nfoligno

What, this isn't your full time job? I thought you were making a six figure salary as admin for this site Seriously, thanks for any effort in checking out the things I mentioned. If it is simply not possible, or it is decided I am the only one wanting these changes, so be it. Thanks regardless for the time and effort.

I believed it last year. Now? I simply see no reason why I should believe he will use to 2 TE package any more than sparingly this year. I think we will see plenty of Olsen, but it will come at the expense of Clark. I think Turner will rotate the two in such a way as it often makes our offense predictable based on TE package. Olsen in, the odds are we pass. Clark in, more likely we run, but better chance w/ Clark to mix it up than Olsen. I would LOVE to believe different, but need evidence before I can, and the evidence thus far indicates Turner is simply not a 2 TE package coach.

I don't think it is a matter of being a lock. I think it is a matter of experience and numbers. Like you said, we have Booker and Hester who are absolute locks, w/ Bradley the next closest thing. That is 3, and we have 3 more spots after that. Many are so high on Hass or Rideau because of what they did in college, or camp, or practice, but they have nothing when it comes to NFL experience. When you are talking about Bradley and Hester as two of your three locks, you can only afford so many spots for developmental players. I don't think any believe Lloyd is the 2nd coming. I think many believe it was a great signing due to risk/reward. After that, most just like the potential he brings, but that is not absolute. Still, who is going to knock him off the roster? Right now, assuming Davis is gone, all three make the team. Assume we draft a WR. Then the previously listed three battle for 2 spots. Sorry, but while Lloyd has not proven to be a stud, he has shown FAR more in the NFL than either of the other two, and w/ so little experience, how many WRs can we afford to employ that have never played a down in a game?

I have seen more and more showing KC taking Clady. His stock has moved up that much, and Long is simply not expected to drop to them. Nearly every draft has Denver taking OT, and many now have them grabbing Williams. Carolina has need on OL, but I do not see them taking Otah. His stock is falling after a very poor combine. W/ the footwork he showed, I think few view him as a LT now, and see him as a RT/OG, which has dropped his stock. So I am not too worried about Otah being gone, but am very worried Williams will be gone, and have said as much for weeks. This is my worry too. The bears are looking hard at Clady, who seems to be rising and not falling. I like Williams, but he too looks gone. If Williams is gone, right now, I think my favorite choice would be to trade down. Otah or Albert would look great in a bear uniform if we drop down some to get them, while picking up an extra pick in the process.

Several points. First and foremost. We do not get compensation. At best/worst, SF could lost a pick or picks, but we do not get their forfeited picks. We get nothing but, maybe, satisfaction. Second, I do not buy that we are doing this to basically attack Rosenarce. We are in negotiations at this very moment w/ him for Harris. If Rosenarce is our target in this, I can only see it hurting our chances to re-sign Harris. Third, I do not see conspiracy w/ Briggs/Pace. I love a good conspiracy as much as the next guy (actually, more) but I think it is FAR more an issue of sacks, or playmaking stats in general. Whether some Briggs fans like it or not, and whether or not it is true doesn't matter. The reality is Briggs has become a tackle machine in a system that sets up for him to do just that very well. There are questions how "great" he would be outside such a system, and w/o Urlacher and Co. I think the biggest issue though is playmaking stats. If an average corner notches 8 or 10 picks in a year, he is going to hit paydirt, and may easily get more money than a far better cover corner, simply because he has the picks. If you have a LB that racks up the sacks, forced fumbles, sacks, and to a lesser extent, fumble recoveries, he may well get paid considerably more than a superior LB that didn't put up the stats. Pace had 6.5 sacks this past year, which is 1 more than Briggs has collectively had in his career. Really, w/ the exception of his very high tackle numbers, he simply has not stood out in the stat sheet, and whether a good test or not, it is often what translates in FA.

W/ thanks to prophet, it appears the inconsistency issue has been figured out. If you hit the "add reply" button, which I believe is located at the very bottom of the thread, it will drop the response to the bottom of the thread, as if you were replying to the original post itself. If you hit the "reply" bottom which immediately follows the text of the post you want to reply to, it should place your response in the tree where you intend for it to be. I would chalk this issue up to learning curve. Ditto w/ the outline view we talked about. In addition, I have asked Prophet to check into a pair of other minor tweaks which could further bridge the transition between old and new. Personally, I blame you. 60 or so posts? Come on. You should be hitting 60 or so per day. Then you would be very used to the style and flying through the threads.

