Hub thinks we can get a 2nd for Urlacher

[nfoligno]

Just listened to an interview where Hub was asked, if the Bears wanted to get rid of Urlacher, what could they get in return. Hub said a 2nd, which surpised the radio guys. Hub reasoned that Urlacher is still a great athlete, and further said much of his downturn in play is believed to be, at least in part, due to his playing in a system that he has never been a great fit for. Hub talked about how Urlacher has never been a big fan of the cover two, and how it only got worse after Rivera left and Urlacher was pushed into more and more zone scheming.

 

Hub said if Urlacher went to a team w/ a more creative DC (mentioned Pitt as an example) that he could again become a premier player.

 

Two thoughts on this. On one hand, if we could actually get as much as a 2nd round pick for Urlacher, it may well be worth it. We have so many holes and no 1st or 2nd round picks, that a 2nd rounder would be a big deal, especially for an agining player who doesn't fit well in our scheme.

 

On the other hand, if we actually were to fire Lovie and bring in Cowher (for example) Urlacher's value to the team could go way up.

 

Hub was also asked about last weeks report about the team reaching out to Cowher, as well as others. Hub said he stands by history, which is no shock. What I liked was something Hub talked about after this, which may seem odd to those who believe Hub simply hates the team. He talked about how many say it isn't like the owers to eat a contract like Lovies, and then said that may have once been true, but said the ownership is far from cheap today. He talked about how many things we have done in recent years that went against what most thoughts was "what our ownership would do", mentioning how much Lovie was paid, the Cutler trade, and the large contracts to so many players.

 

In the end, Hub said he doesn't know whether or not ownership will do it, but said that their reaching out to a guy like Cowher does give hope that may otherwise have not been there. Scary though was when he said he thinks Cowher could demand a deal in the 5yr/ $40-50m range. Ouch!

[madlithuanian]

Seems logical.

 

However, if this brain trust if doing the drafting, I'd rather keep him than let them botch yet another #2 pick. And as you say, if it's a different regime, we may be better off keeping him.

 

There's so little to like on this team right now, that my heart is hoping we keep Url...

 

Just listened to an interview where Hub was asked, if the Bears wanted to get rid of Urlacher, what could they get in return. Hub said a 2nd, which surpised the radio guys. Hub reasoned that Urlacher is still a great athlete, and further said much of his downturn in play is believed to be, at least in part, due to his playing in a system that he has never been a great fit for. Hub talked about how Urlacher has never been a big fan of the cover two, and how it only got worse after Rivera left and Urlacher was pushed into more and more zone scheming.

 

Hub said if Urlacher went to a team w/ a more creative DC (mentioned Pitt as an example) that he could again become a premier player.

 

Two thoughts on this. On one hand, if we could actually get as much as a 2nd round pick for Urlacher, it may well be worth it. We have so many holes and no 1st or 2nd round picks, that a 2nd rounder would be a big deal, especially for an agining player who doesn't fit well in our scheme.

 

On the other hand, if we actually were to fire Lovie and bring in Cowher (for example) Urlacher's value to the team could go way up.

 

Hub was also asked about last weeks report about the team reaching out to Cowher, as well as others. Hub said he stands by history, which is no shock. What I liked was something Hub talked about after this, which may seem odd to those who believe Hub simply hates the team. He talked about how many say it isn't like the owers to eat a contract like Lovies, and then said that may have once been true, but said the ownership is far from cheap today. He talked about how many things we have done in recent years that went against what most thoughts was "what our ownership would do", mentioning how much Lovie was paid, the Cutler trade, and the large contracts to so many players.

 

In the end, Hub said he doesn't know whether or not ownership will do it, but said that their reaching out to a guy like Cowher does give hope that may otherwise have not been there. Scary though was when he said he thinks Cowher could demand a deal in the 5yr/ $40-50m range. Ouch!

 

[adam]

So Gaines Adams = Brian Urlacher. Freaking great.

[jason]

Just listened to an interview where Hub was asked, if the Bears wanted to get rid of Urlacher, what could they get in return. Hub said a 2nd, which surpised the radio guys. Hub reasoned that Urlacher is still a great athlete, and further said much of his downturn in play is believed to be, at least in part, due to his playing in a system that he has never been a great fit for. Hub talked about how Urlacher has never been a big fan of the cover two, and how it only got worse after Rivera left and Urlacher was pushed into more and more zone scheming.

