jason

Blasphemy. That just made me sick. I don't see how any Bears' fan could want this. Thankfully, it will never happen. What the hell happened to the rivalry? What happened to despising the Packers? I just don't get it. I went to a Chicago v. GB game in Lamblow last year, and let me tell you, they have not forgotten it. They still go on and on about how the Bears suck, yelling out choruses of boos and a song about how much the Bears suck. I will always hate the packers above all other teams, and despise farv for what he has done to my team so many times.

Interesting video from Forte, he's humble, and shooting for 1000 yards this season. I honestly see no reason why he can't get more. One note on the video: Bears are without their top passer, rusher, and receiver from last year. Why does that matter? I could understand if the guys did well, but if those top three led to an offense that was widely regarded as a joke, and less effective than several college offenses, then why worry? Why care? The only considerable loss is Berrian, and he hadn't yet shown the ability to be a true #1, something for which he wanted to be paid.

Did you see where anyone in this thread said that? I don't think so. I think you are making an assumption, and it's a very poor one. As far as I'm concerned, I just want a quarterback to step up and be consistent without screwing his team. Rex has been given a ton of chances to do this, and he has failed. Even during the Super Bowl season in which he was wildly inconsistent, he ended up choking in the biggest game of the year and had more trouble holding onto the ball than people in a hog catching competition. Conversely, Orton was given one real shot to start, and during that season, his rookie season, he did MUCH better than one would expect of a rookie. He showed poise, pocket presence, a strong arm, and a pretty good understanding of reads/progression. What could it hurt to let him have a legit second chance? Lord knows Rex has had more than his fair share of opportunities. I repeat; I want a QB who does not hurt his team. Along with that, he should have moderate to good success. But the key is, I'd like him to be careful and not kill the team. And until proven otherwise, that's about the best we can expect from the QBs on the Bears roster. On a side note, are you related to Rex in some way?

Agreed. I would HATE to see Url, Tommie, Mike Brown, or Hester in anything other than a Bears jersey.

I disagree. He belongs in the conversation because he has not lived up to his draft position. As far as I'm concerned, he is on the border of bust status.

Is it the owner, the front office, JA, the coaches, or the scouts? Who chooses the first round selections? I just got to wondering that, because in a recent fantasy mag they mention the numerous first rounders who have not panned out for the Bears. It's truly disheartening. Columbo, Haynes, Enis, Salaam, Rex, Benson, and to a lesser extent Tank (2nd)...that's a lot of misses in the first round. I wonder what the hit to miss ratio is as compared to other franchises?

And I feel the suites thing has been one of the biggest downfalls in how teams deal with fans in the today's modern sports age. As if the owners weren't making enough money to begin with. The rising player salaries has gone a long way towards forcing the owners' hands to keep the same cut they once had. Along with PSLs, and near collusion with the ticket brokers who consistently allow others to pillage the pocket of fans, it's no wonder that, along with the players' salaries, the average fan has become less sympathetic and less supportive. I would like to be naive and say that if the players' salaries were lessened, the owners wouldn't continue to rape the fans, but I know that isn't so. Now that they have the taste of blood, there is no way they're letting go of the chum.

Goodell and finances I agree with him. It's ridiculous. The amount these guys get paid is crazy, but to see a rookie get it is that much more insane. Some will argue about capitalism, but it's not an equal comparison. If it were, there would be bidding wars on each player coming straight out of college, there would be no cap, and the NY teams would be in the playoffs for 20 straight years like in baseball. It'll be so nice to see rookies actually have to do something to get paid, and not crap the bed, costing their franchise tons of money without production.

He was cut because he climbed through someone's window and dropped a deuce in their laundry hamper.

I love the breakdown, and agree that it's worthwhile in its own regard, but I think it's misleading. There are three major problems with this analysis: 1) Turnovers - There is no consideration to the imact turnovers have 2) Impact from the other unit - This could be 1a), but the simple fact is, the offense affects the defense a lot more than the other way around. Reacting to another action is more difficult than acting. The constant 3-and-outs, something the Bears probably led the league in, surely hurt the defense quite a bit. 3) Situational coaching - Because the Bears were down more often than they were up this year, it's probably a pretty safe bet to say that the yardage is only up because the Bears were forced to pass. And as such, they naturally had more yards, but also more turnovers and quick, worthless drives (see 1 & 2). Whereas, the year before, the Bears were ahead more often than not, and able to dictate the pace of the game. Ignore your stats. Ignore what type of pictures they may paint. Can you honestly look back at the games last year and say the defense was worse than the offense? Go from feel, memory, or watch the highlights. I just don't think anyone who watched the games can say that. The defense may have struggled mightily, but the offense sucked something awful most of the time.

In other news, water is wet. This has been the problem with the Bears for nearly every year since...well...since the Superbowl year. Anyone who would deny that the offense hinders the defense, more than the opposite, hasn't been watching the Bears very closely...especially over the past 20 years or so.

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.