nfoligno

IMHO, this would be an AWESOME hire. He was the OC in Cle in 2007. That year, - Cle won 10 games, which is incredible to think about by itself - Derek Anderson put up big numbers (3,800 yards, 29 TDs, 19 Ints) - Jamal Lewis had a big year w/ 1,300 yards (4.4 avg) and 9 scores. - Edwards and Winslow both had very good years as well (this was Edwards 1,300 yard, 16 TD season) - Offense was ranked #8 overall with with over 5,600 yards total offense. They scored an average of 35 ppg. He was fired due to Cle hiring a new HC (Mangini) and moved on to SD, where he took over as TE coach/ Assist HC. He also ran the offense for Miami U, and their offense was very good. He was both TE coach and OC for Miami, and coached Bubba Franks, Shockey and Winslow. Combine that with Winslow having a great season under him at Cle and obviously Gates in SD, and you have to wonder what he could do for another Miami U alumni in Olsen. He has been around a while, but is still only 41 years old, and has a very solid reputation. An article mentions one potential negative in what sort of advice he might get about Chicago due to who he is surrounded by. In SD, you have Ron Turner's brother, and you have to wonder what sort of comment Ron has made about Lovie. SD also has Rivera, Don Johnson and Steve Wilks, all of who were fired or allowed to leave by Lovie. If we like Chud (as he is referred to) and he seeks advice from those around him, I can't imagine the input will be very positive. Still, among the OCs I have heard about, I think Chud would be a very solid hire. He has experience running and offense, and has experience in multiple schemes. He has a good history of getting great production from the TE position, and you have to love what he did for Derrick Anderson, who has stunk since Chud departed. I also love that his offenses seem to be even, as he utilzies both the run game and passing attack.

One move that didn't happen that sort of suprises me. Jedd Fisch was a coach at one point we were rumored to have interest in. He was the WR coach for Denver, and we given a ton of credit for the development of Eddie Royal, not to mention Marshall. He supposedly also had a very good relationship w/ Cutler. Prior to Denver, he was an assistant QB coach for Baltimore, and many spoke about his working w/ McNair to make some changes which aided him in Baltimore. I never liked the idea of Fisch as our OC, but as either a QB coach or WR coach, the idea looked pretty solid. Well, Carroll hired Fisch to be the QB coach in Seattle. I didn't make a big issue of it at the time, as I thought it was just a matter of our first wanting to get our OC in place, but now, I have to question why we would not have made the move. If we are going to go about signing position coaches prior to having an OC in place, this would have seemed a pretty logical hire.

That's what the NFL guy said, but I am not sure how much I agree, and here's why. As I said, if we were talking about hiring a DL coach (for example) prior to our DC, I would not so much as think twice about it. Lovie has a defensive background and we run his scheme. Regardless who we end up w/ as a DC, Lovie knows what we need in terms of a DL coach. Can that really be said though about our offensive hires? Where does our offensive knowledge come from? Neither our HC, nor our GM, have an offense oriented background. That is why on offense, I would think we would tend to lean more in the direction of first getting our OC, and then listening to who he wants as his position coaches. That doesn't mean we simply give the OC compete authority over his staff, but I would sure think we would want his input.

At the end of the day, does it matter. Just like when someone says that Lovie didn't fire Rivera, I laugh at the need to be technically correct. Lovie all but helped Rivera back his bags. McDaniles and Nolan supposedly had a rift going on, and the sense is McDaniels was pushing Nolan out the door. Ultimately, it may have been Nolan asking for the door to be open, but McDaniels had been pushing him in that direction and was quick to open the door for him. So maybe it isn't technically accurate to say McD fired Nolan, but I think you could say he ran him off.

Pix, don't be so quick to bail. Should we have had all these rules discussed, decided and in place a year ago. Sure? But you have some hicups anytime you start up something, and that holds even more true when starting up a thing consisting of people from many different states. Hell, we even have one owner in South America. Give it another year. Before the next draft, we should have all our rules in place, and far less confusion. Hell, in my local league where we have a live draft, there is confusion every year, and that is after more than 10 years. The reason is some guys want to change the rules every year, and we have votes and disagreements... Blah blah blah. Point is, I don't think its every that "clean" and less so at the startup. I have been in a FF league w/ you two years in a row now, and I have had my arce handed to me both years. You can't quit now:) Seriously though. Give it another go. If we all can't get our act together this next year, then we may need to take a step back and look at things, but right now, I think we just chalk it up to first year issues, answer the questions, move forward.

