Lucky Luciano

uhh.... just emphasize a capital NO!! this guy is beyond bad.

here is what we SHOULD have done... IF QB was a desperate pick for the bears by angie (which i DOUBT): 1. moved up 3 slots and drafted carson palmer. it was the time to make this move for a franchise QB who looked to fit the bill. 2. if the bengals won't trade down we draft byron leftwich. he was tough as nails with potential to be a good qb. there were definately injury concerns though so i 'might' have passed. that said, i can't believe we were in total desperation for a QB if we waited until our 2nd pick in the first round to get grossman. IF we can't get palmer and leftwich is too much of an injury gamble this is what we do... draft jordan gross at the #4 slot. while we may be able to limp by with an injured jim miller and shane mathews we, without any doubt, needed a LT. we had the horrendous mike gandy the previous year, 2002, and started him in 2003 also at LT. the following year, 2004 we sported the amazing Q. mitchell. so by 2004 we would have had a pro-bowl LT in gross and a pro-bowl RT in tait who we paid the moon for to be mediocre as a LT. we had a great C and a very good RG in villareal. that would have looked pretty good as our offensive line for the next 6 years. QB and LT were KEY positions of need for the bears and almost always go high in the draft. the only other consideration would be a DE or CB in that slot and that was the least of our worries at that time. if you have the chance to draft a QB or LT you have to take it. remember we were running the shoop-a-dope offense that relied on running the ball 3 yds with a cloud of dust and bubble screens for our passing attack. we NEEDED a good T for that aspect of the game, not to mention, to keep jim miller off the IR.

it might be better to evaluate if there were stats on first, second and third round picks from that info. that might be a way to judge the importance they gave each position.

speaking of superbowls (or pussy cat bowls).... remember the SF 49ers cheating by circumventing the salary cap in the 1990's? an incredible advantage when you can keep all of your primo players intact on the team by cheating. carmen policy was brought up on charges for this for the 1997 season. it is also *suspected, and rightly so, that this had been going on for some years. maybe even since the cap was instituted in 1994 when the 9ers won superbowl XXIX by beating the chargers. remember 1994?.... what 'IF'... the chicago bears (a 9-7 wildcard team) did NOT play the SF 49ers in candlestick on january 7, 1995 in a wildcard/division champion playoff game and beat who 'MIGHT' have been a different division champion ('POSSIBLY' the dallas cowboys who wanny actually seemed able to beat on a regular basis)? 'COULD' the bears have ended up beating the chargers in superbowl XXIX that year? not saying they would have even got there but do you see all of the 'what IF's, 'COULD be's or 'MAYBE'S involved here? all because the 49ers cheated? that is the reality of dishonesty in sports. * Several owners, including the Raiders' Al Davis, have been outspoken about the issue dragging on so long. They believe the 49ers got a competitive advantage by cheating on the cap. Some also have claimed the 49ers cheated on the cap to win their last Super Bowl after the 1994 season, but that's not at issue here. The alleged violations occurred in 1997, a year in which the 49ers lost in the NFC Championship Game. - SFGATE Friday, August 11, 2000 http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/49ers...ard-2709726.php

absoultely agree. great point on the home games. the colts were only down by 10 points at halftime. what IF...??... 1. the pats would have had a pick six or two in the first half because brady couldn't control the ball as well due to rain and cold and it effected his accuracy. 2. the receivers couldn't hang onto the ball as effectiveley on any number of plays killing a drive or bouncing in the air for an INT. 3. the pats RB fumbled once or twice killing a drive or actually giving up points to the defense. this would have changed the entire complexity and flow of the game going in at half if say the colts were ahead by 10. so would the outcome of the game have changed in the end? it 'COULD' have. maybe or probably not but 'COULD' have. this is why cheating in any form is completely intolerable and should be treated as such. there is always the 'what IF' factor involved. in conclusion there are NO gray area's in this respect in sports what-so-ever. you cheat and are caught you are put between the hammer and the anvil... you are done. brady HAD to know without any doubt. can you imagine an equipment person in the locker room taking it upon himself without brady's knowledge to adjust the pressure of new englands footballs in a playoff game (only if he hated the pats, was insane and had a death wish)? belicek knew. he claims to know everything that is going on according to the rule book. can you imagine belli never wondering about the game balls before gametime and what the officials did with and to them? LOL!! even IF by some miracle belli didn't know, he is just as guilty for covering it up as brady. that would in itself make him culpable as a liar and a thief just like the cheese head kraft.

