nfoligno

Agreed that few FAs are likely looking at Det as a 1st option. IMHO, most players will interview w/ Detroit, if for no other reason than to bump up the offers from other teams. Still, I can see Det making a play for a player like Haynsworth, who is already on record saying he will go to the highest bidder.

Read an article that said our future interest in Lloyd may come down to how much sway Turner has. The impression is Turner may not have much of an issue w/ Lloyd, but Lovie does. So whether or not we make a player for Lloyd may come down to whether or not Turner can convince Lovie he has value for the team. Personally, I think we simply take a pass on him. To me, it just seems like Lovie really soured on him. The article mentions his injury and how long it took him to return from it, also saying most player w/ the same injury would have returned in half the time. Combine that w/ his bonehead comment about not returning before he is 100%, and I just think Lovie is ready to see him leave. Whether or not we keep Booker may, IMHO, come down to what our plans are at the WR position. If we add a veteran in FA, I think Booker is gone. If we add a WR through the draft, I can see the staff keeping Booker. If we add a rookie, our experience level at WR will be very low w/o Booker. I can see us simply letting him walk, but if we have so little at the position, both in talent and experience, I can simply see the staff giving him another year to show he has something left in the tank.

I have no issue simply releasing Booker. At the same time, it just would not shock we if we held on to him until we do something at the position. Lloyd is gone and I think Davis will be viewed as having a reduced role. That means our only current, legit, WRs are Hester and Bennett. If we are looking to draft, rather than sign a veteran, it would not shock me if we held on to Booker to have one experienced WR, despite his bad play last year. As for Tait, I see no reason to expect him to take a paycut. He is in his final year, I believe. As bad as he played last year, I would bet you he would get enough interest in FA to get a deal w/ a signing bonus, and he would likely be fine forcing the team to cut him, and getting new money, rather than accepting a cut in pay.

Agreed w/ both of you. While teams may be loaded w/ cap space, most teams owners are also dealing w/ harsh financial times, and thus may not be as willing to fork over the massive bonus dollars. You use up your cap space w/o giving up a ton of upfront bonus money to a player. There will be some teams out there still willing to fork over the cash upfront, but I think the market may be lower than players would like, and deals simply may not be as massive as some think. Also, as already said, we have $20m (or so) in space, but also few in-house FAs to sign, or players due for an extension, as in the past. That means the entire amount of cap space can be used on FAs. For example, Baltimore has the same amount of cap space as well, but they are a very long list of players hitting the market, including many starters and FAs. They will be hard pressed to bring back a portion of their own players, much less be players in the FA market. A team I am going to be very interested in is Detroit. They have as much as $40m in cap space. They have MANY holes, but I have heard their names mentioned for numerous big name FAs. I read they could make a play for Haynworth, for example, among others. On the other hand, you have to believe the Fords are not exactly wanting to spend massive cash on bonuses right now, so it will be interesting to see how the approach FA.

Not sure if there will be some big day like last year. You mention Lloyd, Mike brown and Rex, but all three are FAs, and thus there is no need for any announcement. Tait and Wale are safe, IMHO, for now at least. If we add a player in FA, or high in the draft, maybe then they are in trouble, but until we make an addition, I think they are fairly safe. Booker is one who might be on the way out, regardless of further additions. Then again, he too may keep his job until we do something at the WR position.

I'm sorry, but regardless of Carr/McCown being re-signed, there are still tons more QBs I would take over Simms. You mentioned Losman, Leftwhich, Ramsey. How about: Garcia - As TB just re-signed McCown, basically a message was sent to Garcia. Old as dirt, but I think Ferrotte and Collins showed older backups are not bad to have. No long term answer, but I would not mind him as a short term backup. Boller - Take him in a minute over Simms. Also, while it may just come down to money, I think you overlook something. Our QB situation is far from stable. Would one of these QBs take a bit less to be Orton's competition/backup, rather than sit behind a more established veteran? I think many would view Chicago as a good opportunity, as history shows backup QBs are (a) popular and ( get an opportunity at some point. You ask if I would take Simms over Hanie and the new guy, or Hanie and a rookie. I refuse to accept that question. Yes, I want a backup w/ more experience, but I refuse to accept the rationale that Simms is the only option. As for your "why the hell not" comment on Simms, I think I have made my case (several times). I think he sucks, and if not for his name, would not be an NFL QB. I swear I would take JT O'Sullivan over Simms. Just because he has experience doesn't mean much. There are plenty of QBs with experience I want no part of.