 

Hub said if Urlacher went to a team w/ a more creative DC (mentioned Pitt as an example) that he could again become a premier player.

 

Two thoughts on this. On one hand, if we could actually get as much as a 2nd round pick for Urlacher, it may well be worth it. We have so many holes and no 1st or 2nd round picks, that a 2nd rounder would be a big deal, especially for an agining player who doesn't fit well in our scheme.

 

On the other hand, if we actually were to fire Lovie and bring in Cowher (for example) Urlacher's value to the team could go way up.

 

Hub was also asked about last weeks report about the team reaching out to Cowher, as well as others. Hub said he stands by history, which is no shock. What I liked was something Hub talked about after this, which may seem odd to those who believe Hub simply hates the team. He talked about how many say it isn't like the owers to eat a contract like Lovies, and then said that may have once been true, but said the ownership is far from cheap today. He talked about how many things we have done in recent years that went against what most thoughts was "what our ownership would do", mentioning how much Lovie was paid, the Cutler trade, and the large contracts to so many players.

 

In the end, Hub said he doesn't know whether or not ownership will do it, but said that their reaching out to a guy like Cowher does give hope that may otherwise have not been there. Scary though was when he said he thinks Cowher could demand a deal in the 5yr/ $40-50m range. Ouch!

 

Oh, surprise, surprise, yet another person who thinks Urlacher would be better in a system that doesn't suck.

[Lucky Luciano]

He talked about how many say it isn't like the owers to eat a contract like Lovies, and then said that may have once been true, but said the ownership is far from cheap today. He talked about how many things we have done in recent years that went against what most thoughts was "what our ownership would do", mentioning how much Lovie was paid, the Cutler trade, and the large contracts to so many players.

 

In the end, Hub said he doesn't know whether or not ownership will do it, but said that their reaching out to a guy like Cowher does give hope that may otherwise have not been there. Scary though was when he said he thinks Cowher could demand a deal in the 5yr/ $40-50m range. Ouch!

 

i want again to qualify that the statements i make below are not necessarily a 'positive' indication one way or the other in regards to the frugality of our owners before i start and that i have no ax to grind with arkush. but... just how far back is hub talking about when he states "ownership is far from cheap today"? if it is since mikey was kicked upstairs i have to 'possibly' disagree or at the very least question his conclusions.

 

hub seems to take a simplistic formula that has no hard facts to reach the final results he uses to justify his comments.

 

1. does anyone believe, ANYONE, that dick jauron's final year in chicago wasn't due to the amount of money still owed him on his contract extension? if you believe this was the case then the ownership put money ahead of quality and the desire to win. strike one.

 

2. hub is again incorrect if he believes that paying players salaries and bonuses is any indication of an owner being cheap or not. the salaries are doled out by the league to owners and pay nearly if not EVERY penny of salary and bonus money to players. it just is not an *indication of “cheapness” or frugality in todays nfl to spend up to the salary cap. strike two.

 

3. if lovie and/or angelo are retained, even after their previous salary extensions, after seeing the complete failure this season AND last the only conclusion to me is that they were either retained because of salary commitments due OR a complete lack of football intelligence (or both).

 

as far as lovie’s salary... this is also completely false as any indicator of cheapness on the part of our owners. the same can be said of jerry angelo and dick jauron. you don’t look at the final amount of paid salary as the indicator but you have to average the cost over the entire tenure of his/their duties in chicago. all three of these key people were paid a pittance, at the bottom of the league as starting salaries during their time in chicago. this had a two sided benefit for ownership

 

A. they hired personnel who were inexperienced at their jobs and worked cheap because of it. whether the quality in their staffs was there or not was of little concern. if you paid the leader so little how could he hire the most competent, quality, assistant coaches or scouts or player personnel assistants for more money than their head coach or the gm? you now have a second rate foundation to build your franchise upon to start with.

 

B. even when/IF the people (HC, GM) you hired do an admirable job and you give them a good comparable salary increase extension you still can average that amount over the length of time that person was working for you and it’s still a bargain basement salary. but, this also leads to the question of the quality of the cheap personnel under this ‘leader’. do you now go out and seriously look for quality replacements for the people your head coach or gm have worked with to even get into a position to get a salary/contract extension? have you passed up quality assistants over the years while these people were proving their ability or not and actually hurt the quality of your team not only in the past but in the future?

 

that will be strike three and hub’s statement that this organization isn’t cheap due to the reasons he suggests is a complete fallacy.

