jason

Just for the record, I think that what he does is better than my previous statement. If he's going to games, but selling others, then at least he's a fan. Sure, he's still part of the problem, but at least he's a fan that doesn't completely rape the system for his own benefit. As for the commodity statement, while true, it's a way of looking at things that aggravates the average fan. Sure, tickets can be bought and sold just like many other things, but it's different in a certain way that makes it unique. And the fact that he exploits this commodity, regardless of how legal it is, is the line of reasoning and thinking that has led to where we are today: with most fans disillusioned and priced out of a decent game, where it legitimately costs hundreds of dollars to get two people into a game. That's not only sad, it's a pathetic and greedy point of view in my opinion. People like the guys you know never get to mention the rising salaries and other aspects related because they are the facilitators of that black mark on professional sports ticket sales. On a different note, I think it's a completely different travesty that he has three different sets of season tickets, and is on the waiting list for another set. This should not be allowed. Absolutely, unequivocally, it's something that should be rejected by the team in order to stop people from mass-selling tickets.

For the record, I have a huge problem with both. The season ticket guys who sell their tickets are just minor players in the ticket brokering process, but they're a part of the problem. I think that many who do this will play the "Oh, well, I can't go to the game"-card, but when the tickets go up for sell as soon as they are purchased, over and over and over, and there are consistently hundreds of tickets at WAY above face value on more than one website, then they are no better than the big time dealers.

Are you serious!? Those guys can rot in hell for all I care. I blame every single one of those greedy bastards. There are ALWAYS people that want to go to the game. It's just that most normal fans know that the prices for the games - because of markup - are astronomically high, and the average guy can't afford to go to the games regularly. If the guys you know are so damn hard up, send them to this message board. I'm quite sure there will be someone to snap the tickets up in a matter of minutes. I just don't buy that "nobody wants to buy the tickets"-BS. I'd gladly sit in the cold for a game, and if the guy has good tickets it's that much better. Last year I sat at the New Orleans game, and I was only 5-10 rows from the ozone layer, and the wind was BRUTAL. I'd do it again in a heartbeat, as would many on this board. Furthermore, if the guys you know sell the tickets to the "hot games" at a markup to "cover the cost", then they are precisely the worst people we are talking about. They are fans of convenience. If they were true, diehard fans, there is no way in hell they would pass up the big games. You better believe that if I had season tickets, there would have to be a death in the family to keep me away from a Green Bay game. They use the "covering the cost" excuse as a way to rape another fan. They are same type of people responsible for something we saw in this year's NBA finals, and something we see all the time: a visiting team fan in the home team section, in a seat that was obviously a season ticket holder, all because someone wanted to make a buck.

In my opinion, Leftwich is better than either of the Bears QBs. While I grade them out relatively even, it's Leftwich's composure and leadership ability that pushes him above the other two. Remember this: Leftwich stood in the pocket with a broken leg.

That's sort of what I'm getting at. When the Bears were healthy last year, they looked good. They looked like their defense could carry the team, like many other years. And as long as the offense can produce a little bit, between 14-21, I think the D/ST can carry the team through towards wins. Essentially the Bears have added several players on defense: Dusty, Okwo, Williams, Bazuin, the rookies, and the key...Mike Brown. Without injuries, I don't see why the Bears can't win at least 10 games because of defensive dominance.

I keep saying that this team has a very good shot of repeating what they did during the Superbowl year. I tell everyone that the injuries killed the Bears last year, and that the TV sportscasters don't know what the hell they're talking about. Then I see a thread with a theme questioning if the Bears have the best DL in the league. It wasn't totally blown out of the water, so I have to imagine that everyone takes the question seriously and places the Bears DL in the top 5 - rightfully so in my opinion. It's pretty clear the Bears have one of the best, if not the best, LB corp in the NFL. It's also evident that the Bears have one of the best DB combos in the league with PNut and The Interceptor. The safeties are the only real question mark, and I believe that if Mike Brown can be back, the Bears have one of the best Safety combos in the NFL. So, I ask, why not? Why is it so unrealistic to believe the Bears will be back? We've seen it at least two times in recent past, especially the year the Bears had an offense full of bums, a retarded OC, and a defense that simply wouldn't give in. Not to mention the fact that the Bears have undeniably the best ST in the league. Is it koolaid to think that the offense will be average enough to not completely sabotage what is an otherwise great team?

BearFan2000 - I have tried several years to get single-game tickets without success...and I have high-speed internet. I recently watched a show about how the ticket brokers do it, and it's virtually impossible to beat them. They have programs that take advantage loopholes in the ticketbastard software, and can access the tickets faster than anyone doing it legitimately. DBDB - I'm seriously considering going to the Atlanta game; of course, that would require buying tickets from a legal thief (i.e. scalper). I never know if work will have me in town, and I can't plan that far out in advance. I'll give you a PM when we get closer to the time.

