Hard for Bernstein's latest piece to be anything but baloney when his first sentence reads as follows, as if his article doesn't offer any opinions from himself:

"This isn’t about what you think of Jay Cutler at a microphone or off the field, nor is it really about what I think."

On the whole, the article is pretty well written (although it seems odd that the second paragraph is a stand-alone sentence rather than part of the first paragraph). He regurgitates a lot that he had said on the air about the Bears being upset with how Cutler handled himself with the media after the loss to Buffalo. But Bernstein does manage to weave in his own opinions, not surprisingly at the end, but also and more interestingly in a paragraph on McCown and the the Bears feelings toward McCown. Toward the middle Danny writes:

"The Bears were dismayed by the groundswell of public affection for Josh McCown last year, eventually confronting the fact that most of it was due to his status as Not Jay Cutler. A nondescript passer had a few good games throwing jump balls to great receivers against bad defenses, and he quickly owned the heart of the city because he was something other than a jerk. That resonated at Halas Hall and led to their strategy to relaunch the Cutler brand before training camp in July."

I have to believe that this paragraph was completely made up by Bernstein to support his points on Cutler, while also demeaning McCown. No where does he say that his first claim about the Bears being dismayed with public support for McCown came from the Bears (Why would they be?), and then he dismisses and mischaracterizes that support as the result of anti-Cutler sentiment. It’s just not true. Later, at the beginning of the eighth paragraph, Danny contradicts himself on this point by writing that “Fans eventually love winners regardless”, which is the real reason for fans liking McCown, in that he won, in addition to him being a better leader than Cutler. What follows is more dismissive belittlement of McCown with Danny calling him a “non-descript passer” and making the charge that McCown’s success was only due to great play by the receivers, because he threw "jump" balls to them and faced bad defenses. Didn't Cutler have the same great receivers as McCown? And isn't it good quarterbacking (not bad) to throw the ball where the receiver can catch it and the the defender can't? What I'd like to ask Danny is how many reps did McCown get compared to Cutler before his brilliant success as a starter. The answer is Cutler got all the reps and still wasn't better than McCown.

Maybe there are people that will fall for Bernstein’s non-opinion opinion piece, namely those susceptible to a Jedi mind trick. But it’s obvious that it was intended as one when he ended the article opining, “It’s already shot and probably wasn’t worth the effort in the first place.” in reference to the Bears in vain efforts to rehabilitate a perennially surly Jay Cutler.

He happens to be right on the last point, but otherwise, Dan, WYC?

Here's the link.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/09/10/ ... -fizzling/

No desire to read it. Bernsie is not the worst writer but a far from anything good.

It just shows that once again, as with Derrick Rose, Bernstein will defend a player against lesser adversaries until the player runs afoul of billionaires and becomes the lesser adversary himself.

_________________

never read the entirety of senior column

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

You wouldn't want the fans to actually like one of your players.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Exactly what I thought. God forbid a QB not named Cutler have success in this town.

_________________
-- source

Didn't read the piece and probably won't, but does he explain the "why?" as to the Bears sentiment? I heard them express this long ago but it was in their typical Bernstein hinting at something and Boers doing his stuttering parrot act. Why would the team be dismayed or disappointed that the fans liked McCown?

_________________
DRINK BƎTTƎR. @theRIPH

The Bears were dismayed by the groundswell of public affection for Josh McCown last year, eventually confronting the fact that most of it was due to his status as Not Jay Cutler. A nondescript passer had a few good games throwing jump balls to great receivers against bad defenses, and he quickly owned the heart of the city because he was something other than a jerk. That resonated at Halas Hall and led to their strategy to relaunch the Cutler brand before training camp in July.

_________________
-- source

Phil Emery is too dorking and consumed in scouting etc. to brand or rebrand anything.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

If true, that is some convoluted thinking and reasoning. Dismay over the support for the guy who is getting wins, so the necessity to "relaunch" the other player? I don't mind the team declaring "Jay is our quarterback" but then he has to be the one to produce on the field.

Its amusing how Bernstein can try to qualify situations that only must be happening within his own domicile. If he were out amongst the people watching the game he would have to feign ignoring the strange looks and random derogatory comments about his thoughts and opinions.

_________________
DRINK BƎTTƎR. @theRIPH