I don't want to see

[AZ54]

another thread about how the Bears ownership is cheap or too cautious to pull off big deals. Two years in a row we have gone after and signed the top players available. In that span we now have acquired a top tier QB and top tier DE plus today they went after the best RB and TE available who fit Martz's system and got those two deals done before I even sat down to eat lunch. Peppers was signed before I got to the afternoon coffee break. Wow!

 

You can argue over the quality of the players, bad decision etc. but to say they are cheap I just can't see it anymore.

 

 

[nfoligno]

Thank you.

 

There is no cap, but also this year there is no floor. I think we will see quite a few owners who take advantage of the lack of a salary floor. Then here are the Bears making Snyder and Jerry Jones cheap as hell.

 

another thread about how the Bears ownership is cheap or too cautious to pull off big deals. Two years in a row we have gone after and signed the top players available. In that span we now have acquired a top tier QB and top tier DE plus today they went after the best RB and TE available who fit Martz's system and got those two deals done before I even sat down to eat lunch. Peppers was signed before I got to the afternoon coffee break. Wow!

 

You can argue over the quality of the players, bad decision etc. but to say they are cheap I just can't see it anymore.

 

[Guest TerraTor]

another thread about how the Bears ownership is cheap or too cautious to pull off big deals. Two years in a row we have gone after and signed the top players available. In that span we now have acquired a top tier QB and top tier DE plus today they went after the best RB and TE available who fit Martz's system and got those two deals done before I even sat down to eat lunch. Peppers was signed before I got to the afternoon coffee break. Wow!

 

You can argue over the quality of the players, bad decision etc. but to say they are cheap I just can't see it anymore.

 

 

Ya thats something that can never be said again. I just wished for Rolle as well, cant belive with the money they gave Taylor and Manu that something couldnt be reached. They must be thinking another FS

[nfoligno]

Some, including myself, have a different opinion of Rolle, but that aside, something I think should be considered is, even w/o a salary cap, the value of a player should be considered. Rolle is out to become the top paid S in the game, and if our personnel think he may be one of the better S' on the market, but not close to truly elite, then there is no reason to pay him that sort of deal, cap or no.

 

Something else to consider. We may not be done yet. There still seems to be several safeties on the market (G.Wilson, Atogwe, Clark among others). Further, FS is supposed to be a great position in the draft.

 

I do understand. I want upgrade/upgrades along the OL, but as much as I feel that is a need, if there is not a good player to sign, I would rather work on other holes, even if they are not as key of a need.

 

Ya thats something that can never be said again. I just wished for Rolle as well, cant belive with the money they gave Taylor and Manu that something couldnt be reached. They must be thinking another FS

 

[AZ54]

I like the quote I just heard on NFL Network...I'm paraphrasing a bit ...."the last time we saw the Cardinals defense they were getting destroyed by New Orleans." Consider that and the fact they had DRC, a Pro Bowl CB, on one side yet the Cards still ended up next to last in passing yards given up in the playoffs and 23rd in the regular season. Heck we were 13th in pass defense.

 

I realize there are many factors in determining how well a passing defense played but you have to consider this performance of which Rolle was a key factor when evaluating his contract demands. I can't see any reason he's worth the $7.5mil/yr the Giants just paid him. As odd as it seems I was more worried about overpaying Peppers if we signed him yet I feel better about that money and the value we'll get in return than I would had we given Rolle that contract.

[Connorbear]

another thread about how the Bears ownership is cheap or too cautious to pull off big deals. Two years in a row we have gone after and signed the top players available. In that span we now have acquired a top tier QB and top tier DE plus today they went after the best RB and TE available who fit Martz's system and got those two deals done before I even sat down to eat lunch. Peppers was signed before I got to the afternoon coffee break. Wow!

 

You can argue over the quality of the players, bad decision etc. but to say they are cheap I just can't see it anymore.

Good luck with that. I won't be the one saying it but I am sure someone will eventually.

 

Peace

[Mongo3451]

Good luck with that. I won't be the one saying it but I am sure someone will eventually.

 

Peace

Ta Da! Thanks for the intro. Like I've said before, they run the team like a business, yet have been happy with their signing of players. They were still too cheap to fire Lovie...

...maybe they just don't know any better.

 

Anyway, they do get a pass from me for awhile. They didn't have to do anything with a lockout looming and they did.

[azbearsfan]

You know Lucky was pissed.................

 

No more battles with nfo on cheapness

[nfoligno]

LOL. I thought about that too. I am sure he will find a spin.

 

I can't believe the team is too cheap to sign Boldin or add a FS. Freaking cheap arce ownership.

 

 

You know Lucky was pissed.................

 

No more battles with nfo on cheapness

 

[Lucky Luciano]

LOL. I thought about that too. I am sure he will find a spin.