i have to totally disagree. who is to say the patriots would even have made it to this point in the season if they had played fair? cheating destroys the integrity of the game. once you lose credibility then the sport is done and there is no coming back without very serious effort by the league and even then there will always be that stigma in the back of peoples minds. it is no different than stealing. the amount is inconsequential. whether it is millions or a dollar, you are a thief. the patriots have stolen not just fame and glory from another team that may have deserved it, they have taken money out of the pockets of players, coaches, owners and fans of other teams who played by the rules. what SHOULD they do? 1. the patriots should be disqualified from playing in the superbowl and the colts should be the replacement team. 2. as a second offense bilichek should be banned from the NFL for life. 3. tom brady should be suspended for one year and all statistics and accomplishments for the 2014 season expunged from the record books. if it happens again... banned from the NFL for life. 4. next season the patriots should not be eligible to participate in the playoffs or the superbowl. 5. if cheating happens again kraft should have his franchise taken away from him by the league. that would be fair and send a message to the franchises and the fans that cheating will never be tolerated.

in my opinion a good 'cover' CB is much, much, more valuable and hard to find than any safety. it ranks up there with a pass rushing DE and LT in value. QB trumps them all.

per the score it's official

wade phillips makes sense no matter WHAT they run. this guy is a GOOD + defensive coordinator.

i just don't remember all the details anymore either. it just seems to me that also they wanted some kind of control over the salaries and/or control of the assistant coaches that would have made mcginness look like an idiot.

i listened to gabriel on the score last week talking about GM prospects. although he did endorse ballard it seemed to me there was some hesitation in his voice as he was doing so. it made me wonder. don't write that in stone, it was just my take on it.

it's been a while and the rumors are a bit vague but i seem to remember that yes they did schedule a press conference before they finalized the deal. i think there was problems in regards to his assistant coaches. it seems to me that the bears wanted him to low-ball his assistants in salary and force a one year opt out deal dependent on how the bears management viewed the job they did. it was a complete mess what they wanted him to do and unheard of by any other franchise i can remember and before he would sign wanted to negotiate those terms. the bears figured it was such an honor for anyone wanting to come to chicago that he would accept anything thus the press conference. they were wrong.

upfront... i don't know much about the guy but he was working in SF during the harbaugh era and over the last 2 years in philly. seems like there is a power struggle going on in the eagles org so maybe worth a real look at this guy. i totally prefer going after polian who was set to go to buffalo until the mess there started but if we are determined to hire a newbie he seems to have the chops for it if we are going with an up-and-comer. http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/...-candidates-nfl

any thoughts on this guy? i guess he just became available. sounds interesting to me... http://www.csnchicago.com/bears/tom-gamble...t-search-new-gm

my point is this: this franchise is clearly unable to make good decisions on their own or EVEN from a list of candidates submitted by 'supposedly' competent people doing the looking as demonstrated in the hiring of jerry angelo, emery and the hiring of trestman (and in my opinion lovie smith). missing out on good candidates for the HC position at that time and the incredibly poor decision making by the GM's they hired that they signed off on is paramount. we missed out, just in the emery tenure, of hiring good coaches twice. once by forcing him to keep lovie for one more year to defray lovie's contract and next by the hiring of trestman. in my opinion i would make an experienced person an offer they couldn't refuse. polian i would offer big bucks to be our president of football operations at the very least for 1 year to get someone in there that has the potential to change how this franchise operates at it's base level. if he absolutely refuses a big payday then i go after holmgren in a big way. even if holmgren has not had great success he is better than any unknown at this time. we know what his strengths and weaknesses are and it's an educated assumption that HE has learned from his mistakes. we can NOT afford to roll the dice again on someone with no experience even IF this ballard turns out to be a finks of the future!! stability and steady direction are key right now to bring credibility to what we are trying to accomplish.

