nfoligno

I think part of the reason is some have been talked about, while Bazuin seems like new news. Hester - Already known contract issue. Personally, I have a BIG issue w/ his missing camp. While he is proven (understatement alert) as a returner, he is VERY raw as a WR, and if he wants to be paid like an elite WR, he needs to prove himself in that regard. Skipping workouts and practices which give him an opportunity to develop in this regard is a mistake IMHO. Urlacher - Known, discussed, and brow beaten. Alex Brown - Not sure why he is missing, but while you want 100% participation, his absense is less felt than others. Jamar Williams - I would like to know why he is not there. While not a starter, another young player who needs every snap and opportunity to develop. Tillman - I would assume his absence is injury/rehab related. Harris - See Urlacher

Been a long time since seeing one of your rants, and been even longer in arguing against one One. We do not need a deep threat WR IMHO. (a) I am not sure Orton has the arm to utilize him, if Orton starts and ( if Rex starts, I am not sure we have a QB w/ the pocket presense, or the OL to protect, to allow deep patterns. IMHO, more important is simply having WRs get open, whether they are 5, 10 or 15 yards downfield. Two. Time will tell w/ Booker. I think you under-estimate him. He is not a great option as a #1, and is no homerun threat, but he is a great route runner, can get open and catches the damn ball. Those are three areas our WRs have been very lacking in for some time. Booker may not stretch the field, but he should be solid in helping move the chains and bailing out the QB. I can see very high catch totals for Booker, but lower ypc average. Three. No way do I see Hester as our #2 WR, and I am not sure he will even be our #3. I think we will work him into the offense, but I do not see him as an everydown or even consistent contributor. More than last year, but no where close to starting. With Bradley out, assuming he is out, look for Lloyd to start, who I think would have started anyway frankly, and Bennett to be the #3. Four. Maybe this will lead to Olsen having a bigger role. While not a speed demon, he has excellent speed for his position, and can work downfield against LBs and safeties to his advantage.

Ignore this botched post. Rookie mistake.

Normally, I might agree, but I think it is a pretty big deal for Bradley. One thing I believe few remember/realize is that Bradley was FAR from polished coming out of college. He didn't have a ton of playing time in college, and was not even a starter at Oklahoma. When he was in the draft, he was considered a talent, but also considered raw and in need of a lot of developing. That development has already been hindered by the prior injuries, and this one only furthers the problem. So while a knee scope is not normally a real big deal, the loss of practice time is for Bradley.

Well, I understand, but first and foremost, public funds should not be used to build these stadiums. It's really appaling in my opinion. I totally disagree w/ this statement. The city benefits greatly from having a pro sports team, and I see no reason why the city should not help pay the tab. Here in Dallas, this has been a big issue. When Jerry Jones was looking to build a new stadium, he wanted to build a new stadium in Dallas. It was a VERY heated debate, but the mayor at the time was against using public funds/bonds, taxes, to help pay. The Cowboys, and other supporters, provided loads of details on how a pro sports team generates tons of dollars for the city. Hotels, taxi, restaurants, night life, etc. Due to the mayor, Jerry took his team to Arlington, where the Texas Rangers play, and Dallas lost out of a ton of potential revenue. To me, it is no different from everything a city does to attack any big business. When a major company says it is looking to relocate, cities will put together packages w/ loads of incentives and tax breaks to lure that business. Why would a pro sports team be any different?

I believe it depends on where a player is taken in the draft. Players taken at the top of the draft (I think the top 12 or 14 spots) can be signed to longer deals than players taken later in the draft.

But the key is the SB. If Urlacher signed a big deal, and then played like crap, he may be cut, but he would keep the SB. So, IMHO, unless players are forced to give back bonus dollars, they do not have the right to holdout or make demands while under contract.

I have a feeling that at the end of the day, we will see the % change very little, but some of the other things change enough to make owners happier. - I think we will see owner get the ability to get back bonus dollars. That players can get into trouble, get suspended, and yet still be paid is ridiculous. - I think the rookie salary will change. Having top picks in the draft is supposed to be a good thing for teams not doing well, but w/ the sort of money a team has to invest/risk, having a top pick in the draft is no longer the great thing it once was. - I think owners will really try to make life more difficult for players to holdout. We have seen the trend where teams best players holdout, even shortly after getting a new deal, and holding the team hostage. This may tie into the first point, but if a player must give up his bonus money if he holds out, that player may not be so willing to hold teams hostage.