 

IF we see a complete shakeup of the hierarchy of this franchise this year which would include coaching, gm and president (or even hire a vice president in charge of football operations) then there will be something solid to hang your hat on that our owners really may not be cheap and want to commit to winning above all in the nfl.

 

 

*UNLESS that team continually does what bidwell did of paying his players nothing and pocketing ‘huge chunks’ of their salary allocation from the salary cap every year as was done in the cards PAST. that was obviously CHEAP and bidwell i believe was being censured/forced by the league to pay out more in salaries to his players in that era.

 

 

[nfoligno]

This has been argued before, but hey, I am bored at work:)

 

- Player salaries and bonuses do matter. I have never understood how you don't get this. While there is a salary cap, bonsues can go outside that cap. our cap might be $100m (just using an even number) but in a given offseason, you might shell out $60 or even $80m in upfront bonuses alone. Now, I know you argue that over time it may even out, but the reality is, cheap owners simply do not shell out these bonuses as much. In years past, when Mikey was in charge, we sure didn't dole out the big bonus dollars, and thus were rarely able to attract the big FAs. But over the last decade, we have spent the big dollars.

 

Again, I know you say it all works out in the end due to the cap. If you spend $80m in bonus one year, you are likely to spend far less the next. Still, when an owner does shell out that much money at one time, he rarely considered cheap.

 

- Coaching - I understand your argument, but at the same time, you act like it is all purely about money. Jerry Jones is well known to hire on the cheap w/ his coaches. He has over and over again hired assistants or college guys on the cheap, yet is Jerry considered a cheap owner? Nope. Frankly, if we were to take your reasoning, would we not have to consider Jerry a cheap owner? Would you not argue that not only does Jerry go cheap on coaching hires, but as he keeps the GM title for himself, he saves money. I personally would argue this is far more about ego than money, but if this were the situation in Chicago, I am pretty confident you would argue otherwise.

 

Jerry Jones is one of the more free spending owners in the league, at least in terms of reputation. What differs him from our ownership? Not money spent on coaches. Not money spent on overall structure, as he keeps the GM title for himself, and has a son high up in the business too. Not even Jerry World, the new stadium, as he held the city hostage to get the funding for it. Money spent on players is what has given Jerry his reputation as a free spender, but according to you, that doesn't even matter.

 

If you look around the league, I think you will find many teams go w/ coaches who are unproven as HCs. You have argued how great Pitt's ownership and franchise is, but didn't they go w/ an unproven 1st time HC to replace Cowher. Did they do this to save money because they are cheap? Go back to Wanny. I don't remember how much he was paid, but what I do remember was at the time, he was considered one of the hottest young coaches in the assistant ranks, and we had to beat out numerous teams to get him, sad as that sounds today.

 

I guess I don't understand what it is that makes you think our ownership is cheap compared to the other teams. So many other teams also have 1st time HCs, but that doesn't draw the cheap label. According to you, player salaries and bonuses don't matter, even though that is what is most often considered the key element. Few owners simply build their own stadiums, as most force their city to shell out big bucks. Honestly, if you are not going to factor player salaries, I really don't see what distiguishes one owner from the next.

 

i want again to qualify that the statements i make below are not necessarily a 'positive' indication one way or the other in regards to the frugality of our owners before i start and that i have no ax to grind with arkush. but... just how far back is hub talking about when he states "ownership is far from cheap today"? if it is since mikey was kicked upstairs i have to 'possibly' disagree or at the very least question his conclusions.

 

hub seems to take a simplistic formula that has no hard facts to reach the final results he uses to justify his comments.

 

1. does anyone believe, ANYONE, that dick jauron's final year in chicago wasn't due to the amount of money still owed him on his contract extension? if you believe this was the case then the ownership put money ahead of quality and the desire to win. strike one.

 

2. hub is again incorrect if he believes that paying players salaries and bonuses is any indication of an owner being cheap or not. the salaries are doled out by the league to owners and pay nearly if not EVERY penny of salary and bonus money to players. it just is not an *indication of “cheapness” or frugality in todays nfl to spend up to the salary cap. strike two.

 

3. if lovie and/or angelo are retained, even after their previous salary extensions, after seeing the complete failure this season AND last the only conclusion to me is that they were either retained because of salary commitments due OR a complete lack of football intelligence (or both).