 

I can't believe the team is too cheap to sign Boldin or add a FS. Freaking cheap arce ownership.

 

do i need to write the facts in my signature so you can read it at least once a day or beg the admins on here to put it in a sticky specifically for you before you finally get it instead of you retreading the same wrong BS month after month, year after year? i have stated this for you at least a dozen times over the years...

 

there can be factors >>>>>>>>>>>>>BESIDES

 

so once again for the umteenth time.... ALL salary is paid for within the salary cap. the exception MAY, i repeat, MAY happen during ONE uncapped strike year scenario per decade (this season isn't even close to being accounted for one way or the other by the bear franchise at this particular time). player salary and bonus money is NOT necessarily a determining factor on the cheapness, or not, of a franchise.

 

[nfoligno]

One. Please to not pretend it is nearly as black/white as you want to make it seem. Lt2 and I have argued w/ you many, many times over the years regarding your belief that money spent on players, including bonus dollars, is not a sign of whether an owner is cheap or not. You have staked your position in the sand, and we have ours. I am NOT looking to get into that discussion today, but the simple fact is there is nothing so factual, or absolute. So please do not pretend your position is so absolute, and we all are so ignorant in our different opinions.

 

Two. As you (I think) say below, moving past our argument about player salaries in normal business years, this is an uncapped season, and thus out of the norm. I believe I recall you some time back saying you would give credit to the owners if they spent big in FA this year, and uncapped year, as you fully expected them to not only be a "player" in FA, but expected them to be among the group of cheap owners who would take advantage of the lack of a salary floor.

 

So where's the props to ownership. Rather than come on here and give credit where it is do, instead you try to ignore the recent actions of our owners and focus on your argument, and how it relates to normal business (salary cap) years.

 

Come on Lucky. There is no real argument against the ownership being cheap right now. give up some credit here where it is due.

 

 

do i need to write the facts in my signature so you can read it at least once a day or beg the admins on here to put it in a sticky specifically for you before you finally get it instead of you retreading the same wrong BS month after month, year after year? i have stated this for you at least a dozen times over the years...

 

there can be factors >>>>>>>>>>>>>BESIDES

 

so once again for the umteenth time.... ALL salary is paid for within the salary cap. the exception MAY, i repeat, MAY happen during ONE uncapped strike year scenario per decade (this season isn't even close to being accounted for one way or the other by the bear franchise at this particular time). player salary and bonus money is NOT necessarily a determining factor on the cheapness, or not, of a franchise.

 

[madlithuanian]

Beat me to it!

 

Ta Da! Thanks for the intro. Like I've said before, they run the team like a business, yet have been happy with their signing of players. They were still too cheap to fire Lovie...

...maybe they just don't know any better.

 

Anyway, they do get a pass from me for awhile. They didn't have to do anything with a lockout looming and they did.

 

[madlithuanian]

Credit given. For players.

 

I've argued before that the same does not hold true for how they pay for management and coaching. I'm open to seeing how it plays out after this regime is ousted. I reamin cautious regarding ownership.

 

As always...

 

 

 

There is no real argument against the ownership being cheap right now. give up some credit here where it is due.

 

[nfoligno]

Well, I believe we have the highest paid HC in the NFL, though I don't kow about the recent signings. While I have clue about money, we also are loaded w/ experienced coaches on the staff.

 

I get the point, but would also make this one. If you added up all our staff, would they equal the cost of Peppers contract?

 

That has always been one of my issues. Here is an ownership that just doles out tens of millions, yet there is always someone who will point to the cheap staplers the team uses to make the point the team is cheap.

 

If how we pay our coaches is your baramoter, it Jerry Jones then a cheap owners. Jones has always held the philosophy that it is about the players, not the coach. That's why he was fine letting Jimmy walk and replacing him w/ a guy lacking NFL experience, only to replace him w/ another lacking. Jones also doesn't hire a GM, and assumes the role himself. Wanna bet if he was the Chicago owner he would be called to cheap to hire a true GM? Lets see. His son is the next man of power after Jerry. Sound familiar?

 

If you look around the league, many teams deal w/ their coaches and staff in a manner not that different than we. But when has Jones ever been called cheap. Okay, let me ask this then. Why is Jones always considered a free spender. If not for the staff, which he just doesn't pay for, why then? I'll tell you. Its because of the big arce bonuses and contracts he doles out to the players. That is why he is always considered a big spender. Not because he hired an experienced trainer, but because he spends crap loads on players.