again, i am not saying he is or is not a good candidate. what i AM saying is his body of work is nearly exclusive to chicago's TWO failed systems. the similarities are very close to what we have hired before. in other words it is another inexperienced gamble our franchise seems to want to take for either lack of intelligence, even with accorsi's endorsement, or because of the cost to hire the best at what they do. in a nutshell, i would rather offer a LOT more money to bring in polian because he has DONE it before. the same goes with holmgren. either of those guys i give a shot before we move on an unknown with the possibility of gambling on yet another HC with no coaching experience in the NFL in their resume. we need that stability right now with someone who has experience. NOTE: jerry angelo was ALSO "Director of Player Personnel" in tampa for 3 years before coming to chicago. also was a player in semi pro or world league football, was a position coach for a number of years before going into scouting and then his job in tampa. a very similar resume for ballard.

with no GM in place: a good or bad choice, i don't know. here ya go... "Report: Bears Have No Interest In Rex Ryan Former Jets coach Rex Ryan is not among one of the coaches the Bears are interested in interviewing, per a report from ProFootballTalk.com." http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/01/03/rep...st-in-rex-ryan/ we would consider quinn a DC who has never been a HC and no offensive anything experience over ryan a defensive minded coach who has been a HC in the NFL. where is the logic in this? go figure.

ballard: i admit i know absolutely nothing about the candidates for GM other that the top choice from what little i read would be polian as president at least for a year to get us on the right track and GM if he wanted it. what does concern me with ballard is his tenure and ties with chicago in the past and that this somehow is one of the reasons they would choose him as our GM. in other words ballard was involved with this organization during angelo AND emery's time in chicago. in fact almost all of his experience, 12 years in chicago until 2013, was tutoring under these two men. he has only been in one other organization, the chiefs for 2 years, in this century. if that is not scary i don't know what is. his hire would smack to me of being the same decisions that have been made in the past 50-60 years by ownership. not saying i'm right but it DOES throw up serious red flags in this choice. toub: if we hired ballard and toub we will be nearly in the same boat when we hired emery and trestman. toub, though a defensive minded coach, not only has never been a HC but he has never even been a DC or OC in college OR the pro's. can it work? sure, but in my opinion if this happened it would be a VERY high risk option in a franchise that needs stability and direction from someone proven to be able to do the job.

i can't either. BUT if you click on the link and when it shows up before it disappears select and copy the headline. Paste that into a google search and it will come up. then when you click on it it works.

my thoughts on this... i am not sure if these other clubs would hire someone or not. other teams have but then maybe they wanted confirmation on choices they put together themselves. what i DO believe is that this franchise has struggled for 50 + years with poor management with the brief interlude when finks and vanessi (sp) were in chicago before the mccaskey's either fired them or let them move on. this makes chicago, contrary to belief, a not so choice place to work due to meddling by upper management/owners and the way this franchise conducts itself. this is not a dream location, as many believe, to work or build a winning tradition. by alienating the owners from the football operations would go far to make potential candidates believe there really might be a change in how this franchise does business.

i have to disagree. this shows me without any doubt that we need someone as a buffer between management and football operations. if we had someone like polian or whoever as president, the GM position would most likely already be filled and our new GM would be working with the new president on which coaches to hire. speed in these processes are paramount if you want to acquire the best talent you can find and these critical decisions should already have been made. that said... although i prefer they hired a president on that side of the organization if this decosta wanted to control the presidential function he sounds like the few out there you can trust to wear both hats correctly.

if this is the case is there any reason on earth ted phillips is still our president? per the CBS/Score website...

i agree. this hire would set in stone that the bear management is really serious about changing where this franchise is going. i'd offer him the moon

question for you or all... if marinelli is under contract, and i assume that he was, how did he resign his position in chicago and THEN get hired by the cowboys in 2013? how can you hire someone who has a written contract to work for someone else? i agree, it makes no sense at all. maybe that is why it makes sense for this franchise.

something doesn't sound right. 1. rod baby is doing the interviews for emery? just what is going on with emery? why is our DC doing HC interviews? if he wasn't under contract why was he interviewing anyone. if he was under contract why wasn't he our DC in the first place then? 2. according to the media, one reason ariens didn't come to chicago was because of marinelli being forced on him as DC. now we are led to believe that marinelli was in charge of interviewing ariens and it was his first choice? 3. then emery decides on another coach and we let marinelli walk if he was under contract and hire a proven loser? what the hell??? if this is the case teddy boy AND emery should have been beaten with a lead pipe wrapped in barb wire. =========== you know what? this is the EXACT reason we need a president of football operations. we are the insane leading the blind.