LT2_3

I thought I read that he did all that stuff in his free time - you know while doing some off season consulting at ENCOM.

That's what I was going to say!!!!! He's going to get the ball often. I like his abilities and he's going to have the opportunities. My only fear is that they will over-use him early and he'll have hit the rookie wall before the FF playoffs come around.

I dunno - can you think of a profession where someone makes over 250k a year and their company doesn't provide a cell phone? I would also think that it gives teams the ability to contact players about things before they read them in the newspaper or on the internet - and players contact the team too.

No worries mates. I'm really busy, and will have a new one before it's needed. We have enough cap room to do anything we need.

I dunno about that. I think if Bradley is anywhere near healthy, they have to see what he's got during camp. If we were talking about Bennett, I'd agree because he's got more than this year under contract.

This is no surprise to anyone following the offseason. He had his knee scoped in late May and his readiness for TC was unknown then.

There are 2 phases to the PUP list. The preseason and regular season. A player on the preseason PUP list can return at any time. If a player stays on the PUP list all the way through to the regular season, they are eligible for the regular season PUP list - but they have to have been on it throughout the entire preseason. Once a player is put on the regular season PUP list, they can't return until after week 6 - at which point the team gets a roster exemption for up to 3 weeks at which point they have to, put the player on the 53 man roster, IR the guy, or release them. I don't think Jones will last the entire preseason on the PUP list so we might as well count on him being on the 53 man roster at the beginning of the season.

I still say the Packers reinstate him and then they IR him.

Let me explain the timeline a bit more. When Angelo was hired in May 2001, it was too late for Angelo to find a new coach. Everybody expected that the team might peak out at 8-8 after the 5-11 2000 season. At that point, it was expected by everyone (when I say everyone and everybody, I mean the players, the fans, the McCaskeys, the media: Everyone) that Angelo would then be able to fire Jauron and hire his own head coach. What happened along the way, was the team went 13-3 and went to the playoffs for the first time since 1994. Jauron was named coach of the year, and Ed McCaskey declared on TV in late November that Jauron would be retained at any cost. So, while everyone (including Angelo) thought that he would be able to hire a new coach for 2002, the situation changed dramatically and unexpectedly. Now what was Angelo supposed to do at that point? Quit? I would think that decision would be a career killer. As for the roster/drafting situation with Jauron and Angelo, it obviously was complicated. While I agree with you that Angelo was responsible for bringing in players, he had to work with Jauron to get the kinds of players that Jauron wanted for his schemes. Quite frankly, I don't think the two of them worked together particularly well. Angelo was brought in to correct the lack of a proper top down structure where the HC reports to the GM and the GM makes all the calls on personnel to replace the dysfunctional system where Hatley and Jauron were equals. Due to the unexpected success in 2001 that structure was put on hold - until 2004 when Lovie was hired. It was due to that continued dysfunctional structure that I and many don't hold Angelo completely responsible for those years. It's like judging how well someone can do their job with both hands tied behind their back. you just can't make a reasonable judgement on their abilities. As for building both sides of the ball, I'm waiting for that too. However, it doesn't seem quite as big a deal when you cut the number of years that you are really counting to 4 (3 on the offensive side of the ball) and include a SB appearance.

Agreed. I think the funny thing about all this is that there is a possibe scenario that no one has considered: The Packers let Farve come back, and then after a ridiculously minor injury VERY early in the preseason, they simply IR him. That way, Rodgers gets to start, and Farve can't play anywhere else. It may sound like a crappy thing to do, but what Farve is doing now is equally as crappy. The Packers hold all the leverage and they don't want him to play anywhere else.

I have some problem with simply counting "winning seasons" because I think 7-9 with loads of injuries should be looked at differently than a 4-12 or 1-15 season. By looking at only winning seasons, they carry exactly the same weight in the analysis and that just seems wrong. I would tend to agree with you that we shouldn't really count the pre-Lovie era for the same reason. However, I've been down this road before and know the response is that it shouldn't matter for a good GM. I relate it to IT issues - which is my background. You can't expect a new IT guy to come in and fix everything overnight. There are servers on lease that you can't replace immediately because resources have been allocated for them and you also can't come in and fire everyone overnight. As for Jauron not being Angelo's guy, he ran different systems than what Angelo was used to. It would be like hiring a Novell guy to run OS2 servers. You would really have to wait until the Novell guy got the old servers replaced and hired the right people to support them too before you could really judge what kind of job the guy is doing. But then again, that's the real world where saving money and improving efficiency are more important than wins and losses although the implementation of change is similar. We are fans that expect more than that!