I added the second quote from your second post, since you asked for it to be deleted. First off, thank you for taking the time to check into these matters. I see what you mean by the "add reply" button, as opposed to simply replying. Thank you for looking into that. W/ regard to the numbering and the subject heading, I sort of figured it was possible, but something that had to be set up by an admin in the format layout rules, and something that can not be done by just any admin. From past experience w/ other programs, you often have a few admins, but usually one or two w/ the ability to alter "rules". Anyway, point is, when you have a field in one view, you usually have it in another view, but the rule may need to be established for it to be part of that 2nd view. Does that make sense? As for the title/ subject heading aspect, I think of it as something that simply helps keep threads clean. Not everyone will use it, and when not filled in, it can default to the 1st line, as it does now. But if you have a reply subject box, it can better allow a description of your post, so those you are talking to know it. I realize I can simply put whatever title I want as the first line of my post, but as I do not know the character rule, the subject will continue on w/ part of the 2nd line as well, and frankly, it just doens't look as good. Anyway, these were simply a couple small things I noticed that I felt could better bridge the new and old sites, as well as potentially enhance it for many posters. Thank you for you time and effort.

Why jump either. We replaced Moose w/ Book and Berrian w/ Lloyd. It looks like Davis is gone, so if we added Jackson, that would be another replacement. So, Booker - Jackson - Lloyd - Hester - Bradley - Hass. If we draft a WR, then Hass or Bradley could be in trouble, but w/o a drafted rookie, I don't see why we would dump either.

One. It isn't that I think Lloyd is all that. At the same time, the original point I made was that if the staff really wants to push Bradley or Hester into the starting role, that is less likely to happen if we sign Jackson. Personally, I would love to add Jackson as I think our two young WRs would be far better off as #3 or #4 WRs, w/ less pressure. But that may not be the staff's desire. If they really want to see either start this year, that is simply not likely to happen if we sign Jackson. Two. If we signed Jackson to a short term deal (2 year or so) would that really take WR off our need list? We just locked up Book for 2 years, and if we sign Jackson for the same, we would still have a need at WR. As it takes WRs 2 - 3 years to develop, I would argue w/ or w/o Jackson, WR very well could still be a 1st day pick. I guess 2nd day now that the 3rd round is on day two, but you get my point.

I don't know. When I look at the thread tree, it looks like what you are saying you want. Basically, you have one original thread, and then some replies create greater points of discussion. I have seen what you mean though, in that some replies are obviously intended to be for a specific comment, but get dumped down at the bottom. I can only assume it is because, like you said, maybe they are responded in a different view, and thus their reply doesn't get placed as it should. I really don't know. At the end of the day, I guess this is how I look at it. For years, I posted on the Trib message board, which I loved. Then, as I understand it, money was pulled from the site, and the admin of it went downhill, as did the quality of the site in general. Finally, I (and many/most) bolted that site. I ended up at Bearstalk, and it was quite different. At the start, I thought the format was inferior, but after a while, I forgot what the previous setup was like, and simply became used to the new format. I think it is similar now. There are differences which can be frustrating at times, but at the same time, there are plenty of the old posters w/ some new ones thrown in. The format has meaning for me, but w/o trying to get too sappy, it is more about the communty. Speaking of which, I miss crackdog. I personally blame him for my # of posts being as low as it is. My debates w/ him would really have a way of jacking up my numbers:)

I have one for you. It is an IT or technical issue that may or may not even be possible. I, as I would suspend many from the old bearstalk board, post while in the outline view/display mode. Under this view, there is a FAR greater similarity to the old board, simply making the transition, well, simpler. Problem is, while in the outline mode, the posts are no longer numbered. You see the "tree" of posts, which shows better (IMHO) who is replying to who. You see the poster - the subject/first line - date. Is there anyway to include the post number in the outline mode? It would make things SOOOOOOO much easier when you start to have a longer thread that goes for a few days. When you leave and come back, it would make it so much easier if posts were numbered, and to more easily find the most recented. One more thing, and this may be my lack of knowledge as opposed to need for change. When posting a reply, is there no way to title your response? I have figured out the first line will be seen, but it doesn't stop except (I think) after a certain number of characters. Is there not a way to title/subject heading responses?

Just one suggestion, if you have not already done this. Near the top right, you will see an options button. Under that, I believe you see "display" and below that "outline". Click on that. You may or may not like it, but the outline view is FAR more similar to what we had at the old board.

