nfoligno

Agreed, and that is my issue in all this. The whole "putting yourself in a bad situation" is just very questionable IMHO. To read these posts, w/o knowledge of the actual story, you would think he were on the Minny Love boat w/ hookers and drugs. To read these posts, you would think he was in a situation where people were breaking the law or something. I have thrown this out before, but I consider this a valid example. What if Benson were out at dinner w/ his mom and some friends. At dinner, he has a beer or maybe a glass of wine. According to some on this board, he would be putting himself in a bad situation, as he would be out in public (he should have just had dinner at home) and had a drink (he should have simply drank a shirly temple). The whole idea that a player should not be allowed to go out in public and enjoy himself is a little out there IMHO. Unless evidence comes forward that Benson were drunk and intended to drive the boat, rather than allow his mom or a sober individual to do so, is a bit off to me. Since when did a man have to check his rights at the front door, simply because he signs a deal w/ a pro team.

No. It appears that Mad believes that since Benson is a pro athlete, he does not have the right to own a boat and use it on a public lake. He should have simply invited guests to his house for a pool party, though also making sure none had cameras. Is that about right Madman?

77 in a 45? Sounds about right. That's not how ya'll drive up there? Down here, speed limits are more of a suggestion. We suggest you drive this speed, but feel free to go as fast as your car can take you. School zones are the exception.

Re: Hester: Because he's still unreliable and unproven. Of course, so was Bradley, she-devil WR of the Midwest. My point is not that Hester is proven. I have argued much the opposite. Point of the question was what is the difference whether your #1 or your slot receiver is your downfield threat? I do not see Hester as a #1, but I do believe he can play from the slot, which would seem to give you what you want. No, he isn't proven, but lets not pretend there was much by way of proven speed threads available this year. If we have someone coming up through the ranks who can get the job done, as you suggest, Bennett maybe, who knows? But my fear is we had Berrian and Moose last season and basically nothing else. Now they're gone and the one girlie-man we'd hung our hat on has sprained vaginal muscles. One, I would argue the loss of Moose is in itself a gain. And replacing him w/ Booker is only a greater gain. Two, Berrian was good, but lets not make him out to be more than he was. We can talk day and night about how bad our offense was last year, but if Berrian would have learned how to run his routes, which freaking direction to turn, and how to catch the damn ball, might our offense not have been a touch better? Berrian was the best WR we had, but that is like my complimenting you as being the tallest man in a room full of midgets. Berrian was NOT worth the money he got, and I have no issue w/ our letting him go. No, we did not bring in a player to replace him, but who should we have added. I do not recall many #1s w/ speed available on the market. This was not even a good draft for elite #1 WR prospects. Still, I would rather do w/o for a year and seek a #1 in a better (hopefully) market next year than settle on Berrian w/ an over-valued long term contract. Wasn't that the poor thinking that got us stuck w/ Moose? Actually, you aren't really disagreeing in a big way. You agree with me that great WR play can open up the ground game more than vis versa. You aren't as much fun to fight with anymore. Have you been eating the same cereal as Mark Bradley, wonder-pussy? I'm not disagreeing w/ you in a big way because you are finally seeing how weak of a GM Angela is. It took year for me to bring you to my side, but it appears the transition is near complete, thus why our argument is on technicalities (must our deep threat be from the #1 WR or can it be from the #3). Soon the transition will be complete. What else is new? Well, at least we have a Superbowl loss to be happy about... New? SB loss? Um, have you been asleep at the wheel for a year? The loss was about 15 months ago, and hardly new. Damn, when you take a nap, you really take a nap.

