jason

Conversely, there is no "This guy isn't doing nearly as good as his salary would indicate, but he's not bad enough to cut". For instance, Muhsin Muhammad every year of his contract with the Bears. It's gotta be a two way street. If the millionaire athletes are going to cry about being underpaid when they do better than expected, they need to realize that ownership will want to lessen the salary if the player starts crapping the bed.

Now that's just being ridiculous. Mooselike? Gimme a break. You are clearly letting your anger get in the way. The guy gets injured a lot, and it makes us all upset, but there is no way in hell you can honestly say he looked Mooselike. When he has been in the game, even last year, he looked fairly quick and strong...and it appeared that he had good hands. That is unarguable.

I can't point to specific plays in specific games, but I know this: When Mark Bradley gets in games and gets touches, he seems incredibly fast, bigger than most, and snags every ball that comes his way. Every time the guy gets in the game and makes a catch, he looks impressive. The problem is, he's just so frail that he hasn't been on the field enough. As far as him being looked down upon by the coaches, that means nearly nothing to me...and it should mean nearly nothing to the rest of you. This coaching staff has consistently shown to have a lack of insight and knowledge about player development on the offensive side of the ball.

The reason they put those Captcha things in there, where you have to type the word, is because without them the automated system/program created by the bookie could simply overload the system and take nearly all the tickets. It's there to stop a slick computer programmer from beating the system. Of course, I saw a report about one of these guys not too long ago. He made the system to get all the tickets, and was thwarted for a short period of time by the Captcha thing. So what did he do? He outsourced typists. He simply hired hundreds of people to type in the words as they showed up on the screen. So, it's not 100% automated, but it's about 99% automated, and they still end up getting the majority of the tickets. It's all crooked.

I'll go with a theme: guys who do well, and look great when healthy. Defense: Dusty Offense: Mark Bradley On a side note, if Kellen Davis ends up being the impact player this year, then there will either be a major disappointment or injury on offense, or a horrible display of coaching from Turner.

It's nothing new. I hate Ticketbastard and everyone associated with that company. I hate the brokers who have their hand in the cookie jar and have a secret handshake deal with them (not to mention the league). I hate the scalpers who somehow have a fistful of tickets at every game, standing on the street corner before the gates claiming to "need one". It's the reason why average fans can't get a ticket without paying three times the cost. It's why I despise people who have three or four sets of tickets and rob other fans by selling three of their four sets for crazy markups. The entire system is crooked.

I don't think there is any comparison between the players you mentioned and Farv. Further, there is no where near the same sort of rivalry that there was/is between the Bears and the Packers. I also disagree that the Packers fans would be the only ones upset. There are plenty of Bears fans who would be upset, and you can count me in on that. And judging from the comments thus far, there are at least a few guys here who would hate it. I'm not sure there is a comparison between Favre and any other player of any other sport. He has been the face of my team's enemy for far too long for me to just look the other way. I'd feel nauseated if he signed with the Bears, and frankly, it disappoints me to hear any other diehard Bears fan say otherwise...especially going so far as buying his jersey.

Favre should NEVER play for the Bears, or the Vikings for that matter. Vomitous was the word he used. I completely agree. It's vomitous to consider the idea if you are a Packer fan losing Favre, or a Bears fan possibly gaining Favre. I know it's completely unrealistic, and will never happen, but it's mostly because Favre should be smart enough to know that playing for either the Bears or the Vikings would be a gut-punch to all his most loyal fans. With that said, have Bears fans become so desperate for a competent offense that they are willing to push aside decades of a heated rivalry, decades of genuine anger and hatred, to sign a guy who has continually ripped Bears' fans hearts out for the better part of his career? It completely baffles me, and I'd hate the signing. As I've said, I consider it blasphemous. Is there a reason for this? Is it a newer generation of Bears fans raised during the free agency period that has caused less of a rivalry? Or is it simply the fact that the rivalry has consisted of the Packers beating the Bears more often than not during Favre's career? I don't know about anyone else, but the thought of Favre in a Bears jersey sickens me just as much as seeing McMahon in a Packer jersey.

