Lucky Luciano

well... that may be fine for you and you are entitled to your opinion. but, if i paid higher taxes to build a stadium for what i THINK/THOUGHT is a legitimate sport and that sport is manipulated by specific corporations to THEIR monetary advantage i wanna know and i wanna know NOW. these are billion dollar corporations we are talking about. the bone that was thrown out there that there are bigger fish to fry than a manipulation of one of the largest money markets in this country is a bit nieve (sp).

just for your paranoid information, i disagreed with your opinion as to whether congress should be involved in this and stated so. the rest of what i posted, that seemed to infurriate you, was MY reasons and thoughts as to why they SHOULD investigate in response to your post. it's a pretty novel concept, but people tend to do that sometimes on these message boards. so unless you have different rules of communication than most normal people, some will make their own comments to justify THEIR opinions that may not be directly replying to your specific quotes and/OR inferring that "you said". amazing but true. again i ask.... did you READ my original post?? anyway, here's an example: just so you know, this is my quote that WASN'T in reply to anything you previously said... "if so where does the bill of rights come into play? where does federal legislation step in and enforce it's rico acts and other laws on the books related to corporate espionage?" the "important question" (your quote) would be if these nfl corporations were in violation of federal laws due to corporate espionage statutes AND to their ability to uphold the integrity of the nfl who garner federal tax breaks and incentives, not to mention the sales of bonds or local tax revenues to PAY for their venues. that the nfl delegated it's own judgements along with penalties AND destroyed evidence is CERTAINLY cause for concern (my OPINION). in direct answer to YOUR question.... YES!!! i don't believe we should wait for the next 10 + years like baseball did to ensure a legitimate game. if one team is cheating who is to say others are not? are there OTHER ways that they are cheating also? sorry, but relying on the truth from corporations and people who are NOT under oath and risk the penalty of purjury and could be financially hurt by the truth is nonsense. every fan should be concerned no matter what team they root for. in fact every citizen in america should be concerned if their tax dollars are involved in ANY way.

give you a break?? maybe you should re-read my post. i never 'said you said' anything about my points at ALL!!! i disagreed with your point of saying it is and was not important for congress to pursue this agenda and gave MY examples of why it SHOULD be or COULD be legitimately pursued. YIKES!!!

i have to strongly disagree. if it takes a "witch hunt" to legitimize this sport then so be it. otherwise we end up with either an exhibition like all star wrestling where it's predetermined the outcome ends it being called an actual sport, a league controlled by the gambling interests including organized crime and racketeering, or frankly baseball and it's decades of steroid use and problems with no control initiated by that idiot bud selig. another thing... these franchises are closed corporations who most likely are getting federal, state, and local tax breaks and incentives NOT to mention the actual funding by local and state governments to build these new stadium complexes. if baseball couldn't contain and control it's own interests what makes you think that the nfl can? where is the line drawn to keep sports legitimate? is it ok to pay off ref officials who control the ebb and flow of the game? is it ok for its players to use steroids and HGH to create a more dramatic edge scenario on the field? is it ok for it's players and coaches to bet on nfl games? is it ok to steal from each other in pro football to give you an advantage by electronically eavesdropping or recording other teams meetings or practices? if so where does the bill of rights come into play? where does federal legislation step in and enforce it's rico acts and other laws on the books related to corporate espionage? in my opinion congress has a duty to the public to get to the bottom of this even if the results turn out unfavorable for our bear franchise. without rules that are enforced rigidly you have nothing in sports. it's just a sham.

again i would like to emphasize these points... 1. the boat was at anchor and unless these water nazi's saw benson 'operate' or drive his boat to that location of anchor and immediately pulled up to test him then there is absolutely no possible reason to test him for anything other than having the required safety equipment on board. the boat was not being operated on any waterways under any definition of law if it was not free drifting with or without a line and it was out of the navigational channel or a restricted area. 2. other than a breathalizer test, these clowns should know the law and the effects of giving a physical sobriety test NOT only on a moored boat but even on a dock. it's inconclusive and ridiculous to do so because of movement due to wind, current or wave action or just the movement on a vessel due to passengers moving about. it should be conducted on dry land if possible and warranted in which they had no reason legally to do so as the boat was not being operated. 3. by singling out benson from a number of people on his boat, whether the he was owner or not, to administer an unwarranted illegal test, they harassed him specifically by not asking everyone on board to submit to a sobriety test. there would have been no possible way without a qui ji board to determine WHO would even be the operator of the boat when benson's party decided to leave and whether at that time if any or all involved would have been legally sober and able to operate his vessel. ON QUESTION.. in an instance of a sobriety test doesn't the officer have to board the offending vessel to give the test? although a vessel can be boarded if there is a legitimate reason to believe there is a violation of law, i have to question whether they can force someone to leave their vessel in the first place without probable cause. on final note: i want to reiterate that the laws for auto's and the laws for boating are NOT the same and not even similar with the exception of the operator subject to sobriety only. it is not illegal to drink on a boat, it is not illegal to have open containers on a boat. it is not illegal for the operator of a boat to drink as long as he does not operate the boat in any manner until he is sober.