Bears one of the biggest cheaters ever? Ditka talked about this, and I have heard it elsewhere, but Halas was also talked about as one of the biggest spy enabling coaches ever. I found this article from 1967 which is freaking great. The article is long, but I swear worth it for the stories. Talk of actually bugging offices and phones, employing spies, reserving dollars in yearly budges for spies, etc. Great stuff, and plenty about Halas, Allan, Davis and others. http://www.thesportgallery.com/sport-stori...aug-nflspy.html Spying in Pro Football Here is an inside look at The Men From F.O.O.T.B.A.L.L. and how they obtain opponent information -- by a man who once played undercover agent By Lee Grosscup, SPORT, August 1967 At a time when college professors, union leaders, and possibly even your local playground directors are working for the CIA, it is no longer shocking to find spying going on anywhere. (This writer was once taken aback when he, entered the building in which SPORT is published with an editor who said, "Say hello to the spy," then explained there was a CIA office on the third floor.) However, in professional football, in this age of advanced scouting systems, exchanges of game films, computerized records of other team's frequencies, and files detailing the habits of every opposing player (including what toothpaste, shaving cream and deodorant be uses, even if he doesn't do TV commercials) spying might seem a little silly. Yet it goes on, very much so, as the annual cries of "spy" in both pro football leagues charge. Who are the pro football spies? Well, as one who has performed various spy functions, I can tell you that they come in all shapes and sizes. A team's equipment manager may also be a spy . . . That personable, smiling, obsequious public relations man may be expected to bring back information, about an opponent. . . Or a pro football spy can come in the form of an ex-teammate, ex-coach, a taxi squadder, a scout, a writer or a photographer. Newly acquired players often become spies inadvertently. Before a big game, a player placed on waivers by one team is. often picked up by the opposition for the sole purpose of "picking his brains." Bamboo shoots do not have to be driven under his fingernails to get him to reveal inside information about his former team's current attitude, philosophy, personnel, injuries and individual weaknesses. Such a player is particularly useful in tipping off new team members about special plays such as a fake field goal, double-reverse pass, a tricky punt or kickoff return. unusual screens or draws, or other so-called "gadget plays." In addition to interrogating former players, other football espionage techniques include: Watching practices. . . (Usually requires binoculars, sometimes a love of tree climbing.) Stealing notebooks. . . (One AFL coach, whose autobiography will no doubt be called "The Collector," has allegedly collected a notebook from every other team in the. league.) Bugging. . . Particularly scouting phones, locker rooms, training rooms and meeting rooms. (Most effective, though plantee had best not be caught with his insurance lapsed.) Filming practices. . . Requires a super spy plus special equipment. Spy-messenger . . . On game days this spy is usually disguised as a writer or photographer who snoops on one team and relays information to his employer. (Need a guy who looks like a writer or photographer; that is, disheveled.) Concealing injuries and taxi squad players about to be activated. . . . For obvious reasons. (Have to bar writers from practices, or make the injured players limp like they're healing.) As a former traveler in the NFL and AFL, I was interrogated many times. Each new camp I visited would want to know all about my previous team. (Sometimes my stays had been of such short duration I couldn't tell them.) In 1964 I ended up on the taxi squad of the Oakland Raiders. By then Raider coach and general manager Al Davis, after several years of collecting, had perhaps the greatest group of castoffs ever assembled. Thus Davis got a chance to sort through the brains of a player from almost every team in both leagues, something he does subtly but efficiently. The clinical term for a person with an acute spy fixation is scopophobia. Understandably, Al Davis had scopophobia in 1964. The Raiders were practicing at "Bushrod Elementary School, which had no fences and therefore had to be wide open to the public. Any of countless practice watchers could have been spies. When Davis suspected spies were watching he often put in plays involving 12 men to confuse the spies. I spent many afternoons standing out on the wing as Davis's 12th man, running funny patterns and huddling only when the mood struck me. Before one big game that year, Davis suspected that Kansas City had stationed a spy. in a near-by apartment building to view, or perhaps even film, his practice. Davis ordered his equipment manager, Dick Romanski, to scan the area with binoculars. Midway through practice Romanski spotted another man with binoculars looking down on the practice from the apartment building. Davis sent several "heavies" up to interrogate the spy. But when they arrived, .the woman who owned the apartment building refused to let them in. We spent the rest of the afternoon running bizarre plays from bizarre formations. If the binocular owner was in fact a spy, he had to have filed a bizarre report. Scopophobia becomes so pronounced with some coaches that they would rather not practice at all than take the chance that someone is watching. They fret over passing helicopters and, in the case of lakefront practice fields, boats. Al Sherman of the Giants used to be particularly sensitive about spectators who would watch practice from the elevated Lexington Avenue subway station above Yankee Stadium. Before big games Sherman would often send line coach Ed Kolman up to the station to encourage the visitors to disperse. Kolman was well qualified as a disperser, being a former "Monster of the Midway" under Papa Bear George Halas, the reputed king of NFL espionage coordinators. During one of my taxi-squad seasons, I learned that coaches often make effective use of such people as spies during games. With this particular team my pre-game instructions usually went like this: "Wander down where they're (the other team) warming up and see which runs and passes they are using most," or "Check so and so and see if he's limping," or "You're an old teammate of what's-his-name, talk to him, see how he's feeling." Once during a game, a coach asked me to casually wander over to the other team's bench and check the seriousness of an injury to an opponent's cornerback. "You mean you want me to walk around the track and go right up behind their bench?" "Sure, you can do it . . . just act casual." "How will I get past the cop in the end zone?" "Just walk right by him like you're a writer or something. He won't bother you." So I walked around the track, right by the cop, and edged my way near the injured player. I was dressed in a top coat, hat, dark glasses and carried a rolled up game program. As the doctor moved away from the injured cornerback, I said, "How's the kid, Doc?" "Well, he won't play anymore today." With that piece of news I hurried back to my bench, winking through my shades at the cop. "He's hurt pretty bad,'" I told my coach. "The doc says he won't be back in the second half." "Good work," the coach told me, "that's our game plan for the second half--we'll go right to work on his sub, force one-on-one coverage and burn him." Early in the second half the coach had me make the same trip again to confirm that the player would not return to action that day. Sure enough, the coach concentrated on that sub cornerback, the quarterback burned him and my observation helped us get a tie that day. During the 1966 season there were a number of "spy" charges in both the NFL and AFL. For example, Atlanta coach Norb Hecker accused Ram coach George Allen of interrogating player Bob Jencks for two-and-a-half hours immediately following Jencks' release from the Falcons and just prior to their first game of the season against the Rams. Hecker claimed Jencks had related the entire game plan, which had been finalized the morning of the end-placekicker's release. Allen countered that Jencks "just wandered in (on the Ram practice) from behind a Coke truck." This led a columnist to write a story entitled: "The Spy Who Came in From Behind the Coke Truck." If Hecker's charge were true, Allen would have been wise to hire Jencks as a full-time spy. . . . Speaking from personal experience I can honestly say, that entire game plans are not that easy to remember without a couple of days' study. In the case of Jencks--and in most spy charges--there is usually an element of sour grapes. One seldom hears winning coaches register spy accusations. However, there were grounds for Hecker's fears in the case of Allen, former top assistant to George Halas at Chicago. For years the Bears have been the most enthusiastic proponent of espionage. Halas fumed and even went to court to prevent Allen from becoming head coach of the Rams. As one writer put