JA and the 1st round picks

[madlithuanian]

Fair enough...

 

What is your grade then? Offense, defense and overall?

 

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.

[Connorbear]

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.

My comparison would be to previous Bears organizations - not other NFL organizations. I think we all forget how extremely bad the front office was in the 90s. Trading a #1 pick for Ric Mirer. Trading up for John Alred. It was a disaster. I would give the teams of the mid 80's an A although I will say they should have won at least one more SB.

 

As I said before, this is a pivotal yr for JA and Lovie. If the team performs poorly, their jobs should be in jeopardy.

 

Peace

[LT2_3]

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.

[nfoligno]

I refuse to compare that way. Has Angelo done a better job than Wanny. Obviously. And the point is....

 

IMHO, the only way to compare is to compare w/ other NFL teams. So we are not as bad as previous bear teams. So what.

[nfoligno]

I agree win/losses can not be the only item used to judge a GM, but I think wins/losses does need to be a factor.

 

Has he brought in talent? Yes? But that isn't the question IMHO. Every single team in the NFL brings in talent. Whether it is Cincy, Det or whoever. No team goes 6 years w/o adding talent. I think you have to look at a bigger picture.

 

In adding talent, I would agree he has added talent on defense, but on offense? If a GM can only bring a positive effect to one side of the ball, then to me, he is a high level scout, or scouting director maybe, for that side of the ball. A GM must add talent to both sides of the ball.

 

I am not as great of an Angelo basher as I once was, as I would argue he has improved since joining the team. At the same time, I simply do not feel we can ever get over the top w/ him. I simply feel he is too lacking for that too happen.

[nfoligno]

I would probably be closer to a C- grade overall. He has had too many hits, both in draft and FA, to drop below a C grade, but at the same time, he has too many busts, losing seasons, and missed opportunities to push his grade much higher.

 

I will say this. Grades are ever changing. If last year and this years players develop into something, and the teams begins pumping out winning seasons again, then his grade obviously goes up. But if asked today, I would not go higher than a C- or maybe a C at best.

 

But hey. If we create a defensive personnel director position, I would be all for him getting that job. He has built a hell of a defense. He simply has not (yet) shown he can do more than that.

[Connorbear]

I refuse to compare that way. Has Angelo done a better job than Wanny. Obviously. And the point is....

 

IMHO, the only way to compare is to compare w/ other NFL teams. So we are not as bad as previous bear teams. So what.

Ok, so you don't care if we are better than the Wanny, Jauron era? You would rather we not go to the SB? Obviously, I'm being sarcastic but IMHO it does matter that we are better than previous teams.

 

Now, if you want to compare to other NFL teams over the past 6 yrs, then lets do that. Here are the teams I would put above the Bears during that time:

 

- New England

- Pittsburgh

- San Diego

- Seattle

- Indy

 

Here are the teams I would grade below the Bears:

 

- Atlanta

- New Orleans

- Minnesota

- Detroit

- Arizona

- Buffalo

- Kansas City

- Tennessee

- Miami

- NY Jets

- San Fransisco

- St Louis

- Cleveland

- Cincinnati

- Washington

 

The rest of the teams I would rate at approximately the same level as the Bears.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Peace

[Lucky Luciano]

Sorry, but Angelo's history does not support this. Since joining the team, in the 1st round, Angelo has used 5 of 8 1st round picks (including DM in the early 2nd after trade) on big schools. Penn St, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas & Miami. So he has not simply drafted small school talent. He does look at small school talent, especially after the 1st round, but the financial committment for those picks is not great enough to try and argue money is an issue. In fact, I would argue the opposite. Not every team has a scouting department large enough to scout many of the smaller schools, and yet we do.

 

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?

 

since 2002 angie has picked 5 players from small schools on the first day. that is not even counting the first day REACHES where he could have picked up a player in all probability ROUNDS later.

 

2002

second pick (3rd rd) in the draft - r. williams - tuskegee

2nd day picks - louisiana tech, pitt?, geogia southern, delaware

 

2003

3rd pick in the draft - tillman - la lafayette - certainly picked a round or 2 early

2nd day pick 6th rd - b. forsey - boise state. could he have been a walk on? at this point in the draft who knows.

 

2004

3rd round pick barrian - fresno state? 2nd round pick tank johnson a reach?