Blasphemy. That just made me sick. I don't see how any Bears' fan could want this. Thankfully, it will never happen. What the hell happened to the rivalry? What happened to despising the Packers? I just don't get it. I went to a Chicago v. GB game in Lamblow last year, and let me tell you, they have not forgotten it. They still go on and on about how the Bears suck, yelling out choruses of boos and a song about how much the Bears suck. I will always hate the packers above all other teams, and despise farv for what he has done to my team so many times.

Interesting video from Forte, he's humble, and shooting for 1000 yards this season. I honestly see no reason why he can't get more. One note on the video: Bears are without their top passer, rusher, and receiver from last year. Why does that matter? I could understand if the guys did well, but if those top three led to an offense that was widely regarded as a joke, and less effective than several college offenses, then why worry? Why care? The only considerable loss is Berrian, and he hadn't yet shown the ability to be a true #1, something for which he wanted to be paid.

Did you see where anyone in this thread said that? I don't think so. I think you are making an assumption, and it's a very poor one. As far as I'm concerned, I just want a quarterback to step up and be consistent without screwing his team. Rex has been given a ton of chances to do this, and he has failed. Even during the Super Bowl season in which he was wildly inconsistent, he ended up choking in the biggest game of the year and had more trouble holding onto the ball than people in a hog catching competition. Conversely, Orton was given one real shot to start, and during that season, his rookie season, he did MUCH better than one would expect of a rookie. He showed poise, pocket presence, a strong arm, and a pretty good understanding of reads/progression. What could it hurt to let him have a legit second chance? Lord knows Rex has had more than his fair share of opportunities. I repeat; I want a QB who does not hurt his team. Along with that, he should have moderate to good success. But the key is, I'd like him to be careful and not kill the team. And until proven otherwise, that's about the best we can expect from the QBs on the Bears roster. On a side note, are you related to Rex in some way?

Agreed. I would HATE to see Url, Tommie, Mike Brown, or Hester in anything other than a Bears jersey.

I disagree. He belongs in the conversation because he has not lived up to his draft position. As far as I'm concerned, he is on the border of bust status.

Is it the owner, the front office, JA, the coaches, or the scouts? Who chooses the first round selections? I just got to wondering that, because in a recent fantasy mag they mention the numerous first rounders who have not panned out for the Bears. It's truly disheartening. Columbo, Haynes, Enis, Salaam, Rex, Benson, and to a lesser extent Tank (2nd)...that's a lot of misses in the first round. I wonder what the hit to miss ratio is as compared to other franchises?

And I feel the suites thing has been one of the biggest downfalls in how teams deal with fans in the today's modern sports age. As if the owners weren't making enough money to begin with. The rising player salaries has gone a long way towards forcing the owners' hands to keep the same cut they once had. Along with PSLs, and near collusion with the ticket brokers who consistently allow others to pillage the pocket of fans, it's no wonder that, along with the players' salaries, the average fan has become less sympathetic and less supportive. I would like to be naive and say that if the players' salaries were lessened, the owners wouldn't continue to rape the fans, but I know that isn't so. Now that they have the taste of blood, there is no way they're letting go of the chum.

Goodell and finances I agree with him. It's ridiculous. The amount these guys get paid is crazy, but to see a rookie get it is that much more insane. Some will argue about capitalism, but it's not an equal comparison. If it were, there would be bidding wars on each player coming straight out of college, there would be no cap, and the NY teams would be in the playoffs for 20 straight years like in baseball. It'll be so nice to see rookies actually have to do something to get paid, and not crap the bed, costing their franchise tons of money without production.

He was cut because he climbed through someone's window and dropped a deuce in their laundry hamper.

I love the breakdown, and agree that it's worthwhile in its own regard, but I think it's misleading. There are three major problems with this analysis: 1) Turnovers - There is no consideration to the imact turnovers have 2) Impact from the other unit - This could be 1a), but the simple fact is, the offense affects the defense a lot more than the other way around. Reacting to another action is more difficult than acting. The constant 3-and-outs, something the Bears probably led the league in, surely hurt the defense quite a bit. 3) Situational coaching - Because the Bears were down more often than they were up this year, it's probably a pretty safe bet to say that the yardage is only up because the Bears were forced to pass. And as such, they naturally had more yards, but also more turnovers and quick, worthless drives (see 1 & 2). Whereas, the year before, the Bears were ahead more often than not, and able to dictate the pace of the game. Ignore your stats. Ignore what type of pictures they may paint. Can you honestly look back at the games last year and say the defense was worse than the offense? Go from feel, memory, or watch the highlights. I just don't think anyone who watched the games can say that. The defense may have struggled mightily, but the offense sucked something awful most of the time.

