butkusrules Posted March 11, 2008 Report Share Posted March 11, 2008 http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7895722...away-from-Colts After some serious thought, I now have generally come to agree with the post season moves. This one though I would like to know how involved Angelo was with this if at all. if not , why not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted March 11, 2008 Report Share Posted March 11, 2008 This really doesn't involve the Bears at all, so this is moving to the NFL forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearFan PHX Posted March 11, 2008 Report Share Posted March 11, 2008 This really doesn't involve the Bears at all, so this is moving to the NFL forum. Sure it does. He's asking about Angelo's success in getting a player, and wondering what folks think about the idea that the Bears might (or might not) have been interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butkusrules Posted March 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2008 This really doesn't involve the Bears at all, so this is moving to the NFL forum. What are you talking about? Our biggest need is arguably OL. How is the signing of a OL and my asking whether Angelo could or even wanted to sign Scott away from Colts instead of Tennessee not Bears news???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted March 11, 2008 Report Share Posted March 11, 2008 This really doesn't involve the Bears at all, so this is moving to the NFL forum. Hey Balta, you're a little quick on the trigger there. Those of us that came over from Bearstalk aren't used to other forums because everything NFL related is automatically Bear related. I for one have zero interest in using or reading other forums. If it's mildly Bear related, you should really leave it when it's posted here IMO. I bookmark this specific forum and come directly here. Period. I don't like multiple forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearFan PHX Posted March 11, 2008 Report Share Posted March 11, 2008 Hey Balta, you're a little quick on the trigger there. Those of us that came over from Bearstalk aren't used to other forums because everything NFL related is automatically Bear related. I for one have zero interest in using or reading other forums. If it's mildly Bear related, you should really leave it when it's posted here IMO. I bookmark this specific forum and come directly here. Period. I don't like multiple forums. I agree with LT2_3! Also for what its worth, I prefer forums with less moderating rather than more. If its an awful thing, then by all means, please step in and moderate, but if anything is questionable or even just harmless, less oversight is better than more, in my opinion. This has been a really good and civil group in the past, so the need for proactive moderation is less than most groups. I hope that the moderators agree and act accordingly. Just my 2 cents... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted March 11, 2008 Report Share Posted March 11, 2008 Unfortunately, this forum has been pretty darn dead. So at least for now, I'm going to try to keep signings that don't involve the Bears explicitly moved in here. It's perfectly ok to discuss the Bears here, but it's wroth a little effort to try to keep this forum moving and to keep stuff surviving on the front page of the Bears forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted March 11, 2008 Report Share Posted March 11, 2008 I agree with LT2_3! Also for what its worth, I prefer forums with less moderating rather than more. If its an awful thing, then by all means, please step in and moderate, but if anything is questionable or even just harmless, less oversight is better than more, in my opinion. This has been a really good and civil group in the past, so the need for proactive moderation is less than most groups. I hope that the moderators agree and act accordingly. Just my 2 cents... I am surprised moving a single thread has generated so much strife. I barely see that as "moderating". I could see if Balta was editing posts or deleting them, but moving a thread does not seem like a big deal. I guess it is a matter of personal preference. It boils down to the forums and how they are used. I posted the same thing in the sticky thread. If we are going to have subforums, we need to use them. If we don't want or need them, we should remove them and only have the main forum. Right now we are in the middle and things like this will continue to occur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearFan PHX Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 I am surprised moving a single thread has generated so much strife. I barely see that as "moderating". I could see if Balta was editing posts or deleting them, but moving a thread does not seem like a big deal. I guess it is a matter of personal preference. Nah, if what I wrote seems like strife, then I've overstated my feelings, and I apologize. I just prefer a more hands off approach in general. On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being really bad) then this was less than 1. Sorry if it seemed otherwise. It boils down to the forums and how they are used. I posted the same thing in the sticky thread. If we are going to have subforums, we need to use them. If we don't want or need them, we should remove them and only have the main forum. Right now we are in the middle and things like this will continue to occur. I agree. Personally, I don't read the other forums, so for me, if there is any Bears tie in, even if its a player we were discussing wanting, and he got signed by someone else, then I'd like to see it here I guess. Your point about things being dead is a fair one. Maybe that's an argument for keeping as much that's possibly Bears related on this board - its not as if it intereferes with other traffic if things are light. Again, this is a