Building for 2009?

[tjgimm]

Seems to be the prevailing thgought. I know that some have mentioned it here...

 

At least it might explain the lack of activity in free agency.

 

Sun-Times Article

[nfoligno]

This has been my point for some time.

 

In the offseason, you can make some additions and upgrades. You can add pieces to the puzzle. What you do not often see is whole sale change leading to immediate improvement, at least not to the competitive point. Our current needs on offense:

 

QB

RB

2 WRs

2 OLs.

 

Does anyone truly think we are going to add all this in one offseason? We can hope some of these spots are filled internally. Hester, Bradley, Beekman, Orton/Rex, Benson all have the potential to take a step up, but (a) I think it VERY unlikely we will see more than a couple, at best, and ( it is hard to step up your game when the rest of the are not playing well.

 

I think the plan is this. Maintain the defense and special teams as much as possible, which keeps the team competite, regardless of the offense (see Orton's rookie year). Add pieces to the offense and develop youth, w/ the intention of continuing to add next year.

 

WR for example. We added Booker, and I think we will draft a WR at some point in the draft too. Booker will start, but the rookie, Hester, Bradley, and maybe even Hass, will all be used and developed this year.

 

When we didn't attack the OL needs in FA, I pretty much assumed this was the plan. Angelo is on record as saying he isn't a fan of rookie OL, and believes it is a position that takes time to develop. If we were truly thinking SB, I think we would have made a quick play for OL. If we are not attacking that in FA, or thinking draft, then I simply do not think Angelo is looking at 2008, at least not for the offense.

[Connorbear]

This has been my point for some time.

 

In the offseason, you can make some additions and upgrades. You can add pieces to the puzzle. What you do not often see is whole sale change leading to immediate improvement, at least not to the competitive point. Our current needs on offense:

 

QB

RB

2 WRs

2 OLs.

 

Does anyone truly think we are going to add all this in one offseason? We can hope some of these spots are filled internally. Hester, Bradley, Beekman, Orton/Rex, Benson all have the potential to take a step up, but (a) I think it VERY unlikely we will see more than a couple, at best, and ( it is hard to step up your game when the rest of the are not playing well.

 

I think the plan is this. Maintain the defense and special teams as much as possible, which keeps the team competite, regardless of the offense (see Orton's rookie year). Add pieces to the offense and develop youth, w/ the intention of continuing to add next year.

 

WR for example. We added Booker, and I think we will draft a WR at some point in the draft too. Booker will start, but the rookie, Hester, Bradley, and maybe even Hass, will all be used and developed this year.

 

When we didn't attack the OL needs in FA, I pretty much assumed this was the plan. Angelo is on record as saying he isn't a fan of rookie OL, and believes it is a position that takes time to develop. If we were truly thinking SB, I think we would have made a quick play for OL. If we are not attacking that in FA, or thinking draft, then I simply do not think Angelo is looking at 2008, at least not for the offense.

On this article, I disagree that after Olsen the next offensive skill player is Booker. I see it as Clark who is a very, very good TE. Further, I do not see Booker as a replacement for Berrian. He is a replacement for Moose. Bradley or Hester replace Berrian (one of the 2 must step up).

 

Nfo - I agree with you completely. I think this is why we will not draft RB in the first round. I see OT in round 1 and wr in round 2. Benson is going to be given 1 more chance. They cannot cut him because of his cost. They will either draft a rb in round 3 or later or they will sign a FA like Chris Brown to compete against Ced.

 

Peace

[nfoligno]

I would take Booker over Clark. Clark may be the only receiver on the team slower than Booker. Booker has better hands and runs better routes. Clark is a better blocker, but in terms of skill player, I would agree w/ Booker over Clark.

 

I agree that Booker replaces Moose, but agree too w/ the idea he is our #1 WR. Two years ago, Moose was unquestionably our #1 WR. This past year, we tried to make Berrian our #1. I think we go back to a situation where Booker, like Moose, is our #1 WR. He runs the intermediate routes a QB can rely on. Its a nice thought for your deep threat to be your #1, but w/o an OL that can sustain their blocks, your #1 really needs to be your possession guy.

