For those who think the team is cheap

[Connorbear]

I somewhat agree Connor except about the retractable roof. I hate domes. I think it takes away from the game and just can't stand it.

Let me clarify my position. If they ever put a retractable dome in Chicago I would want them to always leave the dome open when the Bears play (even in the worst of weather). The retractable dome should only be used for other events (Super Bowl, NCAA tournament, etc).

 

Peace

[Mongo3451]

Said before and will say again. Take a look around the league and tell me how many of the good teams are led by the 1st time coaches, rather than veteran retreads.

There is a difference. We do it with a 1st time GM, 1st time HC, 1st time DC and retread OC. It's sad when Turner is your experience. I know the new coaches in Baltimore and Pittsburg have tremendously established front offices to shepard them a little.

 

No one want to think about it this way, but that is the reality. Most of the big names you talk about are retreads who are available because they failed for another team. In knocking going after the hot assistants, you are in a way advocating going after a veteran retread like Moose over drafting a WR.

Moose? That's cold man. LOL As stated above, I don't mind the 1st time HC, but when you provide him with one of the most inexperienced and lowest paid staffs in th NFL. I have an issue.

 

Consider the SB. Both teams were led by coaches who had no prior HC experience.

 

I just do not understand why so many fans equate this to cheap.

Us old school fans just remember the family being tighter than a well diggers ass. Until they fork out for a big name coach or GM. They'll always be cheap. Remember, there is a fine line between being competitive and being a contender. Last year it cost us a playoff spot. But they had us all hooked until the end$$

[bowlingtwig]

Let me clarify my position. If they ever put a retractable dome in Chicago I would want them to always leave the dome open when the Bears play (even in the worst of weather). The retractable dome should only be used for other events (Super Bowl, NCAA tournament, etc).

 

Peace

 

 

Yeah, I would be all for that man. Just don't see that happening unfortunately.

[nfoligno]

There is a difference. We do it with a 1st time GM, 1st time HC, 1st time DC and retread OC. It's sad when Turner is your experience. I know the new coaches in Baltimore and Pittsburg have tremendously established front offices to shepard them a little.

 

But you truly feel this is the ownership being cheap? Who made the choices for the assistants. Hey, I too would have liked different staff, but Lovie choose to hire the guys, not ownership. So I just do not see this argument here.

 

Moose? That's cold man. LOL As stated above, I don't mind the 1st time HC, but when you provide him with one of the most inexperienced and lowest paid staffs in th NFL. I have an issue.

 

Again, you make the comment, "provide him w/" as if our assistants were not Lovie's choices, but that just isn't the case. Lovie was surrounded w/ less experience because that is what he wanted.

 

Us old school fans just remember the family being tighter than a well diggers ass. Until they fork out for a big name coach or GM. They'll always be cheap. Remember, there is a fine line between being competitive and being a contender. Last year it cost us a playoff spot. But they had us all hooked until the end$$

 

Hey, I understand. I am not sure how much more old school you are than I, but I get it. I remember all to well the days of our cheap ownership making a joke of free agency. When FA rolled around, there simply was no question we would have nothing to do w/ the top tier. But that is my point. Once Mikey was kicked out of power, the wallet began to open. Now, not only do we retain our top players, but we go after top players in FA.

 

You make out like our passing on Berrian was all about our being cheap, but come on. We spent big the last couple years. Just because we let a player go, or choose not to go after another player, doesn't mean we are cheap. We spent big on another WR. Money isn't the issue. The problem, IMHO, is bad choices has not fixed our problems, and thus fans can't get past the old beliefs. We have spent big dollars on many players who have simply not worked out. Thus, I think fans tend to too easily forget how much we spent on those players. Take Wale for example. No question we spent big for him, but because he is little more than average, few fans think about our playing him as if he were an elite DE.

 

Just because we let Berrian walk doesn't mean we are cheap.

[Mongo3451]

But you truly feel this is the ownership being cheap? Who made the choices for the assistants. Hey, I too would have liked different staff, but Lovie choose to hire the guys, not ownership. So I just do not see this argument here.

Budget.

 

Again, you make the comment, "provide him w/" as if our assistants were not Lovie's choices, but that just isn't the case. Lovie was surrounded w/ less experience because that is what he wanted.

Budget.

 

Hey, I understand. I am not sure how much more old school you are than I, but I get it. I remember all to well the days of our cheap ownership making a joke of free agency. When FA rolled around, there simply was no question we would have nothing to do w/ the top tier. But that is my point. Once Mikey was kicked out of power, the wallet began to open. Now, not only do we retain our top players, but we go after top players in FA.

