LT2_3
-
Posts
686 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by LT2_3
-
-
I may even go with Forte who knows?
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.
-
So NFL teams issue players cell phones.....why the hell would teams do that?
I see it with doctors and businessmen, why would a team need to get ahold of a player that quickly?
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.
-
I'm not talking about LT, who has always done a great cap sheet. This is some old fart on the official board, and he does some really stupid stuff with some of the numbers. Still, somehow when he gets done the bottom line is reasonably close. Lt knows who I'm talking about. LOL
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.
-
He may not be a wash-out, but unless he's 100%, I can't see us using him at all during training camp so that he's eligible for the physically unable to perform list. Realistically we don't have much room for him on the roster.
Last year when he was healthy Bradley didn't see many snaps. Now Booker's replaced Moose, and Lloyd's replaced Berrian. Hester's supposed to see more time AND we've added Earl Bennett. Not to mention supposedly we really like Monk.
In 2006 we kept 5 receivers on the roster and 2007 we kept 6. Lloyd, Booker, Bennett, Hester, and Davis are 5 locks. That leaves the final receiver spot between Monk, Bradley, Riddeau, and Hass. Stashing Bradley away for six weeks seems like a logical solution.
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.
-
Bears | Bradley's status for start of camp unknown
Mon, 21 Jul 2008 07:16:58 -0700
Brad Biggs, of the Chicago Sun-Times, reports Chicago Bears WR Mark Bradley's (knee) status for the start for training camp is unknown.
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.
-
I believe you can stay on the PUP list for a maximum of 6 six weeks but can return earlier than that. Given the knee injury I don't see Jones doing much for us until Oct. I think the Bears will let him sit until then and then work him in slowly. In the meantime we'll see AP getting those reps.
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.
-
If he goes to the Vikings they immediately become the favorite in the NFC, it's really their main missing piece of the puzzle.
I still say the Packers reinstate him and then they IR him.
-
One. I have seen that wikpedia article in the past. You should know that while Wikpedia is a nice site, it is not entirely factual. I could go onto Wikpedia and write an article about Crackerdog, and I could get very colorful
. Some might be true, but not everything. Two. Look closer at what that article says, and put it in line w/ what I said. The article says Jauron had control over the player roster. Is that so different from what I said? I said he had control over the 53 man roster, and even mentioned the example of Jauron cutting an Angelo draft pick for what many believed to be spite. But that does not mean he has control over the draft or FA. Think of it this way. He had the power to fire, but not the power to hire. He could do w/ those already on the team as he wanted, but he could not add to the team as he saw fit.
If he had total GM powers, AND Virginia was so behind him, then why did we hire Angelo at all? Seems to me, if this was all true, then we would have simply promoted Jauron.
Three. Michael Haynes. You want the short or the long. The short? I think Angelo simply was drafting for need. He was looking for a pass rusher, and haynes was the best on the board. The Long? I think Angelo didn't get the guy he wanted that year. That was the year we traded down, and shortly there after, a run on DTs began. I think he was looking at Jimmy Kenney, who was taken one pick in front of our new pick. He then just took whoever was the next best pass rusher on our board. Actually, he traded down one more slot before he did this.
I have said this before, and continue to. When Angelo can prove capable of building more than one side of the ball, I will give him the credit you do. Until then? Solid high level defensive scout.
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.
-
I think what Peter King and so many other sports writers who speculate on "IF" Farve would sign with the Bears is that the Bears, VM, TP, JA, LS, RT, all the way down to the waterboy, would not sign him to a deal to start with. They may, and I say MAY, sign a QB cheap as a #3 if they see one they would like to have as an insurance policy if RG & KO go down to injury. That is about as far as the Bears will go at this point. They certainly would not sign Farve to a huge 1 year contract to play for the Bears in 2008.
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 would agree with this statement. We could talk about it anyway you like. Hell, I would argue we should really talk about JA since Lovie's hire since Jauron was not his coach of choice.
Point being, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Peace
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!
-
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/
Your last point is the only want I really want to respond to, as I strongly disagree.
IMHO, Angelo had the ability in 2002 more than ever to do w/ the team as he wished. Maybe my memory serves me wrong, but as I recall, we actually had quite a bit of cap space heading into 2002, but at the same time, also had a slew of UFAs and RFAs. IMHO, he made some really bad decisions that year. He had money to play w/, but how he choice to play w/ that money simply didn't prove to the be right choices. You talk about how you can't clean out the cubbard in one swoop, but that year where you nearly could. We had cap space, and choose to spend it on our own FAs rather than allow them to leave and bring in better players.