 

Though I think we are building, and though I really want OL in the first, I would not totally rule out RB. If you consider this as a two year building project, you are more able to simply take the best offensive talent available. If there is a run on OTs (which I fear happens) and you have a RB graded out well ahead of the next OL, WR or QB, I think it makes more sense to grab that RB. When building, you take the studs that fall to you. I can understand drafting for need better when you are trying to fill one of your few holes, but when your hole is your whole offense, you simply take the best available.

[Lucky Luciano]

"Angelo is on record as saying he isn't a fan of rookie OL, and believes it is a position that takes time to develop. If we were truly thinking SB, I think we would have made a quick play for OL. If we are not attacking that in FA, or thinking draft, then I simply do not think Angelo is looking at 2008, at least not for the offense."

 

angie believes offensive linemen take time to develop? hmmm.... don't you have to DRAFT players to be able to develop them over time? don't you have to be able to draft QUALITY ball players to even be ABLE to develop them??

 

has he ever seen the packer offensive line? for gods sake, 2 years ago they replaced 2/3 of their interior line in one season with rookies who have excelled yet we can't even replace a single one-armed guard with a quality backup. what kind of contribution was our "developed" 6 year vet metcalf (who we just extended his contract a year or two ago)?

 

what does that say about oakly and beekman when we put a utility backup tackle in to replace the worthless metcalf at guard? that we don't even have backup depth with the players angie drafted or that our coaching staff is so pathetic they not only can't coach them but can't even make a qualified judgement of talent???

 

this mindset of angie is pure BS and is not only killing us now but will in the future if it doesn't drastically change! if he can't judge offensive talent then for X's sake find someone who can and HIRE them!!!

[azbearsfan]

angie believes offensive linemen take time to develop? hmmm.... don't you have to DRAFT players to be able to develop them over time? don't you have to be able to draft QUALITY ball players to even be ABLE to develop them??

 

has he ever seen the packer offensive line? for gods sake, 2 years ago they replaced 2/3 of their interior line in one season with rookies who have excelled yet we can't even replace a single one-armed guard with a quality backup. what kind of contribution was our "developed" 6 year vet metcalf (who we just extended his contract a year or two ago)?

 

what does that say about oakly and beekman when we put a utility backup tackle in to replace the worthless metcalf at guard? that we don't even have backup depth with the players angie drafted or that our coaching staff is so pathetic they not only can't coach them but can't even make a qualified judgement of talent???

 

this mindset of angie is pure BS and is not only killing us now but will in the future if it doesn't drastically change! if he can't judge offensive talent then for X's sake find someone who can and HIRE them!!!

 

 

Good points, but I'm not sure if a year removed from the Super Bowl is "killing us now". We had a bad year where we had a ton of injuries. OL needs to be upgraded, absolutely, but this "we're done" mindset is crazy. Lovie and Angie (as you call him) have had the best success here since Ditka.

[Lucky Luciano]

Good points, but I'm not sure if a year removed from the Super Bowl is "killing us now". We had a bad year where we had a ton of injuries. OL needs to be upgraded, absolutely, but this "we're done" mindset is crazy. Lovie and Angie (as you call him) have had the best success here since Ditka.

 

even going into the superbowl can you really say we weren't half a team? did you really have any faith that our offense could outshoot the colts if our defense faltered?

 

"we're done" is a near future reality for this offensive line. they are all old or not even here anymore. we have a mediocre right guard, no left guard, an aging center, no left tackle and an aging right tackle playing left tackle.

 

this is way to much to believe we can fill that many needs for longer than the short term through free agency using other aging vets or potential prospects which we already SHOULD have on our team.

 

you mention success. to me success is only winning a superbowl. anything else is a kiss from your sister and right now i don't see us as a favorite for winning a superbowl this season. anything is possible but in reality do you? again i reiterate, we are only half a team and that half not what the nfl has given the edge to.

[Mongo3451]

you mention success. to me success is only winning a superbowl. anything else is a kiss from your sister and right now i don't see us as a favorite for winning a superbowl this season. anything is possible but in reality do you? again i reiterate, we are only half a team and that half not what the nfl has given the edge to.