 

as far as lovie’s salary... this is also completely false as any indicator of cheapness on the part of our owners. the same can be said of jerry angelo and dick jauron. you don’t look at the final amount of paid salary as the indicator but you have to average the cost over the entire tenure of his/their duties in chicago. all three of these key people were paid a pittance, at the bottom of the league as starting salaries during their time in chicago. this had a two sided benefit for ownership

 

A. they hired personnel who were inexperienced at their jobs and worked cheap because of it. whether the quality in their staffs was there or not was of little concern. if you paid the leader so little how could he hire the most competent, quality, assistant coaches or scouts or player personnel assistants for more money than their head coach or the gm? you now have a second rate foundation to build your franchise upon to start with.

 

B. even when/IF the people (HC, GM) you hired do an admirable job and you give them a good comparable salary increase extension you still can average that amount over the length of time that person was working for you and it’s still a bargain basement salary. but, this also leads to the question of the quality of the cheap personnel under this ‘leader’. do you now go out and seriously look for quality replacements for the people your head coach or gm have worked with to even get into a position to get a salary/contract extension? have you passed up quality assistants over the years while these people were proving their ability or not and actually hurt the quality of your team not only in the past but in the future?

 

that will be strike three and hub’s statement that this organization isn’t cheap due to the reasons he suggests is a complete fallacy.

 

IF we see a complete shakeup of the hierarchy of this franchise this year which would include coaching, gm and president (or even hire a vice president in charge of football operations) then there will be something solid to hang your hat on that our owners really may not be cheap and want to commit to winning above all in the nfl.

 

 

*UNLESS that team continually does what bidwell did of paying his players nothing and pocketing ‘huge chunks’ of their salary allocation from the salary cap every year as was done in the cards PAST. that was obviously CHEAP and bidwell i believe was being censured/forced by the league to pay out more in salaries to his players in that era.

 

[selection7]

The Bears had an awful record when Urlacher doesn't play, and after a short time looking otherwise, it looks like it will continue this season. You can certainly argue it's coincidence, but I'd bet comparing our record over the last 5 years with and without Urlacher would be eye opening.

[nfoligno]

Honestly, I blame coaching as much as anything there.

 

Any cover two has holes. IMHO, the way Lovie/Babich run their version, the holes are even bigger. Urlacher is such an athlete, he can make these holes smaller. He simply has the range to cover a greater amount of turf. There are still holes, but they are smaller. When Urlacher is out, those holes become huge, as we simply have no player capabale of covering such ground.

 

But if you altered the scheme, you may not have such glaring holes that need a uber-athletic MLB to cover and close.

 

The Bears had an awful record when Urlacher doesn't play, and after a short time looking otherwise, it looks like it will continue this season. You can certainly argue it's coincidence, but I'd bet comparing our record over the last 5 years with and without Urlacher would be eye opening.

 

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

After Urlacher ripped Cutler and the playcalling today, I wouldn't doubt the possibility of trading him now.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

After Urlacher ripped Cutler and the playcalling today, I wouldn't doubt the possibility of trading him now.

 

Urlacher can get the freak out. I like that he's fired up, but don't ignore the defense their Urly. Over 500 yards given up, what an embarassment.

[defiantgiant]

I don't know how much credence to give Hub on this one. Urlacher played a rover/borderline free safety in college, and his great strength has always been his range and ability in coverage. He's not great at shedding blocks or at closing running lanes, since he can be washed out by bigger interior linemen pretty easily. Plus, his back problems make it a very bad idea to put him in a scheme where he has to take on offensive linemen frequently. Pittsburgh's system calls for inside linebackers like Larry Foote, who crash up into the gaps, shed a block, and stop the run. None of that plays to Urlacher's strengths: whether he likes it or not, he's a prototype Tampa-2 middle linebacker.

 

Honestly, I can't imagine that anybody would give up a 2nd for Urlacher. He'll be 31 by the time he can play again, and he's been dinged up constantly the past few years. The back issue isn't going away, and who knows if that wrist will get reinjured. On top of that, he's not as mobile as he used to be. Best-case scenario, he might have three or four years left as an above-average MLB in a Cover-2 defense that caters to his skillset. And in most other defenses, MLB is a position you can manufacture - it's nice to have a premier player there, but you don't necessarily need one. Look at last year's Steelers with Larry Foote and James Farrior: neither of those guys are tremendous athletes, they're just smart, nasty, blue-collar type players.

 

Basically, if another team was willing to use a 2nd on a middle linebacker, they'd draft one. Brandon Spikes and Rolando McClain are both 1st-rounders, which is probably going to push some very good MLBs like Sean Lee down into the second round. If I'm a GM choosing between a 22-year-old Lee and a 31-year-old Urlacher, I'm taking Lee every time.

