AZ54

If I see Metcalf starting at LG I'll know they only polished part of that turd.

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.

70 draft picks league-wide have signed so far. We have 11 of those. That's excellent work by the front office.

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.

LT, LEFT TACKLE, LEFT TACKLE by far is more important to the success of the team this year. Not to mention the fact that RBs just have to run to daylight and often can survive a holdout and still have an impact in the first year. Take Williams out of all (or most) of the training camp and he will lose a lot of valuable time getting his timing down with the Oline. There's a reason LT is where many of the smartest players in the NFL line up. The demands that make intelligence such an important asset for a LT also mean it takes more time for him to learn the role. In our situation I'll go one step further in that I feel St. Clair is likely to be our starting LG which will be somewhat of a new position for him. If Williams isn't there learning the LT role then St. Clair isn't learning the LG role and we have further reduced the Oline performance. You don't have the cascade effect at RB especially as AP has been in the system for so long and doesn't need many reps. Fix the Oline and we'll be able to find plenty of RBs who can run for over 1000 yards.

Losing Berrian wouldn't be that big of a deal IF we had any other receivers on our roster that we could count on. I think Berrian's numbers were inflated simply because he was the best option we had. It's not that I didn't want him on the team rather he's just not worth $8mil/yr. He will be a good WR for years to come but I don't think he'll ever earn that salary.

IMO our $40milllion dollar man Tommie Harris belongs in that group. I'd also argue that we can (and have) minimize the loss of one of these three players but when we lose any two of the three we really notice the difference. Put Harris on the field in the Superbowl and I think that's a totally different game.

Or maybe this is why weren't not interested yet: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3465537 "Dr. James Andrews performed the surgery on Jones' right knee in January and told him it would take up to 10 months to get back on the field. Jones, though, expects to go through non-contact drills during training camp with the team that signs him."

Ah yes, the turnover factor. Ask Brett Favre how that works when Charles Tillman is covering his WRs.

I agree with a rookie salary cap but the statements about billion dollar stadiums is total BS. Almost every single stadium built for these teams has been built with a significant amount of public money, in some cases all public funds. We pay taxes for these owners to get rich on their teams (they build net worth even if operating expenses break even) and then they turn around and complain about the high costs of stadiums. These are the same owners who hold cities hostage if they won't pay for a new stadium because there aren't enough luxury suites for corporate sponsors. Ticket money goes into whose pocket, owners or taxpayers? How many stadiums have been torn down after just 20-30 years when life expectancy is normally 50 years? I know I've been paying for the Cards new stadium but at least I got to vote yes for that. In some cases the citizens haven't even been given the option to vote.

First, just because the Bears were not in attendance at Jones' little demonstration does NOT mean they are not interested. It does NOT mean they are interested either. If they do have interest, showing up there would only hurt their bargaining position. None of us know if the Bears have told them to contact them if they get an offer and give them a chance to match. Secondly, I'm sure Jones' agent has floated around a contract/bonus he'd like to see. If they want a signing bonus (I expect he would) that's probably keeping us out of the negotiations right now. We still have a bunch of rookies to sign, and Hester and Url we like to extend contracts on. Having just cut Ced I doubt we have the room or willingness to make that committment right now. I suspect the Bears might have interest if it's more of a contract they can get out of this year but Jones won't be interested in that right now. If he sits on the shelf for a bit his asking price will come down. Third, I'm still wondering if the Bears aren't feeling as if one of the depth guys on the roster can contribute if one of the top 3 get injured. This thought doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling but the silence on their part about adding more veteran competition for camp is surprising.

Why was he cut?

I don't think we should cut either Urlacher or Briggs but I have no problem with Harris sending them a message about professionalism.

Both offense and defense sucked last year. At different times of the season, even game to game, one was worse/better than the other. Of course some of that had to with the strength and weaknesses of the opponents, some due to injuries, some due to what was absolutely inept coaching (Wolfe up the middle against one of the best inside run D of Minn). I love this game because of the many complexities but we were let down in a lot of different ways last year. As far as a defense being more affected by the offense than vice versa; I'll add that if a D consistently forces an offense to go 3-and-out then our offense gets to beat up on their tired defense. That's been one of the problems with Lovie's cover-2 scheme. He uses lighter players who don't hold up well against long drives. At varying times in the last few years we've had stretches in games where the D just could not get off the field. They didn't always give up points but the change in field position didn't help either.

Yes that's what I was saying. I didn't imply we'd have a great offense, just that if we're going to be average middle of the pack type of offense we need a skill position player to step up in a big way. Where are we most likely to get points which is what offense is all about. I don't see our Oline becoming very good much less one of the better units in the league. I admit I would love to see that I just don't see it happening with all the changes. So at best IMO they'll be average. QB play at best will be average. RB with the trio we have is again likely to be average at best especially given the Oline they have to work behind. TE will be good to very good but they can't really create much on their own. The only one I see doing this is Hester because he can create so much on his own. If Hester can attract a lot of attention then many other aspects of the offense will look better than they are on their own. IMO Hester is the only player or position we have on offense that could make a D adjust what they do. Will he do that? I'm not very confident but I just don't see any other player or position group that has that potential right now. Consequently I don't expect much from our offense this year but I still think we'll be better than last year.