If if and buts were candy and nuts, it would be Christmas all year long. Would a better offense have improved our record last year? Sure. Better luck? Sure. The only issue I have is you do not seem be believe the defense was a big part of the problem last year. You say if our offense were better, we would have won a few more games. Well, how about if our defense didn't suck? Dallas - You mention this game, and it was ugly. Tied 3 all at halftime. We trade TDs in the 3rd, but then our defense falls apart. We give up another TD in the 3rd, and then 17 in the 4th. Yes, 1 TD was an int return, but we still gave up 24 second half points. Det - Offense scored 27 points. Against Detroit, that should have been enough. We had the lead heading into the 4th, then gave up 5 TDs in the 4th quarter. Again, Griese the pick machine was a big part of this, but do no absolve the defense of responsibility. Griese's picks hurt, no question, but we still put up 27 points on the freaking Lions. No excuse for allowing them to score 37. You can place some blame on the O, but they are also why we were in the game. Minny - AP's breakout party. In all, we gave up over 300 yards rushing to Minny, which would be sick if this were college, much less the NFL. The game was close, but that was due to offense and special teams, not defense. Defense is why we lost this game. Sea - We scored 23. Rex had no picks and threw for 266. Benson was solid w/ 89 yards (on only 11 carries) and a score. But the defense allowed 337 and 2 scores for Hassel and a RB named Morris (who) had 87 and a score. Our defense made Hackett and Engram look all pro. Further, facing a team who had a lot of trouble protecting the QB, we were unable to mount much of a pass rush and allowed 30 points. Wash - offense didn't score much, 16 points, but we allowed a bunch of backups kill us on the other side of the ball. Collins and Campbell looked like Farve. Names like Yoder, Sellers and Betts scored against us, while Cooley looked all pro. Yea, you can say the O should have done more, but the defense stunk against a weak team. So I agree if we were better on offense, or in luck, we could have had a couple more wins, but let's be honest. The defense stunk last year, video aside, and was a big reason we lost games as well. As pointed out above, the offense scored enough points that I believe there should have been an expectation to win several games, but it was the defense that lost them. You can chalk it up to injuries, which was a factor, but I still maintain we had enough talent on defense to have faired far better. Take a look at where our defense ranked, and look at some of the defenses rated ahead of us. Even w/ the injuries, can you really say those defense had more talent? Anderson, Brown, Wale, Harris, Urlacher, Briggs, Hunter. That front 7, even w/ the injuries in the secondary, should have been able to do FAR more than they did.

Regarding position coaches, To me, sometimes you have a position of strength, and the position coach gets automatic credit, but I am not sure that is always justified. I believe Urlacher and Briggs would have developed regardless of coaching. On the other hand, I think Williams and Okwo are better players to watch and determine how good our coaching is. How about Leon Joe? That was pure raw talent, but never seemed to develop. W/ regard to safety, I think our coaches have done a solid job. Ignore Brown, who was destined to play. Ignore Archuleta, who was past his prime. Rather, look at all the low round draft choices who has played pretty well. That isn't to say great, but beyond expectations. Mike Green was Mr. Irrelevant, and yet became a starter. I was never a fan of Harris, but he developed far more than expectations. Even look at McGowan, who few would consider more than a special teams potential player, but who has showed quite a bit promise as a S. IMHO, more than any other position, we have seen lesser players rise above expectations. Daniell Manning being a major exception.

No argument he could play now, just where. He would be a great fit in a traditional 4-3 scheme as the MLB. In a cover two defense like ours, I think he could be a great WLB or SLB, but simply question the fit at MLB. That isn't a knock, but simply putting him where he would fit best. The size and speed of the game have changed. While I agree that numerous HOF players of old could still play today, they may simply not fit the same role for every team. Some older LBs may need to play S. Some MLB may need to play SLB. Some RBs may need to be FBs, or visa versa. Some DTs would be DEs. They may still be great players, but simply in different roles.