2nd day picks - maryland, pitt, miami fl

 

2005

2nd pick in the draft bradley - certainly a reach with this pick. could have gotten him a round or two later.

2nd day 6th rd pick la monroe again this is the place you reach so questionable as to being a bad pick.

 

2006

1st pick in draft (rd 2) manning - abilene christian. small school AND a reach. could have gotten him a round or two later. devin hester - certainly a reach at this spot no matter how he turned out.

 

2007

2nd pick bazuin - central mich, small school AND a reach in the 2nd round. g. wolfe northern illinois - a small school AND a reach. could have certainly gotten him a round or two later. michael okwo a REACH.

2nd day 4th rd pick j. beekman - a reach. kevin payne la monroe rd 5 - a reach AND small school. corey graham new hampshire

 

2008

2nd pick forte - a reach. 3rd pick bennet - probably a reach.

2nd day - bowman a reach, and davis? still scratching my head over that one another reach?

 

another interesting note: 5 players from pitt and penn state picked an not a one worth a damn.

 

. But since Hatley and Phillips began to take over, a pretty dramatic change began, to the point where I just do not see how you can even try and say we still today are a cheap organization. Whether you are talking about money paid to players, coaches and staff, having a GM, or outside costs such as training facility, scouts, etc., I just think the argument today fails.

 

where are you getting this stuff?

 

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!!

 

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.

 

3. the training facility ALSO was put into effect by mikey in the 90's. that's around 10 years ago.

 

4. the stadium maybe? uhhh no. paid for by tax payers.

 

5. player salaries? and yet again, player salaries are paid for by the salary cap allowances.

 

Agree and disagree. We continue to draft DEs, but if Angelo did draft Alex Brown, and then Anderson as well. At LB, he did draft Briggs, and we may yet find we have talent in the more recent two. Many CBs drafted, but it is a league that needs many corners, and he did find Tillman, Vasher, McBride, etc. It is not always a bad thing to draft depth. What blows my mind is when he already has a solidified position, and then continues to draft at that position. I have no problem w/ continuing to draft safeties, as we have yet to hit on one. Ditto w/ WR. But we have TE, DT, DE, LB, and CBs, so I question the continued drafting of these positions after they have already been solidified.

 

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.

 

And I have said before, I just do not believe money is the issue. Years ago, sure. Then we were known to have one of the smallest scouting departments in the NFL. When Hatley and Phillips took over, that department grew into the largest in the NFL. I believe you have made the argument that we still don't know how much the scouts made, thus we could still be cheap, but I think that is a reach. I have not read/heard that our scouting department today is either small in size, or underpaid. If that were the case, wanna bet we would have read about it by now.

 

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.

 

Also disagree w/ the logic that we should just hire more scouts. I would argue we should have competant scouts, and should not have to hire 2 scouts for every area/school when other teams only employ one. Think in terms of most any business. How many companies do you think just hire a 2nd guy to work w/ the guy not getting it done. No, the fire the guy not getting it done and replace him. There is no money factor here, simply a personnel one.

 

well, let's look at our personnel compared to some other teams in the nfl:

 

BEARS – 6 college area scouts; 1 director of college scouting; 2 pro scouts; 1 director of pro scouting

 

Jerry Angelo GM

DePaul, Bobby - Director of Pro Personnel

Dennard Wilson - pro scout

Bears hire former Maryland DB Wilson - pro scout

Gabriel, Greg - Director of College Scouting

Rex Hogan – in the East, scouting area that includes North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York

Chris Ballard in the Southwest

Marty Barrett in the West

Ted Monago in the Rockies and Plains

Jeff Shiver in the Midwest

Mark Sadowski in the Southeast

 

COLTS – 6 area scouts; 2 regional scouts; 2 scouting assistants; 1 pro scout; 1 director of pro player personel; 1 director of player personel with 1 assistant; 1 sr. player personnel consultant; 1 player development admin.

 

ever wonder why they draft well?