Tait was hurt last year and missed a few games where St. Clair filled in for him. He returned but it was clear his ankle injury hadn't fully healed and it affected his movement. As a result he was pushed around a bit easier and had more trouble with the edge rushers.

For the offense to be average we need a surprise (a good one) good play from one guy. I'd like to say it will be Williams but I think he'll be satisfactory. I do not see him being worse than St. Clair at LT. As much as I like our TEs they aren't scoring threats on every play, just first down threats. Forte? I think he'll be good and more versatile than Ced in the receiving game but I don't see him carrying the offense. QBs...nah, they are good with the right ingredients around them but not good enough to make others around them better. If the offense is going to take off it will be at the hands of Devon Hester. We have nobody else who could steal the focus of a defense like he can but he must learn his routes to be effective. After what I saw last year from him it was clear his limited use early on was more his lack of understanding of the offense. I blamed Turner and still think he shares some of that blame but Hester clearly hadn't prepared himself as well as he should have. The other pieces of the puzzle must play decently for him to be succesful but I think they can. I'm just not sure what to expect from Hester at the WR spot.

I'll pass. Obviously Leftwich didn't read defenses that well although he has a strong arm. I just don't see how he's better than Rex or Kyle and I really prefer finding a 3rd stringer who has potential. Leftwich is maxed out and I don't see that max as any better than Rex or Kyle. If Mr. Hanie isn't what we think he is then go find some other young prospect. As far as his leadership, I believe he had some locker room issues and wasn't very well liked in Jacksonville. Do we really want an arrogant and selfish guy as our 3rd string QB? As hard as it is for teams to find good QBs and good backup QBs, and even a cheap 3rd string QB you have to realize there's a valid reason nobody has interest in this guy. Not to say someone won't bite if they get desperate enough. I just hope that isn't us.

For the first time since Harris has been on the team we might actually have a decent backup for his position in Harrison. He'll need to keep himself out of trouble but if he pans out we'll be able to rest Harris more often during games. That might help him later in games and more importantly later in the season when his performance usually fades.

Yep, JA was fool for not signing this guy.

I think he is making a veiled reference to Urlacher and Briggs. Why shouldn't we think so? I've heard several people on the NFL Network (Rod Woodson yesterday) calling Urlacher greedy and saying he got a great deal from the Bears a few years ago and it's still a good contract. Urlacher had no complaints when his contract broke the bank a few years ago, now it's an issue. I agree with those thoughts. Remember it was Urlacher who called out the organization first and they've done nothing but take care of him in the past before his contract was up. He signed the deal he should shutup and play and allow the team to take care of other players like Hester before his contract is up. As for Briggs, he's just cares about himself.

I agree with him and I think Harris' comments already reflect his leadership. The Bears have fairly rewarded their own players from Vasher, Tillman, Urlacher, Kreutz, Alex Brown, and (although he might disagree) Briggs. It seems clear Harris is now the face of our defense, and the entire team. Ced is rapidly becoming a distant memory.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/bears/1016781,harris062008.stng Harris: 'Classy' talks led to deal June 20, 2008 FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Tommie Harris says the talks that led to his four-year, $40 million contract with the Chicago Bears were businesslike and ''classy.'' Speaking at a morning news conference at Halas Hall, the defensive tackle said he and Bears management kept negotiations private in reaching a deal that will keep him with Chicago through 2012. That differs from what has happened between the team and linebackers Brian Urlacher and Lance Briggs. They've both gone public with complaints and either hinted or threatened holdouts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ It's nice to see this comment from a player after the way Briggs and Urlacher and Lovie have handled their contract negotiations the last couple years. However, had this deal not been done this year I wouldn't have put it past Harris to keep things out of the media.

Awesome news, something the team needed to hear after all the recent acrimony. This was the big one that had to get out of the way for us to close the deal on the other contracts. It's nice that we have Harris, Vasher, Tillman, Briggs, and Url locked up long term and I believe Alex Brown has an extension too. I'd like to see a good safety in that mix too. Behind Harris we also have a rookie DT who is supposed to be pretty good at shooting the gap too so not only do we have our starter at that spot we likely have his backup. At the other DT spot we have Dusty/Adams. I have to say that right now it seems our D is loaded with top talent and depth everywhere except safety. On the flip side this also means the focus of our big spending the next year or two can be on the offensive side of the ball. Something we badly need, assuming we can find someone worth the money.

Nobody has seen Kevin Jones run yet so we can't assume he's got all the lateral movement and speed he had last year. Nobody has seen Bentley play in two years so nobody has a clue what he can do. They need to stay on our radar and if we like what they're capable of then going after one or both is fine. I think it's too early to assume either is the player we saw in the past, especially Bentley. Culpepper was an INT machine and we have one of those on the roster right now. He can no longer run, even if he's not afraid to try. If you don't think it was Randy Moss who made Culpepper a Pro Bowl QB go back and watch some of Moss' highlights from last year where Brady threw to him even in tight double coverage. Brady had that much confidence that Moss would come down with the ball or nobody would. The way he played last year Randy Moss could have put Grossman in the Pro Bowl. Before someone flies off their handle I'll add that Brady is good enough to get to the Pro Bowl on his own. There's a reason they rewrote the record books last year.