For example, I would point to Brian Robinson. He was our LDE, and no more than average at best. Prototypical run stuffing DE. So what do we do? We signed him to a $25m deal w/ something like a $5m bonus. Funny how small that sounds today, but it was a pretty sizable deal back then. What made the deal even more questionable was, even then, many felt Angelo was looking at Robinson as a DT, not a DE. Sure enough, by 2003, Robinson was moved inside, where he never really did well. So we spent a nice chunk of change on a LDE, with all intentions of moving him to DT, where he was not proven, yet paid handsomely anyway.
The bears also re-signed RW McQuarters in 2002. And while it technically happened at the end of 2001, as he didn't get the deal done until a couple days after the deadline, the deal didn't count against 2001. That always ticked me off.
As I recall, Rex Tucker got a 7 year deal, and Boone a 5 year deal that year too.
Not saying all were bad, as we also shelled out for Kreutz and Booker. Just making the point that we spent a ton of cap on our own, so a GM that wants to make changes was in a position to do so. Oh yea, and one player we allowed to leave that year, Parrish, has yet to be replaced.
So we had a year where we spent all our cap space resigning our own, few of which earned their new contracts. I think our biggest outside FA signing was Chris Chandler. Now combine that with a draft that saw the first day picks of Columbo, Roosavelt Williams and Terrance Metcalf. Ouch. Yes, we got Alex Brown, but he was not close to enough to off-set the total waste of 1st day picks.
So we can talk about how rough Angelo had it, but IMHO, his 2002 offseason did as much to doom the team as it did himself. He made some questionable decisions on what bears to keep and what bears to allow to leave. He added nothing via outside FA. And further, added little to nothing via the draft.
So you can blame circumstances, but IMHO, Angelo did much to make those circumstances worse.
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. If I said playoff games, that was in error. Through the entire post, I was talking about playoff seasons. In 6 years, we had 2 playoff seasons.
Two. I do not believe I am "skewing the perspective" by looking at seasons over .500. I think most would agree that a season below .500 is a bad season, and as good as any line to set. On the other hand, I think your wanting to look at cumulative win/loss records far more skews the perspective. For example, if you looked at 2001-2003, we ended up w/ a total win/loss record of 24-24, but does that tell the whole picture? In that, we had one big winning season, followed by two sub .500 seasons. We won enough games in one year to offset when looking at the cumulative total, but I don't think 1 winning season in 3 would be considered average or acceptible for most.
Three. I have had the argument over the 2001 season in the past, and frankly, it can go either way. I choose to not use it. Not to avoid the wins from that season, but due to the title of this thread. Did Angelo have an effect on that season? Sure. I have argued the same myself in the past. But he only had a partial effect. Most of that team was assembled prior to his start, and even the draft had concluded.
Like I said, I can see the argument either way, and have argued both sides of the coin. But if we are looking at the GM as a whole, I simply am not sure we should count 2001, when he didn't join the team until mid June, two months after the draft and well after the start of FA.
Four, as for looking only at the last 3 seasons, why? Different coaching staff, but so what. Was Angelo not in charge in 2002? I know the story of why he may have had to keep Jauron, but to me, there was more to it. To this day, I feel Angelo did little to support his coach. Whether Jauron was his coach of choice or not doesn't matter. The role of the GM is not to sabatoge the coach.
Also, even if I only did look at the last 3 seasons, it is only partially different. I have said before the job of the GM is not to simply create on good/great side of the ball, but to create an entire team. The offense basically had one average season, and has otherwise been a league wide joke. If Angelo can only build a defense, then he should nto be the GM.
We can come up w/ hundreds of different ways to examime the job of the GM, but tell me this. At the end of the day, do you not think most owners/team judge the job of the GM based off wins and losses? GMs, if the draft enough talent, can often get by longer than a coach, but ultimately, wins and losses rule the day. Angelo survived one head coaching change, as he was not the main reason Jauron was kept. He has also survived several assistant coaching changes. But do you think if we fail again, and Lovie begins to feel the heat, Angelo won't. I will say this. I believe Lovie is the last coaching hire for Angelo w/ the bears. If the team continues to fail, it will not only be Lovie on the chopping block. Angelo will not have another opportunity to hire another HC.
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/
-
My list is a bit different.