[jason]

Honestly, I blame coaching as much as anything there.

 

Any cover two has holes. IMHO, the way Lovie/Babich run their version, the holes are even bigger. Urlacher is such an athlete, he can make these holes smaller. He simply has the range to cover a greater amount of turf. There are still holes, but they are smaller. When Urlacher is out, those holes become huge, as we simply have no player capabale of covering such ground.

 

But if you altered the scheme, you may not have such glaring holes that need a uber-athletic MLB to cover and close.

 

This, this, OMFG, this.

 

I hate the MLB crowding the line, faking the blitz, and then retreating to cover the seam route by the TE 30 yards down the field. One, it's stupid because EVERYONE knows the MLB blitzes in the Bears' scheme about 2% of the time. Two, it's stupid because it's leaving a massive hole for the MLB to cover (as you alluded to). And three, it's stupid because it causes unnecessary wear and tear on the MLB throughout the game. Why make the guy run an extra 2 miles in the game when it's not needed?

[nfoligno]

The worst part is, IMHO, that you don't stop doing this when Urlacher is out. It is bad enough to make Urlacher do this, but Hunter? It is well known that Hunter lacks the raw athleticism. He is smart, but just lacks the ability to cover a big portion of the field. Yet as we have done so often, when one of our upper tier players go down w/ injury, we expect his replacement to play at the same level. That is a joke.

 

The other aspect of this that always bothered me was, some years ago I remember Lovie talking about Urlacher's strengths and talking about how Urlacher is best when playing "downhill". When he is moving toward the ball and attacking, he is at his best. Yet, despite Lovie saying this is Urlacher best style, we do the opposite w/ him and put him in a position where he is often running backward, uphill, rather than downhill and attacking the LOS. By Lovie's own words, we did not use Urlacher properly.

 

This, this, OMFG, this.

 

I hate the MLB crowding the line, faking the blitz, and then retreating to cover the seam route by the TE 30 yards down the field. One, it's stupid because EVERYONE knows the MLB blitzes in the Bears' scheme about 2% of the time. Two, it's stupid because it's leaving a massive hole for the MLB to cover (as you alluded to). And three, it's stupid because it causes unnecessary wear and tear on the MLB throughout the game. Why make the guy run an extra 2 miles in the game when it's not needed?

 

[nfoligno]

One, for the record, Hub's mention of Pitt was less about their particular scheme, and more about what a DC like Dick LeBeau could do w/ a player of Urlacher's talent.

 

Two, while I am not saying his value would be a 2nd, I do believe many teams around the league would view Urlacher as still capable of being a stud LB for them. IMHO, where he might best fit would be a team like Baltimore. I think Urlacher was at this best when he had bigger DTs in front of him eating up blocks, allowing him more freedom to attack.

 

I don't know how much credence to give Hub on this one. Urlacher played a rover/borderline free safety in college, and his great strength has always been his range and ability in coverage. He's not great at shedding blocks or at closing running lanes, since he can be washed out by bigger interior linemen pretty easily. Plus, his back problems make it a very bad idea to put him in a scheme where he has to take on offensive linemen frequently. Pittsburgh's system calls for inside linebackers like Larry Foote, who crash up into the gaps, shed a block, and stop the run. None of that plays to Urlacher's strengths: whether he likes it or not, he's a prototype Tampa-2 middle linebacker.

 

Honestly, I can't imagine that anybody would give up a 2nd for Urlacher. He'll be 31 by the time he can play again, and he's been dinged up constantly the past few years. The back issue isn't going away, and who knows if that wrist will get reinjured. On top of that, he's not as mobile as he used to be. Best-case scenario, he might have three or four years left as an above-average MLB in a Cover-2 defense that caters to his skillset. And in most other defenses, MLB is a position you can manufacture - it's nice to have a premier player there, but you don't necessarily need one. Look at last year's Steelers with Larry Foote and James Farrior: neither of those guys are tremendous athletes, they're just smart, nasty, blue-collar type players.

 

Basically, if another team was willing to use a 2nd on a middle linebacker, they'd draft one. Brandon Spikes and Rolando McClain are both 1st-rounders, which is probably going to push some very good MLBs like Sean Lee down into the second round. If I'm a GM choosing between a 22-year-old Lee and a 31-year-old Urlacher, I'm taking Lee every time.