Bullshit! I guess it's all individual opinion... You can't tell me, when we unexpectedly won the division a few years back that that was NOT a successful season and you weren't juiced for the next year. There are years when the promise of next year is a successful season. That's just they way it is in the NFL. Ask a Lions fan, if a season is successful if they make the playoffs. (That made me laugh) Sorry I said that.

 

I will agree that last season was a huge failure. But, if we get back to the playoffs this year we should feel good about where we are heading.

[ChileBear]

Bullshit! I guess it's all individual opinion... You can't tell me, when we unexpectedly won the division a few years back that that was NOT a successful season and you weren't juiced for the next year. There are years when the promise of next year is a successful season. That's just they way it is in the NFL. Ask a Lions fan, if a season is successful if they make the playoffs. (That made me laugh) Sorry I said that.

 

I will agree that last season was a huge failure. But, if we get back to the playoffs this year we should feel good about where we are heading.

I agree with you Mongo. Of course, the ultimate goal is to win the Super Bowl. But having a winning season is good, making the playoffs is better, winning in the playoffs is great and winning the Super Bowl is nirvana! But realistically, very few teams ever win or even get back to the Super Bowl two years in a row. I beleive that I read some remarks from Urlacher after the Super Bowl loss that boiled down to the fact that it was great to be there, only one team can win, but they had a successful season. Now, while I do think Url could use a bit more fire in his belly, success is winning, and ultimate success is winning the Super Bowl, but not the only guage of success, IMdO.

[Lucky Luciano]

Bullshit! I guess it's all individual opinion... You can't tell me, when we unexpectedly won the division a few years back that that was NOT a successful season and you weren't juiced for the next year. There are years when the promise of next year is a successful season. That's just they way it is in the NFL. Ask a Lions fan, if a season is successful if they make the playoffs. (That made me laugh) Sorry I said that.

 

I will agree that last season was a huge failure. But, if we get back to the playoffs this year we should feel good about where we are heading.

 

some peoples definition of success is different. you are entitled to your opinion as am i.

 

i can say that my definition of success is winning the superbowl and nothing else. you are either a winner or a loser and 2nd place finishes mean nothing.

[LT2_3]

some peoples definition of success is different. you are entitled to your opinion as am i.

 

i can say that my definition of success is winning the superbowl and nothing else. you are either a winner or a loser and 2nd place finishes mean nothing.

 

LOL! Choad you crack me up! So lemmee see if I got this straight. If you're in business, and you only end up the 2nd richest man in the world, you're a loser?

 

What this boils down to is outdated rhetoric that coaches used to tell their HS teams. In the NFL, you can't go all out to try to do everything in your power to win the SB every year because those short term efforts end up being self defeating in the long term. Look at the Redskins as an example of how NOT to do it. Or you can look at the Giants last year as the way TO DO it. (They signed one free agent, and had significant contributions from all of their draft picks last year and won the SB)

 

I have a problem with the whole concept of "rebuilding" or "building for 2009" as it fits this case. I've always thought that "rebuilding" meant that you are sacrificing wins of your current team to develop key players - usually a QB. In that situation, we aren't rebuilding.

 

As for "building for 2009", I don't buy that either. Every year, there is going to be some turnover of players. Some players are going to be learning on the job. Also, every year, there are free agent signings that end up not working out well.

 

So, in this case, we will have some different starters than we had last year. I can't say that I'm incredibly confident that expensive FAs would end up playing better than guys that are already on the team and getting a chance to start, or that will be drafted this year.

 

Also, it has to do with evaluation and perspective. If you have one guy rated as an 8 out of 10 for your system that signs in free agency for a HUGE contract early in FA, and have another that you rate as a possible 7.6 out of 10 for your system but can be had for a modest contract after the draft, which is better for the team?

 

I think part of the problem is that as fans we listen to an uninformed media. They like to rank players as being definitively better than one another. For instance, different skill attributes lend themselves to different systems. So a "cover CB" is ranked as the best available, but team X runs the cover 2. If team X needs a CB, the media will project them as needing to sign the #1 ranked CB, even though the 1 on 1 coverage skills would be wasted in the cover 2 scheme. The same goes for WLB in the cover 2 which is why I think Briggs saw a limited market.

