to eat to get rid of current clowns + significantly better management / coaches). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 19, 2014 Author Share Posted December 19, 2014 Isn't that Eric of Eric and Kathy on the mix? HOw in the world would he have football insider news that no one else has? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipps Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Yeah that guy is a dork and definitely not a source for chicago sports. I don't buy it for a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 02:57 PM) Isn't that Eric of Eric and Kathy on the mix? HOw in the world would he have football insider news that no one else has? I don't think he is the person who is actually reporting it. Just happened to be first article I googled. All over social media apparently (I don't know who this Eric character is). Like I said, everyone at work knows me as the resident Bear fan and they all were running over to see if I had heard the news. They all heard it as it was a done deal and I was like, that can't be, cause you can't trade anyone right now. However, you could technically talk trade, etc, to lay the ground out for future and I guarantee Bears have done that and could just be playing all this very close to the vest. I may be giving them too much credit though. I also think it would be more likely that it was the case than Trestman going crazy and making some massive stand against Emery. That doesn't seem like Trestman's style at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Eric actually does appearances on Sports Talk Live and hobnobs with a lot of sports figures in Chicago. I'm not saying that he is correct, but he certainly could have a valid source that fed him this info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipps Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 05:10 PM) Eric actually does appearances on Sports Talk Live and hobnobs with a lot of sports figures in Chicago. I'm not saying that he is correct, but he certainly could have a valid source that fed him this info Why wouldnt that source have just reported it themselves instead of letting that douche break it? Have you seen his billboards? My God I hate him so much and I have never listened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 QUOTE (shipps @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 05:12 PM) Why wouldnt that source have just reported it themselves instead of letting that douche break it? Have you seen his billboards? My God I hate him so much and I have never listened. Hard to miss the billboards. The source could be someone within the org, who knows. I mean, we could say he has nobody but s***, some teenager in Canada broke the Trestman hire because he was friends with Trestmans daughters. Who knows who is K0nas source? I'm sure Eric knows a lot more people plugged in than we would expect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 The only problem with that rumor IMO is that Cutler was announced as the #2 quarterback. If Clausen gets killed by Suh or if he is Burris bad, Cutler will have to play. It would make more sense to declare him inactive for the last two games with Fales or a FA as the backup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 03:18 PM) The only problem with that rumor IMO is that Cutler was announced as the #2 quarterback. If Clausen gets killed by Suh or if he is Burris bad, Cutler will have to play. It would make more sense to declare him inactive for the last two games with Fales or a FA as the backup. I agree with that, however, I do believe that technically Fales was elevated to the actual roster this past week as well. Whether he suits or serves in that emergency role this week, who knows. We won't technically know that until Sunday. For the time being, maybe Bears would prefer to remain coy on the matter. I don't know...like I said, would be great to be a fly on the wall in Halas Hall (or probably would be extremely frustrating). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipps Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 05:04 PM) I don't think he is the person who is actually reporting it. Just happened to be first article I googled. All over social media apparently (I don't know who this Eric character is). Like I said, everyone at work knows me as the resident Bear fan and they all were running over to see if I had heard the news. They all heard it as it was a done deal and I was like, that can't be, cause you can't trade anyone right now. However, you could technically talk trade, etc, to lay the ground out for future and I guarantee Bears have done that and could just be playing all this very close to the vest. I may be giving them too much credit though. I also think it would be more likely that it was the case than Trestman going crazy and making some massive stand against Emery. That doesn't seem like Trestman's style at all. Trestman wanted to bench Jay in the Tampa game. Kromer told us this much. Now Trestman is benching him just so he can have some solace in the closing of his tender as coach. He believes once Jimmy does a good job running his offense it will prove that it was Jay's fault for all the issues they have had this year. Its not going to happen that way but I think Marc believes that Jay has to be the whole problem for why this team hasnt produced and this is Trestmans way of showing the world that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipps Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 05:17 PM) Hard to miss the billboards. The source could be someone within the org, who knows. I mean, we could say he has nobody but s***, some teenager in Canada broke the Trestman hire because he was friends with Trestmans daughters. Who knows who is K0nas source? I'm sure Eric knows a lot more people plugged in than we would expect David Schuster's probably saying to himself "I should have never told that douchebag Eric that!