Chicago Herald-American

Embarrassing? What's embarrassing is the Tribune's over-the-top reaction to Dr. Dan Grossman's analysis of the Bears' "black hole" at quarterback over the past 40 or 50 years.

In a an overplayed, one-two punch in Wednesday's paper that took the Tribune's sports section one step closer to its ultimate goal -- to become the Chicago Sun-Times -- columnist Rick Morrissey and Bears defender Dan Pompei ripped Rex Grossman's dad for noticing what the Chicago papers haven't: that Jay Cutler is getting worse, just like his son Rex got worse and concluding that the Bears' don't know how to develop a quarterback. At least he saw a negative pattern and tried to explain the problem (though clearly with his own son's defense in mind). The Tribune ought to try that.

While Rex Grossman's dad bitching about the Bears looks bad -- can't deny that --  I thought it was a pretty well-reasoned argument that was more about the Bears and their quarterbacks than it was about Rex and his failure with the Bears. And while there's a flaw in comparing the regression of Cutler with that of Grossman -- Rex's own inabilities had much more to do with him failing than Cutler -- it's hard to argue against the idea that the Bears have had a significant hand in it as well.

But Morrissey and Pompei rushed to their Bears' defense. Morrissey ripped Dr. Grossman in this column for being a pushy stage parent "fighting his kid's battles."

If I were Rex Grossman, I would be looking for a hole to crawl in from the embarrassment my father has caused me. I would be trying to understand why I still have my dad speaking for me in the pages of the Tribune, especially when I don't recall asking him to do so. And I would be wondering how tone-deaf a parent has to be to think that firing on his son's former team is a good idea.

That might be a valid criticism if the story was all about Rex, but Dr. Grossman's argument was much more thorough than that. His argument ws reasonable if not spot-on. Is Dr. Grossman the right person to be making that argument? No. But somebody has to make it. The Tribune sure hasn't.

Which brings us to Dan Pompei, whose response to the Grossman article was a perfect example of just how far Pompei will go to avoid pointed criticism of the Bears.

Pompei argues that the Bears quarterbacks are to blame for the Bears having so little success at the position since Sid Luckman -- deftly avoiding naming the people who drafted and signed these quarterbacks, or the people who hired the people who drafted and signed all these quarterbacks.

And he takes exception to Dr. Grossman's point that the Bears haven't done enough to surround their quarterback with enough talent to maximize the most important position on the field.

It's not as if the Bears have treated their offense like a step-child. They have had some significant veteran acquisitions on offense in Angelo's tenure with the team -- most notably Muhsin Muhammad, John Tait and Thomas Jones.

Since Angelo became general manager in 2002, six of eight first-round picks have been used on offensive players. And 15 of 29 draft picks in the top three rounds have been used on offensive players.

You can argue they picked the wrong players. Or you can argue they failed to develop some of them. Or that some of them were unlucky with injuries.

But you can't argue that they have ignored their offense.

No, Dan, how about if YOU argue that the Bears picked the wrong players and failed to develop them? You're the expert. Is it that difficult to actually blame somebody for something?

The Bears probably have spent a little more money on defensive players than offensive players in recent years, but that's because they have had more successful defensive players with expiring contracts. And the spending hasn't been that lopsided.

This year, for instance, they have used $61.8 million of their cap space on offensive players and $65 million on defensive players as of Tuesday. They have spent another $4.3 million of their cap space on their kickers.

So let me get this straight: Pompei is arguing that the Bears have made all these investments in their offense, acquired all these veterans and first-round draft picks, and have spent almost as much of the salary cap on offense as defense -- and their offense has ranked 26th, 29th, 28th, 32nd, 29th, 15th, 27th and 26th in total yards under Jerry Angelo? And he's worried about Rex Grossman's dad?

There's an embarrassment here someplace. Just not where the Tribune thinks it is.

It's All in the Presentation

The Tribune's reaction to the Dan Grossman story is an issue because of the display moreso than the criticism. Not one, not two, but three columns responding to Fred Mitchell's story (too many voices for even the Tribune's front page -- David Haugh weighed in on the Trib's internet site). The huge color close-up photo of Rex as a Bear; the headline, "Dad, you're embarrassing" in huge orange type; a package that takes up three-quarters of a broadsheet page give it a level of important reserved for a much bigger story, like Rick Morrissey's Sunday column calling for the ouster of Jerry Angelo and Lovie Smith.

Except even that story didn't get near the play that the Dan Grossman backlash did. Check out the Tribune's front page on Sunday. Two columns on the Bears, including Morrissey's egdy call for Angelo's and Smith's heads -- but stripped down the right side of the front page next to a picture of former Simeon basketball star Ben Wilson. See the difference in impact?

Now, in the world of Bears football, which is the bigger story? Which one deserves to be played to the hilt? I've only been in the business 30 years, but I think a columnist calling for Jerry Angelo and Lovie Smith to be fired is a little bigger deal than one calling out Dan Grossman for being a pushy parent.

Here's my advice for the Tribune: if you're going to morph into the Sun-Times, shove all-in and hire Jay Mariotti to write columns. Though many of my colleagues disagree, he was the best thing we had going for us.