 

So personally, I prefer to view the offseason as a Socratic disciple, and recognize that a wise man is he that knows he knows nothing. I trust Angelo and his crew alot more than the talking heads or any fans out there.

[nfoligno]

You must be one of the most depressed individuals on the planet.

 

Are you a cubs or Sox fan. If Sox, at least you were happy once in the last 100 years.

 

So as a Bear fan, you have not been happy for 23 years? I mean, why would you be happy for all those loser teams?

 

That is how a fan feels the day following a playoff exit, but I just do not see how you can really live that way. If your team wins 2 games one, but then wins 9 and goes to the playoffs the following year, it may be upsetting when they exit the playoffs, but I would argue that season a success regardless.

 

I will say everything changes by the situation. For NE this year, I would agree that anything short of SB is a failure. On the other hand, TB won 4 games two years ago, and then won 9 games this year and won their division. No SB, but I think you would be hard pressed to argue they did not have a successful season.

 

Cle is an example of a team I would argue had a successful season w/o even a playoff appearance. They went from 4 wins to 10. That is freaking awesome improvement, and did so while finding a team loaded w/ young talent that stepped up.

 

So while there are times when I can agree w/ the SB or bust mentality, I disagree w/ the idea that every season that does not result in a SB was a failure.

[nfoligno]

While I understand your thinking on the whole building and rebuilding. I would agree that rebuilding in particlar does not have the meaning it once did.

 

For a while, often due to poor cap management, teams would be forced into a position of truly rebuilding. They would be over the cap w/ only 70% of their roster filled. These teams were not about winning now, but trying to fill the team w/ inexpensive young players and look to develop for the future. Today, teams do a better job of the cap and the process is different.

 

But lets take a closer look at our situation. Now I preface this w/ the understanding that we may well still do more in FA. But assume for the moment we do not. You say we should not overpay for mediocre talent in FA. I agree. At the same time, even if Bradley and say Hackett, have the same grade, it is likely based on potential. I doubt anyone would expect Bradley to be Hacketts equal this year. Does that mean we have to sign Hackett. No. But I think it does mean we are placing the development of one player over adding a player that could benefit the team more in the short term. And there is NOTHING wrong w/ this. In itself, this is would not consistitute talk of "building".

 

The reason I think this does come into play is when you look at the offense as a whole. Where are we set? QB? No. RB? No. WR? No. OL? No. TE is the only area. You always enter a season w/ unproven question marks at positions, but when one side of the ball is littered w/ so many question marks, who also happen to be young, then I think you very well can call it a building process.

 

My opinion is we are trying to keep the defense and special teams playing at a high level for 2008 (and beyond) while the offense is so bad, we are looking at that side of the ball more as a development for the future. I think we are hoping that side can develop young players for the future, while not being so bad as to offset the teams other strengths. I think the plan (hope) is to draft a slew of offensive players who will have a high chance of starting. So I do think Angelo is thinking 2009 for the offense, but that does not mean he is giving up on 2008 for the team. A few years ago, Orton led a very average offense which did little more than avoid mistakes, while the defense carried us to the playoffs.

 

I personally have no problem w/ this approach, at least this year. The market was flat out awful. To put together a good offense for 2008, we would have to mortage the future, though I still wanted Faneca (or would still take Scott or the SD OG). So I think we are looking at the offense in a two year plan more than one year, and hope that our offense can develop into something for 2009, but for 2008, we are going to have to rely on defense and special teams to win games.

[azbearsfan]

some peoples definition of success is different. you are entitled to your opinion as am i.

 

i can say that my definition of success is winning the superbowl and nothing else. you are either a winner or a loser and 2nd place finishes mean nothing.

 

 

Lol. Like others have said, you must be one depressed guy then.

I sure hope you dont apply that to personal life or we will have to put you on suicide watch.

 

And I hope you dont coach any youth leagues with that nonsense.

[Lucky Luciano]

"LOL! Choad you crack me up! So lemmee see if I got this straight. If you're in business, and you only end up the 2nd richest man in the world, you're a loser?"

 

let's put this in a real business perspective. you either lose money, break even, or make a profit in business.

