selection7

I'd like to think it's because he has a special connection to the Bears, but maybe he just strategically realizes his glory days were with the Bears and now that he'll be starting his post-nfl career (in whatever fashion), Chicago is a great town to reestablish ties to so he can make money doing Bear alum things and also in terms of networking for career opportunities. Cynically speaking, it's probably better to have money in the bank and powerful connections than a college degree.

If both DUIs were trumped up, then I can't see why that in and of itself makes him deserve to be cut. Not having a respect for your law troubles, trumped up or not, isn't cool, but this guy isn't exactly Pacman Jones and finding out the other charges were trumped up would only really leave the 74 in a 45 construction zone thing. Since he's already been cut without waiting to see if Benson really was victimized on the lake and denied a blood alcahol test, I'd guess his being cut has to do with an understanding the team had with him after the last incident (that was somehow violated) and/or a bit of a desire to get rid of him anyway (David Haugh suggests it definitely was some of the latter). I thought it was interesting how one of the recent news articles mentioned an old Bears coach who knew they were in trouble with Haynes when he was more interested in picking out his furniture than playing football. Maybe Ced is in the same boat (no pun intended). I think if you sign a bigtime contract and you have integrity, you'll do your best to play up to it...in theory, but it's hard for me to really say for sure what I'd do if I was in their shoes (in terms of giving 100%). You sign a rookie contract and before you've even stepped on the field you're monetarily set for life. If you get demoted and bust out, maybe you won't be a cripple at age 60, or worse, dead, like apparently so many linemen. It's a problem and now talent scouts are looking for drive and a goal driven quality in players as much as talent, intelligence, and character.

Ok miamibear, nobody here is going to disagree with you that messageboard fans, who are far from perfect themselves, sometimes revel too much in trashing players for their mistakes. But you could have made that point on every other post you've read about Benson these past couple of years, so it's highly suspect (and I think inappropriate) that you'd choose this topic to bring that up. Truth is, assuming he did drink and drive, this is the perfect example of a case where outspokenly condemning his actions is justified. Held out on his contract, whined about everybody being against him, let himself get overweight, whatever...it's all small potatoes in comparison. All that other stuff only hurts him significantly, and as you pointed out, he's already rich, so why should he care? Not many people killed by a drunk driver ever cared much that they were hit by someone rich. Your suggestion that others have no business criticizing him for one-upping his recent mistakes with this new one (just because others have made the same mistake) is misguided. Cedric was not a victim here, he made a choice, and these things don't "just happen". We need to cultivate a community mindset that it's inexusable, period, not just if you got caught, and the way we go about doing this is hardly to keep our mouths shut. In my earlier post I suggested since he's not some star player who's only screwed up once or twice, that I think it's time for the Bears to move on without Benson. I never called him any names or said he was a terrible person and I made sure to clarify that the Bears should get the facts more concrete and hear Ced's side of the story before making any decisions...and I'm sure that's exactly what the Bears will do. And don't get me wrong, I think there's also a problem with media and fans thinking because players get paid so much, they have a right to verbally treat them lik s***, as if buying a Sunday football ticket could ever waive your responsibility to be a decent human being. But IMO now is not the time for you to go there... or clarify your point... or whatever else similar you might have in mind.

The Bears should hear his side of the story and wait for more concrete details to come out. If everything is as bad as it appears, Benson should be cut. Everyone knows you get lots of "second" chances if you're a great player. Even with Tank, I think most people were still excited about the sort of player he could become, but Cedric Benson is not that guy anymore. Unless the story changes, we have to look at it as Cedric Benson himself has now shown us the level of personal responsibity, commitment, and respect for the privilege it is to play in the NFL that he has, and it's not nearly enough. Some of these players on the Bears have a lot of pride about being a Bear, and rightfully so. I know it hurts to take the cap hit, but I guarantee you there are guys on the team (especially since Benson isn't exactly Mr. Popular) who'll resent that they have to share the field and their comraderie with a self-absorbed, high first round pick prima donna who just refuses to get it. Also, at this point no one on these boards can say they know Forte or Garrett can't be a great starting runningback and change of pace back. Of course it doesn't hurt that I don't see AP as much of a dropoff from Benson either. I know AP's speed limits his ceiling, but I've seen too much talent out of him over the years to come to the conclusion that he couldn't get the job done (with decent O-line play of course). Let's put it this way. I still don't consider runningback to be one of our biggest problems. Historically, RB's are nearly the easiest position to get find quality substitute help for.