Dude, I totally respect you opinion, but I think you are mistaken. Having a bunch of cap space doesn't mean that there are better players out there than what you've already got. If we continue the shopping analogy, it's like you're shopping in Soviet Russia. Instead of shopping at a store with stocked shelves, there might be one thing available per catagory with a bunch of damaged packages behind it. The products available aren't top shelf and you've got alot of competition to get them. Take a look at what was available. Considering your assertation that he made bad decisions (which I think is based on the assumption that there were alternatives), read this and let me know which of these guys you would've signed instead of re-signing our own guys. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m120...226/ai_83667216 The bottom line from my perspective is that you can't change a team in one season - and it doesn't matter how much cap space you have if there isn't anyone out there better than the guys you already have. If they are on a par from a prospect level, you are merely introducing change for the sake of change at that point. And admit it! The reason we didn't do as well the following year was because we missed Shane Matthews and James Allen too much on offense. Without their talent, we were sunk!

One - Cool. I thought you mistyped. I was just clarifying Two - Obviously you can look at the data to skew it either way. I agree that looking solely at W-L skews perception just as just looking at winning or losing seasons. If a team misses the playoffs with a 10-6 record, someone unhappy with their GM will only include "playoff seasons" so they can ignore those seasons as a success. I guess my main point is that you can't really judge a GM so simplistically. Three - I agree that it can be looked at either way. I think he did more for that team with addition by subtraction. Four - Yes Angelo was in charge in 2002, but he was stuck with players and contracts that came before him. So say you consider Phillip Daniels a 7 out of 10 and it would cost money to trade or release him for a few years, Angelo was kinda stuck with him at that position. Especially after he took a cap hit for releasing Thomas Smith the year before. To use a Parcellsism, he didn't have money with one trip shopping for groceries to throw out the old crap and restock the pantry all in one trip. For any draft driven team, it takes a few years once the new guy comes in. Check out the roster turnover from 2000-2004 and how systematically Angelo has replaced starters with "his guys" each year. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/chi/

I think you are totally skewing the perspective by looking at "seasons over .500". If you look at the W-L total over those 6 years, they are 47-49. Those numbers skew to the positive if you include 2001 to 60-52. Should the 2001 season count since he wasn't even there for the draft? I would say he should get credit for it because he reshaped the team by not returning Enis and McNown along with some established vets like Engram, Wells, Flannigan, Sean Harris, and Thomas Smith while adding Keith Traylor and Ted Washington. Angelo really put his stamp on that team even if he took over shortly after the draft. I also have to ask you what you mean by being to two playoff games. We were in 3 in 2006 alone. Four total if you want to be accurate. If you want to skew perspective based on what info to include, let's look at just the last 3 seasons. As a predictive measure, it's far more accurate than going into past coaching regimes. In the past 3 seasons, we are 31-17 with 2 playoff seasons, and one 7-9 season with loads of injuries. Oh yeah - there was also a Superbowl appearance in there too. Bottom line is that we all wish we had done better last year.

No and yes. The rookie salary cap only covers the cap hit for the rookies 1st year of their deal, but not the whole contract. So, for instance, a team has a cap of $2 million for their frist round guy, they can only count that much the first year, but then in the second year, the player gets an option bonus of $20 million. That isn't covered by the rookie cap. Yes, people are suggesting a slotted rookie cap like the NBA has.

Well, like I said, I can't comment about other deals than the Bears. It DOES sound crappy that they raised taxes without a referendum though. I guess I don't have an issue with Goodell talking about the stadiums. See, those $200 million loans get paid back out of revenues from the stadiums while the salary cap is ALSO based on those revenues even though the teams have to use some of that money to pay back the loans. So, basically, the 60% IS fair to pay the players as long as the teams aren't paying off debt at the same time. It's in the player's interest for the new stadiums to be built because the new stadiums bring in more money, but they have to realize that paying back the loans to get them built in the first place costs money too. Actually, I think we could get agreement from both sides on a new CBA if they just didn't count money used to pay back loans in the number that they calculate the salary cap from - oh and a rookie salary cap.