Regarding Dallas, they had the good year this year, but lets not pretend their coaching moves were recent or considered successful. In fact, the way in which they went about their coaching moves should be an example of how not to do it. The authority of the HC here has been a near joke as Jason Garrett was considered the heir apperant. In fact, until the late run and playoff win, it was believed their HC had no chance in hell of being retained, and now suddenly, Jerry Jones is talking contract extension. But don't take that to believe the manner in which they went about their coaching hires has been considered a success. Actually, the funny thing is that it is Jason Garrett (the OC) who is taking a massive amount of heat around here. Regarding our hiring of position coaches, I heard/read some comments by a former NFL player/coach who said it is VERY odd to hire an OC or DC prior to the HC, but not necessarily that big of a deal to hire position coaches before OC/DC, so long as the HC is in place. I would agree w/ that more if we were talking about hiring a DB coach before defensive coordinator, as we have a defensive background HC and run his system. I disagree on the offensive side of the ball though. Lovie knows little about offense, and it is pretty well known that he is hands off on offense and allows the OC near total freedom. Thus our OC is similar to a HC#2. We need to allow the OC the ability to at least give input on the hiring of his position coaches. I can accept the Tice hire, as it is a guy w/ high experience who may not be around when you finally get your OC, but I don't really get this TE coach.

I hear you, but we are talking about the WR position, which traditionally is considered one in need of time to develop, and after only a rookie year, you put him on par w/ Currie. I do realize that was just an offhand comment, but at the same time, I don't think you are giving the kid much benefit of doubt here. Lets remember. We are talking about the group of coaches here who refused to play DA, despite their QB begging for him to play. If it were not due to injuries at the end of the year, we would have never seen DA play a down this season. Just think about that for a moment. I understand. Iglesias has not shown anything thus far. I fully admit a bias. Iglesias was a kid I liked in college, wanted to draft him, and was thrilled when we did. At the same time, I just can't help but to believe he was held back by the same staff that screwed up Bennetts rookie year and nearly wasted DA this past season. Time will tell, but by the end of all this, I will tell you here and now, I think Iglesias will end up either as a #2 or #3 for us.

As for Iglesias, I have no idea what he's going to contribute, if anything. I haven't heard a peep about him since camp, and the word back then was that he was struggling. We'll see, I guess. It'd be nice if he turned into something. Don't forget though. Bennett went nearly the identical route. As a rookie, Bennett was expected to come in as the smart guy who could pickup the playbook quickly, and who, due to his more refined route running, should see the field early. But he reportedly couldn't pickup the offense and struggled on the field. Well, Iglesias seems to be taking a near identical route, and I really don't understand it. I wonder if, like Bennett, we tried to develop Iglesias at all positions rather than focusing on one. Knox, on the other hand, I know was specifically developed at one position, and thus his development was quicker, but despite f'ing up Bennett his rookie year, I wonder if we didn't do the same thing w/ Iglesias. I realize the NFL is not college, and many drafted don't make it. However, I find it hard to believe someone who was considered a polished route runner suddenly forgets how to run routes. As I said, like w/ Bennett, we can't really go off his rookie year as he was not seen. However, I think he will in fact become a factor this upcoming season.

No real arguments with your comments. I agree Hester is better on the outside, though I do think he could become best inside. Honestly, maybe Hester and DA as our starters is best, but rather than Bennett, what if Knox were our slot guy. I hate to say it, as I like so much of what Bennett did this year. At the same time, going off potential, he would be the odd man out IMHO. In Hester, DA and Knox, you have a tremendous amount of speed. Not only that, but yards after the catch potential. This trio could really spread out a defense. Then throw in Olsen, who has size and speed. Hell, now throw in Forte, who is a very damn good receiver out of the backfield. And as I said before, I still believe Iglesias will prove to be a bigger factor and part of the equation. Look, rarely have I looked at our group of receivers and spoke about promise or viewed them w/ a glass half full. As much as I wanted to upgrade the OL, I also felt our WR corp was in dire need of work. But now I just see a very different situation. We have probably more draft investment in this group than in as long as I can remember (a 2nd, two 3rds and a 5th), and that doesn't even factor DA, who exploded onto the scene and may be Cutler's favorite of the whole group. They still need more developing, but from what I saw this past year, I just feel we have the weapons in place, and what we need to avoid is quitting on them too soon. Fix the damn OL, and improve our coaching, and I think we could have a damn dangerous (top 10 even) offense next year. Defense is another story all together.

Honestly, I would really like to see a starting duo w/o Hester. That is not to bash Hester, but I simply believe he would be better of in the slot, w/ nickel DBs forced to defend him, rather than in the starting rotation w/ staring caliber CBs covering. DA should start next year. Opposite him though could be interesting, and I think you could go in two directions. I think you could start Bennett, and then use DA as your downfield guy and Bennett as your possession guy. Or you could go w/ Knox as a starter and have him work downfield and DA a bit less. That is what is funny to me. While some feel we need to add at WR, I honestly struggle to see how we can get enough reps to the guys we have. I would love to see the new OC come in and use much more spread formations. I think we have the talent to use a lot of 3 and 4 WR formations. Not only that, but we have Olsen at TE, and while he didn't step up as much as some would have liked, the fact so many defenses put their #1 CB prove that he, more than any other, is who DCs were game planning for. Then throw in our having a RB who many would consider in the elite category in terms of receiving from the back position. We have a lot of weapons, IMHO. What we have lacked is (a) and OL which provides time for our QB to utilize those weapons and ( and OC imaginitive enough to get the most out of what he has.