it: "Halas didn't want to lose his 'super spy.'" One of the first things Allen did when he joined Los Angeles last season was build a bigger fence around the team's practice field and hire a veteran detective, Ed Boynton, to make the Rams spy-proof. Boynton's job was to inspect cracks in the walls and watch for suspicious characters who might be loitering outside the walls, in rest rooms, etc. He was also expected to continually scan the area with binoculars to look for spies in trees, helicopters and so on during practice sessions. When I called the Ram offices to check on the authenticity of Boynton, assistant publicist Jerry Wilcox confirmed that it was all true: "Yeah, he's on the payroll full time. . . Man, that guy sure gets a lot of publicity." The Rams are now so spy conscious that even the owner has trouble getting in to watch practice. A friend of mine, Dan Miller, now an assistant basketball coach at Idaho State College, relates the following: "I was at a Ram practice one day, with proper credentials, of course, and the guy who was watching the gate, a buddy of mine, asked me if I'd take over for him for just a few minutes. He told me not to let anybody in. He was gone longer than I expected. While I'm watching this guy drives up in a shiny Cadillac and wants to get into practice. Naturally I tell him that he can't come in. So I hold this guy up till my buddy gets back. When he returns he says, 'Oh it's all right, Dan, you can let Mr. Reeves in.'" Finally team owner Dan Reeves got in to see the practice." Bear owner George Halas might have applauded such a careful gateman at his practice. To hear rival coaches talk it would seem that Papa George has employed an entire entourage of snoopers for several decades. The Rams are particularly disturbed by Bear habits. Former linebacker Les Richter used to check the dressing room doors for bugging when the Rams played the Bears at Wrigley Field . . . and invariably there was a row of strangers behind the visiting scouting phones. In one LA-Chicago game, Ram coach Bob Waterfield sent in a fake punt-run, a play so secret that it hadn't even been practiced. However, even as the play was being carried onto the field, Halas was dispatching a messenger to instruct his defense to watch for the run. The Bears didn't even put a safetyman back to receive the punt. Was it coincidence, a hunch, or was Waterfield's clip board wired? Today, says a Chicago writer, Halas' passion for CIA stuff has been relegated to keeping injuries secret and guarding the identity of names on his taxi squad. However, rival coaches still fear the wise old man and enforce maximum security measures before every game against the Bears. Of course, like every other team, the Bears are shocked to find anyone who thinks they would resort to spying. I spoke to Fido Murphy, for years Halas' personal talent scout and game scout, whom many people claim should wear a Bear jersey numbered 007. "Oh no, I've never been a spy," Fido said recently. "Halas isn't a spy either. . . but we use guys see. . . like in 1955 I was scouting the Rams for Halas. . . that's when Gillman was head coach for the Rams and Jack Faulkner. was handling the defense . . . they were all zone, but I wanted to make sure. . . so I had this kid watch their practice--he was kind of a hero worshiper. I told him just what to watch for. The Rams were practicing at the old Hollywood Park. This kid hid under the scoreboard, see--he didn't know what time the Rams started practice so he got there early--took his lunch and a thermos of coffee. Turns out he had to stay all day because they didn't start till late afternoon. . . He was so close to the players and coaches that he could hear 'em talkin'. He confirmed that they were still all zone by watching for what I told him. When I was sure they were still all zone, I got together with the offensive coach, Luke Johnsos, and told Luke how he could beat the zone-- Force 'em out of the zone by going to a double-wing set, which would necessitate man-on-man coverage. We killed 'em with it . . . every third-and-long situation we just killed 'em. . . and it was all from the information I gave 'em by us in the spy. "Another time I was on the phones at the Coliseum in the Ram press box, which is a long way from the field, as you know. : . Anyway, they were trapping Ed Sprinkle real bad and I started to explain to our guy on the field what was happening when I heard this tapping noise, so I figured we were being bugged. . . I dropped the phone and took off running. . . By the time I got to the field they had trapped Sprinkle five more times and scored on the damn play. . . but I became the first scout in history to compete in the half-mile run during a football game. . . They didn't hurt us with the trap anymore because I showed Halas what they were doing, but they won the game, 42-38 . . . and all because of that phone business." When I spoke to Al Davis recently about the present status of espionage in the American Football League, he said Kansas City was by far the worst offender. "The Chiefs are the Bears of the AFL," Davis said. "Lamar Hunt has come out publicly and admitted it." "You mean he's admitted he employs full-time spies?" "Yes, he's admitted budgeting for espionage. Of course, if you talk to him, he'll be just like all the rest of 'em--their favorite line is: 'We just don't do those things'--but ask anybody in the league and they'll tell you about Kansas City. Call Don Klosterman in Houston and ask him about the Chiefs." I spoke to Klosterman, a former Chiefs executive who is now general manager of the Oilers. "Oh yeah," Klosterman confirmed, "Kansas City spies, we caught 'em last year when we played them in their Municipal Stadium. See, the benches are on the same side of the field and they had this guy who was supposedly a roving photographer, but he was really a spy. . . He was snooping by our bench. Every time one of our coaches would say something important to one of our players, this guy would run over and relay the information to the Kansas City bench. I'm not makin' this up . . . we've got pictures of it." "So what happened?" "We registered a complaint with the league official. Kansas City got fined for it. That was their second offense with us. We caught 'em during preseason taking pictures of our practices with a Polaroid." The roving photographer-spy in question was a young college student who originally received a Kansas City sideline pass in 1963 as a representative of a local television station in Kansas City. The Miami Dolphins claimed that in one game last season, the youngster visited their bench five times and then rushed over to the Chiefs' bench. After the first four visits, the Chiefs intercepted Dolphin passes. According to one report, the most obvious incident occurred in the second quarter of the Dolphin-Chiefs game. Dolphin coach George Wilson conferred with receiver Bo Roberson and then sent him into the game. Supposedly the "photographer" then sprinted over to the Chief bench and whispered something to an assistant coach. The assistant yelled instructions to the defense which led to a Fred Williamson interception on the next play. The youngster when contacted, denied that he was a spy. He claimed he was a Kansas City gate-crasher who had been caught and was distressed about losing his sideline privileges. I tried to reach Lamar Hunt at his personal office in Dallas, but Lamar was unavailable for comment. Al Davis was the most direct person I interviewed on pro football espionage. "Oh I can't tell you lots of spy stories," Davis said. "But, it's like I told you, you'll never get them confirmed because everybody denies it . . . they all say 'we just don't do those things.' But you can take it from me, they do." Sure enough, he was right. The very next person I interviewed said he didn't believe in spying. "We don't. believe in spying here," Al Davis said. "And Sid Gillman at San Diego (Davis was once a Gillman assistant coach) doesn't do it either, but everybody thinks Sid does. "There have been some funny things happening in our league," Davis continued. "One year Buffalo paid a former Oakland player to scout the Raiders all season. Well, the guy didn't want to rat on his former teammates, but he needed money, see, so he warned his former teammates that he was a spy and everyone just treated him accordingly and he still collected his money from Buffalo. Then there was the famous 'paper cup episode' in 1962." "The what?" "The paper cup episode. . . Oh sure, didn't you hear about that? San Diego caught some Denver spies watching their practice. They were supposedly drinking Cokes out of paper cups, but when they got caught--the cups were empty and there were plays written all over them." Anyone in the espionage business always needs an answer. Probably the classic explanation of activities was made not by a pro football spy but by an LSU coach. He was discovered with a camera in a tree overlooking the Oklahoma practice field before the Sugar Bowl, game in 1950. A policeman was called to the scene. "What are you doing up there?" the cop asked. "Waiting for the Fifth Avenue bus," the coach said.

