nfoligno

You know what this means though? W/ more and more mocks having us taking a LT, the logical choice, we will probably take something like a DT or a CB.

Disagree - I also do not think most teams can afford to draft strictly based on BPA. I think you go into the draft w/ a group of needs, and try to draft the BPA w/ in that group. That does not mean you reach for need. It is my opinion that you can most always find a player w/ in a couple spots on your board that fits a need area. For example, lets say we feel we are absolutely set at MLB, and the BPA is a MLB, yet a spot or two down on our board is a LT. I would argue we take that LT, and not the MLB, who may be graded slightly higher, but does not fill a need. Another example that may be more specific to the bears in this draft could be DE. From what I have seen, it looks like there are a slew of highly rated DEs. If our pick came up, and the highest player available (according to our board) was a DE, and the 2nd or 3rd best available was a LT, I think it would be a huge mistake to take the DE over the LT. The key, IMHO, is going into the draft w/ a broad enough grouping of need areas. If you go into the draft w/ only one or two needs, and draft the BPA w/in only those positions, you are more likely to reach for a player. An example of this might be when we drafted Columbo. I seriously doubt he was the BPA, or even close, yet LT was so far and away a need that we reached for a position. Going into this draft, I think we could consider need areas to be: QB, RB, WR, OT, OG, OLB & S. You might even be able to make an argument for DT, though I would in large part disagree. We have numerous need areas, and if the BPA were any of these positions, I can see the argument for taking that player.

Okay, I went back and re-read what I wrote. I never intended to mean scrubs. I know/knew they were not really a factor. Value does matter, but I didn't think it had to be even. For example, I think we will sign a player of similar caliber as Faneca, as you mentioned. If we sign Faneca, while Briggs is signed for more, I wasn't under the impression we would receive a comp pick for Briggs as if we had not signed Faneca. Then, what happens if you sign a couple FAs. For example, what if we sign Faneca, Hamlin and maybe Fargas while losing Briggs, Rex and Ayenbedajo (Berrian tagged). While Faneca may not equal Briggs, the three FAs signed may equal or be greater than those we lost. My main point was, and still is, that I do not believe we can simply say Briggs is going to net us a 3rd, or even a 4th round pick. While it is possible, it seems like every year fans talk about why we should get a comp pick of this value or that, and we come away w/ squat. Maybe we don't sign jack in FA, while letting Briggs, Berrian and Rex all walk and sign significant deals. Maybe we come away w/ a trio of extra 3rd and 4th round picks. I doubt it, but maybe. My point is, I do not think we can say today that when we let Briggs walk, we are not totally letting him walk for nothing because we will get a 3rd round comp pick for him. The system is simply FAR too iffy for us to say that. We could get as high as a 3rd, or as low as nothing. I just do not think we can "count" on it one way or the other.

When it comes to value, I think it only factors (again) if you sign less then you lose. If we signed 5 FAs, I don't think (think is an admitted key word) it matters if they are equal talent to Briggs or not. You think we will sign just two players? RB - I can absolutely see us signing a RB. No clue whether it would be a guy like Fargas or Chris Brown, but I can easily see us adding a RB. That player could well come through the draft too, but do not count out a FA RB. WR - We are quite thin at WR, especially if we lose Berrian. Whether we keep Berrian, or let him go, I would not be surprised at all to see us sign another veteran WR. OL - I think it a near lock we will sign at least one FA OL. We all love the idea of drafting multiple OL (or at least I think most do) but I am not sure how many OL Angelo will draft. I think Miller is gone, and will be sooner rather than later due to his roster bonus. While I didn't think so earlier, I think Metcalf stands a decent chance for release. That move would actually cost us $400k against the cap, but he really proved worthless last year, and I am not sure we will continue to waste a roster spot. This is in addition to Brown. DL - Walker is gone IMHO. I simply do not see any way we justify keeping him when he is due a big roster bonus. We had so many issues at DT this year, it would not shock me if we added another veteran, as we tried when we traded for Walker. LB - Briggs is gone, and as you even said, so is likely Ayenbedajo. While the plan is for one of our two younger LBs to step up, I think it also very possible we could see a veteran added. Not a big name or anything, but at least one that may improve our depth, which was not great even before the loss of Briggs. CB - Will RMJ still have a spot? From what I could tell from Lt2's info, cutting him will save about $2m. He seems to be in a roster free fall, and I think a good chance he could be on his way out. Sure seems like he has fallen to no better than 4th on the depth chart, and is a bit expensive for that position. Will we sign a veteran? You can say we draft a CB, but if we do, that is one less draft pick that may have gone to our offensive replacements, improving the chance we sign another FA elsewhere. S - Another area I think there is a pretty decent chance we add a veteran. IMHO, we sign more FAs than most realize. It may not seem so, because we often bring in guys who mostly round out the depth chart, are fillers, or simply not big names, but I think regardless, we end up signing more than most realize. I said this before, but I do not believe we have before (under Angelo) received a comp pick. While it is possible, I simply would not assume we get a 3rd or 4th round pick if we let Briggs go, as we may well not be due any comp picks once again.