Nice detailed look at Edwards, and the overall picture with regard to our ability to go after RFAs. I think Alaska, and maybe others, mentioned sending players in a trade for certain WRs. For example, I think he mentioned sending Urlacher to Denver for Marshall. Whether picks or players, I am simply not for such a move. We have enough holes on the team w/o creating more holes, which I think the above example would do. Then you start to look at the UFAs, and I would point out another aspect I am not sure you mentioned. Even if there is a WR or two we might like, due to the very thin pool of talent, you are likely to see some really over-priced guys in the mix. Antonio Bryant did jack this past season, but when another GM looks at what is available, he may offer Bryant a deal based on production from two years ago rather than last year. Any WRs we might find interesting, you can bet others will as well, and due to the lack of talent out there, those few players are going to get far more than they deserve. With all that said, I just don't think WR is a need for us. When I look over our roster, I see numerous areas that are not just holes, but holes which I see no potential candidates on our roster to fill. At FS, for example, when I look at our roster, I see only a bunch of strong safeties. When I look at CB, not only does our starting duo look questionable, but I don't even see the players beyond that who are likely to step up. At WR however, we have a group that may lack experience, but does in fact seem to have talent. Look at Minny and their WR Rice who is finishing his 3rd season. In his first two years, he looked like a bust. This year, he went from basically nothing to 1,300 yards and being called a near stud. It just goes to show that (a) don't give up too soon and take time to develop players you draft and ( how much a QB upgrade can help. We have Bennett, who was a 3rd round pick, and didn't even see the field (not enough to speak of) as a rookie. In year 2, he has 54 catches for 717 yards (nice 13+ ypc). Those are solid numbers for a kid playing his first season. We have Knox, who was a true rookie. Not only that, but he was a 5th round pick who was considered more of a project coming from a small school, and a kid who would need time to develop. Well, the kid grabbed 45 for 520 and 5 scores, while showing some tremendous speed and quickness. Very solid numbers for a rookie WR. We have DA, who Cutler begged to see on the field in camp. Our esteemed OC though didn't believe there was room for him on the active roster, so he sits until the end of the year until injuries force DA into the lineup. The result is (over the final 4 games) 22 catches, 280 yards and 4 scores. Spread that over a season and you have 88-1,150 and 16 scores. No, I am not saying he would have that, but it puts how well he played in perspective. Looking past the numbers, he showed the sort of body control and big play ability we have longed for here in Chicago, and showed great chemistry w/ our franchise QB. We also have Hester. No, few here still think of him as a #1 WR, but I honestly believe if we can get past that thinking, which I never agreed w/ to begin with, Hester is a pretty solid looking WR. Hester has increased his catch and yardage totals each of the last three seasons. While I do not want him as our #1, and frankly would rather he played slot, he can still be a very effective and dangerous WR for us. To add one more name, we also have Iglesias, who basically got the Bennett, red shirt treatment. I said prior to the draft, and believe it now, Iglesias has more talent and potential than Bennett. I think he has better route running and hands than Bennett, and more quickness as well. I am honestly excited about this position and what Cutler can do with it. We got more production our of our WR position this year than in some time, and I think that will only get better w/ (a) increased chemistry between Cutler and WRs ( further development of these young WRs © improved OL play, buying Cutler and WRs more time to allow routes to develop and (d) better playcalling.

Admittedly I have not followed "that" close. So are you guys saying some owners are in favor of dumping the CBA because they basically want to trash the current system, not only w/ the players agreement but the owners agreements too? I know that I have heard in the past some owners, like Jerry Jones, not caring for the current system as he beleives he brings so much more to the table than many other teams. Frankly, he's right. Its not just a more successful team, or even the market either. Dallas isn't "that" great of a market. In fact, the baseball team here is as often as not lumped w/ the small market teams. But Jerry has a very good business mind, and brings so much ancillary dollars to the table. Meanwhile, there are many other owners who really don't add much, but are happy to take plenty. I fully understand this issue some owners have. At the same time, football has never been more popular, and I believe a big reason for that is the parity, for lack of a better term, which is brought about in large part by the salary cap and revenue sharing. I am sorry, but in baseball, it is really hard to care when the Yankees are set to face this small market team or that one. Sure, you have a team like Minny who simply defies the odds, but then you have a team like the Royals who come to town w/ their $25m team salary and go up against NY and their $200m+ salary. This exemplifies an extreme example, but is regardless part of the problem IMHO. In the NFL, small market teams can and do compete with big market teams. It takes more than money to win a championship, and much more than money to sustain lasting success. IMHO, if some of the more rich owners get their way, they may well be able to buy themselves more championships, but they may also find their overall profits dip down the road as lower ratings for football lead to smaller TV deals and smaller ad buys. To me, the solution would seem to be a change is what profits are shared. Allow owners like Jones, Snyder and others who do more to up the profits of their teams to keep more of those profits. There is plenty of money to not only go around, but to also keep the big boys happy. So long as their is a salary cap, allowing teams to keep a greater share should not make that great of a difference. As for the players, I would still shave their share of the revenue, as I simply don't believe they deserve as large of a piece of the pie as they currently receive, but that is my opinion.