 

so... if your business shows a loss every year but one out of 25 years does that make your business a sucess? and in essence are you then considered a successful businessman? if the answer is yes, i think you and nfoligno should merge your corporations and hire me at a huge guaranteed salary to run it.

 

"What this boils down to is outdated rhetoric that coaches used to tell their HS teams. In the NFL, you can't go all out to try to do everything in your power to win the SB every year because those short term efforts end up being self defeating in the long term. Look at the Redskins as an example of how NOT to do it. Or you can look at the Giants last year as the way TO DO it. (They signed one free agent, and had significant contributions from all of their draft picks last year and won the SB)"

 

first of all we are talking about professional sports and not amauture sports. in another post someone asked "I hope you dont coach any youth leagues with that nonsense". my answer is no, to take that into youth sports is total and complete nonsense.

 

for me in youth sports it is about building character more than winning or losing. it's about doing the best you can do and if you win that is great but if you lose that is ok too. it is also about playing fair and by the rules at all times without exception. for me the main agenda is for the kids to have fun.

 

now on to your "do everything in your power to win the SB every year". are you talking to me? what has that got to do with anything i posted?

 

I have a problem with the whole concept of "rebuilding" or "building for 2009" as it fits this case. I've always thought that "rebuilding" meant that you are sacrificing wins of your current team to develop key players - usually a QB. In that situation, we aren't rebuilding.

 

As for "building for 2009", I don't buy that either. Every year, there is going to be some turnover of players. Some players are going to be learning on the job. Also, every year, there are free agent signings that end up not working out well.

 

So, in this case, we will have some different starters than we had last year. I can't say that I'm incredibly confident that expensive FAs would end up playing better than guys that are already on the team and getting a chance to start, or that will be drafted this year.

 

Also, it has to do with evaluation and perspective. If you have one guy rated as an 8 out of 10 for your system that signs in free agency for a HUGE contract early in FA, and have another that you rate as a possible 7.6 out of 10 for your system but can be had for a modest contract after the draft, which is better for the team?

 

again, i don't have a clue what you are talking about. i never even got into this "rebuilding" diatribe you are posting.

 

I think part of the problem is that as fans we listen to an uninformed media. They like to rank players as being definitively better than one another. For instance, different skill attributes lend themselves to different systems. So a "cover CB" is ranked as the best available, but team X runs the cover 2. If team X needs a CB, the media will project them as needing to sign the #1 ranked CB, even though the 1 on 1 coverage skills would be wasted in the cover 2 scheme. The same goes for WLB in the cover 2 which is why I think Briggs saw a limited market.

 

So personally, I prefer to view the offseason as a Socratic disciple, and recognize that a wise man is he that knows he knows nothing. I trust Angelo and his crew alot more than the talking heads or any fans out there."

 

yet again, i don't know what this has to do with any of my posts in this thread but i would like to make a few comments anyway.

 

if they say johnathan quinn gives us the best chance to win every sunday i am sure you believe them because they know more than the fans or media. if you want to survive on blind faith and believe everything this organization tells you then that's fine by me. i'm happy for you.

 

myself... i believe my own eyes first and foremost. if what i see is not quality then i will state it is not. i don't need some coach to tell me whether cade mcnown is good or bad and i don't need some GM to tell me whether johnathan quinn is good or bad either.

 

so it goes.

[Lucky Luciano]

You must be one of the most depressed individuals on the planet.

 

Are you a cubs or Sox fan. If Sox, at least you were happy once in the last 100 years.

 

So as a Bear fan, you have not been happy for 23 years? I mean, why would you be happy for all those loser teams?

 

so just to get this straight... you are happy whether we win a SB or not. if so, it's people like you that the bidwell and mccaskey type owners simply love. as long as they field a team, that in itself is a success.

 

That is how a fan feels the day following a playoff exit, but I just do not see how you can really live that way. If your team wins 2 games one, but then wins 9 and goes to the playoffs the following year, it may be upsetting when they exit the playoffs, but I would argue that season a success regardless.