What? Are you suggesting that what college a player goes to affects how much money they get paid? If you're saying something else, then please clarify. If that WAS what you were saying, that is absolutely untrue. Player contracts are slotted for players in the 2nd round and beyond. And I guess that by skipping small schools you would have never drafted Payton either. Since you're so fond of overloading people with useless info, why don't you do a compare and contrast with those coaching staffs and what the league average was at the time. I'll respond to that below as well It was built in 1990 while Ditka was coach. Incidentally, that was 18 years ago and not 10. I'm not sure what your point is, but I thought we should be clear about what really happened because you tend to only bring up stuff if it supports your cause. Again, I really don't get the point of bringing that up. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...752C1A966958260 Well, ummmmm not so much really. The league did give them a no interest loan to help finance the renovations, so it wasn't paid for entirely by the taxpayers. In fact, they paid $200 million towards the $365 million stadium renovation. the other $300 million went to reconfigure the lakefront and landscaping. So, all in all, the Bears paid for quite a bit of the renovations themselves. http://apse.dallasnews.com/contest/2002/wr...se.fourth1.html http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/past/SoldierField.htm Wait a minute, you aren't going to go into that rubbish about the players getting paid directly by the league are you? Teams get money from the league. then they use that AND other revenues to pay the players and all their other costs. There ARE times where a team ACTUALLY pays more or less than the cap based on how many big money deals with upfront money they sign in a given year. So, if they pay out $30 million in upfront money that gets amortized against the cap in future years, they spend more than the cap in the year that the deals are signed, but spend less in the subsequent years when it gets amortized. So, while there is a correlation, it's not directly linked. (I would also point out that with the new CBA a couple of years ago, the 60% of total revenues that the players get is more than just the TV contract money now.) I still don't get why you would draft a guy when you don't have a roster spot for the dude. We DID take Beekman in the 4th. To refer to the parts in bold along with info you conveniently left out, the guy went from an assistant director position in Chicago to a director's position in Washington. Are you suggesting that the Bears are cheap because they didn't offer him a promotion to a position that was currently filled? I would bet that even if the Bears offered to match the money he was offered, he would take the title upgrade. Considering your propensity to leave out facts that don't support your point, what was your source for this info - so I can check it out myself. I would guess that the Bears are pretty middle of the raod when it comes to this stuff - which I would see as average instead of cheap.

I personally think that looking at winning seasons to judge a GM is kinda stacking the deck against a GM. In most cases, a team gets a new GM because the previous one wasn't cutting it and you can't entirely turn around a team in just a couple of seasons. So, let's look at John Butler as an example. When he took over in 2001, the Chargers had 0 winning seasons in the previous 5 years. Then during his 3 years as GM, they didn't have a single winning season. Now of course AFTER he died, they have had 4 winning seasons in a row. Does anyone think that Butler didn't lay the ground work for that future success? What kind of letter grade would you give Butler - the guy that had the foresight to (in essence) swap Mike Vick for LT and extra draft picks? So, without delinieating a method for evaluating ALL GMs that we can agree on and than compare them all, I couldn't really give a letter grade that would make sense. Then again, I'd give a GM that gets great players, but screws the cap a "C", but would give a "B" to GMs that can build more consistently through the draft and keep the cap under control. The guys that would get an "A" would be the ones that can do both.

Interesting stuff AZ54. I think though that the size of the numbers helps make the issue confusing. The second doc that you posted also doesn't count the loans from the league to help build the stadiums as private financing - which I think is a little weird. The way I figure it, none of the teams have the $100+ million to finance their own portion without borrowing from someone. If they borrowed that money from a bank, they would have to pay for it out of future profits and also pay the interest. So, I don't understand why that isn't counted as private financing. Is it because the loan comes interest free from the league and gets paid for by the fans? Wouldn't that be the same in the case of a loan from a bank - except that the fans would also have to pay for the interest on the loan too? I can't speak about any of the stadium deals other than Bears because I haven't followed those situations as closely. However, in the case of the Bears, the money that paid for the stadium gets paid by visitors to the city through a Hotel / Restaurant tax. If anything, that keeps the rich folks and out of towners paying for it instead of the blue collar regular type dude from paying for it. As for Goodell talking about the cost of stadiums, it is neccesary because that's what is driving the major issues with the current CBA. It's kind of a chicken and the egg thing. The players forced a deal in the last CBA that changed the calculations for the cap from about 58% of designated gross revenues (think of it as kind of net income) to 60% of ALL revenues (think of it kind of as Gross income). The difference in the cap has climbed from $92 million to $116 million in 3 years. That's $24 million more per team while their income hasn't really changed that much. I just read that the Packers had only $20 million in profit last year. That's ridiculous. On a final note, I think it's probably more in the players interest to maintain a cap than many might think. The entire league would change. There would no longer be salary minimums, and the league would probably move to groups of haves and have nots. A player would get drafted and be stuck on the team that drafted them until their original contract expires, and then there would only be a handfull of teams that would be willing to pay a big bucks contract. If there's no salary cap, most players would probably make less than they would have other wise.

Ok Yearly rankings (I don't like these rankings because they include defensive and special teams scores for the offense and against the defense) 2005 Defense points allowed #1 Yardage allowed #2 Offense points scored #26 yardage gained #29 2006 Defense points allowed #3 Yardage allowed #5 Offense points scored #2 yardage gained #15 2007 Defense points allowed #16 Yardage allowed #28 Offense points scored #18 yardage gained #27 How's that?

