nfoligno

This may have been true in years past, but not so much today w/ Goddell as the Commish, and the rules way of doing things. In past years, Ray Lewis could be on trial for murder, and so long as he avoided jail time, he would face no punishment from the NFL. Players convicted of DWIs, spousal abuse and a long list of other crimes, but avoided jail time, would face no punishment w/ the league. They "may" be a temporary distraction, but that was all. But that was then, and this is now. Now, a player gets into trouble off the field, and faced on the field punishment as well. From a game to a season, players are now being suspended for FAR more than just getting busted for roids. Take Will Allen as an example. He has been busted (I believe) twice for DWIs, and was suspended for such the first couple games last year. If he gets busted for a DWI (or any offense I think) again, I believe he automatically gets a suspension for a year. I don't think you can argue this would have a big effect on the team. You compare these issues to a situation like Urlacher or Briggs. While both are potential distractions, agreed, contract issue fights do not often carry into the season, as very few players carry the fight that far. They say they will, but when push comes to shove, they show up and play. That may not be the case for players today who get into trouble w/ the law, and Goddell may not give them the option.

Honestly, I still wonder today what Enis might have been if he had not blown out his knee. He was just starting to look good his rookie year when he blew out his knee, and never was jack after. After his retirement, I read he basically had a new knee put in, which only speaks to how bad his injury truly was. Some players, like Leaf, simply sucked. Others were busts due to injury, and I simply think you have to look at them a bit different. Columbo could be an example. For us, he was a bust. He never did jack for us, but that was due largely to injury. Now, w/ Dallas, his is healthy and has turned into a solid starting OT.

Agreed. I think the biggest issue for Kreutz is who he is playing w/. Kreutz is the leader on the OL, and I think is expected to compensate for the weaker OGs he has often had to play w/, or at least that is his impression. I think he often tries to compensate, and ends up looking like the fool. W/ that said, there are two areas I do question him. One. Big DT/NTs who are more than just space eaters, but big boys w/ some athleticism seem to give Kreutz fits. At 290, he uses quickness and athleticism more than pure power to beat his man. Problem is when he faces DTs w/ considerable size advantages, who also have some athleticism of their own. He has to really try to get low and use leverage to win the battle, but that also puts him at a disadvantage to quick moves. But if he tries to simply match the quickness, he gets bulled over. There are only a few DTs that fit this description, but on those occasions, he really seems to get exposed. Two. I am not sure how much it has ever been talked about, but I wonder about his calling on the line. I think it is his job to call line audibles and adjustments, as well as spot potential blitzes. As this is such a problem area of ours, should we not be looking at Kreutz as part of the problem? Too many times he blocks left or right after the snap, only to have a LB blitz free up the middle. Kreutz has to be able to recognize that blitzer, and not get out of position.

Only point I have issue w/ is the idea of Hester replacing Berrian. If he steps up and earns the job, great, but I think at this point that is too much to assume. Most mention this simply based on his speed, but as fast as he is, there is simply FAR more to being a deep threat than speed. Also, a decoy is not a decoy unless it is a believable threat. Rex hooked up w/ Berrian numerous times on deep routes, but that did not prevent defenses from stacking the box. It wasn't enough to be a threat. Defenses waited until a consistent deep threat stepped forward, and absent that, they continued to disprespect our passing game. Also, I think we need more than a decoy starting opposite Booker. We need a WR. Stretching the field is great, but so is having a WR that can run routes and catch the ball. I want Hester more involved, but I do not want him starting. And frankly, I think that would hurt him more than help. I think it would put too much pressure on him, and lacking the bit playmaking, would only serve to frustrate and upset him. Also, I wonder how being so soon propelled into a starting role would affect his return ability. I want to see him as our slot WR. From the slot, he can be moved around more and work different areas of the field. Also, as the slot, he would not be the starter and would not have the pressure of a starter.