Honestly, it is a little hard for me. I follow college ball, but nothing like I do the NFL. I know Big 12 teams better simply due to location, and thus have seen quite a bit of Crabtree, and would myself place a very high grade on him. But I really do not know a ton about the elite OTs, nor Stafford. I just wonder though because it doesn't seem like either Stafford or any of the OTs are getting the same sort of hype as others in the past. No question Staffard is the best QB in this class, but would he be considered the #1 QB, much less #1 pick, if this were last year? Ditto w/ the OTs. None seem to be getting that Jake Long or Robert Gallery hype. So while the top QB and OT are great prospects, I just wonder if they are truly franchise all pro prospects, or simply the best this year has to offer. Like I said, I just have not seen them enough to know. Crabtree however would be the #1 prospect at WR most any year, IMHO. The kid is simply that good. You and I agree very much on building through the trenches. We see eye to eye on how much building up the OL can benefit your offense. While I do not often believe a WR can have as much of an impact, I do believe there are exceptions, and feel Crabtree may well be one. For example, take Fitzgerald. Even if you have an average OL and QB, a WR like Fitz can make everything look better. There just are not many like him, but I feel Crabtree will be. Does that mean I would take him over the top QB or OT. No, probably not. I would hate to pass on him, but would kick myself even more for missing out on a franchise QB or OT. But if a poster doesn't believe Stafford or Smith are truly elite franchise prospects, then I can very much understand wanting Crabtree over them.

Sanchez - Hell no. I actually like him as a prospect, but questionable as a top 10, much less #1. Jenkens - No. Still do not believe CB is enough of a value in our scheme to take one here, and further question his value in the top 5, much less #1. Monroe - Nope. To be honest, I do not know as much about these top OTs as I would like, but that is because we have no chance to get them. still, Monroe and Jason Smith seem to be consistently ranked behind Andre Smith, so if we were thinking about an OT, it would seem Andre is the only legit value/choice. So for me, it is really between Stafford, Andre Smith and Crabtree. That's tough. If I only go off what I know and have seen, it would have to be Crabtree. If I go off other's player evaluations, I think it would have to be Andre Smith. I like Stafford, but he wasn't the absolute #1 until Bradford choose to stay in school. Maybe he would have been drafted 1st, but it just doesn't seem like he is as elite of a prospect as other top QBs in previous years. Andre Smith does seem to be getting similar hype as other elite OTs. Further, there are few safer picks than top OL. So give me the stud OT, and I will build around him. I think Crabtree is well worth it, but we the OL so bad, I would simply prefer the OL.

Better w/o the trade option. For a few years now it seems the team w/ the #1 pick wants to move down, but finds no takers. The reality is, w/ the contracts #1 picks are getting now, no one wants the pick unless a truly special players comes along. I mean, how sick is it that a rookie QB can get a bonus equal to Payton Manning, which was considered earth shattering at the time.

Just to throw this out there. Lets say we are using the old scoring system Buchbaum used, which I think went up to as high as 7.0. As I recall, anything 6.5 and up was considered all pro prospect. 6.0 solid to pro bowl. Etc. Anyway, lets say, as a fan, you view Crabtree as a 6.8 grade, while the top QB and top OT are graded out no higher than 6.0. In other words, the top WR is viewed as a once in a lifetime prospect, while the top QB and OT are viewed as good prospects, but far from elite. Anyway, you still go QB and OL. Understand, I am not saying I totally disagree, but at the same time, if you believe one player is "that" much better than others, I think there is a pretty legit argument to take that player. My issue here is, as we just have no shot at any of these players, my knowledge of them is less. I know more about Crabtree as I followed TT quite a bit, but not as much the others. IMHO, Crabtree is in fact a prospect that warrant legit consideration at #1. Not saying Bradford and the OL do not, but I just do not know them well enough. In general, I would agree that if Bradford is a legit franchise QB prospect, then no matter how great that WR looks, you take the QB. But what if you, as the GM, simply feels Bradford is the best of the bunch, and in other years would not be ranked close to top 5? You feel he is a good prospect, but simply not a sure fire franchise prospect? How about Andre Smith. Great OT prospect, but if you questioned is actual value..... I guess that is my point. You make it out like there is just no question you look at the QB 1st, and OL second, and the WR comes well after. I would argue that, while I agree in general on the positions, you have to factor the player evaluations each year. If a person wants Crabtree #1, they likely just do not feel Bradford is all that, and question Smith's value as well.