small issue, and not a big deal either way. Also, keep in mind that even when things are dead, there are some like me who lurk and read, but post less often. I do read this site at least once a day, but as you can see by my post counter, I have yet to equal my 800+ posts on the last site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 It's about time someone took action though. I am getting sick and tired of seeing 12 different threads about the same topic posted in the Bears section, and another thread that has nothing to do with the Bears posted in there as well. Scott has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Bears. He plays RG, we have our RG already. The two names were never linked, and quite frankly, if we signed Scott it would be a huge waste of money. Everyone knows he is just a product of the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearFan PHX Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 It's about time someone took action though. I am getting sick and tired of seeing 12 different threads about the same topic posted in the Bears section, and another thread that has nothing to do with the Bears posted in there as well. Scott has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Bears. He plays RG, we have our RG already. The two names were never linked, and quite frankly, if we signed Scott it would be a huge waste of money. Everyone knows he is just a product of the system. I enjoyed reading your post. I wouldn't have read it at all if it had been in the other forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 So the system DOES work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoBear Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 Balta did the right thing, If it isnt Bears related it goes here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 I enjoyed reading your post. I wouldn't have read it at all if it had been in the other forum. nice, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 Nah, if what I wrote seems like strife, then I've overstated my feelings, and I apologize. I just prefer a more hands off approach in general. On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being really bad) then this was less than 1. Sorry if it seemed otherwise. I agree. Personally, I don't read the other forums, so for me, if there is any Bears tie in, even if its a player we were discussing wanting, and he got signed by someone else, then I'd like to see it here I guess. Your point about things being dead is a fair one. Maybe that's an argument for keeping as much that's possibly Bears related on this board - its not as if it intereferes with other traffic if things are light. Again, this is a small issue, and not a big deal either way. It wasn't you specifically, just in general. I didn't think it was a big deal either, especially when the thread didn't seem to have anything to do with the Bears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 I am surprised moving a single thread has generated so much strife. I barely see that as "moderating". I could see if Balta was editing posts or deleting them, but moving a thread does not seem like a big deal. I guess it is a matter of personal preference. It boils down to the forums and how they are used. I posted the same thing in the sticky thread. If we are going to have subforums, we need to use them. If we don't want or need them, we should remove them and only have the main forum. Right now we are in the middle and things like this will continue to occur. I think you should remove the subforums. EVERYthing NFL related is Bears related. The Scott signing is a perfect example. Many thought he would be a good prospect for the Bears to sign even if he is a RG and they don't understand the difference between RG and LG. That MAKES it Bear related. Same goes for the Fitzgerald extension. Some folks wanted us to trade for him, but when you banish it over here, it doesn't get discussed at all. If you don't understand the "strife", it's all about change. We did things a particular way on the other board and now you're changing things around. Honestly, if THIS board is going to make things a pain in the ass by using multiple forums, then count me out. If you're going to insist on this stupid use of multiple forums, let's start an NFL Salary Cap forum and post my Salary Cap analysis over there. It'll make it easier for me to answer salary cap questions so make it happen or delete it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butkusrules Posted March 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 It's about time someone took action though. I am getting sick and tired of seeing 12 different threads about the same topic posted in the Bears section, and another thread that has nothing to do with the Bears posted in there as well. Scott has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Bears. He plays RG, we have our RG already. The two names were never linked, and quite frankly, if we signed Scott it would be a huge waste of money. Everyone knows he is just a product of the system. Scott has nothing to do with the Bears? We lost a starting guard and a starting right tackle this offseason and have yet to replace them. ANY OL that signs a contract during this offseason is Bears business. "The two names were never linked"? So you are saying we can only post about players once some media decides to link the Bears to that player?? Maybe you should tell us what counts as "linked" and who is recognized as having the power to "link" players to the Bears before we are allowed to post about them? Is a sports blog approved media or only established outlets like ESPN? Additionally, your "we have our RG already" comment is nonsensical (stupid) since guards switch sides all the time. Q: You know what posts I am tired of reading on this forum? A: The posts written by people who don’t think things