Agreed 100%. Further, Urlacher's no fool - he will not leave money on the table. He will eventually accept the offer and will be in training camp in July. I wish I had your confidence. My concerns: (a) Often when two sides get into a stubborn war, logic falls by wayside. Too often we have seen this in the NFL. An outsider can look at the situation and use logic, but sometimes those involved are incapable of doing so. ( What if Urlacher knows his injury is worse than what he is letting on. That isn't to say he isn't 100% right now, but if the back injury is in fact chronic, he may know it is likely to continue to be an issue, and if he doesn't cash in now, he may never be able to do so, thus he may be more willing to fight now for the payday before his stock drops further. I do not see Urlacher sitting out the season, but I do feel it is possible he sits out at least a part of camp.

I agree with this. Moose was never the "leader" they wanted while he was here. He was a possession receiver who led the league in drops, ran crappy routes, and threw QB's under the bus for his drops. In my mind, Booker is much better than Moose. Hmmm. A possession receiver that runs weak routes and had trouble catching the ball. How much did we give him? Nevermind. Too much. And please dont give Berrian that much credit. He was a one trick pony who should pay Grossman half of his big salary because if Rex wasn't tossing him perfect longballs that year, he would not have gotten paid this year. Berrian was/is a good receiver. He is not a great receiver, and was over-paid, but its not like he was a bad WR. He was simply inconsistent. I agree he was by in large a one trick pony, but when that one trick is downfield catching, it is a pretty good trick. He had more than just speed. He was good at tracking the ball, which is key for a downfield WR. He was often able to speed up, slow down, or move in a direction, to alter his route for the catch, and key to all this was his ability to get separation downfield. W/ that said, he was also lacking in many areas. While he was able to gain seperation downfield, he was not very good getting sep off the LOS. Thus, unless he was running a deep route, he was often covered. He was also not a very good route runner. He cuts were not sharp, and we saw last year times when he actually broke the wrong way. Ouch! Finally, he stunk is shielding defenders. If he was covered downfield, he didn't use his body very well in a way to shield the DB from the ball, and often allowed the DB to get into just as good of position to make the catch as Berrian. One thing I hate is, Berrian's defeciences also seem to be the same as w/ other receivers of ours, not just this year, but for a while. It has not been often that I felt we had a WR that broke clean off the LOS. Routes are rarely sharp, and shielding always seems to be an issue. Finally, how many WRs have we had that break off their routes and come back to the QB when the QB is in trouble. How often have we seen our QB on his back, and the WR is basically still running his route. This is why I have a huge issue w/ our coaching. When not one, bust most every player shows the same problems, then I feel you have to look at the coaching and development of those players. That is what does scare me about Berrian. If I am right, Berrian has done pretty well based more on pure ability. What happens if he gets good coaching that can better develop him?

I know someone who failed a breathalizer test when he hadn't been drinking. I remember when I took a defensive driving class (after a ticket). The instructor was a former police officer. She flat out told us the breathalizer was imperfect, and that sometimes, other things could set it off. I remember he telling us a story of how a breathmint gave essentially false readings. Now, this was probably 15 years ago, so the breathalizers may have changed quite a bit over time, but I am still not sure how much I would trust them. Also agreed as to how subjective field tests can be. My brother-in-law (a pretty big guy) has passed tests when I know he should have never been driving (I knew he drove after the fact) and other times when people "failed" when they had little to nothing to drink.

Is it time to ressurect my "Bring Back the Honey Bears" campaign? you can always campaign, but IMHO, there is no chance while Virginia is alive.

I don't know. I took it more of a "just in case" situation.

Combine this w/ the story about the other officer. As witnesses tell it, one LCRA officer took Benson to the LCRA boat, while the other stood w/ the rest of Benson's group on his boat. During this time, this other LCRA officer was polite, and asked whether anyone there was okay to pilot the boat, and further, was telling them all not to worry, and everything would be fine. Like you said, it will be interesting whether any of them were deemed capable of driving, and was in fact allowed to do so. Benson was not actually driving when the LCRA boarded the boat, so even if Benson were drunk, if another in the group said they were fine to drive, and were subsequently allowed to do so, then why was Benson's sobriety even an issue?