 

[defiantgiant]

One, for the record, Hub's mention of Pitt was less about their particular scheme, and more about what a DC like Dick LeBeau could do w/ a player of Urlacher's talent.

 

Two, while I am not saying his value would be a 2nd, I do believe many teams around the league would view Urlacher as still capable of being a stud LB for them. IMHO, where he might best fit would be a team like Baltimore. I think Urlacher was at this best when he had bigger DTs in front of him eating up blocks, allowing him more freedom to attack.

 

I hadn't thought about an old-school 4-3 defense like the 2000 Ravens or 2001 Bears: you're definitely right that Urlacher could flourish in a system like that. Not too many teams any more run a big 40 front like the Bears did when we had Ted Washington up front, but playing in that defense would benefit Urlacher tremendously.

 

Really, I'd like for the Bears to go back to that. If they could draft a real nose tackle like Terrence Cody from Alabama or Jerrell Powe from Ole Miss, move away from the Tampa-2, and just ask our DTs to plug the middle and keep Urlacher clean, we could probably get another couple of years of high-level production out of #54. We could use Cody and Harrison/Adams inside on early downs, then rotate Tommie in on passing downs. A jumbo line like Idonije-Cody-Harrison-Gilbert would be pretty nasty against the run, and could free up Briggs-Urlacher-Tinoisamoa to make a ton of tackles.

[madlithuanian]

It's tricky!

 

 

 

This, this, OMFG, this.

 

I hate the MLB crowding the line, faking the blitz, and then retreating to cover the seam route by the TE 30 yards down the field. One, it's stupid because EVERYONE knows the MLB blitzes in the Bears' scheme about 2% of the time. Two, it's stupid because it's leaving a massive hole for the MLB to cover (as you alluded to). And three, it's stupid because it causes unnecessary wear and tear on the MLB throughout the game. Why make the guy run an extra 2 miles in the game when it's not needed?

 

[Lucky Luciano]

Player salaries and bonuses do matter. I have never understood how you don't get this. While there is a salary cap, bonsues can go outside that cap. our cap might be $100m (just using an even number) but in a given offseason, you might shell out $60 or even $80m in upfront bonuses alone. Now, I know you argue that over time it may even out, but the reality is, cheap owners simply do not shell out these bonuses as much. In years past, when Mikey was in charge, we sure didn't dole out the big bonus dollars, and thus were rarely able to attract the big FAs. But over the last decade, we have spent the big dollars.

 

Again, I know you say it all works out in the end due to the cap. If you spend $80m in bonus one year, you are likely to spend far less the next. Still, when an owner does shell out that much money at one time, he rarely considered cheap.

 

2009 fact:

 

1. the salary cap has accelerated over the life of the contract. at this time each team is ‘required’ to spend at least 87.6% of this cap money on player salaries in 2009.

2. the salary cap for 2009 is approximately $128 million dollars. nearly $12.8 million dollars of this allotted player salary money doesn’t have to be paid to player salary if the team chooses not to. see http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/...any-other-team/ for some interesting start of season stats.

3. owners get a share of the gross along with the players salary allotment. this is theirs to do as they wish and be considered profit after expenses are paid out for non-player items.

 

now...

 

please answer this question first. do you believe that the money that the league allots each franchise to pay player salaries, per the agreed player/owner contract (salary cap), should entirely go to player salaries, when possible, or do you believe the owners are entitled to portions of this money also and should take amounts of this player allotted money for themselves as profit?

 

if you said ‘yes’ the owners should consider portions of this money allotted to pay player salaries as a given right for them to use as yearly profit structure then you might as well stop reading right here and not waste your or my time any further.

 

===============================================================

 

if you said no: how could i claim that a team paying out more money per year, caused by a lump sum player bonus added to player salaries, than the actual salary cap allotment each year is and pay this money STRICTLY out of the salary cap allotment and never take a penny out of the owners collective pockets? that is a crazy statement. it makes no sense. or does it?

 

here is an example of what i would do if i were the owner:

 

every year i am allotted X amount of dollars out of the collective gross money taken in by the nfl to pay my players their salaries and bonuses.

 

THE TAKE:

 

1. nearly every year my player salary commitments don’t match the full extent of the money assigned from the salary cap figures assigned by the nfl. it just stands to reason. this excess gives me some room to maneuver.