I'm not publishing my thoughts on a blog and posting it on multiple websites. Holding me to the same standards is ridiculous. I wasn't saying that Thurman DID fall off the wagon, but that it was a possible situation based on his past history in trying to point out that there is possibly more to the story. Ridiculous? I don't think so. The poster threw out his opinion, which seems to be based on a fair degree of logic and reason. He was cut immediately after missing voluntary workout, thus I would argue it is logic to believe (while not necessarily fact) that he was cut for missing the workout, which is against the CBA. You threw out something that is far closer to tabloid, as there was no basis for your comments. Urlacher isn't missing OTAs, he's missing a manditory minicamp over a contract issue. I don't like it, but it's the business. There's no point in crying about it. You can throw out the "no point in crying about it" for pretty much anything. There is reason however to criticize though. As for the Thurman issue further, I was pointing out that some OTAs are more important than others depending on the situation. Either way it's irrelevant. I seriously doubt that Thurman was released for missing OTAs. If you would like a different possible explanation, perhaps he was released for not keeping his word to the coaches. So, while he only missed OTAs, he could be released for telling the coaches he was going to show up on a particular day and then didn't keep his word. From what I've read, Thurman's grandmother's funeral was over a week ago. It's not like the expected him to rush back. Even under your scenario, it would be against the CBA. Whether the player broke his word or not, missing voluntary workouts is not subject to disciplinary actions. Also, we have read different timelines. I read his grandmothers funeral was the day before the workouts. He was told one day after the funeral to be at workouts. Yeah - Young said that. But he's part of the media puffing up the story. Also, the fact that other teams do the same thing without the use of videotape shows that the Patriots gained no advantage simply by using videotape. All they would have had to do is send Ernie Adams to each game with a set of binoculars and a notepad. They could have then matched up his notes with the coaches tape that the league gives to every team for scouting. So, while I believe Young when he says it would have been a huge advantage if he knew what defense was going to be run, the combination of teams changing signals and that the same information can be obtained without breaking the rules, makes it a completely moot point. How is that so hard to understand? For me, it is as simple as this. If there was no reason to cheat, then why do it? The simple fact that NE broke the rules in order to obtain the info tells me that (a) there was an advantage in having the info and ( it provided info not available through legal means. What is so difficult to understand about that. If you know all the answers to a test, why take a cheat sheet? The fact that NE did in fact, and it is a fact, cheat, tells me that it is simply not such a blow off deal as you want to believe. As for the author of the article, I think he spews too much crap without checking facts or even knowing what he's talking about. I have the same contempt for alot of the media, but they don't have the audacity to post their articles directly on the boards that I frequent. I have no issue w/ ripping the media, but I also think you are too quick to dismiss what is written.

Can you see Butkis playing 20 yards deep? Can you see Butkis shadowing athletic QBs like Vick, McNabb or Young? Can you see Butkis covering speed backs and faster TEs in routes? To me, if the question is whether Butkis could be an NFL LB today, the answer is yes. If the question of whether he would be a MLB in a cover 2 defense like ours, the answer is no. While I think he would be similar to Ray Lewis, I do not think he would fit our scheme.

Honestly, more than personnel, it is the staff that has me as pessimistic as anything. Turner - Thus far, he seems like yet another failed Chicago OC. We looked good for a short period a couple years ago, but the leagues seemed to figure out Rex and Turner, and I have not seen the changes necessary. Among my biggest issues w/ Turner, I just question his lack of adapting the offense to better hide our weaknesses. Last year, the OL was a key weakness, yet what did we do to hide that fact? Were we rolling out the QB to buy time? We were using more screens to try and freeze the LBs? We were using the personnel we had to create mismatches? It just seemed like Turner simply expected players to play better, rather than trying to do more to put them in better situations to play well. Babich - Here is a HUGE reason why I am so negative right now. As weak as the offense is, we have seen that a dominant defense and special teams can compensate, but I have seen nothing from Babich to lead me to believe we will have a dominant defense. Yes, I know we suffered plenty of injuries, but I would still argue we had more talent healthy and on the field than many other defenses that played far better. Similar to offense, instead of trying to mask weaknesses, we allow them to be exploited. And frankly, I am simply not a cover 2 fan. I do not believe it was a good defense for Lovie in Stl, and still believe our players are held back by it today. IMHO, the reason our defense was so good in our SB year was Chico mixing it up more. The hope is Babich improves, but I simply have little confidence or faith. Position coaches - What position coaches have stood out? What areas have we really seemed to develop players? WR? No. RB? No. OL? Hell no. DL? No. You can argue LB, but is it really development when elite players like Briggs and Urlacher develop? I would have more faith in the LB coach if Williams and/or Okwo showed more development. The only position/unit I think has developed in in the secondary, where numerous players have seemed to play above expectations, which to me is a sign of good coaching.

Not sure the playbook is the issue so much as the plays we call in situations, and the personnel we choose to employ. For example, can someone explain why Benson would run sweeps when he doesn't have the speed to turn the corner, while we run Wolfe up the gut? Can someone explain why, when we would use a WR screen, we would throw the ball to Moose, our slowest WR on the team? Can someone explain why we would use Moose and even Davis on deep patterns, when, again, those are far from our speed threats? Can someone explain why, when in the red zone, we do not use our bigger WRs to better create mis-matches? It isn't that the play is bad, but the personnel we would use. I recall watching us try a fade route to the corner of the end zone w/ Davis as the target, as well as Berrian too. Would that not be a play to use some of our bigger receivers? I am not saying we have a great playbook, but IMHO, it isn't the playbook that is the problem so much as the playcalling. Our playcalling was flat out predictable, and it showed in the results. Use the same plays, but at different times and w/ different personnel, and watch wholesale changes.