 

I know well Lucky's argument that player money has no bearing on whether an owner is cheap or not. I disagree, but w/o getting into the nitty gritty of that argument, I simply go back to this. If you look around and the owners who are considered free spenders, why are they considered so. Is Snyder considered a free spender due to coaching hires, or for making moves like Haynseworth last year, which according to Lucky, doesn't matter. If Jones considered a free spender due to hiring Chan Gailey, or maybe it was for his hiring of Switzer. No? Then maybe Jimmy Johnson? Oh yea, he was also a college guy before Jerry hired him. Nope. Jones is not considered a free spender due to his coaching hires, and absolutely not due to his GM hiring, as he is the GM. Jerry is considered a free spender due to how much he spends on players. Period. End of story.

 

Credit given. For players.

 

I've argued before that the same does not hold true for how they pay for management and coaching. I'm open to seeing how it plays out after this regime is ousted. I reamin cautious regarding ownership.

 

As always...

 

[madlithuanian]

I'm not sure either. There are some new coaches out there like Shanahan that could be amking more. I don't have the info. Smith was also paid after a SB appearance and media pressure. Part of the reason for the extremely high salary is speculated that Sweatty Teddy botched the negotiations and also waited too long to make the offer, thus driving the price up. My basic response is "they had too". They didn't want to. Also, for the first few years, he was paid bottom of the barrel, s, when you average it out, I'm not sure how pricey it really was.

 

I also get where you're going, and by no means do I not think they are not spending money on players.

 

However, for AZ to say no one should ever think the Bears are cheap is a pipe dream. There's too much history of it, and there's a question mark on how they pay staff. But, it is more than true that they are currently (and for a while now) not been cheap paying players. We can debate whether they've made good decisions, but for players, they've not been cheap.

 

It's also perception. You bring up Jerrah and Danny... We can argue the specifics, but the perception is that they thow nickels around like confetti. Our team has a different perception... Right or wrong. But usually perception, while not the entire story, is based in reality. And it takes a lot to completely change that.

 

I love the signings and agree that the idea of cheapness should be curbed. but until I see them actually pay for a legitimate coaching and support staff, I'm weary still.

 

Well, I believe we have the highest paid HC in the NFL, though I don't kow about the recent signings. While I have clue about money, we also are loaded w/ experienced coaches on the staff.

 

I get the point, but would also make this one. If you added up all our staff, would they equal the cost of Peppers contract?

 

That has always been one of my issues. Here is an ownership that just doles out tens of millions, yet there is always someone who will point to the cheap staplers the team uses to make the point the team is cheap.

 

If how we pay our coaches is your baramoter, it Jerry Jones then a cheap owners. Jones has always held the philosophy that it is about the players, not the coach. That's why he was fine letting Jimmy walk and replacing him w/ a guy lacking NFL experience, only to replace him w/ another lacking. Jones also doesn't hire a GM, and assumes the role himself. Wanna bet if he was the Chicago owner he would be called to cheap to hire a true GM? Lets see. His son is the next man of power after Jerry. Sound familiar?

 

If you look around the league, many teams deal w/ their coaches and staff in a manner not that different than we. But when has Jones ever been called cheap. Okay, let me ask this then. Why is Jones always considered a free spender. If not for the staff, which he just doesn't pay for, why then? I'll tell you. Its because of the big arce bonuses and contracts he doles out to the players. That is why he is always considered a big spender. Not because he hired an experienced trainer, but because he spends crap loads on players.

 

I know well Lucky's argument that player money has no bearing on whether an owner is cheap or not. I disagree, but w/o getting into the nitty gritty of that argument, I simply go back to this. If you look around and the owners who are considered free spenders, why are they considered so. Is Snyder considered a free spender due to coaching hires, or for making moves like Haynseworth last year, which according to Lucky, doesn't matter. If Jones considered a free spender due to hiring Chan Gailey, or maybe it was for his hiring of Switzer. No? Then maybe Jimmy Johnson? Oh yea, he was also a college guy before Jerry hired him. Nope. Jones is not considered a free spender due to his coaching hires, and absolutely not due to his GM hiring, as he is the GM. Jerry is considered a free spender due to how much he spends on players. Period. End of story.

 

[nfoligno]

I'm not sure either. There are some new coaches out there like Shanahan that could be amking more. I don't have the info. Smith was also paid after a SB appearance and media pressure. Part of the reason for the extremely high salary is speculated that Sweatty Teddy botched the negotiations and also waited too long to make the offer, thus driving the price up. My basic response is "they had too". They didn't want to. Also, for the first few years, he was paid bottom of the barrel, s, when you average it out, I'm not sure how pricey it really was.

 

Actually, I recall a while back doing the math, even if if you average out his two deals, he still comes out well up there. Also have to make one more point in the "damned if you do, damned if you don't." We as fans always want players/coaches to prove themselves before paying them top dollar. But if you wait and make that player/coach prove themself first, you are then going to pay a premium. Use a player analogy. If Knox blows up for huge stats this coming year, and the staff pays him a big deal, wanna bet there will be fans asking why we didn't ink him on the cheap sooner? We could have extended Lovie sooner, but is that really what you would have wanted?