 

even so, every year i plan to keep some money aside (that i don’t pay out in immediate salary) after the season starts. i keep some floating cash out of player salary money set aside (as from above for example) in case there are injuries during the season and i have to bring in other players off the wire to fill in these vacated slots. ALL this is money from the salary cap. sounds pretty reasonable doesn’t it?

 

2. the total amounts listed above can vary between $.5 and $10 + million dollars PER YEAR and probably averages around $3-5 million dollars per year over the life of the salary cap. this money not paid out during the season can NOT be added to the following years salary cap spending allotment. it is player allotted money that is now mine to do with as i wish.

 

so what i am going to do is put that excess money above into a separate interest bearing CD, savings account or whatever i wish, than the money, i as a franchise, was allotted for my owners share in the CBA.

 

3. every year i have an option in regards to my players, that are negotiating contracts, to offer more money to them if they reach certain game time incentives. how this works is i now count THIS amount of money against this seasons salary cap (per the contract). if the player doesn’t reach these *incentives then this amount of money is rolled over into the following years cap allotment. but what do i do with it now?

 

i put this portion of THIS years salary cap that MAY have to be paid in incentives into my account above. however many millions of dollars this may be i now can make interest on money that is not mine (that i may not even payout) for up to 12 months.

 

how much money do you think i could collect over a 25 year period doing this and putting in my separate account with compound interest and every penny has been taken out of player salary cap money?

 

THE STING

 

but what about paying out $10-20 million dollar bonuses up front? it surely isn’t possible to give these huge amounts of up front money without it coming out of my very own personal bank account is it? the answer is absolutely yes. but would i want to? hmmmm.....

 

how the salary cap works in regards to bonus money: although bonus money is/can be paid out in a lump sum by each franchise it is amortized by the nfl over the life of the players contract (a MAXIMUM of 6 years) to be taken out yearly from each individual years allotted salary cap until it is paid in full back to the owner.

 

well... how would i do it then?

 

just for simplicity let’s assume i signed a player to a 5 year contract and gave him a $10 million dollar signing bonus. this means that over the next 5 years i deduct $2 million dollars out of the money supposed to go to player salaries, the salary cap, and pay myself back this portion of money i paid this individual player upfront. there are 3 ways i could do this.

 

1. i as a corporation, borrow $10 million dollars from a bank with a **secured loan for 5 years. each year i take $2 mil from the allotted salary cap and pay this to the bank. that means that in year 1 i am paying interest on the full amount. year 2 on $8 mil principle, year 3 $6 mil and so on until the loan is paid in full. but how is the interest paid without me coming up with a huge amount of my personal money involved?

 

i use the money from the separate account i listed above. the excess salary cap money, the $.5-10 million dollars i have set aside from the player salary allotment and don’t use that season to pay the interest (which goes down every year as the loan principle is paid).

 

2. as a corporation, after 20 years of putting in the excess amounts of salary cap that i did not use, along with the compound interest on it, i should easily be able to remove that amount to pay cash on that $10 million dollar bonus.

 

3. here is what i would prefer to do: loan my corporation $10 million dollars to pay the bonus out of my own personal bank account. that way i can charge my own corporation higher interest rates than i could get from depositing my money in a bank. i have a secured personal loan and my corporation could then write off interest payments on their/my tax returns.

 

*any bank would loan these amounts to a billion dollar corporation with a loan that is guaranteed to be paid back by a multi-billion dollar corporation and loan it at very goood interest rates.

 

**UNSPENT CAP MONEY

1. “Jason Cole Yahoo Sports March 10, 2009: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-u...o&type=lgns

Even with teams spending nearly half a billion dollars on player contracts since the free agency period started Feb. 29, here is a staggering statistic to consider: There’s still approximately $480 million in unused salary cap money.

 

According to figures kept by the NFL Players Association and updated through last Thursday, each of the league’s 32 teams had an average of $15 million in unused salary cap space.

Though a quarter or more of that collective money will be used to sign rookies after the draft in April, teams still figure to have around $360 million in remaining salary cap space going into the 2008 season. Barring unilateral raises for all players, much of that money will go unspent.”

how much money does the bears NOT spend per year from the salary cap? where does this money go? in the owners pocket.

 

***INCENTIVE CAP ROLLOVERS

just one instance - incentive credit of more than $9 million for cornerback marcus hamilton - rollover in incentives - where did this money come from? the salary cap allotment. how much interest on $9m a year and WHERE does that interest money go? in the owners pocket.