With respect to Url: The way Bran Ulracher was talking earlier almost made me wonder if he wasn't angry at the Bears or something, as if there is maybe more to the story. With many years left on his contract and as the face of the organization, I always figured he had an understanding with the Bears that they'd take care of him in the end...a rare kind of situation for a rare player in a rare city. Then after missing the pro bowl and captaining a mediocre defense, he decides his contract is disrespectfully low? I really don't get it. He hasn't even outplayed his contract that much in the sense that he's hardly any better now than he was when he signed it. Why not wait until after a good year or a year where the team doesn't have to resign a DT to the highest DT contract in the league? In other words, why the impatience? Did he really think after signing a 9 year contract that renegotiating after only a few years was standard procedure? The Bears surely gave up some bigger money to him in exchange for receiving that kind of security at MLB for so many years to come. How are they supposed to feel when Url now makes a mockery of that contract length? Again, none of those tens-of-millions of guaranteed money Brian got on that second contract were of any risk to him; by definition, the money was guaranteed. Anyway, I'm glad he's in camp. I think the Bears should give him more, but it shouldn't have to be right away, and it's odd that he turned down a pretty big offer of basically free money already.

My philosophy if players cared to listen to me: I think you should honor your contract if you're already financially secure like anyone on a second contract or anyone drafted in the first three rounds...so that basically only leaves middle/late-round rookie and undrafted contract players. With respect to these highly-drafted and 2nd contract guys, if you and your team know you've drastically outplayed your contract, then you know which team not to sign with after your rookie contract is up. The team that plays hardball will get a reputation, and the NFLPA has already made sure your rookie contract can't be for more than 4 years if you're not a high-round pick so it's hardly indentured slavery. Such players need to realize that the team took a chance on you, you recieved risk-free gauranteed money while they got nothing gauranteed other than your presence, and so the team should reap the rewards of that risk, not you. Your payday comes on the next contract. The players in the other group, however, have to realize that they are one injury away from being no more than lower-middle class the rest of their lives (an injury settlement should keep them from being out-and-out poor). I understand this is reality for many, many americans, and it's probably enough that at age 80 you won't be able to say that money problems were the reason if you led an unhappy life, but the league makes way too much money off these players for that to be acceptable. Relatively speaking, even later round draft picks are elite players. Amicably holding out for a new contract is then a necessary evil (since football is how they make their living, not just a game), as long as you realize there will be a penalty associated with redoing a contract. You will not get FA market value, you're not a free agent, and you'll have to add at least one year to your old contract (nothing is free). If your team is reasonable, it'll all be enough to provide future security in exchange. If your team is not reasonable and your are not mistaken about drastically outplaying your contract (such that the team's "risk" vs. payout is now negligible), it's time to really dig in and holdout to try to force a trade or whatever you can. If I were a general manger, I'd be the type to just let guys rot who are holding out on their contracts, but not when they are on a 400K 4-year contract with only 100K guaranteed in total. In some cases, the money these guys make in these few years has to last them their whole lives. Hester was a Round 2 pick so I don't think I'd put him in the "need" category. If the Bears disrespect him, this is the era of free agency, so he'll know which team not to sign with next time around.

I knew what you meant Jason

Interesting. Not sure how that makes it much of a cap then.