Couple safeties I would like to look at: Ken Hamlin is a FA. I actually wanted him over Arch last year, but he ended up signing a one year deal w/ Dallas, and did quit well. Dallas suffered numerous injuries at CB, and he really helped out breaking up a lot of big plays, and lending support for lesser corners. Many, if not most, big plays came against their other safety (Williams). Hamlin would be a solid fit at FS for us, and provide us w/ a lot of options going forward. We could allow McGowan and Payne to battle at SS, or even keep Brown involved. The question will be cost. While he was not expensive at all last year, his price tag went up, particularly in a weak S market. Gibril Wilson - He is a pure SS, but one I like. The problem for me is, FS is our greatest weakness. While Arch was an obvious weak link at SS this year, I think McGowan or even Payne could slide in as an upgrade. Further, SS' are not as difficult to find later in the draft. FS is our weaker area, IMHO, and one that is more difficult to find in the offseason. But if we can not get Hamlin, I would not mind Wilson, who should not be expensive, and would likely provide an immediate upgrade.

First, we may well disagree on the value we got for TJ, but regardless, that isn't the point. If we did indeed make promises, then we put ourselves behind the eightball when it came to negotiations. Further, even if we came away w/ a great deal, it doesn't alter my opinion of the agreement made in the first place. Second, w/ regard to the 3rd round pick for Briggs, I assume you are talking about compensation picks. Those are not as simple as saying, we lost a stud, so we get back a 1st day pick. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe we are not even eligible unless we lose more FAs than we sign. How many FAs are we going to lose this year? After Briggs, who do we have? Berrian, Rex and Ayenbedajo. Do you think we won't sign as many, or more, FAs than that? Heck, we may not even lose all of them. Have we gotten a compensation pick since Angelo has been in charge? We have lost some pretty good FAs. Parrish and Colvin both come to mind. I am not saying they are equal, but did we even get a 7th round pick in comp for them? I don't think so, and the reason is, we didn't lose that many FAs, and signed more than we lost. I think there is a very good chance we once again will see more FAs signed to the team in the offseason than we lose. If that happens, then we lose Briggs for squat.

You can argue though the mistake was already made. I agree that if we told TJ we would trade him, we had to try our best to do so. At the same time, I think the mistake came when we made promises to him. We did the same w/ Briggs, and where are we now. In a situation where we are most likely going to lose him for nothing. Rosenarce made the comment that it isn't often a player like Briggs hits the open market. I agree. The reason is because teams are not so willing to kneel down to a player (and his agent's) threats. Walter Jones threatened holdouts every year, and I believe three times Seattle tagged him. He never held out. NE's Asanti Jones said he was going to hold out. He didn't. It just doesn't happen. It is something players always threaten, but never follow through on. briggs and TJ bluffed, and Angelo blinked. We may not have seen the end of this either. Two high profile players have gotten away w/ this. What happens when Harris is a FA. What about Hester and others. Will they threaten to holdout? Will Angelo tell them to play nice for one year and we will let them go?