Just to chime in w/ some thoughts. 1. Butkis was far more athletic than many realize. W/ that said, I agree he would likely not be a MLB in "our" defense. He very well could be a MLB for an NFL defense today, but our defense demands a greater level of speed and athleticism. But look at Baltimore. Ray Lewis is athletic, but does not have close to the speed of Urlacher. Butkis could be a MLB there. For us, I can easily see him playing Briggs spot. Frankly, if you think about it, the WLB for us is more like the traditional MLB. Briggs is our primary man against the run. 2. Frankly, I am not sure I totally get the argument in general. The game has changed so much in terms of size it is not even funny. In years past, your OL were the size of LBs today. As great as they were, how would our '85 OL fair against todays defenders. How about the DL, who were in the low to mid 200s in terms of weight, going against todays OL were 300 is the standard, w/ many well over that. I just think it is near impossible to talk in terms of putting old players in todays systems.

This one is mind boggling. Are you implying that his fiance is the impetus for his absence - which is during voluntary activities? I believe the point was his missing camp, and he further simply makes a joke. Mind boggling? Geez it would be nice if you had your facts straight. Odell's agent hasn't ruled out a grievence. Since the Bengals haven't commented on the situation, there could be another explanation - like he fell off the wagon when his grandmother died. If he did and the league found out, he would be in line for another long suspension. Talk about writing for the National Inquirer. The idea of his being released for missing voluntary workouts is far more credible considering the timing, as opposed to what you are throwing out. There is logic and reason to believe that, due to timing, he was released for missing voluntary workouts. On the other hand, you are throwing out the potential that he fell off the wagon w/ absolutely no reason to support such a statement. So who should send an application to the Nat'l Inquirer? A few points here. First, it hasn't been established that the Bengals released Thurman for missing OTAs. Second, even if that IS the case, the Bengals are implementing a new defense so attendance is a bit more important than a defense that has stayed the same for 5 seasons. It's amazing how wrong you can be on so many different levels. One. We may have a similar defense, but are coming off a pitiful year and have a still young and new DC, and yet you seem to find no fault in Urlacher skipping workouts. Two. You give an excuse in the event that he was released for skipping workouts, but regardless of new defense or whatever, it is against the CBA rules, as you well know. If that IS the case, which you throw out as a possibility, whether Cincy is installing a new defense does not matter. Anyone who still cares about this issue doesn't understand how teams scout each other legally in the first place. The use of tape of coaching signals only improves a team's ability to predict a defense by a negligible percentage if at all. The Patriots could have achieved the same thing legally by simply sending their analyst that breaks down the tape to each game with a notebook and a set of binoculars. That is your opinion, but your opinion is in the minority. Steve Young, who i think may know a thing or two about offense, said that if he ever knew the signals the defense was using, the game would be over. Steve Young sure seems to believe knowing the defensive signals would provide more than a "negligible percentage" in terms of advantage. And NE losing a 1st round pick seems to indicate the league felt it was an important issue as well. Many former hall of fame players have said that while there is plenty of "gamesmenship" in the game, NE crossed the line. While it is legal to film and breakdown trends, it is not legal to zoon the camera in on the DC to steal signals, and create cheat sheets. That is over the line, and is a legit issue.

Two things to point out. One. He did have a hearing set for yesterday. While the Trib is saying it wasn't necessary for him to be at the hearing, his lawyer may have felt different. Two. The Trib was very quick to say Benson missed a previous OTA, but Benson was in fact there, but simply in the offices talking to staff, and the Trib had to issue a quick 2nd article saying Benson was there. I'm not saying that is the case, only that the Trib is quick to throw things out there these days. If Benson is not there today, I can see it as an issue, but missing yesterday when he had a first court date may not be an issue, unless of coarse he was on a boat:)

I do not recall the specifics of the deals, and maybe LT2 can help out here, but I question the comments that Briggs got more. Urlacher got, I believe, a $13m up front SB, but as I recall, he had considerably more guaranteed. I thought his bonus dollars were more like $20m, though it could have been spread out over a couple seasons. Briggs got $13m, but not up front. As I recall, that $13m is spread out over a couple seasons. So I am not sure whether Briggs really got more. Depending on how you word it, it can seem that way, but I question the math. It seems like articles use Urlacher up front money, and compares that w/ the money Briggs is to receiver over a few seasons to compare.