In other news, water is wet. This has been the problem with the Bears for nearly every year since...well...since the Superbowl year. Anyone who would deny that the offense hinders the defense, more than the opposite, hasn't been watching the Bears very closely...especially over the past 20 years or so.

Just for the record, I think that what he does is better than my previous statement. If he's going to games, but selling others, then at least he's a fan. Sure, he's still part of the problem, but at least he's a fan that doesn't completely rape the system for his own benefit. As for the commodity statement, while true, it's a way of looking at things that aggravates the average fan. Sure, tickets can be bought and sold just like many other things, but it's different in a certain way that makes it unique. And the fact that he exploits this commodity, regardless of how legal it is, is the line of reasoning and thinking that has led to where we are today: with most fans disillusioned and priced out of a decent game, where it legitimately costs hundreds of dollars to get two people into a game. That's not only sad, it's a pathetic and greedy point of view in my opinion. People like the guys you know never get to mention the rising salaries and other aspects related because they are the facilitators of that black mark on professional sports ticket sales. On a different note, I think it's a completely different travesty that he has three different sets of season tickets, and is on the waiting list for another set. This should not be allowed. Absolutely, unequivocally, it's something that should be rejected by the team in order to stop people from mass-selling tickets.

For the record, I have a huge problem with both. The season ticket guys who sell their tickets are just minor players in the ticket brokering process, but they're a part of the problem. I think that many who do this will play the "Oh, well, I can't go to the game"-card, but when the tickets go up for sell as soon as they are purchased, over and over and over, and there are consistently hundreds of tickets at WAY above face value on more than one website, then they are no better than the big time dealers.

Are you serious!? Those guys can rot in hell for all I care. I blame every single one of those greedy bastards. There are ALWAYS people that want to go to the game. It's just that most normal fans know that the prices for the games - because of markup - are astronomically high, and the average guy can't afford to go to the games regularly. If the guys you know are so damn hard up, send them to this message board. I'm quite sure there will be someone to snap the tickets up in a matter of minutes. I just don't buy that "nobody wants to buy the tickets"-BS. I'd gladly sit in the cold for a game, and if the guy has good tickets it's that much better. Last year I sat at the New Orleans game, and I was only 5-10 rows from the ozone layer, and the wind was BRUTAL. I'd do it again in a heartbeat, as would many on this board. 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.

In my opinion, Leftwich is better than either of the Bears QBs. While I grade them out relatively even, it's Leftwich's composure and leadership ability that pushes him above the other two. Remember this: Leftwich stood in the pocket with a broken leg.

That's sort of what I'm getting at. When the Bears were healthy last year, they looked good. They looked like their defense could carry the team, like many other years. And as long as the offense can produce a little bit, between 14-21, I think the D/ST can carry the team through towards wins. Essentially the Bears have added several players on defense: Dusty, Okwo, Williams, Bazuin, the rookies, and the key...Mike Brown. Without injuries, I don't see why the Bears can't win at least 10 games because of defensive dominance.

I keep saying that this team has a very good shot of repeating what they did during the Superbowl year. I tell everyone that the injuries killed the Bears last year, and that the TV sportscasters don't know what the hell they're talking about. Then I see a thread with a theme questioning if the Bears have the best DL in the league. It wasn't totally blown out of the water, so I have to imagine that everyone takes the question seriously and places the Bears DL in the top 5 - rightfully so in my opinion. It's pretty clear the Bears have one of the best, if not the best, LB corp in the NFL. It's also evident that the Bears have one of the best DB combos in the league with PNut and The Interceptor. The safeties are the only real question mark, and I believe that if Mike Brown can be back, the Bears have one of the best Safety combos in the NFL. So, I ask, why not? Why is it so unrealistic to believe the Bears will be back? We've seen it at least two times in recent past, especially the year the Bears had an offense full of bums, a retarded OC, and a defense that simply wouldn't give in. Not to mention the fact that the Bears have undeniably the best ST in the league. Is it koolaid to think that the offense will be average enough to not completely sabotage what is an otherwise great team?