Another example I recalled from yours. I think it may have been Ditka talking about it. He talked about how you have visiting coordinators up in their boxes, and after games, the home team always makes sure to check the trash because sometimes coaches just throw paper they scribble on away, and they can find gems of info on those sheets. As he explains it, they threw it away, so they can't complain.

Disagree on so many levels. One. if he would have just bought a big pool and invited the fllozies over, this would have been a non-issue. Tell that to Leinart, who had a party at his home, and still caught hell for it. even the notorious partying Cowboys of the 90's were smart enough to set up their "White House Um, the boys of the 90s got into plenty of trouble for their white house, so I am not sure how good of an example this is. If the boys tried to have a white house today, w/ the culture of the NFL and Goddell as commish, Dallas may never win a game due to all the suspended players. Keep is out of sight and out of mind In both your prior two examples, and this statement, I think you are really creating a mis-perception. To compare what Benson did w/ what the cowboys did at the white house is way off. Or to make the out of sight comment really implies he was doing something truly wrong. Your comments in this post would seem like he was out there doing drugs, or some other truly elicit things. This was not the Minny Love Boat. That was not some sinister thing. This was a guy on the boat w/ some friends and family, including his freaking mother. You make it sound like he was engaging in beastiality or something. In no way do I agree w/ the idea that because they are professional athletes, they must go into hiding. You say Benson should not be allowed to go onto the lake w/ his own boat. I guess players should not be allowed to go on ski vacations, or how about beach vacations? Would you argue that if they want to ski they should buy a Wii? Come on. Not in any field (sports, movies, TV, execs, politics) are public figures expected to stay away from the public and hide in their home.

Again, he's outperformed his contract in a big way...we need to rememdy that in my opinion. There are certian things that are legal (ie. he's still under contract), and certain things that are just morally right (getting the man paid for his services!). But it is still a two way street. IMHO, the Bears have already stepped up. Though I have no clue what sort of money they are thinking about, the fact is, they have mentioned Hester as a player they are looking at extending. Further, he is a player w/ two years remaining on his current contract, and the norm is still, for the team and the league, to extend players w/ one year, not two, remaining. So I would argue the bears have already stepped up to a degree simply by entering negotiations w/ two years remaining on his deal. The point is, while you as a fan want him signed at all costs (or nearly), teams have to find that fine line between frugal and Danny Snyder. I would like to extend him and see him in a bear uniform forever, but that doesn't mean we simply give him whatever he wants. He needs to also work w/ the team. IMHO, he should realize the team can have him on the cheap for 2 (maybe 3 due to the CBA), and factor that in negotiations. If he is unwilling to factor such, and continues to simply demand the sky, well then, he can play on the cheap and hope he is still a healthy stud in 3 or 4 years when he can finally be an unrestricted FA.

There is no question there is a great deal of "gamesmenship". Heck, I love to listen to the stories. For me, a key aspect is the commish had just sent teams a letter specifically addressing certain things that would not be allowed, and NE blew that off. Most all of us speed, but if you received notice the police were going to crack down on a certain highway, and you choose to disgregard this and speed anyway, should you cry when you get busted?

While I undersnatd your point...I simply think Hester is far too valuable. He's not Dante Hall. He's not Dave Megget. He's not Deion Sanders. He's Hester, and he's significantly better than all those guys! He gets more TD's than most other teams' WR's or RB's! I agree he is better than those guys, but that does not negate my point. Return men simply do not dominate for a long period of time. In fact, they usually dominate for a very short period of time. Tell me. Do you believe Hester is going to be a returner for the next 5 or 6 years like he is today? I would freaking love that, but history is not on his side. Has there ever been a returner who dominated for such a long stretch? Again, I am sure your argument will come back to his being the best, and while I agree w/ that, what I question is how long we should expect such a level. He is not just a pro bowler...he is a hall of famer! You keep guys like that happy! I can see waiting...but also, I want a happy camper. He has outperformed his initial contract. He's due some love I think. Hey, I want him happy, but not at all costs. I agree he has outperformed his initial contract, but that does not mean simply shell out to him as if he were an elite WR. You make the argument that he gets more TDs than most other teams WR or RBs. Replace "most" w/ "many" and I agree, but if he is going to demand to be paid as an elite WR, then I simply have to disagree. I would have no issue giving him a little bonus to make him happy (though teams never seem willing to do this) but unless his demands drop, I would rather make him prove himself more as a WR before I pay him like one.