Anything is possible, but I do believe there is a reason to generalize a person who invites his mom to the boat is not looking for the same sort of "fun" as he would if he did not invite his mom. For the record, I got to meet his mom, and she did not come accross as the sort that would get drunk w/ her kid. I sat next to her at a bears/texans pre-season game, and had the opportunity to talk to her quite a bit. She was having a good time w/ a group of girl friends, and seemed as proud as a mom could be. Maybe I am simply way off, but I just did not get the impression she was the sort that "parties" w/ her son. My initial impression when the story broke was anti-benson, but when I read his mom was on the boat, I simply took a different position.

Who else do you want to extend? It may not be the popular opinion, but I really do not want to see many, if any, more extensions. Gould was the only player I really wanted to see an extension for. Taking a realistic look, Harris - He wants Freeny money, and Allen getting similar coin doesn't help matters, nor does Oakland giving big dollars to an average DT. But I am sorry. At this point, Harris simply has not earned that sort of a deal. Freeney's 1st 4 years, which his contract was based off, saw sack totals of 13, 11, 16 & 11. He also had FFs stats of 9, 4, 4 & 6. He established himself as a premier pass rusher, and a model of health. Allen sacks totals: 9, 11, 7.5 and 15.5 w/ 13 FFs in 4 seasons. Harris? 3.5, 3, 5 and 8. Sure, I realize DTs do not get the sack totals elite DEs do, but still. Further, he missed 4 games two years ago and seemed to struggle through injury last year. Also an issue, IMHO, is his drop in production after the 1st half of a season. Two years ago, he started very strong w/ 5 sacsk in the first 4 games, but then didn't have another sack after that point. Last year? 7 sacks in the first 8 games, but then only 1 after that. He also does not force fumbles and create turnovers like the above two DL. Harris is a great talent. He goes to Hawaii for a reason. But he wants to be paid as one of the best overall defensive players in the league, and I simply do not believe he has earned such a contract. Hester - The is absolutely no question Hester (a) is the games best return man and ( has out performed his rookie contract. At the same time, reports are he wants to be paid like an elite WR, but has yet to prove he can even be a #3 WR, much less a #1. IMHO, it is nearly impossible to extend him (so long as he wants the sort of deal he is seeking) until he proves himself more as a WR. That doesn't mean he has to be Steve Smith, but I think he needs to establish himself as a legit WR option before he is paid like an elite WR. Who else is there? Anderson? Took the league by storm as a rookie, but went backward his 2nd season and lost his starting job. Urlacher? I am not even a fan of the offer we have already made, much less what he is seeking.

Agree and disagree. I agree that drinking w/o a plan in place for a driver is in fact putting yourself in a position/situation which can be questioned. I do not agree that Benson going out there in the first place was a problem. He bought a very expensive boat last year. While there are some other lakes in the area, none are equal to Lake Travis. Whether Benson felt he was targetted or not, I do not see why he should not be allowed to take his boat out to Lake Travis. Think about that for a moment. How far would we be in racial equality if minorites who felt targetted in certain areas simply avoided those areas w/o question. I can understand the questions of his drinking w/ an intent to drive (though I question how you can prove that one in court), but Benson simply taking his boat w/ friends AND HIS FREAKING MOTHER to the Lake is not a lapse in judgment.

I understand your point, and recall similar posts after Tank was pulled over. Some said they can afford it, so why not just hire a limo. Basically same point as your saying to hire a captain. While this would make sense, some more simple could have prevented this as well. If he simply had a designated driver. I have not heard from one area that any of the many on the boat were designated drivers. The comments I read tend to argue Benson had a few bears, but was sober, thus I have the impression he was planning on driving. He may well have been fine to drive, but I would agree these plays have to learn some day they have too much to lose. If you intend to drink, don't just plan on drinking a small enough amount that you will be okay. Either drink and make arrangments for another driver, or don't drink.

I think the biggest problem from earlier was communication. While the event caused a hell of a stir, at the same time, it may have been for the best as it forced a discussion, which turned into a poll, more discussion, and then a new policy (I think). Similar here. An issue has been presented, followed by a discussion, and then a new policy. Anywho who does not like the policy, or chooses to break that policy, can deal w/ the consequences.

My take. Personally, I cuss plenty, though I try to police myself on the board. I don't have a big problem when people cuss, but my concern is that the cussing moves from situational to personal. If cussing becomes common place, is it really that hard to see it going to the next level of saying, "F U" or calling people a jack---? I usually try to go the Johny Dangeoursly Route. Fargin Iceholl. Arce. yetc. Maybe that should even be avoided, but I tend to see it as innocent enough. But back to the point. I agree we limit cussing, as I feel it helps avoid personal attacks, or at least personal attacks going too far.