again i am not trashing anything about the site. it's hard work keeping a site going and you guys have done a good job to make it a place to come and discuss the bears. it really is appreciated by all. just that you are listening to the posters and their suggestions is a major plus and shows that you care about the environment created here. here is why i stepped up on this subject: the "Bear Report" message board used to be a good place to hang out and get a lot of good information along with the "Bear Shrine". after they moved to their new provider in washington the report became lax in their profanity regulation and in fact the moderator himself (in reality a nice enough hard working guy) became one of the biggest offenders. it started out with a few f words and escalated into some real raw language as people pushed the limits after being allowed the continuous flow of the four lettered kind. to put it in a nutshell, there was still some good posting on the board but it became hard to get through some real raunchy posts. i started frequenting it less and moved almost completely to the the latter site where it was more policed and moderated. it's a shame because i read that site for years. look, i'm not a prude and when angry at times i can make a lifer marine blush but... i always try on these boards to behave verbally like i were in a room full of 8-10 year olds which in reality there really may be some on here. i just figure that i would not use four lettered expletives and worse if i were talking to someones young children in real life and don't see the need to do so on here. so for me the filter converting things to freakin or fricken would not bother me in the least. however it works out i know as a moderator you will get some knuckleheads who insist this is america and it's their constitutional right to be obscene because we have freedom of speech and so on, and so on, when in reality it's not their right to do as they please on someone else's property which this surely is. you are paying the costs to keep this site up and most if not all the mods are working for free because they care about the site as a whole. at times it will be a thankless job but just know that if moderated within reason the core players on your site will appreciate it whether they say so or not.

sorry, but i totally disagree. if you know what types of defense or offense is called at a given time it is a HUGE difference maker that can and probably does change the entire outcome of a game. it's no different if they listen in illegally on what signals are being sent in to the qb's headset than reading and KNOWING what hand signals come in off the sidelines because they have correographed their entire system weeks before. yea, everyone tries to get an advantage but not everyone cheats to get it. if that were so then what is wrong with steroids and HGH? what is wrong with purposely injuring a key player? and on and on and on? because it's the rules of the game. that is WHY their are rules so everyone has a level playing field and the competition is fair. in my opinion they should have taken the game they were caught cheating last season in and forfeited the jets game. if it is determined they cheated in a playoff game, or if the games they cheated in during regular season led them to be in the playoffs then they should relinquish any and all superbowl winnings and it should default to the team they beat in the superbowl.

on the old board the moderators played it pretty close to the vest when it came to hard obceneties and it worked well, at least for me. either deleting the immediate disputed word/s and letting the person know where and why it was edited with a warning and at least listening to the offenders side of the story, if there was one, via email or whatever. if some want a place for adults to vent in that manner then a page off of the main with an adults warning label on it is a possibility. that may be amicable to all. the truth of the matter is that smaller children or young adults either do, or want to, read information on such an informed bear site as this one with the great variety of posters. that their father or mother or friends frequent this site makes it harder to say they shouldn't be able to read what is posted on here because of hard core adult language. in fact some younger people may be great CONTRIBUTORS if given the chance and add to our depth. one other item on the other board/s i have frequented... absolutely no racial, ethnic origin, religious, or physical threatening attacks or justifications were tolerated. not saying that any of this has ever happened on here or will, it's good policy to put it boldly in the rules as unacceptable to any passing through flamers ect. i would also while i am at it say thanks to you and all who have provided this space for all of us. i think you have done pretty well so far. congratulations.