Not saying anything specific to Huff, but I will say I like the overall situation. Will anyone here argue that Oakland is a dysfunctional organization. They run through coaches like nothing I have seen. Their system/scheme changes w/ the wind. To me, it simply is no surprise when talent fails to develop there. Sure, some do, but I think the situation is simply bad for a kid to step in and develop. Thus, players who appear to be a bust may simply need a new venue. There are other teams who are/were similar. For years, Az actually did bring in talent (lots of high picks) but for whatever reason, talent never reached expectations, and even when they did, still couldn't wait to bolt. Some organizations are simply bad. That doesn't mean you look at everyone they cut, but a player who you maybe liked in the draft, but failed to develop there may still be worth a look.

Actually, the number I wonder about has to do w/ the cap space. I think the $17m hit (or there about) for tagging Peppers is accurate. I know the numbers you provided, but Peppers current contract (as I understand it) makes those numbers moot. I believe a tagged player must make 120% of his prior salary, or the set tag amount, which ever is greater. Peppers currently has a deal earning him big money, and as I understand it, per the 120% rule, he will cost around $17m to tag this coming season, despite what the set tag amount is. Am I explaining this okay? I recall Indy being in a similar situation w/ Manning. I think it was also a reason Walter Jone's tag hit was much higher than the usual tag numbers since he was tagged more than once.

You misunderstand the point. My knock on Simms is not simply about what he did in college. My knock on him is, IMHO, if failures in the NFL seem near identical to his failures in college. Many players have negatives in college, and develop those areas once they enter the NFL. In Simms, I see a player whose negatives today, as a relatively developed NFL player, are no different from his college days. Thus, I have little expectation for him to develop further in this regard. After too many years w/ Rex, I simply do not want another QB who I believe is mentally weak. I do not want another QB who I feel can not handle the pressure of a pass rush, or is slow to read the field. To me, that is what Simms is. Sorry, but I do think the turd that Simms is smells worse than the rest. In the rest, I simply see more potential to develop, where as w/ Simms, I just do not believe he will ever develop in those areas that have held him back. I just do not think he has what it takes upstairs to be an NFL QB, and feel if it were not for his name, he would not be in the NFL at all.

IMO, by the 19th I doubt we'll have much to discuss. My guess is they'll place the tag on Peppers, and there's a decent chance they'll have resigned Gross. I could be wrong, but who knows? Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, but I see absolutely no way they can keep both. Last I heard, they were what, like $10m under the cap. I looks like the only way they keep Peppers is to tag him, which will cost $17m straight up. They will have to cut players or restructure deals to create $7m just for Peppers. That leaves them w/ nadda for Gross, other holes, or even rookies. Frankly, this is also why I am still not sure they tag Peppers, unless the reported numbers are not accurate. Damn this free agent class is weak. Time will tell. There are a number of players due to hit FA who right now have a question mark due to the potential of the tag, but several of those same teams have very interesting choices to me. Peppers or Gross. In St.L, we have often talked about Atogwe, but I have also read St.l is also considering tagging one of their CBs, both of which are UFAs. I think there are some positions that have some intersting players alread, and frankly, think it could be added to w/ cuts, though most cuts will be older veterans. Still, while there is little at positions like FS or WR, there are some other positions that due offer more quantity, like OL and DL.