Disagreed. Look, I get it. Hester is an unbelievable return man. But I still think the value, in terms of negotiating a deal, is very up in the air. One of the biggest things holding me back is history. What is the longevity of a return man? Dante Hall was considered an unbelievable return man who could change the game for his team, and forced opponents to kick away from him. While he was good for more than a few, he had about 3 awesome years, and then the decline began. Now I realize Hester is better, but how long should we truly expect Hester to be the game changer he is today. IMHO, history simply does not support the idea of giving a massive contract to a return specialist. So for me, his value (if he wants that big time deal) must also be tied to his ability at a full time position, which appears to be WR. Look, not to be a hard A, but he has absolutely no negotiating power. We own him the next two years, and further, if a new CBA is not agreed on, then we own him a year longer. I would rather wait another year and see if he can play WR. I don't need for him to become an elite WR to get elite WR money, but I do need him to prove he can at least be a #3 WR, in combination to an elite returner, before he gets that elite money.

GREAT point. Your right. The LCRA does not appear to be a Gov't authority. Benson would not have much of a case against the sherrif's office which actually arrested and booked him, but could in fact have a case against the LCRA who pepper sprayed him. W/ that said, my advice to Benson would be to wait, for the following reasons. 1. He doesn't need a distraction, and a civil suit can be a big time distraction. LCRA's attorney's could make his life hell if he tried to bring a suit against them during the season, and since suits often take years, they could really wreak havoc on his career. 2. As mentioned before, I believe the sooner he gets past this issue, the better for him. 3. The statute of limitations on the suit is 2 years. He should wait the max time allowed before filing any suit, if ever. If in two years, his career is done, he may want to then bring the suit, where he could also try to make the argument the "false arrest" caused irreconsilible harm to his career. Not saying this is true, but an argument he could make. If he is playing well in 2 years, then he has no reason to sue the LCRA, as he will not need their money. Point is, he has two years to go after them for money. Right now, I think a lower profile is more valuable.

I think it is a combo of several things. 1. Benson. It starts w/ him. Call it a lack of fire, or whatever, but I do not think he put the effert into the offseason he has this year, and that carried over to the season. 2. Staff asking him to add weight. We have seen it before, but it seems like most times the staff messes w/ a players weight in such a way to alter their playing style, it is a negative thing. Asking Daniels to play light, Alex Brown to play heavier, Benson to play heavier, etc. Asking Benson to play at a heavier weight may not have been a great idea. 3. OL. We have seen AP do well enough behind a solid OL. Last year, the OL stunk, and it showed when Benson, AP or Wolfe were on the field. 4. Offense in general - The offense was just flat out awful, and when combined w/ the above, was a killer. 5. Playcalling. I said it all season, but playcalling was flat out bad, not to mention predictable. Most often, when a team knows you are going to run, it is easier to defend.

So why was the video of Benson being booked released?

If you don't think a couple million dollars is much to gain... Try again. In Texas, there is a law that limits civil suits against the Gov't, and all governmental bodies (which includies the police) to $250k. To break this limit, Benson would have to prove the police agency trained its officers to intentionally exhibit racist acts, which is unlikely. So he would have only about $250k to potentially gain, which I would argue he would lose in PR alone. Or maybe a civil suit is a backup in case he doesn't come back 100% healthy. Lets say we cut him and other teams want to give him peanuts, he can then retire and he could say the officers injured him when they "took his legs out from under him" thus ending his once promising career. Guess when we hear the tape it will tell us a bit more about who's telling the truth. Again, the NFL vet minimum is greater than what he could get in a civil suit against a Texas state (or local) agency.