agree. there is no need for the hard core profanity on a board where you HOPE to get young kids or ladies attending and reading your site. it is to me what made our previous site better than a lot of the rest where it became a crude obscene contest with some posters. seems like &%$%^ (mentally enter your own word here), works ok for me.

first of all in in all instances in boating situations, there are not "keys in the ignition" because not all HAVE keys to start the engine. some are the old fashion type that you actually PULL on the rope to start the engine and i seriously doubt deep water commercial OR private vessels over 100 ft. have "keys" to start the engines. most of small powered vessels between 16 and 40 ft. do have a key system which might be revelant so why bring this up you ask? because the laws are, if not the same, quite similar in most states. they don't have laws for fishing boats with pull starters vs. recreational ski type boats that most likely do have a key based ignition system. so your "keys in the ignition" argument is legally in left field. second... in moving vehicles on the road such as cars etc., most states have LAWS that prohibit open alcholol containers in the driving compartment while on public roads. (i would also like to state that limozines are also under a different set of laws as are private charterd vehicles driven by professional drivers.) this is NOT true in boating instances or every person on every boat that consumed any alchohol or had an open container of alcohol would be subject to arrest. if what you say was correct, then the designated driver who drives you home from a bar while you are drunk in YOUR car would make you subject to a DWI. if this were the case the same would hold true to the owner of ANY vessel on public waterways. if someone owned a vessel and he hired a captain and crew to operate the boat, would HE then be subject to a sobriety test and DWI because he was the owner if he were drunk? if you as the owner of a vessel on public waterways decided you wanted to get hammered and let your sober friend operate your boat does that mean YOU are subject to DWI? if you as an owner decided to have 3 or 4 drinks at anchor and catch some sun or read a book until the alcohol in your system dissipated over time to a legal limit, would you be subject to DWI while reading or sun bathing? if so you would have to abandon your anchored vessel if you had a drink and float in the water until you were sober. that would be beyond stupid. if the boat is anchored out of a navagational channel and not in motion (including line free drifting) there is NO driving or operating while intoxicated and NO possible reason for being tested or charged with such whether sitting in the operators seat or NOT. ESPECIALLY if the motor is not running!! if this were true, every owner of a moored boat on open water would be subject to this law. also, if as owner, you lived on your boat you would be subject to sobriety tests at any time of day or night at these god complex nazi's whims. sorry but that dog don't hunt.

first of all what a biased load of crap by whoever wrote this article. it's clearly written to garner sympathy for the law enforcement/DNR by putting in useless garbage about how much money benson has etc. that said.... if what i am reading is correct it appears that benson's boat was at anchor. if that is the case then these "law enforcement" clowns have NO right what-so-ever to single out ONE person on a non-moving boat for any sobriety test, period. although they could and can ask to see that each vessel has a fire extingisher, whistle (if appropriate), coast guard certified life jackets for every person on board and functioning running lights IF dark, and the boat is away from it's docking slip on public waterways. but that is ALL. being a non-moving vessel at anchor, who is to say which person on board will be the operator when the vessel leaves? the owner of the boat is NOT subject to sobriety if he is not the moving vessels operator. even if drunk at the time he was checked there would be no possible way that they could determine that he would have operated the boat in the future under the influence OR if he was indeed intoxicated operating his boat to get to the anchorage. in fact even if ALL the people onboard were drunk who is to say they wouldn't have CAMPED in that spot until they were sober thus not creating a danger or violating any laws. by not checking all the people onboard for sobriety the discriminated against cedric benson. this clown DNR punk more than likely just wanted to get his name in the paper. i would also like to add that continually checking someone for safety equipment OR fishing licenses time after time by the same officer is harassment. legal harassment? maybe but certainly harassment.

name every offensive player in a pro bowl angie drafted and THEN read on...

negative nancy? uhhhhh yea ok whatever. and pretending we are the raiders of 2006? huh? a fluke is the ravens ONLY superbowl (and at least that was a win) in 2000 and no joy for 8 years after that. the bears in 85 and ONE sb win in it's entire history. that is a fluke and when 22 years later you tout the worst offense in the history of the nfl a year after you LOSE it, it says it all. you can call the pats anything you want but i'd look at their record over the last 22 years before i did. i watched my team win all season during the 80's and it truly doesn't mean jack $%!& without the ring. and a dolphin fan? from raiders to dolphins? spoken like a true cub fan.

let me put this into perspective... st. clair is a 30 year old utility tackle and he does it pretty well. i like the guy but i also realize he is probably not ever going to be a pro-bowl tackle or guard. he is what he is and 5 will get ya 10 he would never start on any team with a reasonably good offense. we need young talent to start grooming to take over, if not this year, certainly next year or the year after. we just can't keep on bringing in expensive free agents. it's a fail, fail proposition. i have to point this out: look at our entire offense and tell me how many starters are on our roster that angelo drafted. not a SINGLE offensive lineman. TE dez clark is slotted to be the starter with a possibility of our no-brainer TE he drafted last season to fight for that spot. booker is probably our #1 WR along with davis as #2 or #3 and the rest are a crapshoot that he did draft. that leaves our duo of quarterbacks that he drafted and not a single person on earth knows what good they are. they certainly don't look like franchise qb's to me at this point. course we will probably never know what orton can or can't do anyway the way they never play him. now you might say... but what about all the guards we have on the roster? what about beekman, jones, oakley ect. if any of these guys can't beat out a one armed guard on the last string of his career it's criminal that angelo would have drafted or aquired them on this roster. if it's not his fault and these are quality players, then it has to be that our coaching staff is so inept they can't even get something as simple as replacing an injured guard right and it STILL falls on angelo for hiring complete incompitants!!!!!!!

progress? it's the same progress we had after 1985!! the only difference is we looked like fools in a superbowl. to me that is not progress when half of your team is setting records that the worst offense in the NFL for decades (us) had set previously. you can't just look at improvement on half of your team and say we are on the road to recovery while the other half looks worse than a semi pro team with NO relief in sight.

every player you mentioned as talent, besides special teams and a tight end we drafted last year and who has hardly played, is on defense.

yes i will agree we have had a good defense. the problem is that it's just not enough by a longshot to field half a team in todays modern football era. the game has moved on, it's transformed into a media fest of offense. they have changed the rules to fit what they want to sell advertising with.... basketball scores. so... my rating of angelo stands at a mark of D. if he were a defensive talent evaluator or head scout in the area of defense then ok. but he is not. he is the general manager, the guy who makes 95% or more of all football decisions determining who is going to play ON the field. if you can't evaluate, or find someone who CAN evaluate, talent on both sides of the ball you have no business collecting a gm's paycheck. if there ever was a time when offense wasn't the determining factor on how many world championships your franchise would win it is long, long past. a GM HAS to be able to see what the future in football is and adjust his team to fit it or get out.

yea like a couple of replys saying what i read in print was incorrect and me agreeing to be open about it and finally agreeing with you? i'm not trying to rag on you but that statement seems awfully unreasonable. as far as nit picking... it's been SEVEN YEARS!!!! my god do you realize how bad an offense we have had during that period? it's record setting bad for a franchise with BAD offenses for decades!!

if getting to the superbowl was a foundation to build on winning the sb it would then have some meaning. being a fluke or a one shot wonder is just that.

ditka is an idiot. he was looking for his new payton and should have been looking for his new mcmahon. i realize that MAYBE you don't get him cause they just won't trade. that is in every case in every draft. i also think if you gave up 2 firsts and a few other picks they would have dealt. i have to ask... if palmer is what you REALLY believe is to be a franchise 10 year qb, how much is he worth to you? to me without any doubt it's 2 firsts plus others. how long have we done nothing in this area and how many superbowls has it cost us in the past? you do like the colts did and take payton manning and build a team around him. qb's are so few and far between good ones you have to take your shot at the ones you believe in. as far as the walter jones 2 firsts... don't you think then that a rookie franchise QB prospect is worth that gamble rather than a LOT? couldn't agree more.

i couldn't agree more. that is right on spot.

hmmmmmmmmmmmm..... and didn't i explain why i thought that and agreed with the people who said he wasn't????? yea that was a pretty hard sell.