Thank you. You replied with a much better response than I was thinking of. The NFL has proven over and over and over again that the offense is built in the trenches, and most RBs who get to this level are good enough to do well if the OL is decent. Other teams continuously find guys that are near no-names, and there is success over and over. The Bears, not so much. I'm comfortable with a rookie RB starting; it's been done before and with great success. I'm also comfortable with Wolfe being the 3rd down back, because I, unlike most others, think that he is capable of some great stuff on the field if given the chance.

Not really. I see no reason why the Bears should bring in another WR when the Bears have no clue how good their present WRs may be. Until the OC, OL, and QB get fixed, the WRs are an unknown. For all we know, the group in Chicago may be capable of greatness. I personally believe that there is enough combination of speed, power, explosiveness, and talent to do well in the NFL, if not excel...but as I said, OC, OL, QB...

For the record, if I blasted Farv it's because I hate Farv. Even though...I'm pretty sure I didn't bash him for it. If anything, I would have commended him for it. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the majority of the players in the league are greedy bastards, and if they wanted to they would be playing on the team they want, and in the happiest situation in the world. They get blinded by the dollars, and it has ruined an aspect of how fans view players. Whether or not Harris intended it (I don't think he threw them under the bus), I agree with the fact that he handled his negotiations quietly and professionally. Two out of three aspects of salary negotiation (non-greed being the other) that impress me.

Dude, the key word is CAN. I didn't say they WOULD be. I think the RBs can do well, but the OL, QB, and coach will hinder success for yet another year.

Yes. It's accurate. And the reason why is that I think the RBs all have talent, and the potential to excel, but they need a good OL, a competent offense, a QB who can hold onto the ball, and OC who is not retarded. Until some of that happens, the Bears don't know who they have at RB, and adding a guy is nearly pointless because a good player could easily fail in this system with these players. I'm not saying I really know how good AP is, but I don't really think the coaches the Bears have had know either. As we have all learned, there is a difference between a practice player and a game player, and it's pretty painfully obvious that the coaches have just given the position to Rex (and others) based upon practice. When AP has been in with a somewhat competent offense, he's done fairly well. He's not a stud, but he's a solid pro who could easily be a #2 IMHO, if not for the fact that the Bears have had a garbage offense for the better part of the last two decades. I admit that the Dunn comparison is better, but the Sanders one is virtually the same. It's a guy perceived to be too small, told nearly his entire life that he can't do it, and continually proving people wrong. Is Wolfe the next Barry Sanders? I highly doubt it. However, nobody really knows if he'll blow up if given the chance. If what you say is accurate, then we should consider our scouts incompetent, and those who make draft decisions incompetent. In other words, the scouts, JA, and the coaches basically picked a guy to do a single thing as the up-man, with the possibility of minimal carries, and when it didn't work out, they felt the pick was a waste. Personally, I don't think that is the case. I think that he should be considered a viable option at RB. Furthermore, if he is to be used as an up-man on ST, which I think is a GREAT IDEA, then the coaches need to figure out a way to help him out and prepare him for the role. I have little faith in any of the coaches, and I see no reason why he can't do well if given the chance...I suspect that they saw him do one or two things poorly, and immediately made a rushed decision - something that has happened numerous times over the past decade.

Actually, my problem with the entire idea that is being pushed in this thread is that we suddenly have a good back in Forte. We simply don't know that. He could be the next Salaam, Enis, or Benson. It's always nice to bring guys in, but until the guys we have are given a chance to excel, we will never know what we have...and we'll always be searching. If Forte doesn't have it, then AP and Wolfe should get the ball more. If they don't have it, THEN the Bears should search out other options. If the Bears go get veteran leadership (i.e. Alexander or Jones), then that is basically saying that AP and Wolfe are nearly pointless...and given some of the things we've seen each do - AP more than Wolfe, obviously - it's just impossible to say. And, yes, I think Wolfe has the potential to be more than just about anyone on this board is saying. I hear the words that call him a clown, a midget, a pure third down back, a waste, garbage...and the guy hasn't been given the shot. I don't see how anyone can relegate him or downplay him when he hasn't been given a chance. I'm sure Barry Sanders would have received the same scorn from this board until he started killing the opponent...and even then I'm sure some of it would have continued. What's to lose with letting Wolfe get carries and seeing, maybe, just maybe, if JA picked up the next Dunn? The chance seems to have worked out for every other team that's taken a chance on the guy. Ask Ohio State if he's a third down back.