 

how about after the '86 playoffs? the '87 playoffs? the '88 playoffs, etc. etc. etc. or even after the 2006 superbowl did you say to yourself... gee this year sure is a success. i would argue to my death that that season was NOT a success. good maybe, better than the last season, giving me hope for the future possibly but considered a success? not a chance.

 

just for the record... did you hear a single player on the SB team say they considered that season a success? a coach? anybody employed in this franchise? if you did they should be fired.

 

I will say everything changes by the situation. For NE this year, I would agree that anything short of SB is a failure. On the other hand, TB won 4 games two years ago, and then won 9 games this year and won their division. No SB, but I think you would be hard pressed to argue they did not have a successful season.

 

well just tell me where that logic comes from? probably the best team in football setting every offensive record imaginable and now you think their season is a failure? sorry but none of that makes any sense.

 

to me it WAS a failure and NOT success for every team except the giants.

 

Cle is an example of a team I would argue had a successful season w/o even a playoff appearance. They went from 4 wins to 10. That is freaking awesome improvement, and did so while finding a team loaded w/ young talent that stepped up.

 

So while there are times when I can agree w/ the SB or bust mentality, I disagree w/ the idea that every season that does not result in a SB was a failure.

 

well, at least that will make the mccaskey and bidwell families very happy.

[azbearsfan]

let's put this in a real business perspective. you either lose money, break even, or make a profit in business.

 

 

So by this logic a losing record is considered a failure, a .500 record break even, and a winning record a success.

 

 

 

 

Or if you take the SB or bust mentallity and use it a business sense, only ONE business is successful a year....the one that makes the most money.

 

The one that makes a DOLLAR less is a failure.

 

 

lol You are making less and less sense.

[nfoligno]

so just to get this straight... you are happy whether we win a SB or not. if so, it's people like you that the bidwell and mccaskey type owners simply love. as long as they field a team, that in itself is a success.

 

Did you read my post? I didn't say every year is success, no matter what. I even said that for some teams, some years, I would agree w/ the SB or bust. But to argue that a 10 win season after a 2 win season is anything but a success is a bit of a joke.

 

how about after the '86 playoffs? the '87 playoffs? the '88 playoffs, etc. etc. etc. or even after the 2006 superbowl did you say to yourself... gee this year sure is a success. i would argue to my death that that season was NOT a success. good maybe, better than the last season, giving me hope for the future possibly but considered a success? not a chance.

 

Once again I have to ask, did you read my post? Like NE this past year, I would argue that in '86, we were the SB defenders, and expected to win it again. While the team was good that year, I agree the season was not a success. To me, when talking about success, I think you have to factor expectations. Do you honestly "expect" the team to win the SB every year? That is beyond unrealistic. For example, you draft a rookie QB who you intend to start. You expect the SB regardless. Or, you are coming off a 2 win season. I don't care what you do in the offseason, you expect to go from 2 wins to SB? Sorry, but I call BS if you say you do.

 

When you are at a level (like NE is now) where you are expected to win the SB, then I would agree anything less is not a success. If you are not expected to win but a few games, and you make it to the playoffs, then I would argue your season was a success.

 

well just tell me where that logic comes from? probably the best team in football setting every offensive record imaginable and now you think their season is a failure? sorry but none of that makes any sense.

 

to me it WAS a failure and NOT success for every team except the giants.

 

Huh? First you seem to question me for saying NE wasn't a success, talking about all their records, then you go on to say yourself that NE, along w/ every other team, did fail and was not a success. Huh?

 

well, at least that will make the mccaskey and bidwell families very happy.

 

Sorry, but your logic and reasoning is so out there, it passes comical. Frankly, it is scary. By your definition, there is not a successful team in the NFL, as every team's "success percentage" would make the worst baseball players batting average look high. A couple teams have more than a handful of SBs in their franchise history, but no more than a couple. If people saw things like you, turnovers would be unbelievable and suidides would be at an all time high.

[Lucky Luciano]

So by this logic a losing record is considered a failure, a .500 record break even, and a winning record a success.

 

don't you think comparing it to a profit/loss scenario is a bit closer to what i might be trying to get across than comparing it to the richest man in the world nonsense? like maybe it would relate to ONE individual company and how that ONE company's profits/losses for ONE year, RELATE to that PARTICULAR year being a SUCCESS or FAILURE??