Agreed. The defense deserves some blame. But I give them a borderline pass because of injuries. Additionally, the Bears' inept offense leads to breakdowns by the defense, IMO. It's both physical exertion and mental exhaustion, knowing that your own team will probably not score over 20. Nonetheless, I'll assign them 25% of the blame. Offense gets a big fat 45%. Bad luck, 10%. Coaching, 20%. I give the defense a greater share of the blame. For me, it comes down to expectations. While some drank the coolaid, I just never had high expectations for the offense. I did think our OL and run game would be better, but just never felt the offense would be that good. So while they were worse than expected, the defense was FAR worse than expected. In numerous games, while some points were scored by special teams, the point is points were scored. If heading into the season you were told the defense would be given a 16, 20 or 27 point cussion, I think you would have expected more wins. And yes, I know we had injuries, and while I know that hurt, it still comes back to talent on the field. We ranked 28th in total defense. Consider some of the defenses ahead of us: Cincy, NO, Houston, SF, Mia, Den, StL, NYJ. Even w/ our injuries, are you telling me we had less talent on the field than those teams, not to mention others? Even w/ all our injuries, we still had more talent that a lot of teams who played far better. Now consider offense. Take a look at the players we had on offense, and compare them against other teams. Talent wise, our offense deserved to rank around the bottom of the league. That is the difference to me. Our talent was never that good on offense. Fans drank the koolaid, but few outside the fan base felt the talent was there. On defense? C'mon man. You can't pin as much of it on the D as you try to. First of all, the initial touchdown only happend in the fourth because the Lions were on the doorstep when the 3rd ended (1). Griese gives up 7 (2). Then Devin Hester returns the kick for a touchdown. That gives the D no time to rest. Then Detroit marches for 7 (3). Next, wouldn't you know it, the Bears' O is three and out (no time to rest for the D). Detroit marches again (4). Then, thankfully, the Bears do something on offense and get a touchdown back. Of course, they are too far behind and have to kick the onside kick, which gets returned for a touchdown (5). So, sure, they didn't play well on D, but there were only two TD drives given up in the fourth. Did you know we actually won TOP in that game? I guess I see the game a bit different: (1) Back and forth in the 3rd quarter, but then we have consecutative drives finished off w/ FGs to take a 13 to 3 lead. (2) Then Det gets the ball the 30, and goes 70 for a TD to put themselves w/ 3. (3) After picking up a 1st down, Griese tosses a pick/6, but then Hester takes the kickoff for 6. Defense has a couple minutes, not to mention several TV timeouts due to multiple scores, to rest on the sideline. (4) Rest or no rest, it doesn't matter. Defense gives up an 80 yard drive for a TD. (5) Bears go three and out, and D takes the field, only to give up another TD, but to me, that is not excuse. Until the 4th, we were winning the TOP by quite a bit. Also, the reason the D was tired was because THEY could not get off the field as they were allowing long drives. Look, I am not saying the offense was w/o fault here, but the OFFENSE score 20, which should have been enough against this team. Not much to say about this other than the fact that I, and I'm sure many on this board, were screaming at the TV while watching this game. This was a defensive breakdown, but I put more of the blame on the coach than anything. How the hell someone doesn't stack the box against a one-dimensional team is beyond me. The Bears should have been playing with 9 in the box the entire second half. The cover-2 and the coaching got exposed. No argument, but understand. When I criticize the defense, it isn't necessarily a simple criticism of the players. To me, Babich was about as key in our losing season as any one other person. When I criticize the defense, I am in large part criticizing Babich. The Bears D while in the cover 2 has always had problems against the shifty type RBs and WRs. It just so happens that Morris is one of those RBs and Engram is one of those WRs. Furthermore, for some reason the cover-2, or our coaches, don't believe in bump-and-run coverage, even when the WR is slow as hell (i.e. Engram). This was also the game in which Holmgren infamously outcoached the Bears' coaches in every single way, punctuating it with the 4th down play that made the Bears look stupid. They should have done better, but Seattle is a good team and unless the Bears' coaching has an equal game, the injuries on D will be exposed. And they were. I am not sure how good of a team seattle was, particularly at this point w/ numerous injuries. I agree w/ the issues for the cover two, but that is part of my point. In the prior season, I think Chico mixes up our defense, and we play this team better, as we would have Minny. Ripping the D is as much about scheme and coaching as the players. Actually, more so. I agree that the D has to play better against backups. However, the first Washington TD was a direct result of a gimme INT by Griese. And this is the game in which the Bears' coaches or QB (Griese) simply refused to go down field and exploit any kind of possible explosive offense. It was a dink and dunk game that should have had the Bears with many more points. I think one of the announcers, maybe a commentator afterwards, said something to the effect of, "The Bears played cowardly on offense today. The simply wouldn't take a chance." I will not argue the Bears O didn't take risk, but as said at the start, the bears offense was far from loaded w/ quality. I think expecting too much from the bears O is a bit off. Even then, w/ that conservative O: (a) we won TOP by 31-29, so the D had time to rest (2) the D allowed to weak-A QBs in Collins and Campbell to throw for 25 of 36 for 314, 2 TDs and no picks. Look again and the names and stats, © down 17-13 in the 4th, we needed a stop, and yet the D allowed a 70 yard, 4 minuted drive for a TD that all but sinched it. Simply put, the D went to sleep in this one. I am not "just" ripping the D. O sucked plenty. But I just question expectations for the O being high going into the season, while the expectations for the D were sky high. All the defensive injuries would explain the D going from elite to average, but not elite to bottom 4. You said to start this that if the O was better, we would have won a few more games. My argument is that if the players on D played to expectations, we would have won more games. If that front 7 that looked so great played just good, we would have won more.

WHAT! Oh yeah, wait a second, Grossman NEVER hit Berrian deep. I forgot. PUUUUUUUUHHHHHH LEAAAAAAASE! How often? What I recall was a lot of Berrian running deep patterns, and before he ever turned his head, Rex kissing daisies. Point isn't that Rex can't throw deep, but that the opportunities were not there too often. IMHO, a WR that simply can get open would be a greater asset than simply replacing Berrian w/ another speed threat. I agree. He's a good #2 if we have a solid #1 who can stretch the field. If not, the lanes will be jammed and he'll get little. In an ideal world, I agree. But I simply do not believe a #1 (or #2) must be a speed threat. I do not believe your starter has to be a speed demon/field stretcher. There is PLENTY of field for two solid receivers to work. Sure, a speed threat is great, but until I see our OL sustain their block for more than a 2 count, it seems like speed is wasted and quick release/seperation is simply a greater asset. Look, I don't know if Hester can play WR at all. I think he can but I'm not sure where exactly he fits in best. I think it's in the slot, put in motion. He can literally end up anywhere on the field using that formation and movement. But that isn't my point, he ain't a #1, so we agree. We need one! Hey, I agree he is not a #1, and further agree we do not have a #1 on the team (though I would throw out Bennett "could" be in time. But if Hester can work out of the slot and get deep, how does that not give a similar effect? If we don't stretch the field, TE, any TE not names Gates, is diminished. We need someone to play the spot. Once again, Bradley has proven himself unworthy of trust, over and over. We can't rely on him to be available and we've NEVER been able to. I've been saying this for a long time. And when have I disagreed? But saying we need one doesn't automatically mean we can get one. I would rather have two solid, non-speed WRs, rather than one solid non-speed and one non-solid speed. That make sense. I don't recall many speed options available this year. But w/ that said, I still do not agree you have to start a speed demon in order to have a good passing attack. Your offense may not score fast, but that does not mean it can't move down the field and score just the same. Lastly, to whoever scolded me above, I'm not really this big a peckerhead. It's just that I appreciate it when the Bears players play like MEN and not women. I've been talking til I'm blue in the face about this sissy Bradley for at least two years now. I really lost my patience with him last season. I pray I'm wrong or that at a minimum the Bears found somebody in the last two draft classes who can play the position. If not, it doesn't matter too much if GrossTon has improved, if the line has improved, if BenTe is a good 1/2 combo at RB, we're DEAD. We can't expect our D and ST to be that dominant this season. The O must contribute. With dog food at WR, we can't succeed. Disagreed in a big way. A solid QB, OL and run game can make average, or even weak, WRs look pretty damn solid. Solid WRs do not often make a weak OL look good, but I would argue the opposite does show through more often. JA, don't let me down, find someone to be our #1 WR! Hey, I agree we need to find a #1 WR. Right now, our best WR is Booker, and I would argue by a long shot. No question we need a #1, though some might argue Bennett is. Me? I would simply tell you to plan to be let down.