 

Tom Telesco ......................Director of Player Personnel

Dom Anile ................Sr. Consultant to Player Personnel

Clyde Powers ..............Director of Pro Player Personnel

David Caldwell ......................Western Regional Scout

Todd Vasvari ............................Eastern Regional Scout

Bob Ferguson ....Special Asst. to the Dir. of Player Personnel

John Becker ..............................................Area Scout

Ryan Cavanaugh ......................................Area Scout

Mark Ellenz ..............................................Area Scout

Bob Guarini..............................................Area Scout

Byron Lusby ..............................................Area Scout

Matt Terpening ..........................................Area Scout

Kevin Rogers ..............................................Pro Scout

J.W. Jordan ..................Salary Cap/Personnel Analyst

Stefani Paul ..............Player Development Administrator

Jamie Moore ..................................Scouting Assistant

Jon Shaw ........................................Scouting Assistant

Debbie Finn ......Asst. to the Director of Player Personnel

 

RAMS - 7 scouts; 1 scouting assistant; 1 director/scouting admin; 1 vp player personel; 1 vp pro personnel; 1 director player personnel

 

Tony Softli Vice President/Player Personnel

Charley Armey Vice President/Pro Personnel

Lawrence McCutcheon Director/Player Personnel

Jack Faulkner Pro Personnel Adminstrator

Debbie Pollom Director/Scouting Administration

Dave Boller Scout

Cary Conklin Scout

Dick Daniels Scout

Luke Driscoll Scout

Mel Foels Scout

Brad Holmes Scout

John Mancini Scout

Brandon Schwab Scouting Assistant

 

TITANS - 6 scouts; 1 national supervisor of college scouting; 1 eastern director of college scouting; 1 scouting coordinator; 1 scouting consultant; 1 director of pro personel; 2 pro personnel assistants

 

Lake Dawson Director of Pro Personnel

C.O. Brocato National Supervisor of College Scouting

Mike Ackerley Eastern Director of College Scouting

Blake Beddingfield Scouting Coordinator

Ray Biggs College Scout

Johnny Meads College Scout

Phil Neri College Scout

Cole Proctor College Scout

Richard Shelton College Scout

Marvin Sunderland College Scout

Jon Salge Pro Personnel Assistant

Brandon Taylor Pro Personnel Assistant

Bo Bolinger Scouting Consultant

 

BUCS - 5 scouts; 1 national football scout; 1 director of college scouting; 1 director of football operations; 1 senior assistant; 2 pro scouts; 1 director of pro personnel; 1 senior consultant; 1 personnel consultant; 1 personnel executive

 

Mark Arteaga Director of Football Operations

Kevin Demoff Senior Assistant

Mark Dominik Director of Pro Personnel

Chet Franklin Senior Consultant

Jim Gruden Personnel Consultant

Byron Kiefer National Football Scout

Shelton Quarles Pro Scout

Justin Sheridan Pro Scout

Dennis Hickey Director of College Scouting

Tom Throckmorton College Scout

Dominic Green College Scout

Frank Dorazio College Scout

Seth Turner College Scout

Reggie Cobb College Scout

Doug Williams Personnel Executive

 

BILLS - 6 college scouts; 1 coordinator of college scouting; 1 vp assistant director of college scouting; 2 scout emeritus; 1 pro personnel coordinator; 1 blesto scout; 1 pro personnel analyst; 1 scouting assistant

 

Tom Modrak Vice President of College Scouting

Linda Bogdan Vice President/Assistant Director of College Scouting

Doug Majeski Coordinator of College Scouting

Brad Forsyth College Scout

Joe Haering College Scout

Shawn Heinlen College Scout

Dave W. Smith College Scout

Brian Fisher College Scout

Tom Roth College Scout

Bob Ryan Scout Emeritus

Dave G. Smith Scout Emeritus

Rob Hanrahan Pro Personnel Coordinator

Matt Hand BLESTO Scout

Kevin Meganck Pro Personnel Analyst

Jacky Kosmowski Scouting Assistant

 

GIANTS - 4 executive scouts; 5 scouts; 1 director of college scouting; 1 scout emeritus; 1 blesto scout; 1 director of pro personnel; 3 assistant of pro personnel; 1 football operations coordinator; 1 assistant gm

 

Kevin Abrams Assistant General Manager

David Gettleman Director of Pro Personnel

Marc Ross Director of College Scouting

Jerry Shay Executive Scout

Ken Sternfeld Assistant Director of Pro Personnel

Joe Collins Executive Scout

Jeremiah Davis Executive Scout

Steve Verderosa Executive Scout

Steve Devine Scout

Donnie Etheridge Scout

Ryan Jones Scout

Steve Malin Scout

Chris Pettit Scout

Chris Watts BLESTO Scout

Jeremy Breit Pro Personnel Assistant

Matt Shauger Pro Personnel Assistant

Raymond J. Walsh, Jr. Director of Research and Development

Matt Harriss Football Operations Coordinator

Harry Hulmes Scout Emeritus

 