Here's the explanation of my perspective that specifically addresses the post a couple above mine: If 100% of a player's contract was guaranteed bonus money, then when they were cut, it's economically not even like they're getting cut because they still get all their money. The NFL team gets shafted for the remaining $$ on the contract. If 0% of a player's contract was guaranteed, the when they get cut, the player loses from 45-70% of his contract worth and the player gets shafted. Reality is somewhere in the middle, usually between 30-50% (an educated guess). That means that if Urlacher "plays like (expletive)" he does not have to give back the remainder of his contract, but instead only 50-70% the remainder. Yet if he plays great and decides to hold out for a new contract that's worth his current market value, he gets to keep the windfall. How is that fair? Ogunleye and Urlacher are seeing things the way they want to see them. I don't blame them much, but it's hardly convincing. The way I've always resolved this is that if a player wants to renegoatiate, a renegotiation penalty is assumed, sort of like refinancing your mortgage. The Urlacher situation is pretty egregious, because no one can say the Bears care more than a whit about securing Uracher's services at age 35. I totally get that the salary cap has increased more than anyone could have reasonably predicted (thanks for nothing DirecTV) and that Url signed a ridiculously long contract, so his situation might be unique. But after a down year, it still feels like he's just asking for a handout after.

Oh geez, I'm just scared of a strike. But I'll pile on and agree the high draft pick contracts are hurting the game, and in the big picture, hurting everyone, players included (unless you were a top 10 draft pick of course).

They are specifically looking to see if the Patriots cheating goes beyond what's been revealed, if there were coverups by any involved parties, and the extent to which this cheating is being practiced by other teams. That's specific and so obvious that I really am quite confused why you keep saying there's nothing specific to look for. BTW, just fyi, my initial reaction to hearing there was a federal investigation being called for was to roll my eyes, so I'm not actually on the other side on this issue. I just don't see it as black and white as you do. Unlike baseball and basketball's situations, my hunch is that this will all die down eventually if we just let Goodell do his magician's act. A big investigation may do more harm than good, and Goodell will probably lay the down the law to protect the NFL in the future. Maybe the Rams should have won that first Superbowl, but even if I'm a Rams fan, I have to realize that time has passed. You could hypothetically try to give them a retroactive Lombardi trophy, but years later, it would only be bittersweet. What's done is done and sometimes life isn't fair. They're still all rich guys getting paid to play a kid's game.

It doesn't have to mean other teams will overpay. If I'm another team I just say "hey, if you can manage to make us feel like we're as desperate as Atlanta (or even just prove Atlanta's situation is typical), then sure we'll pay you based off Atlanta's slotting--and you'll deserve every penny, because that's quite a task. Otherwise, don't get your head too far in the clouds...for both our sakes." The interesting thing is, there's a rookie salary pool cap, so it's not like giving him all this money takes anything away from veterans. Correct? It just means the 3rd, 4th, 5th round draft picks and so on get less. Which is why the NFL wanted to put a cap on an individual rookie's salary, to solve both the problem of high draft picks not caring anymore (because they're rich for life regardless of whether they ever contribute) and the problem of have/have-nots(/have-less-ers) between Top 10 draft picks and guys drafted in beyond round 3 who won't even be close to having their future secured if they don't make it to a their free agent/second contract. But the NFLPA knows that having one guy make a ton of money always pushes up other salaries, so regardless of the merit of such socialism, they were of course 100% against it. 5th round rookies don't have any power in the NFLPA, so it's tough s*** for them.

That can't be good for the cops. It doesn't have to mean they're hiding something, I'm just saying...

Instead of a melancholy sigh at Bradley being hurt again (hey it's not like it's our weakest position or anything...err, wait...), I laughed at the end. Good job!

OK. I don't have strong opinions on that specifically. But I will say that the government would consider such a view to be radical, for what it's worth, as they've got a long history of manipulating elements of the economy to keep it strong (tax breaks to attract industries is quite apples to apples with construction costs "breaks" aimed at attracting football teams.) You're right, it's getting political in that many further right-winged fiscal conservatives don't believe in government interference with domestic free economy while others think it's part of their duty as a government. I'm a fiscal moderate I guess. Also, I think you mean "what I'm saying is". Because selection7 (me) never said that, and it does seem to be your point, not mine.

Ok. I'm not saying I think you're wrong, just that I'm not convinced and obviously I'm confilicted about it. Though if all you care about is the pros i don't see how you can explain Mike Brown...other than the injuries causing injuies bit, which it isn't obvious is the case with Mike.

I have to believe the Bears want Benson to handle his law troubles maturely and as if it was important to him. I don't think we should fault him for missing to attend this hearing because I doubt the courts think football is as important as we do.