but the hearing was moved and he still didn't come. Oddly he hasn't offered an explanation but my guess is that if he were to be honest it would go something like, "I asked for the day off and they gave it to me. I'm going to take it whether I still need it or not." Could be wrong. I read he was meeting w/ his attorney. I work in the field of law, and often (very often) hearings are not moved until the day of the hearing, if not after you actually arrive at the hearing itself. Heck, often you sit in a court room half the day and the judge in a break finally informs others w/ planned hearings of the need for a rescheduling. If I had to guess, I would guess they expected the hearing to go forward, and Benson was meeting w/ his attorney in prep for the hearing. Then, whether that morning or at the court itself, the hearing was postponed. At that point, there is not much Benson can do. At best, he could try to get on a flight back to Chicago in time to have dinner w/ players. He was there the following day, and I have heard nothing from the staff to indicate it is an issue, so I am not sure why anyone should make it an issue, especially when the stories today are of what great shape he is in, and how good he looks.

Regarding Harris, whether he is there or not, it appears he is not participating under due to injury issues, or at least that is his position. Of the supposed no shows, the biggest to me is still Hester. IMHO, he is among the top who need to be there to prove himself (as a WR) and not afford the loss of practice time.

I would argue there likely is not much to gain from a civil suit. Benson likely believes that, through the course of the criminal trial/process, the "truth" will come out. When that happens, he will likely feel exonerated. To pursue a civil complain "may" further exonerate him, but would at the same time (a) be a lengthy distraction and ( keep Benson's off-field problems in the news. I think Benson's best option is to find a way, any way, of making the issue go bye bye. Publicity for anything beyond his play on the field is simply not a good thing for him at this point. A civil action serves no purpose other than to keep the issues front page. Consider how Benson is dealing w/ the situation as a whole. He really isn't out there talking about it. He has given his side of it, and provides little more other than to say the truth will eventually come out. Even when the news came out the police have audio but will not release it, you don't hear Benson making an issue of that. He isn't out there on the offensive, but seems to be simply trying to allow his attorneys to "take care of the issue". IMHO, that is the right thing to do. He needs to focus on football, and leave the rest behind.

More on those who missed OTAs Per the Sun times, - Alex Brown was nursing a minor hammy pull. - Bazuin had a wrap on his left knee, and thus injury was his excuse too. Also mentioned is some still wonder if his knee is 100% from previous injuries. - Urlacher is a well known issue. - Harris claims he is still not 100%, or that he has been given clearance to participate fully, though there is some dispute on this. My bet is he is using the prior injury issue as an excuse, while the real reason is the contract squabble. Still nothing on Tillman or Hester. Hester is one I am particularly curious about. If he is skipping OTAs over contract issues, like Urlacher, I think Hester is really screwing up. He wants to be a WR, and wants to be paid like a top end WR, yet has a long way to go in terms of development at WR. Skipping OTAs does nothing to help his development as a WR, or help his position on the depth chart at WR, and thus does little to enhance his argument for a big contract. Showing up at camp and showing what he can do at WR is the best way, IMHO, for him to be paid like he wants.

I understand your logic, but simply disagree. I do not believe it is right that you have to hire a captain anytime you want to take your boat out. Why own a boat if you have to hire a captain, as you can simply rent a boat w/ a captain provided? Trust me on this. If facts come up to support the police version, I will blast Benson, as I did Tank and others. Heck, when the story first broke, I was ripping Benson, but as more and more came out, I began to believe Benson more and the police (actually, wanna-be-police) less. If Benson were not drunk, or close to it, then I simply do not believe he was at fault. Again, to me, this is like going out w/ friends and family for dinner. You should not be epxected to hire a driver simply because you might have a drink or two at dinner. You disagree, and that is fine. We can agree to disagree. I just feel that if Benson's version is correct, then the police were at fault, and Benson should be be ripped when he did nothing wrong. No matter what precautions you take, something can always happen. Benson, again, if you believe him, was responsible and not drunk. His boat met all requirements in terms of the inspection. He was simply not doing anything wrong, and I do not buy the argument he put himself in a questionable situation.

I disagree. He had noted he had been searched 6 times on the lake. He knew he was bound to have his boat checked again (I am not saying this is right - might be a profiling issue). However, if he hired a captain for the boat he would have avoided this problem all together. I understand that, but simply disagree that he put himself in a bad situation. If he were, like Tank, out drinking and busted at 4am while driving, fine. If he were out clubbing late, fine. If he were on the boat and trashed and driving the boat, fine. But right now, it is even questionable whether he were drunk. If he simply had a couple beers, and he and the rest state, I simply do not agree he put himself in a bad situation. If his intention were to be responsible and not be part of the drinking aspect of the party, I simply do not see the problem. It really depends, IMHO, on what story you believe. If you believe the police, and Benson was drunk, then I would tend to agree w/ you. The right thing to do would have been to hire a captain and take himself out of the equation. If you believe Benson though, I simply do not see how he was in the wrong. A similar situation would be going out w/ friends, not on a boat, but to a club or something. If you are going to be drinking and even potentially getting drunk, then you need to hire a limo (they can afford it) or simply use a taxi. If you are going out to dinner w/ friends and family, and have a drink or two while at dinner, are we really going to argue you have to use a taxi or limo?