Why does it matter? I mean, if Wash or Dallas make a ton of profit due to other aspects of their business or deals they have vs a franchise like Jax, why would the league care. In baseball, you have the yankees and such, but the reason (IMHO) for negative comments is not simply due to NY making so much money, but due to the lack of a salary cap, and thus the perception that a team can buy a world series. Football is very different. Even if Wash makes more money than another team, while it may give them some advantages, for the most part, the salary cap keeps teams on a more even playing field. Yes, Wash can offer bigger bonuses and play w/ the cap more than some teams, but the disparity is still far less than it is in a sport like Baseball. So I am just not sure that I buy the public perception slanting toward negative if they saw the disparity. Frankly, most know of the difference now between teams like Wash and Jax. I think the issue is far more about the teams more in the middle. The Bears for example. We really have no idea what the profit is at the end of the year for the team. Not just Chicago, but the bulk of teams IMHO. I think there are a group of obvious "havs" and a group of obvious "have nots" but it is the majority of teams that are more in the middle and unknown which I think is the greater question. Honestly, I am not sure I understand your point about some teams not wanting revenue sharing. While I do not doubt a team like Wash would prefer not to have revenue sharing, at the same time, I have not heard of that really being an issue, at least not in tems of this CBA. Any new CBA would include revenue sharing, right? It doesn't seem like that is really on the table.

Agreed. Finding a franchise QB is simply so difficult. This team spent two 1st round picks in recent (relative) history on QBs (Cade/Rex) and didn't find a franchise QB. No way do I trade a franchise QB we finally found.

What?? With both the Williams', Jared Allen, Jimmy Kennedy and Ray Edwards? They have a worse pass rush than the Bears?? I meant Det, not Minny, when I said our last game of the year and mentioned their having a worse pass rush then ours. I am pretty sure that most here, myself included, would be ok with Omiyale being shown the door. I believe Beekman is ready to come into his own. I would be much better with leaving Garza where he is and ok with Kreutz returning. Williams is definitely the long term solution on the left (better be after the draft choice he cost) and maybe Shaffer is the answer (for now) at Right. If not then maybe one pickup for RT could do the trick. In that I would be inclined to use either the 3rd or 4th round pick and entertain other players later in the preseason for G/C. Problem is, as I mentioned before, there is little to no depth, much less Plan B options. What if Beekman isn't going to work out. Or Schaffer at RT? We simply lack depth, not to mention legit quality, along the OL. We can talk about the OL in best case scenario terms, but how often does that play out. W/o significant upgrades, we are setting ourselves up for trouble. Not sure why my comments "concern" you as I was only agreeing with the previous poster. And I was trying to make a point in not venturing in FA with the thought the Bears should waste money on OL when there are higher and more valuable skill players available IE: Boldin and Marshall. To me, that is where you make the money. I think the problem with the Bears' OL from last year was the inability to solidify and work as a true unit. I was not trying to call you out. I talked about this some time ago when I brought up the idea that our late improved play along the OL could be trouble IMHO as it could give a false sense of security in our OL, and allow Angelo the opinion that the OL is not as great of a need as I believe it truly is. Your recent comments, IMHO, exemplify that as you think (a) we can simply insert Beekman ( Kreutz and Garza are fine and © Schaffer can man the RT spot, and even if not, it would not be too difficult to replace him w/ a 2nd day rookie. You say, "that is where you make your money". If you actually mean money, I would argue winning makes you money. If you meant it symbolically, I would argue you win in the trenches. W/o solid OL play, the best RBs get stuffed at the LOS and the best QBs will be wasted as they continually get sacked or throw it away. You can surround an offense w/ loads of elite talent, but if you get blocking like we did this year, I just don't think it matters. To me, we could have had Fitz and Reggie Wayne on the team, and our offense would have still struggled due to the OL. As far as the rest, it is pretty clear you and I disagree what the Bears priorities are and again, are off topic. I still like Boldin over any other FA...RB or otherwise. The key difference though is cost. I am not advocating spending big bucks on any RB. In fact, I would be totally against such a move. I like Boldin over any RB I have heard about too, and if I was told we could spend big at WR or RB (excluding all other options) I too would go w/ Boldin, but I don't think that is a legit argument as I don't think anyone is really suggesting spending big at the RB position.

I will say this. I think so long as owners keep their finances under closed books, they open themselves up to speculation and criticism like Lucky feels. I don't blame lucky for this reason. If what I think is true, the owners should open their books to show their profits/revenue have dipped w/ the economy. If they did this, and showed that, I think they would bring far more support to their side.