There is a difference. We do it with a 1st time GM, 1st time HC, 1st time DC and retread OC. It's sad when Turner is your experience. I know the new coaches in Baltimore and Pittsburg have tremendously established front offices to shepard them a little. But you truly feel this is the ownership being cheap? Who made the choices for the assistants. Hey, I too would have liked different staff, but Lovie choose to hire the guys, not ownership. So I just do not see this argument here. Moose? That's cold man. LOL As stated above, I don't mind the 1st time HC, but when you provide him with one of the most inexperienced and lowest paid staffs in th NFL. I have an issue. Again, you make the comment, "provide him w/" as if our assistants were not Lovie's choices, but that just isn't the case. Lovie was surrounded w/ less experience because that is what he wanted. Us old school fans just remember the family being tighter than a well diggers ass. Until they fork out for a big name coach or GM. They'll always be cheap. Remember, there is a fine line between being competitive and being a contender. Last year it cost us a playoff spot. But they had us all hooked until the end$$ Hey, I understand. I am not sure how much more old school you are than I, but I get it. I remember all to well the days of our cheap ownership making a joke of free agency. When FA rolled around, there simply was no question we would have nothing to do w/ the top tier. But that is my point. Once Mikey was kicked out of power, the wallet began to open. Now, not only do we retain our top players, but we go after top players in FA. You make out like our passing on Berrian was all about our being cheap, but come on. We spent big the last couple years. Just because we let a player go, or choose not to go after another player, doesn't mean we are cheap. We spent big on another WR. Money isn't the issue. The problem, IMHO, is bad choices has not fixed our problems, and thus fans can't get past the old beliefs. We have spent big dollars on many players who have simply not worked out. Thus, I think fans tend to too easily forget how much we spent on those players. Take Wale for example. No question we spent big for him, but because he is little more than average, few fans think about our playing him as if he were an elite DE. Just because we let Berrian walk doesn't mean we are cheap.

Isn't that what we likely did w/ one of our assistants? Who was the D assistant that left to work in college? I figured then we told him he was gone, but offered him the opportunity to save face. I think it is more than a conspiracy theory. If he was interviewing for a college HC job, maybe then it would be legit, but if he is making a lateral move to the college ranks, you have to figure it is not being done w/ stability in his current assignment.

I don't doubt that they'll spend money on players. That is the obvious way to invest in the average fan. My concern is support staff. The huge history of 1st time coaches reeks of frugality. Said before and will say again. Take a look around the league and tell me how many of the good teams are led by the 1st time coaches, rather than veteran retreads. No one want to think about it this way, but that is the reality. Most of the big names you talk about are retreads who are available because they failed for another team. In knocking going after the hot assistants, you are in a way advocating going after a veteran retread like Moose over drafting a WR. Consider the SB. Both teams were led by coaches who had no prior HC experience. I just do not understand why so many fans equate this to cheap.

They are going to make more money than they are losing on this...i dont know about you but I barely ever have cash. And if there is an option to use my debit card or take money out of an ATM that charges me 3.00 dollars plus my bank charges me another 2, I am going to use my debit card. How do you figure. Correct me if I am wrong, but the team currently sells out every game. Thus, while it may be easier for the fans, how does it make the team more money when it already maxes out on ticket sales?

Still think the issue is in decisions made v finances. You mention McGinnis v Jauron. There were all sorts of reports at the time, but I do not recall money being an issue. I do recall Mikey having a press conference to announce McGinnis before McGinnis even agreed. According to him, it was then he realized the mistake it would be to work for Mikey, and passed. You talk about Parcells, but again, might he not be more the exception than the rule? Often, the guys who I think you would be referring to (big names) are big names but also failures to an extent. I mean, why are they available? Because they didn't workout for their team. I just understand the philosophy of going after the young hot guy over the bigger name who is available due to not meeting his former teams expectations. Further, on the idea of whether how many other teams seem to have the same philosophy, and whether that matters, or are they too simply cheap. I would say this. If, say, a 1/3 of the league acted this way, I think it would be reasonable to say a 1/3 of the league is simply cheap. But IMHO, the ratio is far far greater. Look at this offseason, as well as last. You had some big names out there, like Cower for example, but who was all the talk about? All the talk was about the hot coordinators. AZ, coming off their SB loss just lost their OC to KC. You talk about Miami getting Parcells, but who did they hire to be their new HC? Take a look around and tell me who all the new head coaches seem to be. You might have the older veteran here and there, but I think the vast majority seem to be the younger, yet to be proven assistants. Finally, you say in both coach and GM we seem cheap. I go back to my original comments. That would be an easy statement in the 90s when we were to cheap to even have a GM, but I would argue that we hired a new GM in similar timing as I said we began to spend money. I just don't see it. I understand that we were a cheap team for so long that it will take even longer to completely change that image, particularly when there are some teams out there like Wash and Dallas which make the entire league look cheap. However, whether you are talking about GM, coaches, players, team employees, training facility, or whatever, it just does not seem our team is as cheap as some want to continue to believe.