Again, I think that was a corporate descision to keep the cash cow alive. They have spent a lot of money, but it's the way it has been spent. I remember something you said a couple years back on this subject. I can't quote specifically but it was somewhat like us spending to the cap by early extensions, mid season extensions and holding money back for rainy days. We have in no way come close to living on the edge with the spending. Trust me when I say this, as I am a fan of the cap shape we are in. We really don't go after the top free agents. If that were the case, Drew Brees would be throwing to Bernard Berrian and we would have Alan Faneca solidifying our crappy ass OL. We essentially got Moose and Tait.

 

You make out like our passing on Berrian was all about our being cheap, but come on. We spent big the last couple years. Just because we let a player go, or choose not to go after another player, doesn't mean we are cheap. We spent big on another WR. Money isn't the issue. The problem, IMHO, is bad choices has not fixed our problems, and thus fans can't get past the old beliefs. We have spent big dollars on many players who have simply not worked out. Thus, I think fans tend to too easily forget how much we spent on those players. Take Wale for example. No question we spent big for him, but because he is little more than average, few fans think about our playing him as if he were an elite DE.

 

Just because we let Berrian walk doesn't mean we are cheap.

Berrian was not the point of my argument, he was simply the cherry on top. You hide 10 mil on a player that isn't even earning it, to show you are spending to the cap while you let your 2 top receivers walk and be productive elsewhere was stupid as hell. A lot us called it, while JA sat on his hands. And we had the F'n money! And to get kicked in the nuts further, we invest in a washed up receiver and a reclaimation project known as a problem child everywhere he's been. I was against giving Berrian the 42mil, but I did want him franchised until we had another proven receiver. Is JA that stupid or was there just a little bit of frugality. You choose betwenn stupid and cheap. I choose both on Berrian and we missed the playoffs because of it.

 

I think I'm exhausted with this argument because I can't prestent facts that they are truly cheap and you can't provide the other. It's simply a feeling.

[madlithuanian]

Fair enough...

 

Both McGuinnis and Jauron weren't gong to break the bank.

 

Parcells may indeed be the exception to the rule. However, why are we never in the derby for those kinds of guys...? Maybe it's dumb luck...who knows. It just never seems like we're trying for the creme de la creme. Maybe the "hot" coordinator...I'll definitley give you that as we did with Wanny (blech!!!). McGinnis, Jauron and Smith, however successful in the league, were never really top tier guys.

 

Part of the label does come with the 90's...it was a long strech and came right after our greatest success. Granted, we now do habve a GM. And have experienced some success. But our football guy is a bean counter, not a football mind. Again, probably cheaper than getting a football mind in there...

 

I guess part of it still lingers too much from the past, and until it's fully righted, I, personally will be suspect of it.

 

I will completely give you the spending on players, facility (although the taxpayers footed a bill for that too), etc...

 

In the meantime, I think we can just agree to disagree. My glass is half empty, yours is half full on this matter. But at least my glass isn't completely empty! Time for another beer...

 

 

 

Still think the issue is in decisions made v finances.

 

You mention McGinnis v Jauron. There were all sorts of reports at the time, but I do not recall money being an issue. I do recall Mikey having a press conference to announce McGinnis before McGinnis even agreed. According to him, it was then he realized the mistake it would be to work for Mikey, and passed.

 

You talk about Parcells, but again, might he not be more the exception than the rule? Often, the guys who I think you would be referring to (big names) are big names but also failures to an extent. I mean, why are they available? Because they didn't workout for their team. I just understand the philosophy of going after the young hot guy over the bigger name who is available due to not meeting his former teams expectations.

 

Further, on the idea of whether how many other teams seem to have the same philosophy, and whether that matters, or are they too simply cheap. I would say this. If, say, a 1/3 of the league acted this way, I think it would be reasonable to say a 1/3 of the league is simply cheap. But IMHO, the ratio is far far greater. Look at this offseason, as well as last. You had some big names out there, like Cower for example, but who was all the talk about? All the talk was about the hot coordinators. AZ, coming off their SB loss just lost their OC to KC. You talk about Miami getting Parcells, but who did they hire to be their new HC? Take a look around and tell me who all the new head coaches seem to be. You might have the older veteran here and there, but I think the vast majority seem to be the younger, yet to be proven assistants.

 

Finally, you say in both coach and GM we seem cheap. I go back to my original comments. That would be an easy statement in the 90s when we were to cheap to even have a GM, but I would argue that we hired a new GM in similar timing as I said we began to spend money.

 

I just don't see it. I understand that we were a cheap team for so long that it will take even longer to completely change that image, particularly when there are some teams out there like Wash and Dallas which make the entire league look cheap. However, whether you are talking about GM, coaches, players, team employees, training facility, or whatever, it just does not seem our team is as cheap as some want to continue to believe.