 

Coaching - I understand your argument, but at the same time, you act like it is all purely about money. Jerry Jones is well known to hire on the cheap w/ his coaches. He has over and over again hired assistants or college guys on the cheap, yet is Jerry considered a cheap owner? Nope. Frankly, if we were to take your reasoning, would we not have to consider Jerry a cheap owner? Would you not argue that not only does Jerry go cheap on coaching hires, but as he keeps the GM title for himself, he saves money. I personally would argue this is far more about ego than money, but if this were the situation in Chicago, I am pretty confident you would argue otherwise.

 

i act like what is “purely about money”?

 

i understand there are various things involved to state with unmitigated authority that the mccaskey family are cheap owners. i have not done that. some facts and information do lead me to believe there is a reasonable ‘possibility’ they are. if you will note that nearly every discussion on this subject we have had, i put in the qualification of “POSSIBILITY”. that is my personal opinion. but, what i won’t leave on the table are the references so many point to, without reservation, to claim that they are not cheap for certain specific reasons that can be proven false.

 

you keep bringing up jerry jones and dan snyder. these people are so over the top and in my opinion franchise insane that whatever these people do is no indication what good owners try to employ as a viable system. even saying that, i have to give jones and snyder some credit for at least trying to bring in the best in the business occasionally whether their individual systems work or not. also, are you are saying i am not competent enough to comprehend if we had an owner who is a meglomaniac like jones as you can? if so... whatever.

 

Jerry Jones is one of the more free spending owners in the league, at least in terms of reputation. What differs him from our ownership? Not money spent on coaches. Not money spent on overall structure, as he keeps the GM title for himself, and has a son high up in the business too. Not even Jerry World, the new stadium, as he held the city hostage to get the funding for it. Money spent on players is what has given Jerry his reputation as a free spender, but according to you, that doesn't even matter.

 

money talks and bull$%!# walks.

 

you say what differs between jones and our franchise is “not money spent on coaches”? name every head coach, every top coordinator with the lone exception of dave wannstedt (who was hired by mikey) this franchise has EVER hired that was a top dollar top prospect coach. yet i have read numerous times on this board you yourself stating that lovie won’t be fired because of the cost of his dead salary is too high for our owners to swallow. who you crappin?

 

you say structure? do you believe if virginia didn’t want the idiot bastards son kept out of harms way she would have put in her, totally unqualified to run a franchise, bean counter ted phillips to lower the heat? as bad a rod graves may have been working under mikey do you believe phillips could get a job with any other franchise as president or even GM? really??

 

do you know how long it took us to build the training facilities in lake forest and how long they were needed? did our owners build ANY stadiums in the entire franchises history?

 

If you look around the league, I think you will find many teams go w/ coaches who are unproven as HCs. You have argued how great Pitt's ownership and franchise is, but didn't they go w/ an unproven 1st time HC to replace Cowher. Did they do this to save money because they are cheap? Go back to Wanny. I don't remember how much he was paid, but what I do remember was at the time, he was considered one of the hottest young coaches in the assistant ranks, and we had to beat out numerous teams to get him, sad as that sounds today.

 

ok let’s look at wanny. you say not cheap and i agree but let’s also be honest. wanny was considered the GM also so that’s 2 salaries for one price. now let’s go back in our recent past. why wasn’t dave mcginnis hired in chicago? how many different reasons? for that matter, why was dick jauron? why ted phillips? how about jerry angelo? how about lovie smith? it was a choice between him and freaking russ grimm? after all, considering we have won ONE superbowl in 45 years why would you consider trying something different. is the mccaskey family somehow dumber than the entire collective of chicago media and fans?

 

I guess I don't understand what it is that makes you think our ownership is cheap compared to the other teams. So many other teams also have 1st time HCs, but that doesn't draw the cheap label. According to you, player salaries and bonuses don't matter, even though that is what is most often considered the key element. Few owners simply build their own stadiums, as most force their city to shell out big bucks. Honestly, if you are not going to factor player salaries, I really don't see what distiguishes one owner from the next.

 

we have never hired a head coach who even has been a head coach in the nfl. NEVER. that is an amazing record for a franchise in the league for over 80 years. why do you think that is?

 

we have never hired any top college coaching HC prospect in our entire history. why do you think that is?

 

and yes, player salaries DO-NOT-MATTER in this particular determination.

 

finally...... “Honestly, if you are not going to factor player salaries, I really don't see what distiguishes one owner from the next.”

 

you really see no difference between one owner and the next except for what they pay their players in salary????? that is an amazing statement to admit to.