STEELERS - 5 scouts (includes 1 dual role college/pro scout) 1 college scouting coordinator; 1 blesto scout; 1 college personnel; 1 player personnel; 1 director of football operations

 

Kevin Colbert, Director of Football Operations

Doug Whaley, Pro Personnel Coordinator

Ron Hughes, College Scouting Coordinator

Joe Greene, Special Assistant

Mark Gorscak, College Scout

Phil Kreidler, Pro/College Scout

Kelvin Fisher, College Scout

Bruce McNorton, College Scout

Dan Rooney, College Scout

Dave Petett , Blesto Scout

Bill Nunn, College Personnel

Luke Palko, Player Personnel Intern

 

BROWNS - 9 scouts; 1 player personnel assistant college scout; 1 director player development; 1 director pro personnel

 

Zac Bocian College Scout

Jake Hallum Senior Scout

Jim Jauch Associate Director, Pro Personnel

Daniel Jeremiah National Scout

Kevin Kelly College Scout, Midwest

Richard Long College Scout, East

Robert Morris College Scout, Southwest

Chisom Opara College Scout, Southeast

Pat Roberts National Scout

Bobby Vega College Scout

Bob Welton College Scout, West

Football Support Staff

Jerry Butler Director, Player Development

Donovan Beidelschies Player Personnel Assistant/College Scout

 

PACKERS - 7 scouts; 1 director of college scouting; 1 assistant director of college scouting; 1 college scouting coordinator; 2 directors of football operations; 2 pro personnel directors

 

* John Dorsey, Director of College Scouting

* Reggie McKenzie, Director - Football Operations

* John Schneider, Director - Football Operations

* Shaun Herock, Assistant Director of College Scouting (Midwest)

* Lee Gissendaner, College Scout (East Coast)

* Brian Gutekunst, College Scout (Southeast)

* Alonzo Highsmith, College Scout (Southwest)

* Lenny McGill, College Scout (Central Plains)

* Sam Seale, College Scout (West Coast)

* Jon-Eric Sullivan, College Scout (mid-South)

* Richmond Williams, College Scout (National Football Scouting)

* Tim Terry, Assistant Director of Pro Personnel

* Eliot Wolf, Assistant Director of Pro Personnel

* Danny Mock, College Scouting Coordinator

* Autumn Thomas-Beenenga, Pro Personnel Coordinator

 

SAINTS - 6 scouts; 1 scouting assistant; 1 combine scout; 1 college scouting coordinator; 1 director of college scouting; 2 pro scouts; 1 director of pro scouting

 

Rick Reiprish Director of College Scouting

Ryan Pace Director of Pro Scouting

Jason Mitchell College Scouting Coordinator

Terry Fontenot Pro Scout

Ryan Powell Pro Scout

David Hinson Area Scout

Dwaune Jones Area Scout

Josh Lucas Area Scout

Jim Monos Area Scout

Barrett Wiley Area Scout

Terry Wooden Area Scout

Mike Siani Combine Scout

Joey Laine Scouting Assistant

 

LIONS - 2004 - 5 scouts; 1 blesto scout; 1 college scouting coordinator; 1 director of college scouting; 1 pro and advanced scout; 1 director of pro personnel; 1 assistant of pro personnel; 1 personnel assistant

 

Sheldon White director of pro personnel

Scott McEwen director of college scouting

Charlie Sanders assistant director of pro personnel

Russ Bolinger college scouting coordinator

Dennis Murphy pro personnel and advance scout

Chad Henry personnel scout

Lance Newmark personnel scout

Bob Beers personnel scout

Silas McKinnie personnel scout

Dave Uyrus personnel scout

Dennis Gentry BLESTO personnel scout.