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 QUOTE (shipps @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 03:22 PM) Trestman wanted to bench Jay in the Tampa game. Kromer told us this much. Now Trestman is benching him just so he can have some solace in the closing of his tender as coach. He believes once Jimmy does a good job running his offense it will prove that it was Jay's fault for all the issues they have had this year. Its not going to happen that way but I think Marc believes that Jay has to be the whole problem for why this team hasnt produced and this is Trestmans way of showing the world that. Oh I think that is probably the most likely scenario but there could be other scenario's at work and I do question that Trestman would finally grow a pair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 QUOTE (shipps @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 03:25 PM) David Schuster's probably saying to himself "I should have never told that douchebag Eric that!" Haha...seriously though, you sometimes never know who knows and why. It was like the time the Chicago and national media totally blew a report on a certain White Sox player and I had direct knowledge to the contrary. In about a billion scenarios, I have no knowledge, but in this case, I evidently was one of the few people outside the White Sox offices who knew and it happened to be because I had that rapport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 19, 2014 Author Share Posted December 19, 2014 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 05:10 PM) Eric actually does appearances on Sports Talk Live and hobnobs with a lot of sports figures in Chicago. I'm not saying that he is correct, but he certainly could have a valid source that fed him this info Huh, I never knew that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 Caught this nugget out of a David Haugh article. Would look like phillips is sticking around. Team President Ted Phillips has been involved in conversations about the Bears future, which suggests he will survive any job losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 Phillips is a bean counter, and very good at that. The Bears need his equal for the football side, and I think the McCaskeys know that now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipps Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 So Hub Arkush was on his radio show saying that the Bears leadership has had contact/ at least phone calls to Holmgren in regards to some type of role he may play with the bears in this mess. Not necessarily for GM or anything particular but a "role". Possibly even for just consulting. He also said that Emery had no role at all in the benching of Cutler. Aaaaaaaaaand he also convinced me to go with my gut and that Cutler should stay with the Bears at this point because they will be better off. He has long been one of Cutlers detractors so it holds some weight coming from Hub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan49 Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 TRADE IDEA!! Sam Bradford and a 5th to the Bears for Cutler and a 7th. Bradford and Cutler have almost equal contracts for next year, but the Bears would be out of Bradford's after next year. When Tampa cuts McCown, sign him to compete with Bradford. Loser either 1) gets cut next January (McCown) or 2) walks away to FA (Bradford). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 06:37 PM) TRADE IDEA!! Sam Bradford and a 5th to the Bears for Cutler and a 7th. Bradford and Cutler have almost equal contracts for next year, but the Bears would be out of Bradford's after next year. When Tampa cuts McCown, sign him to compete with Bradford. Loser either 1) gets cut next January (McCown) or 2) walks away to FA (Bradford). Not really interested in that deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 10:33 PM) Not really interested in that deal. I'd be game for that if Trestman was staying around, which he won't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Dec 19, 2014 -> 08:37 PM) TRADE IDEA!! Sam Bradford and a 5th to the Bears for Cutler and a 7th. Bradford and Cutler have almost equal contracts for next year, but the Bears would be out of Bradford's after next year. When Tampa cuts McCown, sign him to compete with Bradford. Loser either 1) gets cut next January (McCown) or 2) walks away to FA (Bradford). Why would the Rams give up a 5th for a guy who is a riskier proposition while the Bears give up a 7th? If would be flip-flopped if anything, and I just don't see the Rams as a team that would take in a guy like Cutler right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boogua Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 20, 2014 -> 08:52 AM) Why would the Rams give up a 5th for a guy who is a riskier proposition while the Bears give up a 7th? If would be flip-flopped if anything, and I just don't see the Rams as a team that would take in a guy like Cutler right now. Riskier proposition in what way? Cutler is clearly better career wise than Bradford. I'm not sure if GMs are going to use this year alone to determine that an injured Sam Bradford is less risky than Jay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts