Lucky Luciano

uhhhh.... no. exactly right. just like a potentiometer with a bad solder joint. "I would even argue that if you own a company and you lose money that can be considered a success under certain circumstances. Its too complex a topic to even try to compare the two and it doesn't help your case at all." absolutely... if it is your plan to lose a billion dollars and you lose 2 billion, that's success. you exceeded your expectations. "What you should compare it to is an old western gun fight. If you lose, your dead. Not something with so many different ways to interpret success and failure." hmmm...

it's NOT a success. it's an IMPROVEMENT!!!!! if you play on an nfl team and you watch the superbowl at home you think they pat themselves on the back and say UREEKA!!! this season sure is a success? YES i read your post. you seem to have some very different expectations of results than i do. if you don't get in or win the superbowl but you don't get in or win it as poorly as the previous season that reads success to you. expectations to me DON'T determine if a season is a success or not. winning does!! i also have to ask... who's expectations determine success and failed seasons for you in the nfl? the franchises/coaches/players? the media? yours? you ask if i expect to win the superbowl every year. of COURSE NOT. does winning more games than i expected make that season a success? of COURSE NOT!! it makes it a better season than i had hoped for and that's all. i still failed to achieve the only goal that determines success and failure in the nfl... winning the superbowl!! "Huh? First you seem to question me for saying NE wasn't a success, talking about all their records, then you go on to say yourself that NE, along w/ every other team, did fail and was not a success. Huh?" because it is the inconsistancy of what you are saying. like there is some magic formula to determine success and failure when it is purely simple winning or losing. don't ask me, ask any coach if his season is a success that loses or is not in the superbowl. "Sorry, but your logic and reasoning is so out there, it passes comical. Frankly, it is scary. By your definition, there is not a successful team in the NFL, as every team's "success percentage" would make the worst baseball players batting average look high. A couple teams have more than a handful of SBs in their franchise history, but no more than a couple. If people saw things like you, turnovers would be unbelievable and suidides would be at an all time high." look... if you own an nfl team, if you coach an nfl team, if you play on an nfl team your season is not a success if you fail to get a ring that particular year. SURE teams can be called successful with win loss records or schemes over the years. did we have success beating the packers last season? YES. BUT... you CAN'T say that individual season was a success if you lose. it doesn't matter if you are better, it doesn't matter if you just missed winning it all. you have evaded SUCCESS that year, period. that is the point i have been trying to drive home a thousand words ago.

don't you think comparing it to a profit/loss scenario is a bit closer to what i might be trying to get across than comparing it to the richest man in the world nonsense? like maybe it would relate to ONE individual company and how that ONE company's profits/losses for ONE year, RELATE to that PARTICULAR year being a SUCCESS or FAILURE?? THUS, may not this also relate to how an individual teams SUCCESS or FAILURE in a particular year might be determined by whether they WON or LOST the superbowl and have not a damn thing to do with the fortune 500 or the richest man in the world? for X's sake name off the years since 1985 that YOU consider to be a success!! well, if you can't grasp this then you're on your own.... 1. if you don't win the superbowl, that particular season is NOT a success. 2. if you own a company and it loses money in a given year, that particular year is NOT a success. if you don't want to believe that, fine by me. you can consider every year a success for chicago and take out a million business loans to float your company no matter whether you lose money or not.

so just to get this straight... you are happy whether we win a SB or not. if so, it's people like you that the bidwell and mccaskey type owners simply love. as long as they field a team, that in itself is a success. how about after the '86 playoffs? the '87 playoffs? the '88 playoffs, etc. etc. etc. or even after the 2006 superbowl did you say to yourself... gee this year sure is a success. i would argue to my death that that season was NOT a success. good maybe, better than the last season, giving me hope for the future possibly but considered a success? not a chance. just for the record... did you hear a single player on the SB team say they considered that season a success? a coach? anybody employed in this franchise? if you did they should be fired. well just tell me where that logic comes from? probably the best team in football setting every offensive record imaginable and now you think their season is a failure? sorry but none of that makes any sense. to me it WAS a failure and NOT success for every team except the giants. well, at least that will make the mccaskey and bidwell families very happy.

let's put this in a real business perspective. you either lose money, break even, or make a profit in business. so... if your business shows a loss every year but one out of 25 years does that make your business a sucess? and in essence are you then considered a successful businessman? if the answer is yes, i think you and nfoligno should merge your corporations and hire me at a huge guaranteed salary to run it. "What this boils down to is outdated rhetoric that coaches used to tell their HS teams. In the NFL, you can't go all out to try to do everything in your power to win the SB every year because those short term efforts end up being self defeating in the long term. Look at the Redskins as an example of how NOT to do it. Or you can look at the Giants last year as the way TO DO it. (They signed one free agent, and had significant contributions from all of their draft picks last year and won the SB)" first of all we are talking about professional sports and not amauture sports. in another post someone asked "I hope you dont coach any youth leagues with that nonsense". my answer is no, to take that into youth sports is total and complete nonsense. for me in youth sports it is about building character more than winning or losing. it's about doing the best you can do and if you win that is great but if you lose that is ok too. it is also about playing fair and by the rules at all times without exception. for me the main agenda is for the kids to have fun. now on to your "do everything in your power to win the SB every year". are you talking to me? what has that got to do with anything i posted? again, i don't have a clue what you are talking about. i never even got into this "rebuilding" diatribe you are posting. yet again, i don't know what this has to do with any of my posts in this thread but i would like to make a few comments anyway. if they say johnathan quinn gives us the best chance to win every sunday i am sure you believe them because they know more than the fans or media. if you want to survive on blind faith and believe everything this organization tells you then that's fine by me. i'm happy for you. myself... i believe my own eyes first and foremost. if what i see is not quality then i will state it is not. i don't need some coach to tell me whether cade mcnown is good or bad and i don't need some GM to tell me whether johnathan quinn is good or bad either. so it goes.

some peoples definition of success is different. you are entitled to your opinion as am i. i can say that my definition of success is winning the superbowl and nothing else. you are either a winner or a loser and 2nd place finishes mean nothing.

even going into the superbowl can you really say we weren't half a team? did you really have any faith that our offense could outshoot the colts if our defense faltered? "we're done" is a near future reality for this offensive line. they are all old or not even here anymore. we have a mediocre right guard, no left guard, an aging center, no left tackle and an aging right tackle playing left tackle. this is way to much to believe we can fill that many needs for longer than the short term through free agency using other aging vets or potential prospects which we already SHOULD have on our team. you mention success. to me success is only winning a superbowl. anything else is a kiss from your sister and right now i don't see us as a favorite for winning a superbowl this season. anything is possible but in reality do you? again i reiterate, we are only half a team and that half not what the nfl has given the edge to.

here is the problem. we have had that same mentality not only for linemen over the last 25+ years but for qb's as well. we keep thinking that each player we draft has to be ROY or be destined for the hall of fame by playing every down his rookie season and that he contributes nothing if he isn't an instant starter. you have to put people in place to fill your roster in the future as well as the present. offensive linemen and quarterbacks are the building blocks to your entire franchise and you have to take the possibility they won't start immediately into account. if you don't believe this look at our history over the last 50 years. it means angelo has used the draft as an afterthought when it comes to drafting offensive linemen. you don't necessarily have to draft them in the first round every year but how about the 2nd or 3rd round if the player of quality is there? the players you draft in the 6th and 7th round are 'generally' camp fodder or special teams players. for angie to even have gone two years in a row without picking up a lineman when one is needed as much as it is in chicago is criminal. he either is an idiot or he is so bad at determining offensive talent he just drafts defense so his weakness doesn't show. if not that then what?

i look at it like this... we have had an aging offensive line for some time now and we have had almost no quality depth at ALL even for backup quality players. angie has not drafted a single first day pick in FIVE years and only ONE (a 4th round pick) higher than the 6th or 7th round over that same period. can anyone wonder why we have such problems when we draft cannon fodder fullbacks and handsful of safeties (which we can't even get THEM right). you normally use free agency as a stop gap to fill a position until you can draft a replacement to fill in that spot at a later time or to tweak a need for a superbowl run. not like the freakin redskins of the 70's to fill your roster.

ok..... is this english 'good' for you? "if he thinks you can build an offensive line through FA he is totally inept and completely nuts." you CAN believe this... you will pay a primo price for every offensive line player you hire which... 1. limits the number of good offensive linemen you can field because of the cap. some will have to be mediocre or potential reaches. 2. you will spend more money to get these guys and the rest of your team will suffer monetarily and eventually your good players at other positions will leave. 3. you will never have continuity on your offensive line, which is very important, if primo aging vets are projected to only be on your team for 2-4 years. 4. and finally you will never have a primo LOT. they NEVER reach free agency and even if they did you would pay so much you would be in immediate cap trouble.

if anybody wonders why our offense sucks just look at what we have drafted over our GM's tenure. 2007 - 4th round - j. beekman - C/G; 7th round - a. grant - G 2006 - 6th round (2nd 6th round pick) - t. reed - G 2005 - NONE 2004 - NONE 2003 - 7th round - b. anderson - G 2002 - 1st round - m. columbo - T; 3rd round (2nd third round selection) - t. metcalf - G 2001 - angie not involved in draft - 3rd round - m. gandy - T; 5th round - b. robertson - T 2000 - NON-angie period - NONE this is a pretty impressive list of offensive talent for a GM to draft and especially for one who touts the lines are where you build your team around. not a single offensive lineman drafted is a current starter in chicago since angie has been GM. not ONE!! if he else thinks you can build an offensive line through FA he is totally inept and completely nuts.

angie believes offensive linemen take time to develop? hmmm.... don't you have to DRAFT players to be able to develop them over time? don't you have to be able to draft QUALITY ball players to even be ABLE to develop them?? has he ever seen the packer offensive line? for gods sake, 2 years ago they replaced 2/3 of their interior line in one season with rookies who have excelled yet we can't even replace a single one-armed guard with a quality backup. what kind of contribution was our "developed" 6 year vet metcalf (who we just extended his contract a year or two ago)? what does that say about oakly and beekman when we put a utility backup tackle in to replace the worthless metcalf at guard? that we don't even have backup depth with the players angie drafted or that our coaching staff is so pathetic they not only can't coach them but can't even make a qualified judgement of talent??? this mindset of angie is pure BS and is not only killing us now but will in the future if it doesn't drastically change! if he can't judge offensive talent then for X's sake find someone who can and HIRE them!!!

hey at least dallas and wash tried to win using someone who IS/WAS a good coach and weren't afraid to put money on the line. sure it might be a crap shoot but haven't we had basically CRAP for most of the last 50 years? think it may have been worth a try at least once? if nothing else maybe a former offensive minded HC to become our OC? anyway... here are some of the coaches that did pretty well in multiple venues: so-so coaches: herm edwards .464%, wade phillips, dan reeves, jack pardee, jim mora, sid gillman, joe gibbs (edit: same team but brought back so not sure if this fits the criteria) currently active coaches: dungy, gruden, holmgren, shanahan, coughlin, belichick, chuck knox, shottenheimer, marv levy, vince lombardi, vermeil, weeb ewbank, don coryell, parcells,. paul brown, george allen, , jimmy johnson

so in YOUR opinion it is our "strategy" that we have had some of the worst coached teams in the history of the nfl over the last 10 years? and jerry jones? jerry jones is a meglomaniac. he thought/thinks he is a football genius much like the imbecile that headed this organization for 20 years with the only difference he is willing to spend money. as to the coaching staff... he didn't spend money on coaches in the past because he thought he could steer the titanic cowboys from the top. he finally decided to actually SPEND the big bucks when he decided this didn't work and tried to actually get the best available coach out there and win a superbowl. at least i have to give him credit for spending money to improve his team even if he spends it badly. wanny? maybe you should re-read your own post OR the one you replied to. i assumed since you stated "For the last ten years or so" that our discussion entaled the last TEN years. so that TEN YEARS to my estimation starts in 1997!!! this happens to be the last TWO years of wannys tenure in chicago in which the ONLY viable reason wanny was in chicago was because he was under contract for big, eatable money. if you seriously think that even that idiot mikey was praising wanny for a good job in those last 2 years you are sadly mistaken. just for the record i AGREE that the original wanny hiring wasn't a cheap or even a stupid move. wanny WAS the top dog at the time so i have no problem with the initial hire and have stated so numerous times in the past. now let's go to jauron..." well liked and regarded assistant w/ long creds" let's look at his record as a defensive coordinator UNDER a head coach who's forte' IS defense... JAGS: 1998 - 17th in points given up; 25th in yds given up; 23rd in 1st downs; 23rd in passing yds; 22nd in rushing yds; 26th in yds per attempt 1997 - 15th in points given up; 23rd in yds given up; 25th in 1st downs; 24th in passing yds; 13th in rushing yds; 11th in yds per attempt 1996 - 19th in points given up; 15th in yds given up; 21st in 1st downs; 16th in passing yds; 19th in rushing yds; 21st in yds per attempt 1995 - 28th in points given up; 21st in yds given up; 17th in 1st downs; 17th in passing yds; 24 in rushing yds; 17th in yds per attempt now.... are these the long credentials you were talking about??? or did we just hire him cause he is a such a peach. here are a FEW of the prospects or new head coaches the year jauron was hired that became head coaches: mcginnis, billick, seifert, rhodes, cunningham, palmer, andy reid, mike holmgren. were there others? i would think so. here is one other thought.... if you are going to hire a coordinator who is working under a head coach of the same ilk, why not offer a contract to one who ranked in the top ten rankings in his field and who just won 2 superbowls, maybe like kubiak? just for curiosities sake... how did jauron's first contract compare to what other franchises paid their head coaches? and finally lovie. if lovie was so hot why were we interviewing and courting saban? if lovie was so hot why were we interviewing russ grimm? if he was so hot why was he still available after we were done with all this? you can spin this however you want, saban was the first choice and money talks and bull$&!+ walks. i am not totally trashing the lovie pick but if you don't think money had something to do with his hiring you are wrong. he was the best of what was left. also, why else was the media and everyone else saying lovie's contract dollars were less than some offensive coordinators in the league and were critisizing the bears for not renegotiating his contract quickly enough? because he had a market fair contract? i think not. so on a final note... we should just keep lowballing coordintors to entice them to come to chicago as head coaches, is that correct? well, we have gone for 50 years with this "strategy" and so far we have ONE superbowl trophy and that because muggs halas and jim finks WERE smart football people and WERE willing to open up the pocketbook. QUOTE "in 1997-98 we kept wanny way past was was even reasonable as our HC. he was a complete failure yet we kept him 2 years longer than was sane. why? because he still had a big hit $ wise if we replaced him. THAT'S cheap. moving on........." Funny thing about selective memory. It is hard to have such and win many arguments. Wanny was a the young stud DC, and we got him. Prior to the end of his deal, he was given more money. Not the sign of a cheap team. You say if we were not so cheap, we would have fired him sooner. I argue the issue was not money, but poor management. Do you believe he EVER should have received the new deal in the first place? I didn't. But giving him the new deal showed a total lack of management. END QUOTE it's also funny that YOU either have selective memory or just don't read what i am writing. does "kept him 2 years longer than was sane" ring any bells? again referring to YOUR "last 10 years" argument, wanny's LAST 2 years fall into that catagory. i argue that it was not only "poor management" which i relate also with poor payroll practices and plain old football intelligence in this case, but not wanting to fire wanny because they would have to pay his salary for 2-3 years because of an ill advised extension. besides the monetary hit in this case they would look like fools. but... do you think this may have had some impact on why they may have wanted voidable contracts in the mcginnis regime as someone stated? like maybe so they COULD fire coaches without monetary penalties which makes them not look any less foolish but does keep the money in their pockets? speaking of his extension: of COURSE he was given more money, his contract was coming due the following year (1997). have you ever heard of anyone signing a coaching extension contract for less money? was this a terrible re-signing at the time? win/loss record considered, not neccessarily to some but certainly to me and any who really watched this guy coach a team. by the second year of wanny's term there were warning bells ringing. by the end of his fourth there were enough red flags to cover the earth. QUOTE As for later, I would argue many, if not most teams, have carried a coach longer than they should have because of the contract left. It is not unusual. What I think would have been unusual would be to fire a coach so soon after giving him a new deal. END QUOTE so this means what? that because other CHEAP teams will accept mediocre to horrible coaches years longer and field garbage teams with no hope of winning a superbowl in order to save money and screw it's fans, it's ok with you? QUOTE in 1999 we lowballed our first choice as HC in mcginnis and lost him as a prospect. THAT'S cheap. phillips then hired jauron after mikey was canned by his own mother. As I recall, there was a hell of a lot more to that whole thing than just money, and yet, you pretend that money was the whole thing. As I recall, it was also a big deal when Mikey went public and said we had signed McGinnis, when we were still in negotiations. I do not recall it being a matter of lowballing him, but a matter of Mikey being a dumbass, and McGinnis realizing what it would be like to work for him. END QUOTE did i "pretend" that money was the "whole" thing? i guess i don't remember saying it was the "whole" thing. please show me where i said that. but i would also like to state, if the money were excellent rather than low/mediocre with strings attached do you really think he would have left like that? i seriously doubt it. QUOTE jauron - after one good season, with an anemic offense, and a playoff in-and-out we not only renegotiate jauron's contract but his pitiful OC as well. was this done as an atta-boy or in regards to cheapness? if jauron really turned out to be a perennial contender when his contract DID come due, two seasons from then, it would have cost this franchise a LOT more money than it did re-upping his contract than when it did. the smart move was to wait and see how the next season fared. moving on...................... Are you serious? So your argument is that it is better for a team to wait and pay a premium rather than try to get a deal done early? I think every manager in america would disagree. I suppose you wait until a stock hits a high before you buy too. Don't want to get a bargain. You call it being cheap. The 32 teams in the NFL call it good business. END QUOTE am i serious? $%#@ YEA i'm serious. so, just to get your business portfolio correct, you are willing to enhance and extend an employee's guaranteed contract another 4 years when that employee has: 1. worked in that field for a grand total of three years or LESS. 2. his record boasts modest profits (one playoff spot) for only ONE year out of those three years. 3. he is still under contract for at LEAST one more make-or-break year at no added expense to you. well brother, let me know when you want someone to run YOUR corporation cause i want in. we are not talking about keeping a coach who has a proven track record and you are re-signing him for a third + go-round (someone similar to a fisher and bilichek type coach or someone else who DOES have previous experience) to save some coin, you are talking about upping an inexperienced guy with a short mediocre or worse track record to save a few bucks before he has even run out his existing contract. does snyder ring any bells? am i willing to spend a little more to let him work over his last year/s and make a real informed decision on his whole body of work up to that time? yes i am. if i want to keep him happy and feel there is some pressure to do so i give him BONUS money those year/s he deserves it. that way i am not tied to 2-4 years of dead money if it turns out he was having a fluke of a career to that point. i pay market value for a proven commodity and don't try to cut a fat hog in the arse by pinching pennies!! QUOTE in 2004, one year longer than we should have kept jauron (again so we don't pay a coach who isn't here) we shop around for that clown sabin at LSU, who everyone is drooling over, but decide we don't want to pay him as much as he wants. again we settle for 2nd or 3rd best when we hire smith. Again w/ the selective memory. Pretty much every report I recall said Saban was looking for a boat load of personnel power, power usually the GM employs. I recall the sort of money we were talking about, and it was FAR from cheap. I remember that deal dying mainly due to Saban making the power play, and Angelo not wanting to give up the power he had. He dealt w/ the power struggles w/ Jauron, and didn't want to go through it again. END QUOTE hmmm.. i seem to remember it somewhat differently. must be my "selective memory" block. first of all saben was looking for a major payday. you say you recall the money we were talking about. so what was it? how did it compare to his salary at LSU? what power/struggles did saben want that you somehow know angie didn't want to go through again besides drafting personel? list them. saben was already getting paid real good money from LSU so what's the incentive to leave? MORE MONEY! the reason i remember was that we wouldn't/didn't offer that big incentive payday to dig him out of there. yes he did want power but do you seriously think that couldn't have been negotiated with our franchise if the money was BIG enough to lure him into the nfl? QUOTE hmmm, not cheap? No, it wasn't cheap. It was about so much more then money, but because you have it in your head the team is cheap, that is the only way you know how to look at things. That is about the only way to explain how a team can fork over a big extension, and you rationalize it by saying it would cost more later. END QUOTE the only way i know how to look at things? that is truely laughable. so a team signing a coach to an extension, if it looks like he MAY succeed, to beat the cost of what his fair market value would be when his contract came due is in itself not cheap. stupid maybe but not cheap. when it becomes cheap is when that coach is signed to that extension to save that money you are talking about and even AFTER he has failed you still employ him because OF the guaranteed extension you signed him TO. QUOTE other than building the new training facilities what has the ownership spent money on? the stadium is not theirs plus they have greatly increased their seating income. the gm replaced mikey so the salary is probably comperable. so where are they spending loads of money that makes you think they are not cheap? First, I would point to the scouting department. Prior to Hatley/Phillips, we had the smallest scouting department in the league. Those two men built up the largest. Second, I would point to signing bonus money. I know your arguments. You believe signing bonuses do not matter because a team can not spend more than the cap, but the simple fact is, you are wrong. In fact, you can and teams do every year. Under Hatley, we began spending bonus dollars like never before. Now, you can easily argue against who we spent it on, but the reality is we began to shell out the coin for bonuses unlike in the past. END QUOTE the scouting department???? you have said yourself in past posts you don't know anything about it other than it 'probably' is larger than it was in the past (which you don't even state or know how FAR in the past that is). if you have any facts as to how many we have added or even have, then post it. if you have any facts how much we pay them then post it. if you have any facts even on how they delegate these scouts by position or even which side of the ball their duties cover then post it. if you have any facts which schools are targeted by our scouts then post it. you know, unlike you, i can only go by results. the results in my estimation ARE the facts. even if we have a thousand scouts and we end up with the results we have over the last 5+ years then we either don't have enough or we need better scouts. let me ask you... if you were employing scouts to look at offensive players we end up drafting in chicago, how much do you think they are worth? how much would YOU pay them? would you maybe look for either better scouts or more of them or just keep the staus-quo and accept the CRAP we draft? QUOTE I'm sorry, but do you watch the draft, or follow other teams. How many teams do you think take a player 5 or 10 spots higher than where they think they will be drafted? If a team thinks a player will fall in the draft, they trade down. You argue it is about money, and that is all, but it is also about getting extra picks, and still getting the guy you want. I remember that year Pepper was drafted. It shocked everyone Minny took him when they had Brad Johnson coming off a very good year. By your logic, we should have stayed at #4 and taken Rex if that is who we liked, right? END QUOTE do i watch the draft? yes and obviously closer than some. so let's see... how many teams take a player 5-10 spots higher than where they THINK they will be drafted? how about at least ONE? how bout at least ONE that takes players ROUNDS before they are projected to go? uhhhh maybe like chicago? yes i do argue at least SOME of it is about money. i have watched this team draft players since it was first aired on tv. and YES i have seen the bears call a player prior to picking him and ask if he will sign for X amount of money before they pick him and at times someone not projected to go in that spot simply to save money. speaking of pepper and grossman as you say... i WOULD have stayed at #7 and picked pepper IF i thought he was the best qb left on the board and i needed the best qb to play in chicago for 10 years AND he projected as that quality qb. if i thought grossman was a special qb that could lead this franchise for 10+ years then YES i would have picked him at #4. saying that, i think the consensus was that leftwich at the time was certainly a better prospect yet we decided to go with a cheaper model. i will say this... being in the spot to pick at #4 does not come around for chicago that often (or maybe it does more than i wish?). it was yet another year we needed a qb badly. a year we had a very high draft pick. it most importantly was a year with a real #1 qb prospect in palmer. THAT was the one time to really go for that homerun swing and move up at whatever the cost to pick up carson palmer at the #1 overall. it would have hurt some but the rewards for that chance at the best project out there in the last few years would have been worth that risk and being only THREE spots up wouldn't have been devastating like moving up from the bottom in given draft picks. no guts no glory. it's one thing being causious and another being afraid. so instead we get haynes and grossman. QUOTE "i also have to ask.... if we had a real management system in place, including gm, scouts and talent evaluators, who knew jack about offense and especially about qb's, would we have chosen this "most ready to start" qb in the first place?" But this is not about money. We do have a GM and large scouting department. You can argue, and I will do so w/ you, they suck, but that is not a money issue. END QUOTE how can you say that with any authority? do you really think this organization is completely stupid? dumb i will grant you, but THAT stupid that they don't realize we haven't had an offense in chicago in 50 years??? they would have to have lived on mars. if half the fans in chicago can give you this answer as to how to GET a better offense don't you really think they know this? lets go back to your corporate scenario... if you owned a corp and 45 of the last FIFTY YEARS one half of your company was running in the red wouldn't you, or even the mccaskey's, either figure it out themselves something just 'ain't' right or HIRE someone else to figure out why this kept happening? they KNOW what the problem is. they are NOT drafting quality offensive players and haven't since jim finks left. they certainly have not over the last 10 years!! ask any other owner, ask any nfl expert. ask any knowledgable fan how you get quality players in the nfl. you scout them with good personel. you hire someone to evaluate what they are giving you and draft those players. if they keep failing to give you quality information on who to draft year after year it would be insane to keep them on staff don't you think? you hire either more if there is not enough quality info coming in or you fire and hire new ones. you hire quantity AND quality at least until you get on your feet. this stuff is NOT rocket science. QUOTE "to top this off, which of our coaches would you have chosen for ANY input on drafting a qb? crowton? jauron? shoop-a-doop? none of them had ANY nfl offensive experience worth mentioning. also, who in this entire organization was qualified to not only evaluate mcnown, but actually coach him?" First, I would point out that Shoop was a QB coach. Second, w/o trying to get into each and every assistant coach on the team, how does this help your argument we are cheap. I do not like the coaches we have hired, but that is not a 'cheap' issue, but a decision making one. END QUOTE if shoop is hired to be your qb coach don't you think this idiot should know something about what makes a quality qb and has input? if you don't think he does then you hired the wrong man, which turned out to be the case again. same goes for crowton. so for X's sake hire someone who does know about it like a bill walsh or somebody who does have a good record picking and grooming qbs in the nfl. QUOTE One, most believed our draft pick at #4 would have been the DT Robertson, not Leftwhich, who many fans wanted but I recall little to indicate our staff was high on him. Two, as I recall, it was Rex all along our staff liked, and thus we traded down rather take him at #4. I do not get your argument. If our staff liked Rex over Leftwhich, is it your argument we should have taken Rex at #4 just to prove we are not cheap. Yea, that would have made our team look so much better. END QUOTE sure most believed our #4 pick would be a DT. why would we think our fearless leaders would grow some stones and go for the pick that we not only needed most but would help this team more than any pick in the last 25 years in carson palmer? this when we had the pick and the need to get it done. as far as the staff saying it was rex they liked all along... what else would they say after he was drafted? if our #1 need was for a franchise qb and especially grossman, why take a chance he would be gone FIVE picks later and choose a DE instead ahead of him even after you traded down once? in my estimation you either feel he is a franchise qb or you don't. they obviously didn't TWICE. so why not really make that extra effort and move up to get the one that is? because it's pure fear that stays the hand. fear of making a career decision that will cost a lot of money. QUOTE As for moving up to get Palmer being too expensive, yes, it is. Not so much due to money but picks. Cincy was asking for the moon to move down, and for a struggling team w/ so many needs, it just didn't make sense to give up so many picks. END QUOTE if we gave up our first that year and some combination of that year and the next to me it's worth it even if we gave up that first the following year. to be honest... palmer looked to be the best prospect since payton manning at the #1 overall spot. certainly better than his brother. how much is it worth to get a possible 10 year franchise qb in chicago? you say it's not worth giving up that many picks with a struggling team. so i have to ask, (considering we will never know as we have never done it and we just continue to struggle decade, after decade, after decade with the same type of afterthoughts at the most important position in football) how much is it worth to you? QUOTE "another miscue: we SHOULD have gotten 29 year old FA drew bledsoe the previous year, 2002, when he was a free agent but instead we went with a B.U. in the cheaper miller." Yea, and the 2001 season Miller had for us had NOTHING to do w/ it. END QUOTE which part of millers (15 total games started in his career) 2001 rankings of 24th in passing yds; 12th in TD's; 13th in INT's; and 19th in net passing yds do you think would pre-empt you from aquiring a 29 year old all-pro, pro-bowl quarterback in free agency? QUOTE "mirer? this was one of the stupidest decisions in this entire franchises history. again this came about by not having any personel with any clue about offensive talent. we relied exclusively on a DC turned HC in wanny. to trade that high of a draft pick for mirer who was NOT even a starter on his own team was ludicrous. if we had any offensive evaluation personel besides mikey, they would have certainly put the brakes on that trade. but then personel cost money." Sorry, but you are killing me. We have had a full compliment on the staff. I agree w/ the idea we have needed more offensive backgrounded coaches, but that simply has NOTHING to do w/ being cheap. Is it your argument that an OC costs more than a DC? I don't think so. We spent money, but didn't spend it well. Fine. But it does NOT help your cheap argument at all. END QUOTE are you seriously saying that in 1997 we had a full compliment of offensive personel decision makers? just shout out when you get to their names: ed, tim, patrick, brian or mike mccaskey; ted phillips; rod graves; tim lefevour; ken valdiserri; mark bienvenu; john bostrom; tim bream; fred caito; george chryst; clyde emrich; greg gershuny; doug green; caroline guip; gary haeger; bryan harlan; jeff hay; tony medlin; ken mrock; bryan pett; carl piekarski; dean pope; russ riederer; max siatek; jack tropeter; scott worthem; pro scout - mike mccartney and our massive force of FOUR college scouts - charlie garcia, charlie mackey, bobby riggle, jeff shiver, or gary smith PLUS an unknown cast of thousands. which of this full compliment of offensive oriented staff do you suppose gave the green light on mirer? and finally, yes, hiring coaches with little or no experience to fill your staff is probably not due to any monetary considerations at all. in fact i'm sure they were in the top ten paid coaches at every position. QUOTE "i think to cut this short, all the instances you mention are perfect examples of what you do when you don't have anyone in the entire organization that knows anything about offense and especially about quarterback talent. if you have failed this miserably for 45 of the last 50 years don't you think SOMEONE in management could figure out some changes need to be made in the way we evaluate and choose our qb's?" You act like we have not had OCs or QB coaching on the team. We have had offensive coaches, just not as head coaches. Again, that simply has nothing to do w/ money or being cheap. END QUOTE yet again i will ask you to name a single offensive coach under tenure in chicago that has gone on to even be an nfl OC let alone head coach besides ditka's abramowicz in NO as his OC. why do you think that is? do we go all out to pay someone top dollar to come to chicago and are just too stupid to pick a single good one over last 50 years? forget about head coaches, besides turner (who's only nfl OC experience was IN chicago) have we even ever hired an OC with even OC experience in our history? QUOTE "i just can't believe that to be true.... if our scouts are telling our GM to pick certain players and he keeps picking others that bust, he needs to be fired." This was your response from my comment that scouts can tell Angelo everything, but it is still Angelo's call. A scout does not tell Angelo who do draft. They give reports on prospects, and Angelo takes it from there. END QUOTE so, are you saying then that all of our great scouts have given angie good offensive players to draft but he just doesn't want to listen to them and drafts the dogs? QUOTE "so that leaves us with we don't have a large enough staff to scout offensive players," According to what are you basing this on. Bad decision making does not mean a lack of resources. It may question the ability of those resources, but does not mean resources are lacking. The article talking about the need for QB specializing scouts also flat out says no one in the league has one. So unless your argument is every team is cheap, I do not think this is a money issue. END QUOTE so, in your estimation we have plenty of scouts but they are just stupid. how many years do you believe we should pay stupid scouts? 20 years? 30 years? or do you think we might look for more scouts who aren't as stupid and pay them what they are worth? that way we have the cheaper stupid scouts we can always rely on for bad picks in a pinch and a few good scouts who unfortunately actually cost real money but give us a better offensive selection to draft from. what in gods name ever gave you any idea i think our scouts work for free? cheaper maybe because either they are NOT as good as other scouts for other franchises that draft offense well OR the only other possibility is there just is not ENOUGH of them. so in the last case, open up the purse and freaking hire some more!!!!!!!!!! also i will tell you yet again how many scouts are employed by chicago for college player evaluation that i can account for greg gabriel, and MAYBE 3-4 others that i can't find info about. is that enough? you tell me if you think any of these 4/5 have done a good job offensively evaluating players. and you, just because we hire a gm and pay most of our salary cap out to players now, think it means we are the elite of the nfl spending wise and the only problems we have are from us having hard luck. i ask you this AGAIN... show me where we have spent the money other than player salaries. we paid (estimate) $20 mil in 1997 for new facilities at halas hall. what else? list anything you can and not just this "some people" conspiracy CRAP. prove it with facts that our scouts are paid top dollar. prove it with facts that our scouting staff is large enough. prove it with facts we don't hire qualified staff that are new to that coaching position or 2nd and 3rd rate assistants. show me with facts that we pay them the going rate. i will tell you that i have stated 'cheap' as a real POSSIBILITY for this franchises problems NOT that it is set in stone. maybe i'm wrong and they aren't cheap but then what is the other possibility why we have failed for decades? i can only go by the results i see. if this were a new franchise then ok you get some slack. but this is an 80+ year old franchise. we should know how it's done and be able to do it better. we should know when it's not working and we should know what to do about it. so far over the last 25 years we haven't even come close. so if not enough money in the right places then what? you tell me.

this ALL relates to CHEAP. what other reason would you want to void a contract? i could be wrong, but it still seems to me it was also a matter of money for mcginnis's contract. you could look at it like we got him CHEAP for the first 2 years (as an initial low tender for a 2nd choice unknown) and now even it out with an extension that pays him what he supposedly is worth. how much more would we have had to pay if we had gone to a superbowl this last year and his contract came up? just for curiosities sake, what do other nfl coaches get paid in comparison to his old contract? but.... in all truth the reason why he was not mentioned is that there is not enough time expired to decide if we eat any of his contract IF he fails here and the consequences. one other item... why in the history of the bears have we NEVER hired a head coach with prior head coaching experience? could it be they would want more money than someone who has NO record of experience as a coach in the nfl? it's not like we have a record of winning with these coaches. so why offer a large contract to a tuna or gibbs type coaches when you can hire non-experienced coaches for a pittance? if they don't work out... oh well, try it again. i would be interested to know what other winning franchises have never hired an experienced head coach in their entire history.

well... i have to ask. over the last 10 years you don't think this franchise has gone cheap on their coaching staff? in 1997-98 we kept wanny way past was was even reasonable as our HC. he was a complete failure yet we kept him 2 years longer than was sane. why? because he still had a big hit $ wise if we replaced him. THAT'S cheap. moving on......... in 1999 we lowballed our first choice as HC in mcginnis and lost him as a prospect. THAT'S cheap. phillips then hired jauron after mikey was canned by his own mother. jauron - after one good season, with an anemic offense, and a playoff in-and-out we not only renegotiate jauron's contract but his pitiful OC as well. was this done as an atta-boy or in regards to cheapness? if jauron really turned out to be a perennial contender when his contract DID come due, two seasons from then, it would have cost this franchise a LOT more money than it did re-upping his contract than when it did. the smart move was to wait and see how the next season fared. moving on...................... in 2004, one year longer than we should have kept jauron (again so we don't pay a coach who isn't here) we shop around for that clown sabin at LSU, who everyone is drooling over, but decide we don't want to pay him as much as he wants. again we settle for 2nd or 3rd best when we hire smith. hmmm, not cheap? other than building the new training facilities what has the ownership spent money on? the stadium is not theirs plus they have greatly increased their seating income. the gm replaced mikey so the salary is probably comperable. so where are they spending loads of money that makes you think they are not cheap? we got both mcnown AND grossman after trading down while the most logical first choices were still on the board in culpepper and leftwich. why do you suppose that is? 1st, we traded down in hopes that pepper would still fall to us but we would not have to pay him as a top ten pick (#7) in the lower spot (#12). so we ended up picking mcnuthing because our first choice was gone. i also have to ask.... if we had a real management system in place, including gm, scouts and talent evaluators, who knew jack about offense and especially about qb's, would we have chosen this "most ready to start" qb in the first place? to top this off, which of our coaches would you have chosen for ANY input on drafting a qb? crowton? jauron? shoop-a-doop? none of them had ANY nfl offensive experience worth mentioning. also, who in this entire organization was qualified to not only evaluate mcnown, but actually coach him? a dick jauron quote: "Kordell (Stewart) could be our quarterback for a very long time, but the value in Rex Grossman was there and we couldn't pass it up," Bears coach Dick Jauron said. then our defensive minded gm decides to garner more picks in 2003 and pass up leftwich to get haynes, a total bust, and grossman. the pick was leftwich with the #4 pick but it would have been cheaper to get grossman in the bottom of the draft and a less chance to bust with 2 picks. does this say anything about the ability to evaluate qb talent? in all honesty, THIS was the year to trade up for the #1 spot if possible and get palmer. we instead traded down. costs too much for a #1 overall pick? moving on......... another miscue: we SHOULD have gotten 29 year old FA drew bledsoe the previous year, 2002, when he was a free agent but instead we went with a B.U. in the cheaper miller. mirer? this was one of the stupidest decisions in this entire franchises history. again this came about by not having any personel with any clue about offensive talent. we relied exclusively on a DC turned HC in wanny. to trade that high of a draft pick for mirer who was NOT even a starter on his own team was ludicrous. if we had any offensive evaluation personel besides mikey, they would have certainly put the brakes on that trade. but then personel cost money. i think to cut this short, all the instances you mention are perfect examples of what you do when you don't have anyone in the entire organization that knows anything about offense and especially about quarterback talent. if you have failed this miserably for 45 of the last 50 years don't you think SOMEONE in management could figure out some changes need to be made in the way we evaluate and choose our qb's? i just can't believe that to be true.... if our scouts are telling our GM to pick certain players and he keeps picking others that bust, he needs to be fired. so that leaves us with we don't have a large enough staff to scout offensive players, we don't have the RIGHT scouts to evaluate offensive talent, we don't have the key personel to evaluate what the scouts are saying, plus our coaching staff must be inept or they have no input on draft evaluation, AND we don't have quality personel including specialty coaches to evaluate and train the players CORRECTLY we do get.

this is something i have been asking myself since the 70's... why does the chicago bears field such poor qb's year after year at the most important position in the game? 1. they adhered to the wrong philosophy that defense wins championships. 2) every head coach by the bears, post halas, has been defensively minded. they have NEVER even had an offensive coordinator that was top notch in his field let alone a head coach. if anyone doesn't believe that, name a single offensive coordinator that has gone from the bears to the same position or better on another team . EDIT - i deleted the "not counting ditka". even ditka's hiring of coaches in new orleans didn't take our OC but special teams coach. 3) they were/are cheap. A) the cost of good qb's salaries compared to other players in the nfl was/is huge and they weren't willing to pay it. the philosophy of bear management in the 70's to present (pre-finks and post finks) thinks they can sell enough tickets or fill their coffers by fielding a good defense and rarely worried about the offensive side of the ball or it's consequences. C) the cost of personel including specialized scouts and coaching was more than they were/are willing to pay. if you don't know what you are looking at is it surprising you don't pick one who is any good? any other business in the world would hire specialists to find out what is wrong and CORRECT IT if they failed for over 40 years. not us though. this is something gakman, myself and a few others have been yelling for, for years on these boards, that needs to be addressed.

mechanics: to a degree it can be important. although if you have someone who really knows how to coach and/or evaluate qb talent this may not be a serious problem. this should be evaluated by the coaching staff when a draftee is interviewed and observed on film and in tryouts as to whether they believe any problems this player may have could be fixed by coaching or NOT. speed: is not a serious concern for me. physical quickness would be more what i would look for. i don't especially need a qb as a running threat but would prefer one who has enough quickness to pickup at least short yardage when needed and avoid sacks by moving in and out of the pocket. agility: to me this relates to footwork and IS important. especially when moving in and out of the pocket and setting to make his throws, agility is a real consideration. athleticism: only to a degree. i don't particularly need a triathalon type of athlete. quick release: this can be a mental/taught aspect unless there is something physically or mentally wrong with him. big shcool: not a total concern but taken into consideration as to when you really want your qb to start. a smaller school qb 'may' take a bit longer (and maybe not in some instances) to adjust to the speed and complexity of the nfl. again this is an individual mental aspect of each player. as stated.. the physical aspects are important and can't be denied. in my estimation the absolute minimum size for an nfl qb is 6'1". even at 6'1" is pushing it for me in todays nfl. i just would not go for a player that size in the draft unless he was very, very special. the optimum size to me is 6'3" - 6'6". hand size is also an important physical consideration and i agree, arm strength is a very important consideration to determine if a qb can make all the types of throws needed in the nfl and not become physically one dimentional. i have argued this point multiple times. each of these and hundreds more over the years have had the physical requirements but lacked the most important trait of a pro qb, the mental aspect of the pro game. attitude: certainly you don't want some arrogant thug or hostile player that will not fit into your lockerroom. you also want someone who has leadership qualities. intelligence: yes a good qb needs to be able to relate the playbook to game situations but in my estimation the important things any qb that succeeds in the nfl has is the ability dissimilate information quickly and MOST important be able to function in a 3D mental environment. he has to be able to put together in his head in a split second what defense he is seeing and where the defenders will likely be, where to put the ball which relates to where the receiver will be at a given time, the speed of the ball and the height to throw it. THIS is the foundation of touch and accuracy. this is something that can't be determined in an interview or written test and can't be determined in college game film to a finite degree, as to how this player will react to the speed and complexity of the nfl. all you can do is try to determine how mentally nimble a player is in relation to these football aspects and hope. and finally, another very important aspect is coaching. if you have coaches that can teach the pro game and really evaluate what that player is or is not capable of and build a game plan that fits his skill and talent that is a HUGE plus in the developement of quarterbacks. this in MY opinion has been one of the worst attributes of the chicago bears for decades and doesn't appear to have changed. leaf - 6'5" mcnown - 6'1" mirer - 6'3" unitas - 6'1" montana - 6'2" brady - 6'4"