In the last 6 years, the Bears have 2 seasons over .500, and have been to two playoff games. In those 6 seasons, the defense was considered good/great twice, while the other 4 seasons ranked mediocre to bad. The offense? The offense had one season ranking respectible. The other 5 seasons were in line w/ the leagues worst. Simply put, while we may want to think different, when looking at the whole of 6 seasons, this has not been a good team, and has been far closer to a team others laugh at.
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.
-
I'm confused... The NFL has had a rookie salary cap for each team. Did that go out the window when the owners opted out of the labor deal? Or do people mean something different, something like the NBA slotted system?
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.
-
Whether or not the numbers are perfectly accurate the fact remains many NFL teams have held cities hostage demanding new stadiums or threatening to leave. If the NFL stadium fund money isn't throw in that one list I don't know why and I didn't want to spend a ton of time on every detail. In this respect having no team in LA has been the NFL owners best friend. Put a team in LA and their leverage drops dramatically.
NFL fans won't feel quite as put off by this mess but other citizens who don't follow football don't like these deals. Your thoughts about hotel taxes and rental car taxes, well it's still public money and in that sense it's a worse deal for the everyday citizen. If someone from Phoenix visits Chicago they have to pay for their new football stadium. I realize that's all part of the deal whenever you leave your home state or country.
Another problem I have with some of these deals is that in some cases I'm willing to bet the citizens didn't get to vote on the new taxes or the stadium deal and I think that's wrong. I'm still pissed off about having to pay for Colangelo's baseball stadium, I'd have voted for it but he and his cronies hijacked the system and found ways to skirt the law about voting for the tax increase. It is the #1 reason I've never attended a DBacks games, not even when they play the Cubs and even to the point where I've turned down free tickets.
The bottom line in all this for me is that it's a bit hypocritical for the league to talk about how much money they are losing on their new stadiums when they aren't even financing the majority of the bill, and in some cases none of it. In the majority of these stadiums deals I'm willing to bet the owners frequently stated how they couldn't afford to kick in money. Then when they do kick in money they demand all the advertising rights during games, they demand the naming rights to the stadium (ala AZ Cardinals), parking receipts, etc. to guarantee them a revenue stream to get their money back. I'm sure they don't always get everything they want and often these items are split among the taxpayers and team.
I think Goodell would do better to stick to crying about the high operating expenses and the outrageous signing bonuses they are forking over. I think the cap is tied to operating revenues. Does that count the money teams make when, like Jerry Jones, they sign a deal with Pepsi to make it the official drink of the Cowboys? Yet despite the big bucks flying around I realize not all owners are incredibly wealthy, like the McCaskeys.
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.
-
you seriously don't think picking up weak players in rounds 2 and 3 makes any financial difference when you sign them? i have to also ask why our scouting staff is spending so much time at these smaller schools?
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.
1. each of the last TWO coaches and their staffs were starting out pinching PENNIES!! because they gave them a raise that was comparable to the rest of the nfl after their first meager coaching terms were nearly up is moot. in fact the only REAL coaching money deal WAS done by mikey when he ponied up to pay the best prospect out there in wanny!!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.
2. paying for scouts? we went through this last time we argued about this. have you since gathered a single fact as to how much we pay them compared to the rest of the league? also see below.I'll respond to that below as well
3. the training facility ALSO was put into effect by mikey in the 90's. that's around 10 years ago.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
4. the stadium maybe? uhhh no. paid for by tax payers.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
5. player salaries? and yet again, player salaries are paid for by the salary cap allowances.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.)
you CAN'T keep drafting the same position players every year in the same draft slots no matter how you look at it. if you have a big need ok draft one higher and balance the rest of the team out by getting what you need on both sides of the ball. offensive linemen have been a need since angie CAME here!! yet he refuses to draft a guard higher than the the 5th round (almost all are in the 6th or 7th round) with the exception of metcalf who is crap.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.
not cheap? does your personnel usually leave for less money? hmmmmmm...http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8060801681.html
When Bobby DePaul, who was a coach in Joe Gibbs's first stint with the Redskins, reported to Chicago, he was given a limited budget, and limited time, to locate two assistants. That night he woke from his sleep, grabbed a nearby notepad and scribbled two words: Morocco Brown.
Morocco Brown had been assistant director of pro personnel for the Chicago Bears since 2001, earning a reputation as a bright prospect, league sources said, and was someone the franchise did not want to lose.
The Bears won two division titles and reached a Super Bowl with Brown in the front office; he was assigned 11 teams to scout as well as the Arena League.
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.
well, let's look at our personnel compared to some other teams in the nfl: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.