through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butkusrules Posted March 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 Balta did the right thing, If it isnt Bears related it goes here. I'm not an Admin, but I disagree. I think it is Bears related since we(BEARS) are in the market for multiple OL players. Following your logic this thread arguing the merits of whether a post is Bears related should not be in a "other NFL news" but rather some sort of help desk thread or something along those lines since it certainly does not have anything to do with the "NFL news". Please dont make it a pain in the ass to post here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 Scott has nothing to do with the Bears? We lost a starting guard and a starting right tackle this offseason and have yet to replace them. ANY OL that signs a contract during this offseason is Bears business. "The two names were never linked"? So you are saying we can only post about players once some media decides to link the Bears to that player?? Maybe you should tell us what counts as "linked" and who is recognized as having the power to "link" players to the Bears before we are allowed to post about them? Is a sports blog approved media or only established outlets like ESPN? Additionally, your "we have our RG already" comment is nonsensical (stupid) since guards switch sides all the time. Q: You know what posts I am tired of reading on this forum? A: The posts written by people who don't think things through. Jake Scott is an unathletic RG. Garza is about a billion times better then him. Hell, you could stick Metcalf in as the Colts RG, and with their system and coaching, he'd be half-way decent. And Scott can't play RT since he does not have to size for it. Scott would have no spot on this team and had absolutely nothing to do with the Bears. Faneca, Bell, Starks, etc. could all be related since they would actually fill holes. Scott wouldn't fill a damn thing, and he has not one damn thing to do with the Bears. Just because we need OLine help doesn't mean that every single freaking OLinemen out on the market is Bear related. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butkusrules Posted March 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 Jake Scott is an unathletic RG. Garza is about a billion times better then him. Hell, you could stick Metcalf in as the Colts RG, and with their system and coaching, he'd be half-way decent. And Scott can't play RT since he does not have to size for it. Scott would have no spot on this team and had absolutely nothing to do with the Bears. Faneca, Bell, Starks, etc. could all be related since they would actually fill holes. Scott wouldn't fill a damn thing, and he has not one damn thing to do with the Bears. Just because we need OLine help doesn't mean that every single freaking OLinemen out on the market is Bear related. The Bears needing O-line help in free agency is an understatement, especially at a position that is not often successfully filled by drafting kids to start right away. You are proving my point on the post being "post worthy" under the Bears forum. We have differing opinions on Jake Scott's ability to improve the Bears. Just because BearSox almighty doesn't think he would be a good fit doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed with other Bears Forum members with regards to the Bears Offensive Line. Its a possibility to be entertained That was the point of my posting it there to discuss the Bears which is the whole point of the forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 Butkus, I follow you... I may disagree on whether I think he's good. But given the nature of our offensive woes, discussing any potential FA to me is fair game on a Bears category. The Bears needing O-line help in free agency is an understatement, especially at a position that is not often successfully filled by drafting kids to start right away. You are proving my point on the post being "post worthy" under the Bears forum. We have differing opinions on Jake Scott's ability to improve the Bears. Just because BearSox almighty doesn't think he would be a good fit doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed with other Bears Forum members with regards to the Bears Offensive Line. Its a possibility to be entertained That was the point of my posting it there to discuss the Bears which is the whole point of the forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 Bears and Scott were never linked at all. Not by rumors by the media, not by any "league sources", not by anything. You suggesting that Angelo was involved somehow is purely speculative and is not Bears news at all. Yeah, we need OLine help, but getting more RG's ain't gonna help. We need help at LG and at one of the tackle spots. This was not Bears news at all, plain and simple. Speculation on the part of posters with absolutely no evidence is not Bears news... that's being an armchair GM. This also relates to Larry Fitz. In no way was he anywhere near Bears news. The eagles supposedly made an offer, but it was obvious the Cardinals were going to keep him and they did. I could see if the Bears supposedly made an offer or were even rumored by some source in the media to be pursuing him, but none of that happened. Really, if it's too tough to take a quick glance at a couple other sub-forums here, I feel sorry for you. Well, not really, but it's stupid to complain about the rules because it isn't "convenient" for you. No offense to anyone here, and I in no way am trying to be a junior mod or anything, but if moving the mouse a little more and clicking a little button is too tough for you, too freaking bad. This board doesn't consist of just a few select people, it consists of a good number of bear fans. And whichever way the mods feel like running this website is fine by me. They give us great access to a top of the line forum