 

THUS, may not this also relate to how an individual teams SUCCESS or FAILURE in a particular year might be determined by whether they WON or LOST the superbowl and have not a damn thing to do with the fortune 500 or the richest man in the world?

 

for X's sake name off the years since 1985 that YOU consider to be a success!!

 

Or if you take the SB or bust mentallity and use it a business sense, only ONE business is successful a year....the one that makes the most money.

 

The one that makes a DOLLAR less is a failure.

 

lol You are making less and less sense.

 

well, if you can't grasp this then you're on your own....

 

1. if you don't win the superbowl, that particular season is NOT a success.

 

2. if you own a company and it loses money in a given year, that particular year is NOT a success.

 

if you don't want to believe that, fine by me. you can consider every year a success for chicago and take out a million business loans to float your company no matter whether you lose money or not.

[azbearsfan]

don't you think comparing it to a profit/loss scenario is a bit closer to what i might be trying to get across than comparing it to the richest man in the world nonsense? like maybe it would relate to ONE individual company and how that ONE company's profits/losses for ONE year, RELATE to that PARTICULAR year being a SUCCESS or FAILURE??

 

THUS, may not this also relate to how an individual teams SUCCESS or FAILURE in a particular year might be determined by whether they WON or LOST the superbowl and have not a damn thing to do with the fortune 500 or the richest man in the world?

 

for X's sake name off the years since 1985 that YOU consider to be a success!!

well, if you can't grasp this then you're on your own....

 

1. if you don't win the superbowl, that particular season is NOT a success.

 

2. if you own a company and it loses money in a given year, that particular year is NOT a success.

 

if you don't want to believe that, fine by me. you can consider every year a success for chicago and take out a million business loans to float your company no matter whether you lose money or not.

 

 

lol Its not me making the bad comparisons to the business world.

 

So basically you make nfo's point that the success of a team takes in consideration different variables like the prior years record, expectations, injuries, draft, talent, etc.

 

 

Just like the successful profit margin of a company takes into consideration different variables like expectations, previous years profit/losses, market, etc.

 

 

I would even argue that if you own a company and you lose money that can be considered a success under certain circumstances. Its too complex a topic to even try to compare the two and it doesn't help your case at all.

 

 

What you should compare it to is an old western gun fight. If you lose, your dead. Not something with so many different ways to interpret success and failure.

[Lucky Luciano]

Did you read my post? I didn't say every year is success, no matter what. I even said that for some teams, some years, I would agree w/ the SB or bust. But to argue that a 10 win season after a 2 win season is anything but a success is a bit of a joke.

 

it's NOT a success. it's an IMPROVEMENT!!!!! if you play on an nfl team and you watch the superbowl at home you think they pat themselves on the back and say UREEKA!!! this season sure is a success?

 

Once again I have to ask, did you read my post? Like NE this past year, I would argue that in '86, we were the SB defenders, and expected to win it again. While the team was good that year, I agree the season was not a success. To me, when talking about success, I think you have to factor expectations. Do you honestly "expect" the team to win the SB every year? That is beyond unrealistic. For example, you draft a rookie QB who you intend to start. You expect the SB regardless. Or, you are coming off a 2 win season. I don't care what you do in the offseason, you expect to go from 2 wins to SB? Sorry, but I call BS if you say you do.

 

When you are at a level (like NE is now) where you are expected to win the SB, then I would agree anything less is not a success. If you are not expected to win but a few games, and you make it to the playoffs, then I would argue your season was a success.

 

YES i read your post. you seem to have some very different expectations of results than i do. if you don't get in or win the superbowl but you don't get in or win it as poorly as the previous season that reads success to you. expectations to me DON'T determine if a season is a success or not. winning does!!

 

i also have to ask... who's expectations determine success and failed seasons for you in the nfl? the franchises/coaches/players? the media? yours?

 

you ask if i expect to win the superbowl every year. of COURSE NOT. does winning more games than i expected make that season a success? of COURSE NOT!! it makes it a better season than i had hoped for and that's all. i still failed to achieve the only goal that determines success and failure in the nfl... winning the superbowl!!