I've considered this question ever since the season ended. I already had an opinion, but decided to look up some stats to look at objectively. The stats I've decided to use are the offensive stats vs. opponents offensive stats. I figured that would be fair since it wouldn't include the bogus stats like points for and points against that include special teams data. I'm also not going to include stuff like rankings because they are comparative only against the league that year. Here's the simple stuff for comparison for the years 2005-2007. The stats are in order: (I would've labeled them better, but getting everything to line up was tough enough) Att = rushing attempts yds = rushing yards TDs = rushing TDs Rec = receptions Yds = receiving yards Y/R = yards per reception TD = receiving touchdowns RRTD = rushing and receiving touchdowns Yscrim = total yards from scrimmage 2005 11-5 Att Yds _TD Rec Yds _Y/R _TD RRTD Yscrim 488 2099 11 219 2201 10.1 11 22 ___4300 __Team Ttl 443 1637 09 313 2872 9.20 10 19 ___4509 __Opp Total 2006 13-3 503 1918 14 282 3446 12.2 24 38 ___5364 __Team Ttl 402 1590 07 328 3116 9.50 18 25 ___4706 __Opp Total 2007 7-9 430 1320 08 347 4000 11.5 20 28 ___5320 __Team Ttl 454 1967 17 343 3708 10.8 19 36 ___5675 __Opp Total What I'm primarily looking at here are the opponent totals to determine what our defense was giving up each year. In 2005, our offense REALLY sucked and our defense was awesome. In 2006, our offense improved greatly in yards and touchdowns (primarily in the passing game), but the defense fell off it's previous year's total awesomeness. In 2007, our rushing game fell off the face of the earth, but the passing game improved enough to keep the total yardage within 44 yards of the previous years total, while the defense fell off the map giving up nearly 1000 more total yards and 11 more TDs than the previous year. Looking at it that way, I'd have to say that more of the blame should go to the defense than the offense for last year. The offense sure had their issues too, but the defense just sucked more comparitively to the year before when we went to the Superbowl.

I'm pretty sure you have to be in the "Chicago Bear Fan Zone" so I think you're kinda screwed in Texas. As for here in the 'burbs, I'd recommend trying ones far out like in Dundee, Vernon Hills, Bloomingdale, or St. Charles in the W-NW area or Calumet City or Matteson in the S 'burbs. If you fear there still may be a number of guys there, then bring your own ringers. You could probably guarantee a shot at tickets if you bring 4 guys. Chances are there won't be more than 20 people there and you've got a really good shot at a top 5 place in line that way.

Ummmm the tickets don't go onsale at the box office, they go onsale at ALL ticketmaster locations. they have the following rules: I suggest an obscure location out in the 'burbs where you might end up third or fourth in line at worst.

Maybe I didn't explain that very well. The guy I'm thinking of has 3 pairs of tickets: 1 pair of REALLY good seats 15 rows up on about the 40, 1 pair of GOOD tickets 5th row 1st balcony, and one pair way up in the bowl. He always goes to every game, he just always sells the better tickets for the big money games to cover his costs for all the tickets and sits in the cheap seats. His whole plan is to increase his chance at SB tickets (as a season ticket holder) whenever the Bears go so he can have tickets to historical Bears games that he can go to. He just uses a more solid financial model. He's also on the waiting list to buy more tickets. The bottom line is that Bears tickets are a commodity. If you want a good price on ANY commodity, you have to position yourself properly so that you can get them at a good price when the time is right. Heck, when I buy my tickets, I may end up with 4 pairs of tickets (because of trying on 3 computers at a time) and only be able to keep 2 pair and have to sell a couple pair. I think that if you're really a Bears fan and like to go to games, you get on the season ticket waiting list, and do what you have to, to be in front of a ticketmaster location when the tickets go on sale. Otherwise folks are more or less complianing that doing what it takes to get tickets at face value is simply too inconvenient. It's possible to get them, you just have to plan ahead and be dedicated.

I guess I don't think about it that much because I've always been able to get tickets when I want them. Me and a buddy want to go to a couple games. He's going to stand by the ticketmaster counter for a couple hours in advance, and I'm going to buy online from 3 different computers. I bet we're going to get at least 2 pair of tickets. Even then, if you buy your tickets on stubhub way in advance, the markup isn't that great unless it's to a primetime or Packers game. I think the biggest pain is for folks that live somewhere else. There aren't as many options because they have to plan so far in advance and it gets quite complicated if they're planning to get a hotel room too. If you live in the area, it's not hard to pick up tickets the week of the game sometimes. Maybe it's just easy for me because I know so many season ticket holders who call me if they have cancelations.