-
You all are giving him a "B" grade?
Angelo has been here for 6 full seasons. While he did join the team in 2001, it wasn't until after FA and the draft. If he were a coach, I would still count that year, but a GMs job is mostly done in the offseason, and he missed that one. So he has been w/ the team 6 years. In those 6 years, he has 2 winning and 4 losing seasons. I don't want to hear snake bit or whatever. You know what, the job of the GM is to have depth to avoid those snake bit issues.
His drafts have been weak. He has some hits, and some really big hits at that, but are they enough to even it out, much less carry the day? Especially when you factor how poorly he has drafted in the 1st round.
He has built a very good defense, but has anyone stepped back to consider how two of the top keys to our defense were players left over from prior to Angelo? Mike Brown and Urlacher are huge keys to the defense, and those were here before Angelo. Not saying he has not filled the defense w/ other talent, including some top tier talent, but making the point that two of the top players on our defense were not brought in by Angie.
Then you look at the offense, and simply put, he has failed miserably. Period. His drafts have been weak to the point of pathetic (though we all maintain hope his more recent offensive players picked will prove different). His FA additions are, for the most part, been short term. The only two exceptions I can think of are Tait and Clark, and until lately, we didn't think that much of Clark (hence spending a 1st round pick on another TE).
Sorry, but while we have had a couple exciting seasons, at the same time, when you look at the hole, I do not see how he can have a B or a B- grade. 2 winning seasons our of 6 is bad. Total inability to draft an entire side of the field (offense) is about as big of a problem as any. The job of a GM is not to simply build one side of the field, but to build an entire team, and he has not done that.
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.
-
What did Baltimore get from the Cleveland Browns to build that stadium? From what I know they basically built a stadium (had the deal in place) and then went shopping for a team. What deal did St Louis Rams? Here's one link:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...756C0A96F958260
SPORTS BUSINESS; Stadium Financing? New Twist for N.F.L.
By RICHARD SANDOMIR
Published: May 6, 1999
Imagine if George Steinbrenner volunteered to help pay for a new downtown Montreal Expos stadium. Better yet, think of the Expos agreeing to chip in for a $1 billion Yankee Stadium for the good of baseball.
That is what the National Football League rivals of Robert K. Kraft, who owns the New England Patriots, will do if a plan to build a $250 million stadium in Foxboro, Mass., comes to fruition.
Last week, after the league made public its ardor to keep the Patriots from leaving Foxboro, the team dumped a proposed $374 million taxpayer-paid stadium in Hartford because there was no guarantee it would be ready by 2002.
and another link: I'm only posting the stadium data but the short article is worth reading IMO.
http://www.detnews.com/2005/business/0504/30/biz-166888.htm
What the people pay for stadiums
A comparison of the public financing burdens for 10 recently built NFL stadiums (year is the first season that the team played in the stadium):
Large markets
-- Reliant Stadium (Houston Texans, 2002): 73 percent
-- Qwest Field (Seattle Seahawks, 2002): 73 percent
-- Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia Eagles, 2003): 39 percent
-- Ford Field (Detroit Lions, 2002): 30 percent
-- Gillette Stadium (New England Patriots, 2002): 0 percent
Small markets
-- The Coliseum (Tennessee Titans, 1999): 100 percent
-- Paul Brown Stadium (Cincinnati Bengals, 2000): 94 percent
-- Cleveland Browns Stadium (1999): 81 percent
-- Invesco Field at Mile High (Denver Broncos, 2001): 75 percent
-- Heinz Field (Pittsburgh Steelers, 2001): 56 percent
Note: In most cases, costs listed are only for construction. Some Tennessee Coliseum funding is generated from personal seat licenses.
-- Indianapolis Star reports
A third link with data on stadium financing. I'll do my best to format it so it's legible but there's a lot of zeros in the Private$ column and you needn't go beyond Lake Shore drive to find a stadium funded entirely by the public.