Jo Ann Lendenpro-personnel assistant

 

CHIEFS - 6 scouts; 1 regional scout/scouting coordinator; 1 director of college scouting

 

Chuck Cook Director of College Scouting

Bruce Lemmerman Regional Scout/Scouting Coordinator

Terry Delp Scout

Cornell Gowdy Scout

Mike Hagen Scout

Matt Littlefield Scout

Greg Olejack Scout

Willie Davis Scout

Rosalind Ward Administrative Assistant to the Vice President of Player Personnel

 

JAGS - 7 scouts; 1 vp player personnel; 1 executive director college and pro personnel; 1 scouting assistant college/pro personnel; 1 blesto scout; 1 director pro personnel; 1 assistant pro personnel (assists in college player evaluation)

 

James Harris Vice President of Player Personnel - is responsible for all player acquisitions, including the annual college draft, free

 

agency, undrafted player signings and the scouting and signing of players from other professional leagues.

Gene Smith Executive Director, College and Pro Personnel

Louis Clark Assistant Director, Pro Personnel - assists in college player evaluation.

Larry Wright Assistant Director, Pro Personnel

Terry McDonough National Scout

Tim Mingey Executive Scout

Art Perkins Executive Scout

Andy Dengler Executive Scout

Chris Driggers Regional Scout

Marty Miller Regional Scout

Chris Prescott Regional Scout

Jason DesJarlais BLESTO scout

Jake Peetz Scouting Assistant, College/Pro Personnel.

 

BENGLES - 3 scouts; 1 scouting consultant; 1 director of player personnel; 1 personnel assistant; 1 director of football ops

 

Jim Lippincott Director of Football Operations

Duke Tobin Director of Player Personnel

Greg Seamon scout

Earl Biederman Scout

John Cooper Scout

Bill Tobin Scouting Consultants

Debbie LaRocco Personnel Assistant

[LT2_3]

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.

[nfoligno]

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.

 

You have only a handful ranking above the bears, and a lot ranking below. I simply disagree. Maybe if you highlight our two winning seasons only, but if you look at all 6.....

 

Teams I would rank above the bears over the last 6 seasons.

 

- Dallas - Makes me sick, but yes, Dallas. 4 of 6 winning seasons, and 3 playoff appearances.

- Denver - 5 of the last 6 seasons w/ winning records, and 3 playoff appearances.

- GB - I can't believe they were not on your list. 5 of the last 6 seasons at or over .500, and 4 playoffs.

- Indy

- KC - They stunk bad this year, but 4 of their last 6 w/ winning records.

- NE

- NYG - 4 of 6 winning seasons, 4 playoffs and one SB win.

- Phily - 5 of 6 .500 or better and 4 playoffs. They have been one of the most consistent winners, right along w/ NE.

- Pitt

- SD

- Sea

 

I would say those teams were absolutely above the bears in the last 6 years. Teams I would say were worse.

 

AZ

Buf

Cle - Actually a bit close, but their two winning seasons (same as us) were at the opposite ends of our model. Too many bad years inbetween.

Det - And hell is still hot

Hou

Mia

Oak

SF

StL - I didn't realize it had been so long since those great seasons.

 

The rest I put in the middle. The teams you put below us which I disagree w/.

 

Atlanta - 3 of 6 seasons at .500 or better and two playoffs.

Cincy - Not sure why you think we have been better. 4 of their last 6 at .500 or better w/ an offense to match our defense.

KC - Funny. You say they were worse, and I actually say they were better, not just equal.

Minny - 4 of 6 seasons at .500 or better and a playoff.

NO - See above. 4 of 6 at .500 or better, and a playoff.

NYJ - 3 winning and 3 losing seasons, w/ 3 playoffs. That's one more winning season and one more playoff than us.

Tenn - 4 of 6 .500 or better.

Wash - Similar to us, 2 winning seasons and 2 playoffs.

 

The rest are in the middle. But we have set a pretty low bar over the last 6 seasons. We have two good/great seasons, and 4 crap ones. To give that sort of performance a B is to accept mediocrity. We would so like to think more of ourselves, but can we. That are 10 or more teams I think easily are ahead of us for this time span. There are another 9 or 10 I think below us. That puts us in the middle, but when I look at the other teams in the middle, I think quite a few would be a bit ahead of us.

 

If I were to rank all 32 teams over the last 6 seasons, I think we would rank somewhere in the 17-20 range. That my friends is not a B grade. That is a C or C-.

[nfoligno]

Thanks for jumping in. I think there is little to no argument the Bears were a cheap team in years past. I still love, I think it was Ditka, who said Halas threw around pennies like they were man hole covers. But to me, the change happened around 1998. I think that was the year we signed Phillip Daniels and Thomas Smith. Prior to that year, we failed in FA, at least partially because we were never willing to cough up the SB money top tier FAs were commanding. That year, we opened the wallets.

 

Since then, the team has shelled out numerous large/huge SBs and upfront cash. Like you said, which I simply do not think Lucky understands, you can spend well over the cap in any given year by spreading out large bonuses that only partially count against that years cap.

 

Lucky will look at the smallest personnel issues. Even the scouts he wants to show. Maybe we have a few fewer scouts, though I agree w/ you we are likely closer to the average, but you are talking about a VERY small amount of money when looking at the whole picture, and I just don't think you can say we are cheap because of it.

 

To me, the key to knowing how cheap an organization is, is by looking at what you pay the players. If we lost Harris because we were not willing to give him the big SB, or Harris/Urlacher and others, then I can see the argument. But so long as we are spending on players, I just do not see how you can say we are cheap because we "might" spend a little less in some areas which simply do not add up to big bucks.

[madlithuanian]

...nickels, not pennies!

 

Thanks for jumping in. I think there is little to no argument the Bears were a cheap team in years past. I still love, I think it was Ditka, who said Halas threw around pennies like they were man hole covers. But to me, the change happened around 1998. I think that was the year we signed Phillip Daniels and Thomas Smith. Prior to that year, we failed in FA, at least partially because we were never willing to cough up the SB money top tier FAs were commanding. That year, we opened the wallets.

 

Since then, the team has shelled out numerous large/huge SBs and upfront cash. Like you said, which I simply do not think Lucky understands, you can spend well over the cap in any given year by spreading out large bonuses that only partially count against that years cap.

 

Lucky will look at the smallest personnel issues. Even the scouts he wants to show. Maybe we have a few fewer scouts, though I agree w/ you we are likely closer to the average, but you are talking about a VERY small amount of money when looking at the whole picture, and I just don't think you can say we are cheap because of it.

 

To me, the key to knowing how cheap an organization is, is by looking at what you pay the players. If we lost Harris because we were not willing to give him the big SB, or Harris/Urlacher and others, then I can see the argument. But so long as we are spending on players, I just do not see how you can say we are cheap because we "might" spend a little less in some areas which simply do not add up to big bucks.

[BigDaddy]

No disrespect...but may I ask how old you are? I'm pushing 40. And as long as I've been following the Bears, ever since Jim McMahon, the fans and media's favorite QB has always been the one on the bench. There at least appears to be an illusion of hope in that which we do not quite fully know.

 

I'll be the first to say that I'm happy to throw Rex under the bus.... But I don't think Kyle is the savior. I actually thought it was Brohm. The only thing about Kyle, is I just would like to see him get a fighting chance to show us what he's got. To practice with the #1 team and open up the playbook for him. Rex has had that advantage and we've seen what he can do. I'd like to see what Kyle can do with that same advantage. He could very well be worse. But, what if he is better?

 

I go back to Bill Wade in terms of being a fan and while I'm not ready to throw rex completely under the bus, I am ready to let the bus run over a toe or two. To be in the league 5 yrs and still have a question mark is damn near absurd. Unfortunately for all of us, I fear it is not just rex but our coaching staff as well. This staff has been horrible at developing the younger players. Hey, you may not like Orton but you haven't seen enough of him to make a true judgement. What he does have is size, he is smart, his ego is such that he may be more prone to the safer play so he can live to fight another day, he has the arm to make ALL the throws. What he needs is a coaching staff that will help him develop, not wait for him to phuck up so they can throw rex in there. That philosophy will not work. It only puts more pressure on both these guys. I believe that Orton can be a good QB in this league if they work with him but they need to do a better job than they did with Rex. They cannot coddle him.

 

In regards to JAs drafting, if you are going to damn him for first rd picks, you have to praise him for his finds in later rds. The other thing he does well is he manages the money better than anyone else could. He is great at early resignings and that has really helped our cap situation to be much more managable but, I will add that he really needs to engage an offense consultant to help him pick that talent because he has not done well there.

[madlithuanian]

I do agree with you about development. But even if blame needs to get placed on the coaches, I think the damage is done. I personally just don't think Rex has the intangibles. He doesn't have "pocket presence". And I don't think that's something that's learnable. You either have it or you don't.