You mean, it isn't creative to send your midget RB up the middle? Who would have known? Hey, I agree in general, and I think we did more often see use try to be more creative w/ Wolfe in the passing game. We did get him out in space for some screens and the like. My question is, how much should we really be expecting here. Like I said, i think we were creative (albeit late in the year) in using Wolfe in the passing game. I think we were totally uncreative in using him in the run game, but at the same time, I am not sure how high our expectations should be. I personally felt this pick was a mistake, and have seen nothing yet that makes me feel it was justified.

I think it also worth adding that, while there are players available in FA that very well should upgrade our OL, I have not seen the LTs available. That is a position far harder to address in FA, and if you want a franchise LT, you usually have to find him in the draft. I might agree w/ not drafting OL in the 1st if we were talking about an OG or RT, as I believe we can get very good players in FA, but the OTs I am looking at in the draft may well be that LT we have searched for for years, which would also allow us to move Tait back to RT, thus upgrading two positions at once. Add in Faneca, and we have potentially a stud OL again.

Maybe, but on the other hand, take a look at what he had to work w/. They have been dumping veteran talent on offense due to the cap, and hvae not been adding great players. I mean, seriously. Justin Gage was maybe their best WR. They have a young QB who, whole athletic, all expected would need time to develop. IMHO, he did a pretty good job w/ the minimal amount he was given to work w/. I personally would have loved to add him. I never got too caught up in the discussion as I knew we were not dumping Turner, so there was simply no point, but I do not believe Chow should be written off too easily as one of those college coaches who can not translate into the NFL.

Yea, he is the same size, but what is your point. He is a returner (we have one) and a #3 RB that is sparingly used. Sproles had 37 carries to Wolfe's 31, but 25 of his carries came in one game when both LT and Turner were injured. Sproles only had touches on offense in 6 games this year, compared to Wolfe getting an opportunity 9 times. Sproles also had 10 catches for 31 yards, to Wolfe's 9 for 117. Sproles was also in his 2nd season. My point is, while Sproles may be as small (or smaler) than Wolfe, it doesn't prove much since he has never been more than a return man. W/ the exception of one game, Wolfe has actually received more opportunities than he has.

Maybe we issue the OL swords. Maybe that is the problem. Matadors in Spain have swords they stick into the bulls when the bulls pass by. How about we issue each OL swords to stick into the DL as the DL goes by.

OL really are over-rated. Did you read that article in the Bears web site. Apparantly, there were several positives, including some big plays we had. Also, if I read correct, we ranked toward the top in passing yards for a bear team. Not only do I feel we should ignore the draft, but FA too, at least traditional FAs. Watching our games this year got me thinking. I think we need to think outside the box. Instead of NFL, or college, what about taking a look at Europe? I know NFL Europe is gone, but Spain in particular may have some guys we want to look at. Ever been to a bull fight. Man, our OL has nothing on those Matadors. Wow. They way they turn and allow a bull to run right past them is incredible. Only Miller might be in their league, though Metcalf tries awfully hard. I say we just sign a bunch of Matadors. Then we can all scream "olay" every snap.

I would go a couple beyond that. While I agree you find OL (outside LT) in FA, look at what they are going for. There was a time when OGs and RTs were simply not that expensive. The best at their respective position did not come close to the deals many (most) other positions got. Recently though, OL all over have seen a huge push in salary. Once, your LDE was a power, run stopping DE. Then, more and more, you started to see speed LDEs that would rip past the big boy RTs. That began the increase in the pay of RTs, like when we signed Tait. Kreutz was paid very nicely, and since, numerous other centers are banking. Hutch got a deal from Minny that caused many to laugh. Well, few are still laughing as Minny runs on most any. The deal Hutch got was similar to what top tier LTs got not long ago. So while you can get OL (other than LTs) in FA, it is not as easy, or as cheap, as it once was.