Booker might or might noot have the savvy that Muhsin Muhammad had but its pretty evident he'll bring a more colming influence to the WR carp. "might or might not have the savvy"? Either you view Moose in a much higher regard than I, or Booker in a much lower. I never saw the savvy from Moose. His routes were never as sharp as I expected. Hands were pathetic. Attitude was poor, as he was happy to throw a QB under the bus. Other than eating up a chunk of cap, I am not sure what positive effect Moose had. Booker? He was a solid leader, as well as receiver, while w/ the bears. He never worked out in Miami, but at the same time, did you ever read about his complaining and making a fuss? He may not be the most physically gifted WR, but savvy is one area I think he has over most. I'm picking a little bit here. Muhammad, yes. But if anyone out there expects Booker to compensate at all for the loss of Berrian, a totally different type of speed player, he or she is dreaming. I think you are reading too much into it. One, what do you expect Lovie to say? We lost our one homerun threat, and now we will suck. The coach is going to have to say something positive. Two. All he said was Booker will help. He didn't say Booker will off-set the loss of Berrian, or replace him. All he said was that after losing both starting WRs, the addition of Booker will help. Do you really not think we are better w/ Booker than w/o him? Three. W/ the above said, I actually do believe the addition of Booker will help offset the loss of Berrian. Before you go nuts, I am not saying Booker will be our downfield or homerun threat. But I do believe that Booker will (1) give us a greater chance to pickup 1st downs, which creates more opportunities for whoever our homerun threat is (2) while I am not saying Booker will draw consistent double teams, I do think he will warrant more attention than Moose did, which again, helps other WRs (3) If Booker can provide a consistent underneath, it give create more opportunities for our downfield WR to run his route, w/o worrying as much about having to cut off his route to help the QB. I do not know how we replace Berrian, though I thought he was a very inconsistent WR. At the same time, I do think Booker does in fact "help" whoever is the WR trying to replace Berrian. Bears LB Lance Briggs continued his campaign to support Brian Urlacher in his effort to get paid. Briggs said he doesn't expect to see Urlacher at minicamp this weekend on ESPN's NFL Live. The guess here is that the Tommie Harris negotiation is part of the problem. Once that cap space is gone, maybe the team can come to a conctrete arrangement based upon what's left and Urlacher will settle down and accept the situation. A Devin Hester extension will probably have its effect as well. I personally think the staff simply doesn't want to give a ton of new cash to a player on the wrong side of 30, who is coming off a season w/ a "chronic" injury, that puts his future into greater question. I believe the staff feels they did the right thing by offering Urlacher some new money, and do not appreciate his blowing off their good will. I think this has more to do w/ Urlacher, and less to do w/ other negotiations. I won't even bother to express my surprise that the HC is dealing with cheerleader photoshoots. But that was one of the first things he did? Seriosuly? Tell the truth. If you were in power, wouldn't you want to take a "hands on" role w/ the cheerleaders?

Fun, but not enough personal attack for me:)

It is a sad testiment to the world we live in that a guy can't take his boat onto the lake w/o being questioned. Sorry, but we simply do not see eye to eye on this one. I agree players can do things to try and avoid bad situations. At the same time, I question whether that is what we have here. I simply do not view taking your boat out w/ friends and family to be putting yourself into a compromising situation. While you and others point out that Benson was stopped 6 previous times, I would use that as evidence this scenario should have been fine. He was checked a half dozen times before, and that led to nothing. So I see no reason to believe this time should have been different. I simply believe that while you say he was w/in the law, you believe he was doing something wrong, and I just do not see it that way.

One plus one. Count me in, and I'll add another if possible, as I have a friend who is a bear fan, but not a member on this forum. Avid FF guy though who will not quit on the league. I like the high scoring leagues also. Just to throw it out there, but what about providing draft rules (scoring) prior to the draft for discussion. In my live Dallas league, we were together so long, we saw many scoring changes, and IMHO, discussion from many can lead to some great ideas.