http://www.uta.edu/depken/ugrad/sports/section8.pdf
Franchise Year Public $m Private $m capacity $/seat
Atlanta Falcons 1992 214 0 71594 2989.07
Carolina Panthers 1996 50 248 73248 4068.37
Washington Redskins 1997 70.5 180 80116 3126.71
Baltimore Ravens 1998 220 0 68915 3192.33
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1998 168.5 0 65647 2566.75
Cleveland Browns 1999 283 0 72000 3930.55
Tennessee Titans 1999 290 0 67000 4328.35
Cincinnati Bengals 2000 400 0 65535 6103.60
Denver Broncos 2001 273.15 90.62 76125 4778.58
Pittsburgh Steelers 2001 153.5 76.5 65000 3538.46
Chicago Bears 2002 365 0 70904 5147.80
Detroit Lions 2002 300 0 65000 4615.38
Houston Texans 2002 399 50 69500 6460.43
New England Patriots 2002 0 325 68000 4779.41
Seattle Seahawks 2002 200 100 67000 4477.61
Chicago Bears 2003 365 0 63000 5793.65
Philadelphia Eagles 2003 512 0 63352 8081.82
I still feel Goodell should shutup about the high cost of stadiums as it's more likely to generate negative press for the league.
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.
-
Thanks for the analysis!
However I think there are still too many variables to just take the numbers at face value. The D did suck last year, but we all know the injury issues that plagued us. Also, regarding the improved passing from '06...it's probably due to being behind and playing catch-up. The stats may not be telling the full story. One stat I'd love to see is turnovers... I think both sides literally dropped the ball last year...
I know you didn't want to bring up rankings, but I was wondering if you had a league everage for both? Somewhere to give a bit of a spot check... Maybe we're dirt bottom in O, yet pretty decent in D. I'd just be curious.
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 am not trying to argue the offense was good. They weren't. But lets not pretend the defense would have been good otherwise. Plenty of blame lays at the feet of the defense.
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 suggest an obscure location out in the 'burbs where you might end up third or fourth in line at worst.
I can go pretty much anywhere I want around here, and due to my zip code, would it matter?
Look, I do not know all the rules. What I know is I have had difficulty getting tickets for various things in the past (not just Bear games) and know plenty of others who have similar problems.
I remember trying to get tickets to the World Series when the Sox were playing the Astros. I was trying to get tickets to a Houston game. I was calling a local ticketmaster number in texas small town, as I was told I would have a better shot then. I also had two computers going, and had a group of friends doing the same. None of us got through, but scalpers did not seem to have any shortages of tickets on hand. Sure, I realize I am talking about the World Series, but the point is still the same IMHO. Fans try to get tickets, and can't, but scalpers seem to have no troubles.
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.
-
They pay the "street people" $5 bucks to spend the night in line, so the first 20, 30, 50 spots are taken up by the brokers.
Ummmm the tickets don't go onsale at the box office, they go onsale at ALL ticketmaster locations. they have the following rules:
When high demand events are placed on sale to the public, the following rules are typically implemented to help manage the large number of customers who may arrive at a Retail Location to purchase tickets. (Hint: Though events could go on sale at any time, many events are placed on sale on Friday or Saturday at 10am or Noon):You should plan to arrive at Retail Locations no more than one hour in advance of the event onsale time.
Overnight camping is not allowed.
A Random Number Distribution (RND) procedure will be used to determine line order at Retail Locations if two or more customers are present to purchase tickets at the time the event goes on sale.
All Retail Location sales are subject to geographic restrictions.
Please contact your local Ticketmaster Phone Center number for specific information regarding the availability of events at your desired Retail Location.
NOTE: Retail Locations sell tickets in person. You must be physically present at the Retail Location to purchase your tickets. They do not sell tickets over the phone. Do not call the retail locations to purchase tickets!
I suggest an obscure location out in the 'burbs where you might end up third or fourth in line at worst.
-
Furthermore, if the guys you know sell the tickets to the "hot games" at a markup to "cover the cost", then they are precisely the worst people we are talking about. They are fans of convenience. If they were true, diehard fans, there is no way in hell they would pass up the big games. You better believe that if I had season tickets, there would have to be a death in the family to keep me away from a Green Bay game. They use the "covering the cost" excuse as a way to rape another fan. They are same type of people responsible for something we saw in this year's NBA finals, and something we see all the time: a visiting team fan in the home team section, in a seat that was obviously a season ticket holder, all because someone wanted to make a buck.
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 missed the part of the discussion talking about how it looks on TV. Agreed, that is looks like a total sell out each time. I think it is more than just a couple hundred seats that are empty at games, but also agree the percentage is not great.
I don't have an issue w/ season ticket holders who sell their tickets, and I have a feeling few do. My issue is with the system in place which creates too many opportunities for brokers to go in and buy up so many tickets, while fans have little opportunity.
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.
Scatback wanted
in Bearstalk
Posted
I thought I read that he did all that stuff in his free time - you know while doing some off season consulting at ENCOM.