 

I think JA is all over tha map. He's had his fair share of hits and misses all over the map. However, I just think when you whiff on the 1st and 2nd round picks, it really hurt an organization far more.

 

And yes, we need more offense help in some form or another!

 

I go back to Bill Wade in terms of being a fan and while I'm not ready to throw rex completely under the bus, I am ready to let the bus run over a toe or two. To be in the league 5 yrs and still have a question mark is damn near absurd. Unfortunately for all of us, I fear it is not just rex but our coaching staff as well. This staff has been horrible at developing the younger players. Hey, you may not like Orton but you haven't seen enough of him to make a true judgement. What he does have is size, he is smart, his ego is such that he may be more prone to the safer play so he can live to fight another day, he has the arm to make ALL the throws. What he needs is a coaching staff that will help him develop, not wait for him to phuck up so they can throw rex in there. That philosophy will not work. It only puts more pressure on both these guys. I believe that Orton can be a good QB in this league if they work with him but they need to do a better job than they did with Rex. They cannot coddle him.

 

In regards to JAs drafting, if you are going to damn him for first rd picks, you have to praise him for his finds in later rds. The other thing he does well is he manages the money better than anyone else could. He is great at early resignings and that has really helped our cap situation to be much more managable but, I will add that he really needs to engage an offense consultant to help him pick that talent because he has not done well there.

[LT2_3]

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.

[nfoligno]

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.

[LT2_3]

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/

[Connorbear]

The rest I put in the middle. The teams you put below us which I disagree w/.

 

Atlanta - 3 of 6 seasons at .500 or better and two playoffs.

Cincy - Not sure why you think we have been better. 4 of their last 6 at .500 or better w/ an offense to match our defense.

KC - Funny. You say they were worse, and I actually say they were better, not just equal.

Minny - 4 of 6 seasons at .500 or better and a playoff.

NO - See above. 4 of 6 at .500 or better, and a playoff.

NYJ - 3 winning and 3 losing seasons, w/ 3 playoffs. That's one more winning season and one more playoff than us.

Tenn - 4 of 6 .500 or better.

Wash - Similar to us, 2 winning seasons and 2 playoffs.

 

The rest are in the middle. But we have set a pretty low bar over the last 6 seasons. We have two good/great seasons, and 4 crap ones. To give that sort of performance a B is to accept mediocrity. We would so like to think more of ourselves, but can we. That are 10 or more teams I think easily are ahead of us for this time span. There are another 9 or 10 I think below us. That puts us in the middle, but when I look at the other teams in the middle, I think quite a few would be a bit ahead of us.

 

If I were to rank all 32 teams over the last 6 seasons, I think we would rank somewhere in the 17-20 range. That my friends is not a B grade. That is a C or C-.

I think we will have to agree to disagree. The only one I might be swayed on would be Tennessee. Washington has flat out sucked proving you cannot fix a team with just money. Cincy is an embarassment of an organization with all the player personnel issues they have and they do have a crap load more than us. Plus, they have more talent than us but what have they done??? I could see arguments for the other teams but if you think these two teams are on equal footing with us, then you don't think much of our team.

 

Peace

[nfoligno]

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.

[nfoligno]

I want to start w/ where you finished. I do not have to think our team has done well the last 6 years to "think much of our team".

 

Cincy - You think we are so much better? W/ Palmer, TJ Hous, Chad Johnson & Rudi, they have an offense that can match our defense. They are a one sided team, just like us. They have a bad historical rep, well earned, but have tried to turn it around, which they have struggled to so. At the same time, are we that much better? We are in the media for negative publicity thanks to the likes of Tank, Briggs and Benson more often than for anything good. Cincy can feel our pain.

 

I am simply not sure why you feel we have been so much better than they have. They have four seasons of .500 or better, compared to our two. They have bad publicity, but we don't?

 

Wash - We may have a bit of an edge in the rep department simply due to how much everyone hates Snyder, but have they really been that much worse than we have? In terms of winning and playoffs, they have been our equal, which is not saying much. While they have the Snyder bad publicity, we have the criminals. I would give us a bit of an edge in the rep, but when you look past that, at the end of the day, as bad as they have been, I simply am not sure how you think we have been so much better.