I think you're missing something important. It's not true that in one situation only owners lose money and in the other situation only the public loses money...to say the least. You know how city goverments (and/or states) often help finance a stadium? That's just one example showing that the public/government thinks the NFL economy is important to them too. Just off the top of my head is tourism and the hotel industry as specific examples of how. I remember when the Bengals were redoing their stadium (I lived in Cincy then), reading some staggering estimate of the economic impact the Cincinnati Bengals had on the city (I don't remember exact numbers).

Is he injury prone? I competely understand where you're coming from, but Mike is an interesting example because he was Mr. 100% the first half of his career. So he became injury prone but wasn't before? Maybe. How about Cedric Benson and Rex (both were iron men before playing for the Bears)? If you can't look at many years of a football player's history (such as Rex, Ced, and Mike from high school, college, and up to part of the pros) and say "these guys will be reliable!", then how can you do the same with these guys' latest parts of their careers and say "these guys are injury prone!". The only thing I can think of in rebuttle is that high shcool and college don't wear you down like the bigger, faster, and longer season pros. ...still, we're not talking about going from typical to fragile, we're talking about going from "never misses a game" to fragile. Actually, one more thing...previous injuries can be reinjured or help to cause new ones at other locations, of course. So there's that too.

It could well be shortsighted thinking to say the NFL is doing fine the way it is. If the NFL is tarnished considerably, the economic impact could be huge (edit) compared to footing the bill for one investigation (granted, government usually finds a way to make these things cost 10 times more than they should). I pretty much agree with BigDaddy's last post. I also echo that the NFL and fans know (edit: think) that it'd be better for the sport for this to go away. It'l likely that Goodell is scared that this could happen again and knows full well that the Pats cheating was FAR more serious and repeated than he has let on but he doesn't feel like he can really go after them for it because of the lax atmosphere he and Tagliabue have allowed. So now he needs to set some heavy-handed ground rules and hope the rest of the world doesn't make too big a deal of possible tarnished Super Bowl wins. To the guy who's doing most of the counterpoint to the OP, what kind of a question is "what else are we possibly going to find" (paraphrased)? Most people seem to agree we've only just scratched the surface and there you are saying that...along with a bunch of other silly things (e.g. "if all the teams are doing it than it isnt really giving anyone a competitive edge" or "We can go on a witch hunt because Im sure there are tons of things shady going on in the league but where will it stop.").

I thought you couldn't sign rookies to contracts longer than 4 years...that's a new rule that was instituted about a year ago I thought. I remember thinking that means JA will have to find a new MO since he likes doing the 5 year deal thing.

DING. DING. DING. We have a winner! (please excuse the annoying messageboard cliche reply here) No one knows where other teams have a guy on their draft board. If you refuse to pick a guy until he's at his spot on your draft board, he'll be gone half the time. Even "reaches" of a as much as a round are only speculation. ...dude may be gone next pick for all anyone knows...especially if another team "reaches". It's ok to question a reach, but people who get all bent out of shape about it are just trusting the word of draft prognosticators, which is silly.

You gotta get at least one "lol" for that! LOL If Benson was drunk off his ass, that's one thing, but if he was .13, that's another. Driving a car drunk (even a little bit...especially since most DUI's occur at night) is like saying "it's worth the risk that I may kill an entire family or maim or payalyze someone else because...hey, the chances are real, but slim", but it's not your right to make that choice. But driving a boat a little bit drunk is far, far easier because you've got a perfect line of (usually) daytime sight for 360 degrees and no lanes so that cars are driving right by you at 60mph, no trees or bridges or stoplights to run, and if you get thrown out you'll hit water, not cement (which, granted, water might as well be cement if you're going fast enough). They're not equivalents is all I'm saying, even though they're both wrong. Having said all that, considering Ced resisted arrest like an ass, he was probably drunk off his ass, which makes most of my point moot.

I've heard the talk about so-and-so looked impressive in the rookie camps in previous seasons. It ususally doesn't amount to much for the upcoming season. Even as much as people raved about Hester's WR "rookie" year, he clearly wasn't ready to be a WR when the season actually started. But then I guess you don't expect rookies to be ready the first season anyway. Looking good is certainly preferrable to looking bad.

Wasn't Hanie a guy on Green Acres?