You best line, "Notice how we only have 1 OL who we originally drafted." Yea, we noticed. And did you notice how our OL sucks? You can buy an OL, but usually it is a short term deal. You say it is stupid to draft OL. I say it is stupid to belittle the value of OL. Talk about QBs and RBs all you want, but w/o a quality OL, those players will more likely than not look like shit. Sorry, but it is mind boggling that you think so little about drafting OL. Further, you then go on to talk about "the two guards from pittsburgh being available, for a good price and young." Sorry, but this only goes to prove how little you understand. Faneca (who I am personally screaming for) is not considered young (about 30), and as for good price? Did you see what Hutch signed for w/ Minny? Faneca will not get that, but will be closer than not. You could probably come close to signing Briggs for what it will take to get Faneca. Also kills me that you think Briggs is too good to let go, but want to buy an OL.

While we disagree on Benson, we do agree in general. While I am not sure how "close" we are, OL and QB are our greatest issues on offense. We do not know what Benson is, but if we put together a good/great OL and he still doesn't produce, then I know we will know. Frankly, a good/great OL should at least make Benson "good". If he is closer to what i think, then it should make him far closer to great. But the point is, improving our OL will improve our run game, as well as passing game. A lot easier for a QB to throw when he isn't always on is back. I also do not want a 1st round RB. I do not mind drafting RB, or in the 1st round, but I see no point drafting a RB when we do not have an OL, or a QB. As for this year, I would not mind a RB after the 1st if someone we really liked fell, but it would have to be someone we REALLY liked. I agree we play Wolfe more. He is a solid change of pace RB. I also agree we do not run him inside. I said as much after his first carry. Pitch outs, sweeps, swing passes, RB screens, etc. Utilize those attributes he was drafted for. I would really like to see the kid develop as a blocker. No clue if this is an issue or not, but he might be an excellent option out of the shotgun. At the same time, we need to find a better chemistry in rotating out RBs. I think even you would agree Turner did Benson no favors by benching him seemingly every time he got going. Question? What about AP? You say you want to "ride" benson and give him a chance. You also want to give Wolfe 5-10 carries a game. That doesn't leave much for AP?

First, I would just like to point out that I have ripped Turner all year, and would love for him to be let go. IMHO, there are better options out there, far better, and I would love to add Chow. With that said, I would have to agree that he had little to work w/. Understand, I do not like what he did w/ that little he had to work w/, but at the same time, please do not pretend the players we have on offense are better than they actually are. Berrian is a good WR, but it took a while for him to get focuses for some reason, and his constant drops hurt us as much as playcalling at times. Moose is so far removed from being a pro bowler, it is now questionable whether he is a legit starter. He does not get separation and shows questionable hands, at best. Bradley? You list him like he is something. Why? Davis is a nice enough #4 WR/slot guy, but not someone I would list in trying to make a case that we have talent. Hester has talent, and I wanted him used much more, but that talent is very raw, and I think it potentially unrealistic to believe he was ready to make a huge impact on offense this past year. And as weak as we are/were at WR, it is nothing compared to OL and QB. Further, I want to address a few plays you throw out there. Olsen in the red zone - No argument what-so-ever. I will never understand Davis playing in the red zone, as well as on hail mary plays, over Olsen. Screen pass - We did try it some this year, but it simply doesn't work w/ our players. DBs crowd the LOS due to a total lack of respect, both not only our WRs, but for our QB and ability to protect him. It is near impossible to be successful on screen passes when the DB lines up w/in spitting distance of the WR. Further, I would add that Rex was not very good at getting the pass the the WR quickly, which buys the DB more time to close. Further still, I would argue that I saw little by way of moves and broken tackles from our WRs when we did make these plays. So while I agree in theory that the WR screen is a play that can do many positive things for an offense, I would argue our personnel has not proven very capable of running it. A similar argument can be made for the RB screen. While it worked a couple times, most often we ran this play, it did not. When we tried, I often saw one of several things happen. (1) The pass would be batted down, likely due to a short QB (2) Undisciplined OL would be called for an illegal block being illegally downfield (3) RB would be immediately dropped or (4) RB would drop the pass. I personally think the RB screen is one of the best plays to counter an aggressive pass rush, but our players have simply never seemed capable of running this play. I agree in general that there was FAR more Turner could have done, and that Turner's playcalling was poor. At the same time, I simply do not agree we have much talent on offense, and further argue that a weak OL makes pretty much everything difficult. So we had the double whammy on offense of poor personnel and poorer still playcalling.