I think it was actually before that. I am not sure, but I think the tampering charge comes into play before the start of FA. Prior to the start of FA, we were trying to workout a new deal w/ Briggs. Eventually, we slapped the tag on him, but even then, continued to talk new deal w/ him. I think it was in this period, prior to FA, that SF is alleged to have tampered. I think Chicago's allegation is that SF drove up the price, which prevented us from being able to re-sign him. I am sorry, but I think this whole thing is stupid as hell. First, what team is Lance Briggs a part of? Oh yea, us. We won. Why the hell are we going back and making a big deal about this after winning. We are acting like the loser here, not the winner. Further, according to pretty much all reports, tampering is pretty much the norm. So do we never tamper? We never have an informal talk w/ an agent at the combine, or whatever. If continue w/ this, we better have the cleanest freaking record in this area. We are sticking out necks out IMHO making a big fuss about this. Sorry, but (a) we won the Briggs war, and yet are acting like the losers and ( at a time when we should be focusing on FA/draft, both our GM and HC are involved in this BS, which does not even offer an chance to benefit us.

I am not talking what I would want. I already said I would sign Jackson. My point is talking about what i think Angelo/Smith may be thinking. I can see where they think they added Lloyd, to bring some veteran experience into the competition for the 2nd job. If Bradley or Hester beat him out, great. If not, he can start. Again, not saying this is what I would want, but what I think Angelo/Smith may want.

WTF, The simple fact this discussion thread was created is in itself a sign of respect for all posters. If mods and admins were as disrespectful as you make out, they would make changes and when someone would complain, simply reply w/ a "F U". They cared enough to seek out opinions. I am not sure how you leap from that to disrespect. You talk about how mods are moving things around, or doing things that were resolved at the old forum. I think you have too soon forgotten some of the many fights. I recall near death threats when a thread would be locked. The Mod would say it was due to too many posts and too confusing to follow, while some other posters would point fingers at the mod saying it was done to avoid further fights, or saying it was because the mod was on the losing end of fights. There were times when a thread would just disappear, which the mod would say was an innocent mistake, while some ruffled feathers poster would talk of conspiracy. We had plenty of fights. Are we having some similar discussion here? Sure. At the same time, I would simply point out the mods/admins are making an effort to work w/ the posters. They are not simply handing down the law, but asking for opinion. Regarding our hasty exit from the old board, yes it was hasty, but as I recalll, there were reasons for such haste. Frankly, I do not recall the specifics. Those who ran the old board can talk in far greater detail. I can say I knew we were being merged w/ an existing board. That was not a secret. At the same time, there were other issues, including a dislike by most of the posters toward that board. The disrespect you talk of today was truly seen then. The "to-be" board basically said, "this is how it is" and if you don't like it, take a hike. Regarding number of posts. Hey, I put my numbers up there w/ most. On the bearstalk board, as I recall, my number of posts were higher than any. Any while some will argue they lost posts in changes, I would simply argue I lost many thousand posts when I was forced to seek a new board. I believe it was at the Trib I used to post, prior to it going down the tubes. Point is, so what. I was a newbie when I came over from the Trib, but (a) quickly made my mark, IMHO and ( recognized some posters from the Trib who gave me early on respect as well. Here at this new site, there are some new names, but a lot of old ones as well. What, do you think when you post, no one knows who you are? Do you think when you break down salary cap info, it is taken w/ a grain of salt? I just do not understand why your panties are in a wad. You are known here, and given props. The admins do not disrespect us by asking for our opinions. The opposite in fact is true. There may be tweaks I would like to see on this board, but nothing major. Nothing that makes me consider taking off. So w/ all that said, one final point. Main reason I made the jump (from the other board) was I like who I talk bears w/. We can talk about the mods and admins all day, but it is also much about the posters. We have a great group w/ kool-aid drinkers and nay-sayers who always provide a good debate. W/ a few minor exceptions, everyone keeps it VERY respectful, and no one gets too personal. Admins keep out the trolls, but quality posters keep the boards fun and enjoyable. I the community means that little to you, I don't see the point in argument. Most here are here for the community. What are you here for? Respect?