 

"Huh? First you seem to question me for saying NE wasn't a success, talking about all their records, then you go on to say yourself that NE, along w/ every other team, did fail and was not a success. Huh?"

 

because it is the inconsistancy of what you are saying. like there is some magic formula to determine success and failure when it is purely simple winning or losing. don't ask me, ask any coach if his season is a success that loses or is not in the superbowl.

 

"Sorry, but your logic and reasoning is so out there, it passes comical. Frankly, it is scary. By your definition, there is not a successful team in the NFL, as every team's "success percentage" would make the worst baseball players batting average look high. A couple teams have more than a handful of SBs in their franchise history, but no more than a couple. If people saw things like you, turnovers would be unbelievable and suidides would be at an all time high."

 

look... if you own an nfl team, if you coach an nfl team, if you play on an nfl team your season is not a success if you fail to get a ring that particular year. SURE teams can be called successful with win loss records or schemes over the years. did we have success beating the packers last season? YES. BUT... you CAN'T say that individual season was a success if you lose. it doesn't matter if you are better, it doesn't matter if you just missed winning it all. you have evaded SUCCESS that year, period. that is the point i have been trying to drive home a thousand words ago.

[Lucky Luciano]

llol Its not me making the bad comparisons to the business world.

 

So basically you make nfo's point that the success of a team takes in consideration different variables like the prior years record, expectations, injuries, draft, talent, etc.

 

uhhhh.... no.

 

Just like the successful profit margin of a company takes into consideration different variables like expectations, previous years profit/losses, market, etc.

 

exactly right. just like a potentiometer with a bad solder joint.

 

"I would even argue that if you own a company and you lose money that can be considered a success under certain circumstances. Its too complex a topic to even try to compare the two and it doesn't help your case at all."

 

absolutely... if it is your plan to lose a billion dollars and you lose 2 billion, that's success. you exceeded your expectations.

 

"What you should compare it to is an old western gun fight. If you lose, your dead. Not something with so many different ways to interpret success and failure."

hmmm...

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

Bradley or Hester replace Berrian (one of the 2 must step up).

Hester needs more mental capacity than just run really straight and fast before he'll be able to step up.

[nfoligno]

Well, lets just say this. Success is subjective. Success is the achievement of a goal, or goals. In your opinion, and it is you opinion, the only goal is the SB. I disagree. For many, that is the goal. For many others, there is simply no expectation of a SB, and goals are different. For a team like that, goals could be development of youth, doubling your win total, making the playoffs, winning the division, or whatever.

 

I am not saying a GM will admit this going into the season, but you often do hear them talk about this after.

 

Also, you asked who's expectations determine success. I would again argue that success is subjective. As a fan, I have little hope of a SB for the bears in 2008. Not at least w/ the team I see now. My expectations. I would probably talk about defensive goals and development of players on offense. QB would be nice. Playoffs might be a goal, but no, the SB is not the goal going in. Does that mean when we lose in the playoffs, I will right away say no problem, they met expectations. No. As teams do better than expected, hopes and expectations jump up, mainly off emotion. But after a bit of time, you can step back and say the season was a success.

 

I might point to 2001 as an example. We were supposed to be worst in the division. Even the GM thought little of the team. Then we win 13 games and make our first playoff appearance in however long. IMHO, then and there, the season was a success. We exceeded the goals of most any. But as we played better and better, we started to raise hope and expectations, so when we stunk against Phily, we were ticked. But later, I think most were able to step back and realize just how well the team did.

 

Fankly, this is likely a pointless argument. As said, it is a subjective issue. There is no right and wrong. Success is based off goals. Your goal is the highest one set. It's a great goal, but often (IMHO) unrealistic and unfair.

[Mongo3451]

Your goal is the highest one set. It's a great goal, but often (IMHO) unrealistic and unfair.

Dude, he's like the Dad in the stands(you know, the one with the matching mullet) of his eight year olds baseball game; yelling throw the heater, throw the heater! Or pushing his Mom over in a potato sack race because losing is unnacceptable. It would truly suck to be a fan with this perspective, knowing the season is doomed before it starts.