The OL looked better in the final two games, but lets be honest for a moment, even then they were far from great, or even good. Against Minny, we were moving the pocket a lot more, and using Cutler the way we should, but you can only do that so much. Final game was against Minny, who has a pass rush weaker than ours. No, I do not think our OL is close to settled. I think Williams replacing Pace is a great start, but I am not happy with anyone we have projecting to RT at the moment. Also, while Omiyale improved, that is a very relative comment. Garza is not awful, but not good either. And Kreutz is near the end, and many thing the end was a few years ago. OL played better at the end, but comments like yours exemplify my greatest concern. Just because it played well for a game or two does not mean it isn't in need of fixing. I am sure you would say the same for the WR position, but here are the differences, IMHO. (a) I believe it all starts in the trench. On defense, I am far more happy w/ upgrading the DL over the CB position. I don't care how good of a cover corner you have, if you don't rush the passer and the QB has all day, no CB in the league can sustain his cover forever. On the other hand, if you have a great pass rush, I think even an average CB can look good. Similar on offense. If you build the OL and have a great OL, you will find the parts you have on offense look so much better. On the other hand, if you build up the skill positions w/o the OL, you have simply wasted talent. Just look at Cutler. We finally went out and got us a pro bowl QB, but w/ the OL we had, he looked like Rex Grossman as often as not. ( Other than the Williams switch, our OL was much the same as it started. At WR however, toward the end, and only when forced, we finally got DA onto the field. You know, the WR Cutler had begged to see out there since camp. Suddenly we have a WR able to go up and make the big plays. As DA is doing this, the whole field seems to open up and others now are making plays. We all wanted a playmaker, but I just have to wonder if we didn't have that playmaker on the team all along, but only at the end did we give him a shot. © On the OL, we are getting old fast. If this player or that player doesn't play well, we have little to turn to. At WR, it is a near opposite situation. Bennett just played his first season after a red shirt. Knox was a true rookie. Iglesias will be coming off his Bennett like red shirt season. DA is also young and finally got his shot at the end. Even Hester, far and away the most experienced WR in the group, is still learning and developing. If you add a veteran, you are taking snaps away from a promising young WR. In the past, I was all for going after someone like Harrison, Holt or another veteran to bring stability to our group, but I also didn't think at the time we had a lot of talent to begin with. Now, w/ all these good looking young talents, I would rather simply developing them and getting them as many snaps as possible. Boldin - I am not really trying to take away from him. I like him. Always have. At the same time, I just do not feel that is where we need to spend our money. Understand, I believe we will enter this offseason w/ limited funds. As much as Boldin may look good, to me, it would be like buying a bar of chocolate when you have no money for dinner. We need meat and potatoes (OL) before we spend on chocolate (WR). As for the other WRs, sure, they may find themselves in a better situation w/ Cutler, but at the same time, I wuold argue so may our current group be in a better situation w/ more development/ experience and a new OC. At the end of the day, this is sort of how I look at it. OL - Our group of starters leave much to be desires, and we have little in the pipeline to fill the voids. It is likely we will project Schaffer at RT, and that is fairly weak, IMHO. And please don't get me started on Omiyale. CB - Tillman is fading fast. Bowman could be a find. But what else do we have. Graham? Coaches sure didn't seem to favor him. McBride? Gone. Vasher? Likely gone. Moore? Couldn't even make the active roster. FS - Um, we have a bunch of SS', but really no FS to choose from. DL - Situation is just sad, though you could make some level of an argument we have younth which we can hope develops. then you look at our WR situation. Is it the most proven? Hell no. Yet more than most other units, I would argue at WR we have more young talent which may develop for us w/o having to add in FA or the draft. At other positions, I find it hard to even make a legit argument we are solid w/o adding talent to the mix. At WR though, while not yet fully proven, you can easily look at who we have and argue we currently have the talent in place, yet simply need to give that talent time. You can allow all the time you want, and I do not think we are going to get much from the groups we have at OL, CB, FS or even DL.