FREE AGENT UPDATE: WLB Lance Briggs is history, even though he's a productive player, he's not getting Brian Urlacher money from the Bears, and his off-the-field problems with driving and paternity haven't helped endear him to the organization. He gone. WR Bernard Berrian had a problem with drops in the first half of the season, but he put up impressive numbers considering the QB situation. Chicago would like to have him back, but the feeling may not be mutual, and the Bears will not get into a bidding war for him. He tagged. I just can not see us signing him long term, nor can I see us simply letting him walk. QB Rex Grossman may want a fresh start after the intense scrutiny he's had to deal with for the past two years. If the price is right, the Bears will keep him since they were impressed with the improvement he displayed in his second go-round this year after an early-season benching. He gone. I think Angelo would actually really like to keep him one more year, but while we are offering one year, incentive laiden deals, I think other teams will offer more. If you look at the QBs who will be on the market, it is pretty ugly. I think the lack of options/choices will simply make Rex look better than he is, and he will get a multi-year offer. LB Brendon Ayanbadejo wants to be the highest-paid special teams player in the league (about $2 million a year), but he certainly won't get that kind of money from the Bears, who have too many other excellent special-teamers to overpay for a 31-year-old who will never see the field on defense. He gone. I would love to keep him, but we have traditionally allowed special teams specialists to walk, and we have several other special teams studs. Also, w/ WLB an open position and some questions about Urlacher's health, Angelo may want all backup LB capable of playing LB. S Brandon McGowan finally stayed relatively healthy and showed that he could compete for a starting position and be an intimidating presence. He stays. He is a RFA, and will likely get (IMHO) the 2nd highest tender, meaning a 2nd round pick compensation. While I think we like him, I also think we would take a 2nd round pick for him. TE John Gilmore has a solid niche as the No. 3 guy and the blocking TE, but he may want more than that with Greg Olsen emerging as the future at the position and veteran Desmond Clark still playing very well. He gone. WR Rashied Davis is ideally a No. 4 receiver but is content to be a role player, and he flourished late in the season on special teams. He won't attract much attention elsewhere, so he could be back. May be retained. Should not be expensive, and we simply do not have the depth. Also, Davis is a good special teams player. OG Ruben Brown, a 13-year veteran, is expected to retire but said he would like to play another year for the Bears. He gone. FEELING A DRAFT: The Bears draft 14th and must upgrade the offensive line, although they need to provide competition for disappointing and injury-prone RB Cedric Benson, and they will be without a No. 1 wide receiver if Bernard Berrian flees. Safety is also a concern if they decide they can't count on or afford always-injured Mike Brown. OT in the 1st, RB/OL/S in the 2nd and 3rd (not necessarily in that order). TEAM NEEDS Offensive tackle: Fred Miller's production didn't come close to matching his paycheck, and the 12-year veteran could be released. LT John Tait would be better off at right tackle. Guard: Ruben Brown will probably decide that 13 years are enough, and Terrence Metcalf, the apparent heir, was a bust after Brown needed shoulder surgery. Young backup Anthony Oakley and 2006 fourth-round pick Josh Beekman never even got a chance after Metcalf flopped, an indication that they aren't ready to play. Quarterback: To get back to the Super Bowl, the Bears need a difference-maker at quarterback. Rex Grossman didn't make any strides this season, and they can't count on Kyle Orton being any better. I would add to the needs list: RB, WR, FB, S, w/ LB and DT in there as well.