this seriously will not help our rookie left tackle playing next to a semi-pro scrub. This last point is key. I caught a lot of hell for wanting to spend big bucks on Faneca, and OG, but I felt a player like him could greatly benefit a rookie LT, which I felt was our pick all along. Well, we got our rookie LT, but what have we done to increase the odds of his development? Nothing. As I see it, we have the following options for the LG position. 1) Metcalf - Quite possibly the worst option IMHO. He is, ironically, our most experienced LG on the roster, yet I have to believe also our worst. He has had more than enough opportunities, and has shown little to no improvement in play. After getting yet another shot last year, and losing his job to a swing OT, I am surprised he is even on the roster, much less working w/ the 1st unit. 2) Beekman - This would be great for the team if he stepped up and earned the job. It would be a negative having two OL playing next to each other w/ no starting experience, but if Beekman shows enough development, this could provide the team w/ long term benefits. I have read many times the big issue w/ Beekman last year was strength. Well, he has had PLENTY of time to build up his strength. If he can step up, we could have settled the left side of our OL for years to come, though I think the duo would face early struggles as they get their feet wet. 3) St. Clair - I think this would possibly benefit Williams more than most other options, as he would have a more knowledgable veteran to play next too, yet this is a band-aid. St. Clair can not be considered our long term answer, and starting him this year only means a longer period before we get that solid LG settled in. 4) Adams/Barton/Reed - Basically, see comments on Beekman. Like Beeman, if one of these guys stepped up to take the job, then I see long term benefits, though there would be greater short term struggles, and William's development would not be helped. The key for this option, as well as Beekman, is one steps up to take the job, and is not considered the lesser of evils. 5) Add a FA still on the market, or who is cut due to numbers or something prior to camp. While there may not be great talent available, we are so far from being great at OG, that even a decet OG could be an upgrade, and if we add one w/ starting experienc, again, it could benefit Williams. 6) Move Garza to LG and fill the RG role w/ one of the above. The biggest negative is moving one of the few set positions on the OL. The benefit is Garza could potentially hasten Williams development more than the above options. Further, w/ the RG position sandwiches between Kreutz and Tait, you can likely get away w/ a lesser starter than w/ a rookie LT on one side. While I would love for Beekman, or one of the other young OGs to step up, I think the best option may be to move Garza over, to benefit Williams, and allow one of the young OGs to start and develop between two solid starters on the right side. Next year, we can move the OGs around, or if things workout this year, keep things as is.

Brad Biggs blogs that Mark Bradley had arthroscopic surgery earlier this month. He's questionable for the start of training camp. This makes Brandon Lloyd's acquisition all the more important. He was running with the first team. Personally, I felt all along he would start over Bradley due to experience. Biggs also reports that Dan Bazuin is not at Halas Hall. No word on why yet. In other news: I would really like to know why, as he seems to have a lot to prove, and w/ A.Brown missing, Bazuin would have greater opportunity to play. Danieal Manning is back at saftey. Manning also is lining up at nickel back (not good news for Ricky Manning). Where doesn't this guy line up. CB, FS, SS, nickel. At some point, he needs to find a position he can play, or start practicing his burger flipping. Terrance Metcalf is lining up with the starters at left guard Yuk. If Metcalf is our starting LG, I smell trouble for our QB. Finally, Biggs reports some great news about Cedric Benson. Though Benson claimed he wasn't out of shape last year he says he is 10 pound lighter this year and he looks faster. Recall that Benson chose not to participate in strength and conditioning coach, Rusty Jones' program last year. It appears to have helped him this year. So its only May but it all good. This is great news, as it not only shows he is working on being in shape, but the dropped weight could show some pop in his running. I think people forget that he was considered to have pretty solid speed in college. Unfortunately, David Haugh reports that Benson still doesn't understand that he did anything wrong. He and Jerry Angelo obviously need to get together for a discussion. Benson doesn't appear to me to be th brightest bulb in the box and messages sent through the media are unlkely to arrive in his brain without some striaght talk. I personally agree w/ Benson, and do not see how he put himself in a bad situation, and disagreed w/ Lovie's comments. The Travis County Prosecutors Office has chosen to with hold an audio tape of the Benson arrest from the media. I'm surprised the media hasn't made a bigger deal of this tape. It could go a long way toward showing Benson's guilt or innocence. The media spent too much time blasting Benson, and if the story does turn out to show Benson was not so in the wrong, the media would have to admit it jumped to conclusions. Kevin Mawae and Broncos safety John Lynch are speaking out about the super-sized rookie deals. Mawae is president of the player's union. IMHO, this is huge. Mawae, as the president of the players union, carries a lot of weight. I would love to see a change in the rookie salary struction, and veteran players like him speaking out against the status quo could go a long way toward needed change. Most people don't remember the last time labor trouble loomed in the NFL but history is repeating itself. While the owners for the most part kept their mouths shut and let the people negotiators speak for them both at the negotiating table and in the press (there is a huge fine for speaking out), the players are much harder to control and much more apt to speak their minds. The fact that in this case its the president of the union makes this situation all the worse. I disagree. If this were a player blasting the owners for what they are seeking, it would be one thing, but this is a player who is essentially agreeing with the owners, which could actually mean negotations on this issue may not be as ugly as some might otherwise expect. Some observers claim that Gilligan Benson's absence is no big deal, even in light of his arrest for drunken boating and resisting, because the OTAs are listed as voluntary. Nope. Sorry. Wrong. Nothing in the NFL is voluntary anymore. Listen, these OTAs are as mandatory as Miranda rights. But he had a schedule court hearing, and was there the day after that hearing had been scheduled. I have read where there has never been an issue w/ Benson showing up at OTAs, so his absence on a day when he had a court hearing simply does not seem like a big deal. I said this when the story first broke out. If he missed the next day, it would be a bigger deal, but he did not. He was at Halas the day following his scheduled court hearing, so I simply do not buy that this is a big deal. Instead of attacking Benson for missing the first day, how about the half dozen other players who are still no-shows.