one comment: SF did not get young as a replacement for montana. he was brought in as a trade from tampa to back up montana. he just excelled there in that system along with having someone able to coach and teach him. young had a horrendous career in tampa until going to the 9ers. i don't know what you read but i certainly did not bash our first pick. in fact it brought our draft up from F to D+. my comment on williams not making it was in regards to having NO depth at RT with miller gone and st. clair at G. that's not a bash but reality. sorry but 100% pure hindsight? lets look at the board: st. louis - need OT but went WR skins - this was our trade deal - skins needed picks as they traded them all away. this was their first of the draft. kc - got their guard - no problem from them to speak of unless they planned on albert going OLT. packers - probably wouldn't trade with us falcons - NEED a guard seattle - NEED a guard 49ers - NEED a guard there is NO way the 2nd best guard makes it to us in a sane draft room. greco: a trade up to the bottom of the 2nd or top of 3rd if considered a worthy pick. i don't know enough about him other than he WAS picked at the top of the 3rd and he plays out to be a LG according to draft reports and a pretty good one with the possibility to play RT which is another depth position we NEED. as far as falling like the past, the price they are getting for guards (faneca for instance) means they no longer are an afterthought in the draft if you want to stay out of cap hell. i got no problems with your 3rd round picks either. but for X's sake get one with potential to start. quote: I disagree RB is not a need. I agree Wolfe was a mistake, but also believe accepting your mistakes is better than not, and he seemed this year to accept mistakes made at RB. When you combine Benson's injury w/ Wolfe's inability to be a starter, it did create a need at RB. Not a 1st round need, IMHO, but a high enough need that I see nothing wrong w/ Forte. IMHO, you would have likely been fine w/ taking Forte in the 2nd if we added Cousins or McGlynn in the 3rd, would you not. /quote i never said it was not a need. i DID say not a need in the freakin 2nd round. we could have picked one up in the later rounds or EVEN in free agency after the cuts. we need to build a line to run behind NOW not in 5 years. quote: some say we need a receiver.... hmmmm, angie drafts yet ANOTHER #2 receiver. it's NOT a need at all. we have, not counting our draft picks, SEVEN receivers on our roster. booker, bradley, davis and hass are projected as #2 or #3 receivers. in other words we drafted again into our only strength at that position!!! where is our #1 guy? hester? are you kidding me? Who are you kidding. We have a bunch of bodies at OG. That doesn't mean we have anyone good at the position. I like Booker, but he is not a long term solution, but a temporary fix. Bradley has shown nothing but his ability to get injured. Davis is nice depth, but that is all. Hass? Come on. Fan favorite, but whether due to Hass or the coaches, I think it is obvious he is not in the plans. WR was w/o question a need. And like Forte in the 2nd, I have a feeling you would not be screaming about this pick if we took Cousins or McGlynn later in the 3rd. /quote puleeaaaase!!! if you don't consider any of our WR's as #2's or 3's then drafting one now is meaningless for this season. i don't know what you are looking at but booker is a solid gold #2 receiver who we will probably use as our #1. now are you saying davis and bradley are not even #2 or #3 receivers??? if thats the case angie should be fired NOW for even considering davis's new contract. the LAST thing we need at this point in time ahead of qb and OL is another #2 receiver which is what bennet is PROJECTED to be!!!!! quote: what about our 3rd round DT pick? we drafted another DT when we already have five and if you consider idoniji (which i do) we have SIX. is that our priority over OL? Short answer. No. I did call it though. I said, at least to those I watched the draft w/, we would take Harrison there and then. I expected us to go DT in the 3rd or 4th, and when I saw Harrison as Kiper's best available, I just felt Angelo couldn't resist. That is his way. I agree OL was a far greater need. I would even say a backup OT would have been a better pick than a DT. I do actually believe DT was a need, as Harris is entering his final year, Dusty has two years of nothing but injury, and none of the rest are proven either. But for me, w/o a DT, our defense is still loaded w/ talent, but on offense, far from it. /quote and that is a recomendation on angelo's prowess at drafting players? cause he can't resist? maybe he should start up a heroin habit instead. quote: I do not agree w/ this pick either. If a FS we loved were there, I could better see that, but I simply do not believe another in-the-box safety was a need. I like Steltz, and he may well end up a starter, but I question just how big of an upgrade he is to the in-the-box safeties we already have. I would have rather we gave Payne/McGowan a shot. Again, if this was a FS that fell, I would be more okay w/ this pick, but he isn't. Further, I would add that, as said before, I could better deal w/ this pick, even being Steltz, if we had drafted different in front. If we