I think his point is specific to your mentioning Enis. Enis was drafted 10 years ago. There is not a single coach I know of on the staff today that was on the staff then. Further, while it is possible there are some scouts, I think it unlikely since all reports talked about how much turnover there was in the scouting department after Angelo took over. So while I agree, and he likely would too, that the track record of the guy who is touting Forte does matter, I think your inclusion of Enis is what threw off your point. W/ a host of offensive busts, I think your point could have been far more valid if you included one of the more recent players, rather than one from 10 years ago.

One. Agreed about how the story has changed, but I think that has part to due to reporters quick to write about the story, w/o the whole story, and many assumptions. When the story first broke, the key was Benson getting arrested for BWI, which led to the "assumption" the boat must have been turned on and being navigated. Then it came out how the boat was not turned on, which I think led many to assume it must have been anchored offshore. Then some witnesses from the boat spoke out, and I think the story became more clear. As I understand it, the boat was not at anchor, and was adrift. The keys were in the ignition, but the boat was not running. They were actually discussing where to have dinner when the police pulled up. Ironically, if the police pulled up a few minutes later, Benson may well have been behind the wheel of an operating boat, and all this probable cause stuff would not be in question. Two. I agree that if the boat was at anchor, it would be open/shut there was no probable cause. I agree that if the boat was being operated, it again, would be open shut, this time that there would be probable cause. And I agree that the boat adrift creates a more gray area. Legally, I am not sure the boat adrift is enough, but at the same time, I know how hard police are trying to crack down on drunk boating, and thus can easily see where this is being allowed. Similar to other DWI laws, it may not be constitutional, but absent the Supreme Court declaring such, laws are created, and thus are until over-turned, the law. Three. I am REALLY interested in the LCRA audio. To me, that is the biggest potential evidence in this matter. Neither side questions the LCRA pulled up for a safety inspection. Neither side questions Benson being escorted to the LCRA boat for a "field sobriety" test. Where the stories begin to differ is how this test went down, and how Benson reacted. Police say Benson not only failed the test, but bombed it. I think I read something to the effect of his not being able to say his ABC's or count. This led the officer to tell Benson he would need to come ashore for further testing, and Benson reacted hostile, which led to the pepper spray. Benson said he passed the test easily, and thus didn't understand the need for further testing. Benson said he never was hostile, and the officer was trigger happy w/ the spray. If the purpose of the audio is evidence in BWI tests, then that piece of evidence should go a long way to reveal (a) how Benson did on the test and ( what sort of reaction/attitude he had w/ the officer. It is still very possible Benson was hammered, his friends are lying for him, and that he was an ass to the LCRA, prompting the spray and later harsh treatment. At the same time, I tend to simply believe Benson's version more due to several questionable parts of this mess of a situation.

C'mon nfo...there is a difference between having a dinner with your mom at a restaurant and enjoying a glass of wine versus a party boat. And there is a difference between the Minny love boat and Benson's situation. I realize you didn't mention Minny, but the way you say "party boat" and they way you seem to allude to Benson doing something wrong ties it in. In nearly every response, you use an illegal action to support your argument against Benson. Below, you mention drugs. In another post, you comment how the Cowboys' of old even were smart enough to have their "white house". In making the case that Benson should have stayed home or avoided the scene, you continually provide examples and analogies of illegal doings, or the impression of illegal doings. You say there is a difference between what Benson did (which I would not label "party boat" and going out to dinner w/ family and friends. I disagree. By your previous logic, if Benson were pulled over and harassed after dinner, you would then argue he should have eaten at home or had rented a limo to avoid putting himself into a bad situation. Pro athletes, just like everyone else, will go out into public for a good time. Whether it is a round of golf, dinner, movie or boating on a lake. Players will go out and have fun, just like you and me (though w/ a bigger budget:)). What is important, IMHO, is the responsibility they show. If Benson did indeed have only a beer or two, so as to be sober to drive, would that not be an act of responsibility. I swear, if this were most any player on the team other than Benson, the above would be talked about. How the player showed responsibility, rather than simply saying he should have never gone to the lake in the first place. It's alike a guy sporting the Greatful Dead sticker on his car...regardless if he's tokin' like Cheech & Chong or not, the cops are going to look at him before they look at the other car with no stickers. I know many cops, and have been on several ride alongs, and have never known a cop to show bias against dead head stickers. Now if the car seems filled w/ smoke................