I think a key question is, how much do Angelo and Lovie want to push the development of Hester and Bradley. I know what everyone here thinks, and I am in the same camp. While I would like to see the development of them, I do not want to go into the year 'counting on' either. To me, counting on either of the two is similar to counting on a rookie WR. Yea, they are not rookies, but as raw as they were at WR coming out of college, I think many rookie WRs are actually as, if not more, polished. W/ all that said, the more WRs we add, the deeper Hester/Bradley will be pushed down the list. We can talk about competition until we are blue in the face, but I doubt Booker will face serious competition, and ditto if we signed Jackson. In Lloyd, I think we very much still have competition for that spot. Anyway, I would like to do it, but if Angelo and Lovie see this as sort of a make or break year for Bradley, and a career defining year for Hester, I can see them planning to give each big time PT, and thus passing on some of the WRs still out there: Jackson, Hackett, B.Johnson.

Actually, if the thread was about Jake Scott, I would even more so argue it was relevant. Jake Scott was a player many, including myself, had listed as a player we should be looking to add. Maybe Angelo hadn't shown interest, but that in itself is a bear related thread as well. Should we have? Are there a couple things I might change on this board? Yes. But I still VERY much enjoy the board and having an opportunity to argue (I mean talk) w/ so many others who bleed blue and orange.

I just can't see it. The reason he left Buffalo w/o a deal, from what I read, was because he was seeking to get a bigger deal. He has, it appears, 3 or 4 teams w/ considerable interst, thus I just can not see us ponying up the money for him.

My vote is to kill the NFL forum. The issue I have is w/ the examples. Jake Long was the example given. Why it is highly unlikely, players fall in the draft, and further, the further Long falls, the more likely an OT like Clady falls to us. Thus, the thread may not alwasy appear to be bears related, but may in fact have an affect. To me, if it is totally unrelated to the bears, it likely will not get as much activity, and thus will fall by wayside soon enough. If it does get a ton of activity, then maybe that in itself warrants a place on the main forum. Just for me personally, it seems a bit much to try and run through a bunch of different forums, as opposed to one forum where you can easily reply to threads of interest, and skip the rest.

Not saying we make our choice based on Det. Only pointing out a potential situation.

Not trying to forget anyone, but most reports have Broham dropped to the later part of the 1st. You mention the 3rd best OT, but which is better/worse? The 3rd OT in a year considered very strong among OTs, or the 2nd best QB in a year considered weak for QBs. Hey, I know well our need for a QB, but as much as I want one, does that mean we should reach to get one? Either Clady or Williams would be considered great/solid values at 14. I do not think the same would be considered w/ Broham.

It was already considered a possibility, but w/ the report (from PFT) that Det is set to release Kevin Jones, that would likely put RB at or near the top of Detroits draft needs. There has been a debate on this board for some time between those who want Mendenhall and those who want OT. I am in the OT camp, but have to admit, I am not a fan of Mendenhal to Detroit either.

Next years 2nd? Um, put down the kool-aid and back away. It has already affected your senses. Stop while you can. Boldin is a pro bowler, and one of the games elite WRs. His rookie year, he caught 101-1377-8. And by the way. That was w/ Jeff Blake and Josh McCown as his QBs (mostly Blake). He was not only the only receiving threat, but only offensive threat (Shipp had about 800 yards rushing). So as a rookie, he comes in an dominates in an offense so bad, he is drawing double coverage after his first game (when he caught 10 for 217 yards and 2 scores). He has missed a few games due to injury (6 in '04 and 4 in '07) but that has been the only thing to slow him down. The guy is a pure stud, and still only 27. He would easily be worth not only a 1st, but a fairly high 1st. I would give up our 14th pick and the coin to sign him if our situation were different. I just have trouble doing it when it may be another few years before we can surround him w/ enough talent for him to really produce.

After the draft, not before. I talked about Brown a couple months ago. At that point, this was looking like a very weak RB class in the draft. Today, the group looks not only strong, but deep. Sorry, but it would be foolish beyond belief to sign Brown now, before the draft. I am not among those screaming to draft Mendenhal in the 1st, but I can see several situations that could make his pick our best choice. Further, beyond him in the first, there is a decent chance we have a RB at the top of our board w/ our next few picks. Especially w/ the OL we are may be throwing out there, Benson is giong to flop. Then what. If we sign Brown, we will not have a future starter. That means we will be searching for our starting RB next year. I would much rather we find a young RB now, who can contributre today and provide us a potential starter later.

Who? If you mean Benson, are you sure we gave him that much. From what I have read, a lot of his deal was tied up into incentives, which he did not meet.