The problem is, if you simply write Wolfe off as a potential blocker out of the backfield, why even have him there? Why not just split him out and go w/ an empty backfield. For that matter, why have a RB at all? Why not use an extra WR (that would assume we actually had a WR better at catching the ball than our RB). If you simply write off a RB as being able to block, you make him too predictable. And I have to disagree w/ the idea Wolfe can't block due to his size. Yea, he is small, but also compact. It's not like he is the first small RB to play in the NFL. Would I expect him to stand up a DE? Of coarse not. But I don't think that is the idea. If expected to block, we are talking blitz pickup, which is usually a LB or DB. And even then, you are not talking about standing up the guy, but usually just impeeding his free pass to the QB. If he gets in front of the blitzer and is bowled over, he has still slowed down the rusher, and thus buys the QB an extra second or two, which is key. I think the issue is not nearly as much ability to block a man in front of him, but in blitz recognition. That was Benson's big issue too. Benson was actually a very good blocker against the rusher in front of him. Where Benson failed was in blitz recognition. There would be times he would be on the opposite side of the backfield as the blitz, and far out of position to help the QB. I have no idea, but I would suspect this is the issue more than simply the ability to slow up a blitzer. IMHO, this is another area our staff should really be questioned. For years it seems both our OL and RBs have been weak in blitz recognition. TJ may have been an exception, but he was also developed in two previous locations.

On Wolfe not being good at pass protection...doesn't he have to get on the field to show whether or not he can do it? And if he isn't that good at it how will he get better if he never gets game experience? I keep hearing the same crap from these coaches but at some point it is their responsibility to gives young players some playing time so they can actually learn how to play the game. I'll sign off now because I feel another Bennett rant coming on... Agree and disagree. There are positions where I think a player can get on the field, develop and gain experience, while having a slightly lesser affect on others. For example, your Bennett. As one of 3 likely WRs, not to mention likely 2 or 3 other options (TE/RB/FB), if he struggles, it just means the QB looks in another direction. So a player like Bennett should be able to get onto the field and develolp, and his struggles through such development has a more limited affect on the team as a whole. There are other positions however which, if you throw a guy unready to play onto the field, he may not only hurt the team, but could get players injured. For example, when fans said we should put Chris Williams out there, no matter what, I disagreed. If Williams didn't show enough in practice, just putting him out there could get the QB killed. By that same rationale, a RB that can not show he is capable of blitz pickup or pass protection can not only hurt the team, but get the QB hurt as well. I understand the idea that a player's development is limited w/o game experience, but I still would argue you have to show a basic competence in practice before you deserve to get on the field during games. If Wolfe looks totally inept during practices in pass protection, than I have no problem w/ his not getting on the field during games. Now, w/ that said, whether I believe our staff how on inept he may or may not be in practice is another story.