But do you think you are being realistic? By your logic, a player that signs a pro deal can not go out to dinner. If I understand your reasoning, you would argue he should simply have friends over at his home, rather than go out to dinner. Do you truly believe that? I am sorry, but I think it totally against logic to believe a player should take himself out of public because he signs a deal. Do you think any player follows this logic. I understand that it is wise for a player to limit risk, but IMHO, you take it to another extreme.

Everyone here thinks just because benson (supposedly) wasn't drinking and that it's legal to have beer on a boat that benson showed no bad judgement, but he really did. That is sort of the whole crux of the issue, isn't it? This thread went off a tad on a tangent, but this brings it back to the point. I understand that you can be perfectly within the law, and still show poor judgment. Tank gave a great example of this. W/ in 24 hours of being arrested, Tank goes out to a club late, get into an altercation, and later his friend is shot. What law did Tank break? None that I know of. However, going out drinking, to a club w/ a very questionable reputation, w/in hours of being released from jail, showed VERY poor judgment. So I think most everyone would agree that a player can show poor judgment w/o having to break the law. But I also think many simply question how Benson showed poor judgment. I have seen several make the following comments. (1) Benson should just invite friends to his house and not be out in public. I personally have a huge issue w/ this one. Just because you sign on the dotted line does not mean your life off the fields ends. (2) Benson should have avoided that particular lake because he had been stopped so many times before. My argument against this is two-fold. (a) Hogwash. Even if you feel you are being singled out, I do not believe that is reason for a person to feel forced to avoid the area. Where the heck would we be in terms of civil rights if that ideal were followed? ( He had always been stopped for safety checks, which it appears he always passed. While annoying, I do not see any reason he should have expected those stops to lead to this. In fact, while it may have been an annoyance, at the same time it never created any significant harm, especially not enough to avoid the lake entirely. Do you not think there was beer on the boat the other times? If it was never taken to the next step before, why should he expect it to be later? (3) Benson should have hired a captain. I still have an issue w/ this. If he were planning on really drinking, then I would whole heartedly agree. But if the witnesses are believed, then I do not believe he should have had to hire a captain. I still believe the comparison is Benson going out to dinner. Often at dinner, a person has a drink, maybe two. So does that mean every time a player goes out to dinner, they should hire a limo driver? Again, it goes back to what story you believe, but IMHO, if Benson in fact only had one or two beers, than I would say he showed responsibility in not being part of the party, and was responsible in holding back so he could drive.

Just to throw in a tad, You may have had bad experiences, but LT2 is correct. A noise violation is not "cause" to enter a private property. Further, they have to have a fair bit more to believe there is under age drinking. I would not bash you or your friends for allowing the police in. It is VERY common. In college, we were simply tought what to do. When an officer shows up, you do not simply open the door and stand there. You open the door and immediatly step outside, shutting the door behind you. The police either need your permission to enter, or must come back w/ a search warrant. That is simply the law, but not all adults, much less minors, know and understand the law, and thus the police can easily get away w/ quite a bit. The police will often ask permission to enter in such an intimidating way as to make you believe they have the right and you do not have a choice. You do. Again, I would not fault you or your friends, as not everyone knows and understands the law, but for future reference, simply having a party is not probable cause for the police to enter your home. Next time, open the door, step outside, and shut it behind you. Refuse to give permission, take the noise violation ticket, and when they leave, walk back inside.