for free, and take the money out of their own pocket. They don't ask for anything in return except to try and follow the rules, and I respect that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 All positions can be justified... I just think given the nature of this particular off-season, butkus made a good point that he thought Scott was a good fit, and I agreed, not that he was a good fit, but that it's worthy of discussion in the Bears category. I still found it and went to look at the discussion. I'm totally fine either way...I just think there is a solid case to be made that FA speculation up to the draft could warrant categorization in the Bears portion. Whether by an AP writer or a poster... I think the general NFL section, at least in my view, is best left for literally chatting about the following: What you think about Spygate... How Tony Romo will look for Dallas next year.... Is LT the best back in the league... etc Basically, anything that doesn't relate what-so-ever to the Bears. Just my 2 cents worth, that's now devalued to probably less than zero thanks to our economy. Bears and Scott were never linked at all. Not by rumors by the media, not by any "league sources", not by anything. You suggesting that Angelo was involved somehow is purely speculative and is not Bears news at all. Yeah, we need OLine help, but getting more RG's ain't gonna help. We need help at LG and at one of the tackle spots. This was not Bears news at all, plain and simple. Speculation on the part of posters with absolutely no evidence is not Bears news... that's being an armchair GM. This also relates to Larry Fitz. In no way was he anywhere near Bears news. The eagles supposedly made an offer, but it was obvious the Cardinals were going to keep him and they did. I could see if the Bears supposedly made an offer or were even rumored by some source in the media to be pursuing him, but none of that happened. Really, if it's too tough to take a quick glance at a couple other sub-forums here, I feel sorry for you. Well, not really, but it's stupid to complain about the rules because it isn't "convenient" for you. No offense to anyone here, and I in no way am trying to be a junior mod or anything, but if moving the mouse a little more and clicking a little button is too tough for you, too freaking bad. This board doesn't consist of just a few select people, it consists of a good number of bear fans. And whichever way the mods feel like running this website is fine by me. They give us great access to a top of the line forum for free, and take the money out of their own pocket. They don't ask for anything in return except to try and follow the rules, and I respect that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 If you don't understand the "strife", it's all about change. We did things a particular way on the other board and now you're changing things around. Honestly, if THIS board is going to make things a pain in the ass by using multiple forums, then count me out. If you're going to insist on this stupid use of multiple forums, let's start an NFL Salary Cap forum and post my Salary Cap analysis over there. It'll make it easier for me to answer salary cap questions so make it happen or delete it. That's the problem. Everyone that came from Soxtalk is accustomed to the multiple subforums and everyone from BearsTalk is not. We just need to come to some common ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 That's the problem. Everyone that came from Soxtalk is accustomed to the multiple subforums and everyone from BearsTalk is not. We just need to come to some common ground. I can see a off topic forum making sense. I can see a fantasy football forum making sense. Having someone else determine whether our opinions on free agents regarding the Bears, is Bear related or not, is insulting. ONE of my major issues about this change (and that is what it is because everything was in one forum until recently) is that nobody thought to consult the membership on the change. At Bearstalk, we would have discussions about everything and vote on something as important as a change like this. An arbitrary structural change like this sends a message that our opinions don't count: accept things as we do them or leave. The dismissive attitude of "you'll get used to it" certainly doesn't help matters. Guess which way I'm leaning if I feel I (and the contingent from Bearstalk) have no input? My other major issue is simply of personal convenience. Most of what I bring to this (or any of the other 3 boards I post on) regards the salary cap and financial side of things as well as interpretation of the CBA regading eligibilty for the practice squad, injury settlements, and RFA tenders among other things. (Has anyone else here read the CBA ONCE much less many times?) If you split things into 2 forums, you're making it a pain in the ass for me by making me go to multiple places to post on the subjects that I can be most helpful with. If things are split into 2 forums, I'm not likely to bother posting here at all because it's such a pain in the ass. So, in conclusion, this is a crossroads for me. If posting here takes too much of my valuable time due to these structural changes for me to continue, I will be sad because DaBearsShrine which evolved into Bearstalk which has now evolved into TalkBears was the first message board I ever joined back in 1997. I understand that things change, but the combination of not having a voice anymore and the board turning into a pain in the ass to post at, will cause me to leave. I almost posted a poll on the main board to get everyone's opinion on the subject, but didn't for 2 reasons: 1. I'm not an admin and it would be inappropriate for me to usurp that position. 2. It would probably get moved to the off-topic forum and never get seen by anyone anyway so why bother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.