added an OG instead of a DT, I could better deal w/ grabbing a defensive player you liked here. /quote absolutely agree. if we got at least one (preferably two) quality guard along with williams i would have been reasonably happy and willing to stretch our needs a bit. quote: Here is my opinion. I believe Angelo basically locked in on OL, RB and WR w/ the first three picks. After that, he went BPA, and for Angelo, the BPA is always going to be a defensive player, thus the DT, SS and CB w/ the next three picks. This is a pick I hate as well. We are very solid and deep at CB, and yet St. Clair is still our starting LG. No way we should have been looking to draft a CB here. But at this area, Angelo is looking at upside and not need, and Bowman has tons of upside, though it comes w/ JUCO experience and major injury concerns. /quote absolutely. this is also where my main bitch with this guy starts. he drafts the same players every year. the only difference is where. we MUST beef up our OL. if our D line looked this bad i could see it but it's not even a close 5th. his drafting players that we will have to cut is ridiculous. who do we release to keep these guys? and another FB? how many we need of these guys? it's like drafting tackling dummies that you pay. seriously it's time to get his mind right or dump him. we can't survive as half a team anymore. quote: other than our first pick it is a disaster for the future of this franchise. we keep drafting the SAME positions over and over every year and still leave the weak points the same. I disagree w/ the disaster statement. I do believe it is a massive mistake to have passed on Brohm, but the players we did take are likely going to contribute and or start, or at least most of them. Williams will likely start at LT. Forte will start by some point this year, if not out of the gate. Ditto for Bennett. Harrison I think will be playing in the rotation. Steltz could be starting this year too. So while I think we blew it by passing on a QB, if you look at the players we did add, they are likely starters/contributors (minus Bowman and Davis). So while what we did not get hurts, what we did get definitely should help. /quote start WHERE? how many cb's can we start at once? how many RB's? how many # FREAKIN 2 wideouts can we get on the field? where is our new DT going to play? do we dump idoniji now after his new contract? quote: this year we drafted rounds 1-5 a RB, WR, DL, SS, CB and TE You missed OT. last year we draft rounds 1-5 a TE, DL, RB, SS, LB and CB (and another one in the 7th) You missed OG in the 4th last year. 2006 we draft rounds 1-5 CB/WR?, two DL, and LB You forgot DM, a CB/FS/SS? 2005 we draft rounds 1-5 RB, and two WR's You missed a 4th round QB (Orton) 2004 we draft rounds 1-5 three DL, WR, CB and LB You missed a 5th round QB (Krenzel) 2003 we draft rounds 1-5 three DL, CB, LB, SS, and two WR's You missed QB in the 1st. 2002 we draft rounds 1-5 CB, SS, DL, and LB You missed OT in the 1st and OG in the 3rd. /quote the point was of drafting the SAME type players year after year. do you feel we do that on the OL?? or at QB?? you feel we drafted too many krenzel was a knucklehead and should be held against ANYONE stupid enough to draft him. also, in fact lower in my previous post, i pointed out specifically how many and where we drafted OL. so what's the point? quote: Look, I hate we passed on QB and OG, but it is simply wrong to say it doesn't matter how the picks turn out. If we added a bunch of starters, then the draft is not a D. Far from it. I would also add that if the RB, WR, DT, SS start, then maybe it means the positions were not the strength you think, and were in fact greater needs than you want to believe. /quote where do we add these starters? isn't that the crux of this entire MESS?? there are only so many guys can play. do you cut last years safeties? do you cut the previously drafted WR's? which DE's do you cut? anderson?? which DT's? dusty?? the new ones we get who look like the old ones we cut or the old ones that made the cut last year? how deep do you go for depth? one utility offensive lineman and 10 defensive linemen? do we just keep drafting these type of guys so we can replace them when their contracts come up??? we need QUARTERBACKS, free safeties, GUARDS, offensive tackles (YES for backup or to replace the ones who are aging or get injured). that's basically it. yet every year we draft the strongest positions we have and leave these to fend for themselves. he is an IDIOT!!! quote: But even w/ that said, if the players we did draft turn into solid starters, then while it hurts to have missed on this player or that, it would still be considered a good draft. /quote and get us no closer to winning a superbowl than we are now!!

getting to a SB is meaningless without winning it. are you really ready to say that this coming season looks like we are superbowl bound? or last? in seven years during angelo's tenure in chicago our offense has set records for BAD and i don't see much relief in the near future. do you? i gave him more than a chance to rebuild this team into a contender but building half a team won't get you any props from me from now on. it's time to look for a better solution and move on.

nothing like a well thought out intelligent reply. good job.