First, let me point out I think this whole thing stinks. But w/ that said, one thing I think may be key is Benson's boat was adrift, as opposed to being at anchor. You give the analogy of keys not being in the ignition and the car in park, but that isn't really quite the analogy. I think the police likely did have the right to make sure there was a sober driver. My issues are (1) whether or not they really allowed Benson and opportunity to declare whether another person was able to drive and (2) whether or not Benson was in fact intoxicated and failed the test. According to witnesses, the officer on Benson's boat when Benson was being tested asked other passengers whether any others were capable of driving, so it would appear to me at least one officer was doing the right thing, but then the pepper spray happened, and it went downhill from there.

Paid as a starter. I would say he is paid as a better nickel, but I am not sure I would say as a starter, which I do not think we ever envisioned him being. If the kids step up in camp, great, but (a) I want to see them take the job first and ( last years Harris trade still is felt. We thought we were so deep at S due to all the young prospects, but that simply did not hold true, and we were pretty quickly missing him. I fear the same happening again if we get rid of RMJ too hastily.

Personally, I still wonder if he wouldn't be worth keeping for another year. 1. While Vasher and Tillman are solid starters, but have gone down w/ injuries recently, only proving the need for depth. 2. McBride was solid last year, and while I like him as a starter, playing nickel is different and not all can be great in that regard. I am simply not sure we should assume anything. 3. I really do not want to assume too much w/ DM or the rookie. 4. RMJ is not good as a starter, but I am not sure he has been different from what we thought when we brought him in either. He was a solid nickel and special teams player, which is pretty much what we have gotten. He is not good when in the starting role, but he may well still be a good nickel DB for us. I am not sure there is harm in keeping him for another year until some of our young DBs develop further and step up.

I am not saying a negative thing about Bennett and Monk. I like both, and gave Angie props drafting for each. But it just seems like every year we get caught up in talking about this new young WR or that new young WR. 1999 Bates and Booker were each taken day one, and many had high hopes for each. We actually had some players this year, and this was the year MRob went off for 1,400 yards. Engram also had a big year, and fell just shy of 1,000. Conway contributed, when healthy, in a limited role. But w/ these three, the young never had much of an opportunity. 2000 Dez White was a steal. A late 1st, early 2nd round value that fell to us in the 3rd. He would provide pure speed we simply didn't have, even w/ MRob. He had the downfield ability, but not the hands or tracking ability. Bates and Booker were getting raves, and there were high hopes. I believe this year we also added Kennison to add yet more speed. No one could stop us downfield. 2001 David Terrell, the answer to all our problems. While we drafted other WRs w/ potential, here was a true stud. A #1 WR to lead us to the promise land. Also draft Capel late, and he too drew some praise w/ track speed and all. 2002 Jamin Elliot - After spending so many picks on WRs, we sort of took a year off. But heading into camp, there was none the less tons of talk about all the young, developing WRs we had who were ready to break out. But other than Booker, this was a total failure at the WR position. 2003 Wade and Gage came along. Wade would be our new Engram. Gage was that tall WR who could go up and get the ball above smaller DBs. Once again, we were simply loaded w/ young WR talent. From David Terrell ready to step up to the new young talent in Wade and Gage. 2004 Berrian. Once again, we get a solid size WR w/ great deep speed. Another steal. 2005 Bradley was more raw than some other WRs we had drafted, but may have been more gifted than all. 2006 Hester was taken in round 2, and many fans the day of the draft (myself included) expected us to line him up at WR. For some reason, Lovie thought he was a DB. Wow, Berrian, Bradley and Hester. Awesome. 2007 No WR drafted this year, but we took Olsen in the 1st. Further, we were moving Hester to WR, Berrian was going to take that final step, and Bradley was ready to breakout. 2008 Now we have drafted Bennett in the 3rd, and Monk in the 7th. And while I can understand and find it easy to get caught up in the hype, at the same time, the above listed history makes me a bit reserved. I do think Bennett and Monk can be good WRs, but expecting much this year may be too much. If we had an upper tier QB, not to mention offense in general, maybe you could expect a bit more, but to expect a rookie WR to bust out in a situation like ours may be a bit of a reach.

Oh, my young padawan. You show much potential.