A few quick thoughts: Ron Dayne!? Really? He sucks. Kevin Jones? Best option out there, but not exactly exciting. I think the Bears can be just fine with the RBs they have. Forte is already better than Benson, who showed more problems, lack of common sense, and injuries during his time here than he did talent. On top of that, AP is a servicable backup in the NFL. And, as far as Wolfe goes, I think he's capable of greatness in many ways. He won't be an every down back, but I think the guy is one of those players who always gets counted out, and always steps up to do well. Odd that everyone on this board seems to love Tom Waddle, Bobby Engram, and Mike Hass (all three perceived to have been given the short straw on talent, but the long straws on heart and effort), but seem so down on Wolfe.

I don't care what profession you apply to it, but the comparison is valid. Entry level guys are getting paid more than guys who are very productive and have years of experience. That doesn't happen in any other industry, any other job, and other situation of which I know. It's crazy.

I think the part in bold is just stupid. That's like someone working as a DirecTV installer, doing really well, getting noticed, getting a promotion to a mid-level manager, and getting a raise that makes them higher paid than the most senior programmer/manager/salesperson in the company.

The point you have failed to see is that we all got to see Benson. We all got to see Peterson. We never got to see what Wolfe could do. I think it's comical that in one breath you basically call the OC an idiot, and then in the second paragraph never mention it. Could it be that Wolfe didn't play because Turner is stupid like you said in the first paragraph? Aside from running in between the tackles against one of the best run defenses in the NFL, did we really see nearly enough to ascertain Wolfe's abilities to go between the tackles? Clearly the question is rhetorical, because we didn't see it. Last but not least, you asked why we should expect anything from Wolfe...and you also mentioned the other RB's inadequacies. Well, I'd say the two are related. The reason we could and should expect something from Wolfe is that he's a completely different type of RB than the other two. He's a guy who can do things that the other two can't. If Turner is as bad as you say he is, and the other two RBs were as pathetic as their statistics indicate, then maybe, just maybe, Wolfe should have seen more time on the field, especially towards the end of the year.

No. 1. They won't trade him. 2. The Bears will have to give up too much to get him. 3. The Bears don't really know what they have at WR because of the OL & QB situation. Until the Bears find out whether or not their WRs are good, whether they can run good routes, separate from DBs, make tough catches, and be generally productive, it's almost pointless to get another high-priced WR who will inevitably be disappointing (see: MuhMuh). And none of this will happen as long as the QB is horribly inconsistent. And the QB will be horribly inconsistent until the OL is shored up. So, basically, it's what I said pre-draft... The Bears need OL, OL, and more OL until the OL protects the QB and opens up holes for the RBs.

Nice try Mrs. Benson. We know you went to the old board, stole someone's log in, and then decided to post.

No joke. I honestly have a problem with anyone who honestly attempts to put Emmitt Smith in the top 5 RBs ever.

I don't see what's so crazy about that. It's a very arguable point. If not for injury, he could easily be regarded with the others in the discussion. On pure talent alone, and pure production in a shortened career, he's easily in the top back discussion. Hell, I'd say Bo Jackson was one of the best RBs ever, better than friggin Emmitt Smith that's for sure...but he didn't stick around because of injuries. I guess it depends on whether one includes luck, health, and teammates in the discussion of best RB ever. If so, Sayers and Jackson are not in the top 5...if not, the prospect of including them is not that big of a stretch.

If I'm not mistaken, Canseco was facing legal problems as well, and he gave up information to alleviate pressure just like Donaghey. I believe he had something close to illegally possessing a firearm and some sort of probation violation. And, on top of that (and probably the biggest motivator), Canseco has done what he has done because he wants to get back at the leauge and the game that he feels has screwed him over. He feels he was pushed out of baseball in some sort of collusion (I agree to a certain extent), and he's angry about it.

That's precisely how I remember it.

It doesn't matter what his salary is. He'll get picked up. The fact that his salary is low will only add to it. As it has already been said, guys who get picked in the top 5 get extra chances regardless of how bad they are off the field.

Not only did I watch that game, I was on the phone with a friend of mine the entire game. I KNOW that game was fixed, and nobody can convince me otherwise. Whether or not it can be pinned on anyone else, or connected to league officials, is inconsequential in my opinion. It happened, and has happened several other times since then. As for the second question, if I were Donaghey, you are absolutely right I would point to that game. I'd blow the whistle and take every interview. If anyone has credibility about inside knowledge, then it's Donaghey. He may not be a trusted source, but he was nonetheless immersed in the culture, and would have received the very "advice" that other refs have been given to steer games. Put it another way...did any intelligent person in the world actually think that the Celtics would win and the Lakers would lose Game 3? Was there any doubt that Kobe would shoot a ton of free throws? Was it a surprise that the Lakers had more free throws, and for quite some time they were ahead by a large margin? Exactly.