No question OL should be our #1 look. LT has been a need for over a decade, and this looks like one of the best drafts in recent memory at the position. Rare combo of when our need matches draft strength. The only two other positions I think potential are: QB - MANY here will disagree, but if a QB Angelo likes slips down, there is no questioning that QB is a need. S - Again, no question safety is a need. If Kenny Phillips falls to us, especially if this happens because several teams went OT in front of us, then I can see the as a possibility. Again, like w/ OT, you have need match up w/ best available.

Also worth pointing out that, just like us, several teams on that list are more likely than not (IMHO) to have a better year after a down year. NO and Phily are two teams that are considered good, but coming off down years, like us. They are just as likely, if not more so, than us to return to good status. I think StL could also be in this category, as they (like us) suffered massive injuries. Carolina too, as they were w/o their starting QB most of the year, and never recevered. Then you have teams like Houston and Tenn, who have improved and could continue to do so. I think it near improssible to look at next years schedule today and have a clue. Frankly, we do not even know who our starting QB will be. How different is this team if QB'd by McNabb or Orton. W/ Berrian as our #1, or Moose. Briggs or Williams. Etc. We have no clue what our own team will look like, much less the others on our schedule.

First, I'll give my plan. Then, I'll explain what is good and bad about everyone else's plan:) Release: Miller, Arch, Walker. I do not release Mike Brown, at least not until I have a replacement on the roster. I do not release Moose, as we are already thin at WR and do not increase our cap by releasing him. I also do not cut Metcalf, as he have to eat cap to do so, though he could still lose his roster spot in camp. Re-sign: Ayenbendejo. He will not be cheap, but is too great of a leader on special teams, and until I "see" our offense improve, our special teams is too important. I do not re-sign Briggs. I would love to keep him, but not for what it will take to do so (especially when we have too many needs) and we need to give our two drafted LBs a chance to step up. I tag Berrian - This hurts, but I do not want us to get locked into a long term deal. He is seeking a deal more common to top end production, as opposed to the potential his contract should be based on. I tag him for a year and (a) give other young WRs have have or may add, a year to develop and ( hope next year is not as weak in FA and the draft. At the all important QB position, I do one of two things. If I can add McNabb for a 2nd round pick, or a couple picks (this year and next) that would be about the same in value, I do it. If not, I would be looking at the draft (not round one) for a QB. I do not see Rex returning for a one year deal. So I would allow Griese and Orton to compete next year while developing the rookie. I do not see either Griese, nor Orton, as long term solutions, but if we improve the offense surrounding the QB enough, I think either can do plenty to win. FAs I would look to add: Faneca - Not young, but not as old as Miller either. Unlike Brown, he has not even shown signs of slowing down, and has plenty left in him. Not only does he bring talent, but he brings leadership I think our team lacks. Bryant Johnson - This signing depends on price. If his price tags starts to soar due to a weak FA class, then I look at other "lesser" players. But BJ has never produced at a high level, and his cost may not get too high. At the same time, I think he could be a very good #2, may be as good as any rookie in the draft, and would bring a far greater instant impact. Chris Brown - I would like Fargas, but unless Oakland is looking at McFadden, I think they will look hard to lock up Fargas. Assuming no Fargas, I would add Brown. I think he would be solid competition for Benson, while being an upgrade (at minimum) to AP as a #2 RB. Ken Hamlin - He would not be "cheap", but I do not believe he would be "expensive" either. Faneca is my big ticket signing, w/ Hamlin and BJ being mid-sized ones. Chris Brown should be cheap. Draft - To me, there is no question it should be OT. There are 4 OTs in the draft I think most would not be upset w/, as they are solid both talent and value. I believe all four (though Long will be long gone) can play LT, which allows us to move Tait to RT. By doing this, and adding Faneca, we upgrade 3 positions on the OL and turn a weakness into a strength. After the 1st round, I would simply say S and OL are our top needs, w/ WR a close second. W/ regard to the coaching staff, there are many changes I would make, but none are going to happen, so I don't see the point in going down that road.