I've been in this argument before, and point to two owners no one considers cheap. Dan Snyder did it the big dollar way. He went out and paid sick money on a coaching staff. Whether we are talking about Spurrier or Gibbs, he spent big bucks. Further, he paid dang near HC market contracts for assistant coaches. What exactly did all that get him? Then there is Jerry Jones. Anyone calling him cheap? And yet when it comes to his staff, he has for a long time been that way. His best coaching hire was Jimmy Johnson, who was a college ranks guy. When Jimmy was taking up too much of the spotlight, Jerry let him go and replaced him w/ another coaching hire (Switzer). And make no mistake. These were not expensive coaching hires like Spurrier. Yea, he tried to go outside the box w/ Parcells, and that blew up in his face too. Point is, look around the league. Other than Billichek, who is more an exception to all rules, have the best teams been those whose ownership went out and bought the high dollar coaches? I don't think so. We have followed a path very similar to that of many other teams. We have gone after the "hot" coordinators. Even go back to when we first hired Wanny. As I recall, he was the hot coordinator at the time, and I do not think we paid him the minimum either. Jauron was a bit of a botch, but again, was that about money? We went after McGinnis, and Mikey blew that one up, but I don't recall money being the issue. Here is a key for me. When a coach has proven himself, has this team not spent to retain them? Frankly, I would argue it backfired each time, but we paid good market value for Wanny, Jauron and Lovie in extensions. Hell, isn't Lovie now getting like $5m/yr? So to me, it is about philosophy and not money. And I would point out that most teams in the league seem to follow a similar philosophy of going after the hot or well thought of coordinators.

I have plenty of issues w/ the way the team is run and the decisions often made, but frankly, I stopped calling them cheap years ago. For most of the 90s, and obviously earlier, this was a cheap as hell organization. We had an ownership that lacked other business intersts to draw money from, which was more the norm in the NFL. Further, we had an out-dated stadium that lacked luxury boxes, and thus lacked the same level of revenue other teams found. Further still, due to not even owning the stadium, sources of revenue other teams found, the bears did not, like concessions, parking, etc. But even before the new stadium, I saw a change. Basically, it happened when Phillips took over. We talk talk day and night about the decisions themselves, but going back about 10 years ago, I saw the changes begin. That was when we hit FA and immediately signed Phillip Daniels and Thomas Smith. The bonuses given to them at the time were equal to the best in the league, and it marked the first time the team paid those big bonus dollars for a FA. Since then, we have shelled out bonus money as much as most any other NFL team. Again, we can debate all day about who was signed, but that doesn't take away from the fact that we began 10 years ago shelling out money unlike in the past. We are now in a position where, going into FA, I do not feel like the bonus dollars the top FAs demand will prevent us from getting who we want. We may not go after the FAs I want, but I think it is a personnel decision more than a financial one.

Several articles out about how the team is not raising ticket prices this year. Frankly, at first I didn't think much of it. Team not raising ticket prices? Big deal. Then I began to read the articles. - The team, as most, have raised prices each year. Standard cost of living raises basically. This year no such thing though. - City of Chicago's amusement tax will increase from 8 percent to 9 percent. The bears plan to simply eat this increase, rather than pass it along to the fans. - Bears will now accept credit cards for the first time in its history. The team will pay a fee of 2 1/2 percent to credit card companies for every ticket purchased with a credit card. All told, credit card fees could cost the Bears about $750,000. Again, cost will be eaten and not passed along to the fan. - Soldier Field has the smallest capacity in the league, and thus no increase in ticket prices, combined w/ sour economy, means we will feel the lack of a ticket increase more than most. For the record, freaking shocked to read we have the smallest capacity in the league. We just gutted and re-build the freaking stadium. I know a kew was adding more luxury boxes, but I expected the stadium to have greater overall capacity too. - article points out how many teams have been cutting/firing large amounts of personnel to cut on costs. While it is not totally off the table, Phillips says that no cuts have been made, and none are planned, talking about how people are their most valuable resource. - Finally, I would like to point out that we are the only (I think this is still true) team in the league whose ownership's sole revenue is from the team. Other teams have ownership who can tap into their other venture revenues, but ours has only the bears. Point is, our ownership feels the financial hit the team takes more than most, and yet are still making decisions now that puts the financial burden on the team and ownership, not the fans. I am sure some will turn this around and regardless find ways to attack the ownership for it, but I think there is reason to be proud of the Virginia et al right now. As w/ most teams, they can continue to raise ticket prices to push higher cost onto the fans, or save money by firing a ton of their employees. Instead, they are just eating the extra costs, and I think that deserves a bit of a hat tip.

Its fairly funny down hear the hate you hear for Simms. So many Texas fans feel that if not for Mack Brown's insistence on starting the golden boy, they would have won a championship under Major. Those teams were so freaking talented, but their (Simms) inability to beat Oklahoma doomed then each year. Simms is to Texas fans want Grossman is to Bear fans.