first of all you HAVE to subtract the cap hit from all the players you just released. that is 5.8 million dollars in guaranteed money. you can't just not count it. second... although it might sound nice, do you really believe all these players are going to work for base salary? you really think faneca is going to play for $3mil a year? or briggs play for $3.75 mil a year?? or harris for $5.5 mil? the $11 mil i stated is pretty close to what is left in the polk after you pay the signing bonus money and paying the released players signing bonus money. we still have lost key players and have only $11 mil to pay rookies, new signings to replace what we lost and pay the salaries of briggs, barrien, faneca and harris.

again, i will disagree with your take on this and state that cap is cap is cap and you can't go over the cap whether the owner is rich or not. i understand you saying that an owner can pay out more during a season in amortized amounts over a period of time but in reality this only worked as well as you are stating in the beginning of the changeover from a non-cap to capped league for a few years and that time is over. you are stating amounts in a perfect world where there are no other salary obligations but in reality the previous bonus money and other guaranteed money is coming due year after year for multiple players you signed in the past and you DON'T have some magic amount you can still spend because you are rich. the amortized bonus money can ONLY be extended for a maximum of 6 years so at the most, you can spend POSSIBLY somewhat more in a very limited to non-existant amount of time and eventually it all gets paid back. so no matter how you cut it you can only spend the caps limited amount which is allotted by the league from revenues and nothing more for player salaries.

you may be cutting this a bit thin don't ya think?? ayanbadejo - $ 599,320 barrian - $ 1,022,680 briggs - $ 7,206,000 grossman - $ 2,492,300 miller - $ 4,704,560 walker - $ 1,800,000 r. brown - $ 2,204,320 moose - $ 3,119,080 TOTAL - $23,148,260 subtract accelerated pro-rated signing bonus's miller - $2,400,000 - (2 years at $1,200,000 per year) moose - $3,000,000 - 3 years at $1,000,000 per year) walker - $400,000 - (4 years at $100,000 per year) TOTAL SAVINGS - $17,348,260 IF each of these players signing bonus was set at the MAXIMUM amortization of 6 years (which is unlikely) here is what it costs... Berrian ($15m) $2.5 mil SB per season Briggs ($20m) $3.33 mil SB per season Harris ($30m) $5.00 mil SB per season Faneca ($15m) $2.5 mil SB per season TOTAL - $13.33 mil SB per season. (this accounts no money for base salary or other incentives. any guess as to what that might be?) that means there is a $4,018,260 savings not counting salary or incentives of your new players. 2007 salary cap $109,000,000 2008 salary cap $116,000,000 this equals approximately a $7,000,000 increase in the salary cap from 2007 added to our $4,018,260 savings gives us a surplus of about $11 mil. without including ANY amount for these new contract salaries for players you just signed or ANY money allotted to rookies, we have a difference of about $11 mil. in our 2008 season. PLUS... we have lost at LEAST our #2 quarterback, a special teams ace, a right tackle, and our #2 receiver. so i have to ask... is that even possible, let alone easy, to add all these players under the salary cap as you stated and still field a team? i seriously doubt it.

i forgot to add.... we lost both championship games those seasons too but did have a perfect season.

i guess i don't see where the fins are up on the bears if you want bragging rights the bears have had TWO undefeated seasons... 1934 13-0 1942 11-0 where do these fin bums get off like this is the first time in history? do it TWICE, miami, then come back and talk to us.

6'1" is the absolute minimum for an nfl quarterback in my estimation. this minimum size has to come with needed qualifiers to be a successful nfl qb... mainly athleticism. the ability to move out of the pocket, scramble to find open passing lanes and become at LEAST a minor threat to run for first downs. this is one of grossman's major physical downfalls. he has almost no escape abilities. so what happens with a short pocket qb with these traits? the problems we have consistently seen over his tenure in chicago. can lack of size and speed be overcome? i would say 'possible' but in rare instances. using the shotgun a lot more than we have would certainly have helped along with a good running attack. so do we gamble and sign him to another contract? the injury to rex this season was just another nail in the coffin as to durability. as mcmahon proved, even good qb's are not worth it if they are always injured. the only way i would sign grossman is if he signs a very cap friendly contract AND if i thought this coaching staff would give orton a real shot at the starting job. a REAL level playing field to determine our starter. in my opinion griese is not our future qb so he drops to number 3 if we can't cut him and save cap dollars. the problem is, i don't feel this will ever happen. this coaching staff reminds me a lot of past coaching staffs in their loyalty to certain players whether they deserve it or not. maybe too, they will end up on the same scrap heap for it.

it was an individual poster who (i'm guessing) used the NFLP for base information and probably used an eagles cap site to finish it off. after a few hours of searching for the information i posted previouisly, i couldn't find the original forum i posted that info from. it must be located in another dimension or plain of existence. i did run across some info in my searches for that forum post that may or may not interest you. although you probably have most of these i put down the urls in case you are interested. USA today with good stuff - http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...5&year=2007 http://www.thesportjournal.org/2007Journal.../03mirabile.asp http://mysite.verizon.net/nygiantscap/primer.html http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:U1v5Pl...lient=firefox-a NFLPA player search for base salary - http://www.nflpa.org/Resources/ActivePlayerSearch.aspx jags cap guy - http://www1.freewebs.com/jags02/capinfo.htm a pats cap guy - http://www.patscap.com/capsources.html a skins cap info page - http://www.thehogs.net/html/Team/salary.php some team/player breakdowns - http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79257 AMCAP - http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/AmCapNFL/