Jason, is that you? Seriously, if you are some pod Jason-wanna-be alien, get the hell out of here and let Jason back in. An off-season plan by Jason that does not involve (a) Signing Michael Turner, or any other deemed RB upgrade. ( In lieu of signing a FA RB, drafting one in the 1st round © Call for demotion of one or more players, as well as an open competition at QB, and yet no call to demote (much less release) Benson, nor even for an open competition. Seriously, what have you done w/ Jason?

For one thing, he thinks he can buy the Lombardi trophy. If I were a Wash fan, I would like having an owner willing to spend, but that is off-set by having an owner who thinks he is an expert because he played fantasy football one year, and runs the team that way. If a big name FA is out there, Snyder goes after him, often to the near/future detriment of the team. As bad as Arch was for us, at least we didn't pay him 1/4 what Snyder did. As a football fan, he ticks me off because he screws up the market. Every FA just mentions the name Snyder, and a bidding war begins. He pays a premium for average talent, which only makes it more difficult to sign other players because those other players agents will use the Wash contracts as a model. For example, watch Berrian's agent point to Randle El' deal signed last year, and say if he is woth Y, Berrian has to be worth Z. It isn't limited to players either. There has been a relative model for coaching staffs in terms of structure and salary. Then Snyder begins signing assistant coaches to deals worth more than many head coaches are/were making. He started signing HC's to record breaking deals. You can say props to him, but in a system where every more made creates a market, one spoiled brat screws up the system for the rest. Snyder may not be alone in this regard, but I would say he takes it to an extreme. One sports owner I actually like is Mark Cuban (Dallas Mavericks). He gets ripped in the media for his antics, which can be ridiculous, but he is a fan who still shows the enthusiasm. What I really respect though is that, while he does know a bit about the sport, he is smart enough to backoff and let those who know far more make the decisions. He spends money like we breath air. Everything about the team and their facilities is luxury and advanced. But when it comes down to who the team needs to add, while he may have an opinion, he allows the "experts" he has hired to make the decisions. Snyder treats an NFL team as if it were a fantasy football team, and IMHO, shows a level of disrespect to the sport. There are times I wish our org would spend more, but never do I wish we had an owner like Snyder.

That was one of my biggest things too. Why do a vacation like this before the year is over. Before your goal is accomplished. Two points I want to make others outside Dallas may not know/realize. One. Three other players went too. I know Rivera (OG) and Witten were there w/ their wives, as was one other player w/ his wife as well. Just making this point so it is understood it was not JUST Romo. Two. Wade Phillips supposedly told players to take some time off and forget about football for a while. Frankly, here in Dallas, Phillips is catching far more grief, both for the Mexico vacation, as well as for the game. Phillips is the sort of coach that is friends w/ the players. He has been soft on them. For the most part, it appeared to have worked, but over the last month +, the team seems to have been slipping, and Phillips has not seemed able to turn the momentum back around. There have been loads of articles here about how Billichek went through their bye week close to like a normal practice week. Players were in full pads, and lived in the film room. Phillips, by contrast, basically gave the team the week off.

Well, consider me someone who thinks it matters. Not the whole Simpson thing. Frankly, I find all that comical. But going to Cabo? I mean, the season is about at an end (now it is for the cowgirls) and you can vacation all you want. I simply never understood why he would do that. And for the record, there were a couple other players who went as well. Brady had a week off too. Did you read about him leaving the country to go on vacation. Frankly, I have never heard of this. The most I hear about is a player going out of town for a day to see his old school in a bowl game, but to go on a vacation out of the country? I am not saying that was the difference, or that it had any meaning what-so-ever. Heck, Witten went w/ him and maybe they practiced that toss play. For me, it is more about intelligence. You are already under the spotlight. You have already been getting upset w/ how you are being portrayed in the media. Then you go and do this. All you are doing is providing more ammo. As for your comment that once you get onto the field, nothing else matters, I have to disagree. Players talk all the time about Monday through Saturday distractions. They do have an effect.