NAME the amount of nfl teams that lose money on a fairly consistent basis. what is that percentage as a whole? show me the bottom line from their financial statements. show me what they do different from the ones you don't consider losing money. is geography/location a factor? poor football operations management policies which includes personnel and their salary along with the final results in wins/losses? overpaying initially for the franchise? overestimation of sport popularity or initial profits in specific areas? poor borrowing practice? is it a planned tax break for the owners? overestimating the value their franchise will rise and be worth? do you consider the owner/CEO salary factors in your estimation? or is it just a wide brush whitewashing statement that the players are to blame because of salary? One. This is something you always do that drives me nuts. you ask for hard evidence which is simply not possible to attain. The media, which has a lot more time than Jason, I or others on this board to research, can not get such info, yet here you are asking for it? Why? Can you offer this evidence? I know you throw down some articles below, but in reading through them, they are little more than pieces of the puzzle, or flat out opinion pieces. Two. "or is it a wide brush whitewashing statement...." Its an opinion. You know, the sort of thing you read on a message board. Players are employees who want to see huge salaries (fine) but who do not want to feel the affects when a team doesn't do so well financially (not fine). You say you want proof teams are losing money. I am not sure anyone has said that. I think the questions are (a) do players deserve the percentage they get and ( are teams not suffering from the down economy, and if so, should players not feel some of that burden. That isn't to say teams are in the red, but simply that profits are not as great as they were before. Do I have proof? No. Nor do you. but I think it logical to believe the NFL, like most every other industry out there is feeling the effects of a down economy. sorry but until i see the actual financial statements by owners and how they are losing money just for the good of the fans i ain't buyin it. Again, not what anyone is saying. I don't think Jason, I or any others are trying to say owners are in bread lines or teams are losing money. It is a question of percentage of profits that go to players. I could be wrong, but I believe the greatest aspect of where players get a piece of the pie is a more constant number, stemming from media contracts and such. I think much of the money players do not get a piece of the pie come from areas which are most likely to be hit in a down economy. Thus, owners are having to payout to player the same numbers (actually, it is continually going up) while other areas they usually get X amount in profits go down. some interesting reading: http://www.sandiego.gov/chargersissues/doc...waystowin.shtml Um, this is a 2002 article, and based on even older info. Not exactly current, nor does it consider the current economy. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/wealth/b...iressports.html This article is about mega wealthy men who buy teams, and the entire feel of the article seems to question the logic. It talks about teams not really being great investments, and most examples of those who do so well are ones like Cuban or George Steinbrener who have tie in (like cable or media) which boost an organizations profits, rather than simply the team itself. This article does not seem to help your argument. http://www.bos.frb.org/peanuts/sptspage/inning4.htm Nice read, but even in this article it mentions several areas which teams rely on big numbers to see big profits, and some of these areas are ones which teams seem to be struggling with of late. Jerry Jones could not find anyone to pay for naming rights, for example, his new stadium due to the weak economy. I find it hard to believe merchandice sales have been steady in this economy. And even ticket sales. It seems more and more teams struggle to sell out these days, and many point to the economy. 2000: Zimbalist suggests that if the NBA owners are truly serious about competitive balance, they should pursue the NFL’s strategy of revenue sharing, but that faces serious obstacles in both basketball and baseball. The best solution, he argues, is one also suggested by Fort: Foster competition by breaking up the existing leagues and creating new ones. With two leagues in each sport, largemarket teams would have to share their market with teams from competing leagues, and cities would not have to compete against one another by offering new stadiums to attract teams. Honestly, this piece seemed a bit out there. http://www.upjohninst.org/publications/ch1/kern-sports.pdf 2009: The NFL is different. It’s still a money machine, the country’s most popular sport and it has leverage. Ironically, since it’s so popular, it’s still in a position to dictate terms to cities. And those terms are terrible. They want stadiums that are now costing up to a billion dollars and are not a good civic investment, since many are used only about 20 times a year and look like giant blimp hangers blighting the landscape. http://www.dwightjaynes.com/owners-getting...orts-facilities This was little more than an opinion piece by someone making a case that the public should not have to pay for stadiums as they do not see any return, which I disagree with. There are many reports for either side. 2009: As the Redskins close out a decade of losing, one thing is undeniable: off the field, the team has been a roaring success. The Washington Redskins make more money than any other professional sports franchise in the United States. Their estimated annual revenue is $345 million, according to Forbes. Their closest contender, the New York Yankees, bring in somewhere around $320 million a year--but the Yankees bring home championships, 27 and counting. http://www.wopular.com/redskins-revenues-h...pro-sports-team But the article specifies Wash, and Dallas too, as teams that make a ton of money, w/o making a more general statement to other teams in the league. You would not suggest everyone in baseball makes a ton of money using NY as an example. Similar, in football, can you really point to Wash as an example for the league. A key reason they make so much money is having a stadium which seats 20k more than the average, and closer to 30k more than we.