 

I think as fans, we tend to get a bloated idea of our own team. That is normal. But if you ask around the league, I think we are among those teams they always hope to see on their schedule, and the fans chalk us up as an easy win, just as we do when we see Detroit.

[LT2_3]

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!

[Connorbear]

I want to start w/ where you finished. I do not have to think our team has done well the last 6 years to "think much of our team".

 

Cincy - You think we are so much better? W/ Palmer, TJ Hous, Chad Johnson & Rudi, they have an offense that can match our defense. They are a one sided team, just like us. They have a bad historical rep, well earned, but have tried to turn it around, which they have struggled to so. At the same time, are we that much better? We are in the media for negative publicity thanks to the likes of Tank, Briggs and Benson more often than for anything good. Cincy can feel our pain.

 

I am simply not sure why you feel we have been so much better than they have. They have four seasons of .500 or better, compared to our two. They have bad publicity, but we don't?

 

Wash - We may have a bit of an edge in the rep department simply due to how much everyone hates Snyder, but have they really been that much worse than we have? In terms of winning and playoffs, they have been our equal, which is not saying much. While they have the Snyder bad publicity, we have the criminals. I would give us a bit of an edge in the rep, but when you look past that, at the end of the day, as bad as they have been, I simply am not sure how you think we have been so much better.

 

I think as fans, we tend to get a bloated idea of our own team. That is normal. But if you ask around the league, I think we are among those teams they always hope to see on their schedule, and the fans chalk us up as an easy win, just as we do when we see Detroit.

During the 6 yr period, Washington is 1-2 in the playoffs and has not made the division championship game.

During the 6 yr period, Cincy is 0-1 in the playoffs.

During the 6 yr period, KC is 0-2 in the playoffs.

 

During that same time the Bears are 2-2 in the playoffs with an appearance in the Superbowl. I would say that is definately better than all 3.

 

Peace

[nfoligno]

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.

 

So you are saying Brian Robinson for $25m was a smart signing? I realize there may not have been great options at some positions. Before even looking at your link, I specifically recall it being a horrible group of QBs. At the same time, I disagree there was nothing out there. I will have to do a bit of checking, if you wish, but while I recall some positions being a joke, others I felt were pretty solid.

 

I looked at the article you provided, and while it gave some names, it really didn't give that much. It gave a couple names on the high and low side of each position, but not too much else.

 

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.

 

I agree you can not change a team over night, though Wash seems to try every night. At the same time, my point is, it sure didn't seen Angelo did much to try any sort of change, nor to improve. Also, while our actions and inactions in FA was not that much, our draft was flat out pitiful. When you run on a strategy that stresses the draft and dismissed FA, then you better draft well. So the combination of a FA that doesn't add anything and a draft that failed, simply wasn't a great start, to say the least.

 

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!

 

Actually, I thought it was the loss of Carl Powell and Frankie Smith.

[nfoligno]

Better? Maybe. I only said it wasn't a blowout in difference. You and I listed groups well above and well below. I simply question whether you can say those three are "well below". We had one big season, in terms of playoffs which you want to stress. Is one out of 6 really enough to separate us?

 

You can use playoffs, but what if I just used seasons above .500? How about rankings? Point is, there are many ways we can look at it. Playoffs are one. Winning seasons is another. The simple fact this can be argued is maybe enough.

 

I agree we would probably be ahead of Wash, but both being in the middle of the pack.

 

Cincy? Sorry, but most say the AFC has been better than the NFC, and yet they have double the .500+ seasons we do. Oh yea, and their one playoff loss was to the SB champion Steelers.

 

Look. I am not saying Cincy has been great, but I think they have been pretty similar to us. We have had a great defense and a crap offense. They have had a great offense and a crap defense.

 

KC? Sorry. But they have 3 winning seasons and one .500 season. That is compared to us having two seasons, above .500, and 4 under. Yea, they lost their two times in the playoffs, to Indy, but the fact is, they have been a more consistently good team than we have over the last 6 years.

 

It isn't so much that I think these teams have been so good, but that we have been that bad. 4 out of 6 seasons w/ a losing record. How can you think we should be in anything but the bottom half?

[Connorbear]

You can use playoffs, but what if I just used seasons above .500? How about rankings? Point is, there are many ways we can look at it. Playoffs are one. Winning seasons is another. The simple fact this can be argued is maybe enough.

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