Actually I believe Marshall will be an RFA and regardless I hear Seattle is making a push for him. With Carroll now there, things could get challenging for a team like the Bears to go into a bidding war. And as far as "ammo" I would offer up a player like Urlacher or even Hester in trade talks and entertain whatever the team the Bears talk to in regards to other players. The Bears are most definitely in the "beggas can't be choosers" role this next year. We can talk about this offer or that, but the reality is, this is a mega long shot. Cribbs is actually listed as WR even though he played QB in college (compared to Hester's prior experience at CB). And his size (6'1" 215) versus Hester (5'11" 190) makes him a much more targetable WR. Especially given his speed and weight. He would be a great over the middle type receiver. He is more along the size of Aromashadu who I definitely hope the Bears keep around. As far as the rest; Knox - maybe one to two years left with speed being his main attribute (and depending on his later season injury), Bennett - I like him as a #3 in most cases. Beyond that they can all go. Maybe Cribbs body is more like that of a WR, but that is not really the point. Cle has tried to use him more as a WR, and that simply has not worked out. The difference between Cle and Chicago in this regard is we basically took Hester away from his return duties to focus on WR development, while Cle tried to develop his WR game while always making his return duties priority. But if we brought him here, how would you want to handle him. He is seeking Hester money, and wants to be paid like a WR. Yet at the same time, he has not developed as one. He is a freak in the return game, but would we not be doing the same thing many have blasted us for in taking an electrifying return man and trying to make him into something he is not. Further, we would be paying a bit of a premium to do so. All the more reason to consider him. The Bears won't have a lot in the way of bargaining chips to offer up so why not try him out for one year? Think Muhammad. He was a great pick up for the Bears who did OK (probably due to Orton running the offense) but when he returned to Carolina he turned out to be a pretty good utility receiver behind Steve Smith. One very key issue I have w/ adding a player like Harrison, even if we could get him, is he would take away snaps from a very good looking group of young WRs, IMHO. DA is a WR we need to get more snaps for. bennett did well in his first year on the field. Knox was a true rookie and lit it up on a level far beyond expectations. And we still have our 3rd round pick WR (Iglesias) who is likely to be seen more after his Bennett like red shirt season. Then we have Hester. I think we have talent at the WR spot, but the combo of poor coaching, no protection for the QB and lack of chemistry held the group back. You look at what Cutler and the WRs did the last two games. Key in those games was the protection and time Cutler had. I would take that over the span of 16 games. Wouldn't you? If you want to help the passing game, start w/ the OL. I don't care if we added Fitzgerald. If Cutler is on his back, he can't get the ball to Fitz. Another few notables that I totally forgot about; Anquan Boldin will probably be looking for a new home and next to Cutler I would be willing just about to give anything to bring him in as a #1 WR. Since Angelo tried once already maybe Boldin will appreciate that fact and appreciate that he would be the man at WR if he came to Chicago. Boldin is a hell of a WR, but once again, he showed an inability to stay healthy. We suffer through enough injuries w/o trading away players/ picks to add more injury prone players. The list continues: Antonio Bryant, Steve Breaston, Braylon Edwards (probably too much money and depends on how far the Jets make it), Josh Reed and Troy Williamson - once a first rounder who recently was heard to say that he would like to "duke it out with Brad Childress". That would be fun to see especially since he could see him twice in the same year. Josh Reed? In 8 NFL seasons, his best season was less than what Bennett gave us this year. Why would we want him? Troy Williamson? Yea, he was a 1st round pick, and may have wanted to fight Big Brad, but he sucks. Jax traded for him thinking he could elevate their passing game, and he didn't even play well enough to be on the field. Single digit catch totals the last two years, and he did little in Minny before that. Bryant - Depends on money. If he wants to be paid based on his 1,300 yards two years ago. No. If he wants to be paid based on his 600 yards this past year? Maybe. Edwards - Unless there is a new CBA, Edwards only has 5 years in the league, and is thus a RFA. NY will keep him after trading for him. Breaston - Hey, I like him, but I can see him coming at a pretty high cost, and I just don't think that is worth it for us. Edwards is a RFA, and Breaston could hit paydirt this FA. I like our players over the rest. Josh Reed? You have to be kidding. One other notable RB to consider is Leon Washington. He will probably be the odd man out with the Jets with TJ being the perrenial 1,000 yard back and the surge of the rookie Green. Washington definitely has the game breaker ability and has shown he could play alongside another showcase RB, in this case Forte. Maybe be someone worth considering. Agreed. But in the long run a lot of what comes down the pike in regards to eventually signing players depends on who is chosen as the new OC. Disagree. I don't care who we bring in. If we do not fix the OL, no system in the world is going to run well.

I think (hope) the Bears learned their lesson after the Thomas Jones / Cedric Benson affair from a few years ago. If you recall, Benson was labeled the whiner as he didn't get the ball enough (especially as a number 4 overall pick) so off went TJ. Then a bit later off went Benson. I think leaving things as they are, in the RB dept, is the best course of action. Forte will get better and I think there is something there with Bell. And I believe that Wolfe offers a different angle with his size and Sproles - like ability. I think upsetting the apple cart at this point would prove detrimental, especially with a malcontent like McGahee. If it came down to it and the Bears thought they HAD to have another back then I'd say go with Taylor. He's a real decent player and person. Reminds me a lot of TJ in fact. While I am less confident in our "apple cart" I do agree w/ avoiding McGahee. Taylor would be a much better fit. I say the money needs to go toward a WR (Marshall, Cribbs or even Harrison) and OL. One, disagree we put money to the WR position. I like our WRs, quite a bit, and would like to see how some develop further w/ an improved OL. Funny how, later in the year Cuter had more time, and suddenly our WRs look pretty damn good. As for your examples, Marshall - I don't think he is going to be an UFA, and we don't have the ammo to trade for him, even if we wanted to. Cribbs - Um, not a WR. Hester is more of a WR than Cribbs. We already tries to take an elite return man and make him into something he is not. You really want to try and do this again? Harrison - Seriously. His game was going downhill fast. Not a team in the league wanted him last year, and now he is simply a year older and further removed. I am not saying that we should not even consider adding a WR, but I sure don't want to put any legit amount of money there. IMHO, there are 4 areas of top ticket need (OL, DL, FS, CB). I doubt we can afford DL or CB, as those two units are simply so expensive. I think we should be able to afford OL and FS though.

Not sure McGahee would want this. He never wanted the Rice-McGahee tandem thing, and never seemed to fond of it. It is one thing to say what it best for a player, but another thing entirely for a player to realize and accept that. I think McGahee still considers himself as a 1a type RB, and will be seeking a team that will give him the top spot on the roster. If no one looks at him that way, maybe he changes his mind, but I think someone will. Taylor on the other hand seems very accepting of such a role player role.

Yea, the only thing that holds me back from totally taking a side here is the lack of public disclosure. I could be wrong, but I think GB is the only teams who's finances are actually known, as they are a publically held company, and thus required by law to open their books. The rest of the teams are not required to do so. While I understand any company being hesitant to open up the books, when you claim your losing money, you need to show proof. If the books were opened though, I think we would find some teams doing well, others not so much, but I think across the board, most teams would show lower numbers in this weakened economy. If that is not the case, then the NFL truly is a shining beacon as it would be maybe the only place not affected by recent financial woes. But I doubt that is the case. I read constantly about teams finding it harder and harder to find sponsors. Teams finding it harder to sell those expensive suites as companies are not as willing to fork over the big bucks they once were. Hard to justify execs living it up in some awesome suite when they are at the same time laying off tons of workers. Some teams were even struggling w/ attendence. Overall, I think there is more than enough reason to believe NFL owners, just as w/ most every other company boss in America, has been hit by hard times. Players are quite willing to be equal partners when it comes to taking the money, but when times are down, they don't seem to want that same level of committment.

I agree this is a bad time for the players to make their cases. It is always said and argued that the average joe can simply not compare his life/job to that of a player. While that may still be true, in this economy, it may be harder to rationalize. Many, if not most, companies today are taking steps to try and improve the position (current and future) of the company, and often times it comes at some expense to employees. Could be layoffs. Could be pay raise freezes. Lowering of benefits. Something. Point is, when you have an economy like we have, companies are having to find ways to cut costs. The NFL is no different. While I have no evidence, I would bet the profits for the league and owners are down today than they were not long ago. Every sport seems to be suffering as the average fan simply can not afford to drop $500 to attend a game. Many can not even afford the $75 jerseys and such. While football maybe more protected due to TV deals, that doesn't mean they are totally insulated from the down economy. So at a time when we read about what companies and employees are doing to keep jobs, here you have the NFL players refusing to accept a paycut. I just have a hard time seeing many people showing much empathy with these guys. Sure, owners are rich also, but aren't most company owners?

One. Despite all the negative I read, I simply find it so hard to believe either side truly is dumb enough to force a work stoppage. Football has never been more popular. In fact, I might even argue no sport has ever seen the total popularity football has today. Example after example has shown how negative of an impact work stoppages has had, for both sides, in the past. Football, baseball, hockey. Yes, league rebound over time, but the key term there is time. Baseball was once the American Pastime, but football has not only taken their place, but lapped them in the process. I just have such a hard time believing most of what I read/hear isn't hot air. Two. My personally, I side with the owners here. Sorry, but in no other business that I can think of do the employees see the level of company income as you have here. Even in industries where employees are true talents. Business wise, employers are taking all the risk, while giving up a great deal of the returns. If players want to be considered more like financial partner, then they should accept more financial risks. I realize they risk injury every day, but that is simply not the same thing in terms of business. The only thing that holds me back some from truly attacking players rather than owners is the owner's past reluctance to "open their books". If they were to open their books, and we found they were making a far greater profit than realized, that very well could change my opinion, but while there may well be some "fudging," I don't think it is on a level to change my opinion.

On one level, while this is going to affect our offseason plans, I am not sure how great of a true effect this will have on our actual play. Lets be honest, he was considered a bust by the team that drafted him, and while he was not with us for long, he didn't even show flashes of potential. He was essentially penciled into a 2010 starting role due to what we gave him, but not necessarily due to actual play or ability. While he was set to start, I always questioned how long he would keep that role as I just didn't think much of him. But there is no question we have to make other plans now. First thing I think will be the staff, again, changing plans for Gilbert. I swear it seems like I hear about him playing a different role on the DL every couple weeks. Gilbert and Melton will be pegged to compete for the RDE spot, with Brown on the other side. Inside, it will be the same rotation we have seen, w/ more talk of hope of Harris playing to his old level (and they will talk about how well he played at the end of the season) along w/ Harrison developing. I have no doubt Angelo will also add a player or two in the draft, and that rookie too could be in the mix. We may also look at FA, but I do not expect a Kampman or anyone like that which would come at a high cost. We might see another signing or two along the Adams level. IMHO, Lovie (and Angelo) have been given another season, but I do not think the team is going to give them a ton to work with. I think, to some extent, the ownes will basically say they have made their beds, and now must lay down in the same. You know. Make due with what you have.