 

I also get where you're going, and by no means do I not think they are not spending money on players.

 

However, for AZ to say no one should ever think the Bears are cheap is a pipe dream. There's too much history of it, and there's a question mark on how they pay staff. But, it is more than true that they are currently (and for a while now) not been cheap paying players. We can debate whether they've made good decisions, but for players, they've not been cheap.

 

Oh, I hope you know where on stand as to how we have spent the money. But the argument I continue to stand by is that our team has not been cheap for some time. I go back to the point Mikey was kicked upstairs, and we spend big bucks (for the time) on Daniels and Smith. As you say above, argue day and night about the merits of the two, but the point remains we spent the money. That was over a decade ago. For the last decade, this team has done what fans screamed for. Remember when we were too cheap to hire a GM? Remember when a player asking for a big bonus was simply out of our reach? Remember when we simply would not consider top tier FAs, and instead would only look at bargain basement guys? This team has spent money of the last decade. I realize that a decade of spending does not so easily offset a lifetime of being cheap, though I find it funny the main person in the stories who was cheap (Papabear) is also the same individual who is worshipped by most all Bear fans.

 

It's also perception. You bring up Jerrah and Danny... We can argue the specifics, but the perception is that they thow nickels around like confetti. Our team has a different perception... Right or wrong. But usually perception, while not the entire story, is based in reality. And it takes a lot to completely change that.

 

You avoid the point. Why are Jones and Danny "perceived" to be big spenders? This is the point I try to make. Danny and Jerry are NOT considered big spenders due to how they deal with coaches, scouts, staff or what sort of meals they provide players in the locker rooms. They are considered the big spenders plain and simply due to money spent on players. That is the point I try to make. Its about the players. All the rest can be talked about, but at the end of the day, its about the players.

 

I love the signings and agree that the idea of cheapness should be curbed. but until I see them actually pay for a legitimate coaching and support staff, I'm weary still.

 

Again, I go back to the prior point. Jerry Jones came in and replaced Landry w/ Jimmy Johnson, a long time college football coach. Jimmy was not paid anything resembling top dollar. Jerry dumped Jimmy, to be replaced by Switzer, then Gailey, then Campo. Through all these years, Jones was public is denouncing the idea coaching had so much to do w/ the success of the team, and said it was all about the players. But all this time, as Jerry was going to very cheap route w/ his coaches, he was also spending big on players. That Jones today is considered one of the big spenders in the NFL I would show as proof it is about the players, not the coaches.

 

If you want to say something like, "until this team does a better job finding quality coaching, they will not have my full respect," I would agree fully. But to me, how they deal w/ coaches simply is not a matter of being cheap. They may suck at it, but that doesn't mean they are cheap.

 

As for what Az said, I totally agree. This years offseason should put an end to the team being called cheap, especially by bear fans. Say they are clueless, and make awful decisions, etc., but the idea they are cheap is simply a weak argument these days.

[madlithuanian]

I readily admit that hindsight is always 20/20...and wish we would have let Smith walk. But, more realistically, he should have been extended with some out clauses before the SB run. He had just delivered 2 playoff appearances and looked poised for another. Waiting to fruition ended up costing far too much. Maybe having a pres and Gm that many think are unfit cost us more in this situation by having to pay Smith a large amount and for so long w/o any type of out clause?

 

It's all in the timing. And sometimes you should let a player walk or coach walk when they are asking for too much. Carolina sure did...

 

I agree on your assessment on when Mikey was booted. I agreed back then, and still do now. They are spending money on players. But, since then, they've only spent on staff when a gun was pointed to their head. Maybe the same can also be said of players? Would we have taken Peppers and the lot if JA and Zombie's jobs were not on the line?

 

I completely hear you on your take on GSH! but, let's be honest, he gets a pass! He created the Bears...and the NFL for that matter! He's allowed to be cheap. he buil;t it from the bottom up. The mcCaskey's had it handed to them. They did not earn it. Therefore, for them to be cheap, is just being cheap. For GSH to be cheap, well...he came from that era and it's tough to teach old dogs new tricks. Especially when you built it. How's that for spin!?

 

Huh? WAS and Dallas have paid for players. Charles Haley, D. Sanders, TO, Haynesworth, Bruce Smith, etc... And Danny and Jerry not spending on staff? Martyball, Gibbs II, Spurrier, and now Shanny all had a whirl in WAS and Jimmy, Barry and Tuna all had shots in Big D. That's spe nding... They don't do it at every change of regime, but they've done it. The Bears have NEVER done it. We always hope for the best with an up-and-comer. And the one time they kind of lucked into it in 2006, they paid to keep him or face too much wrath from the media.

 

It's not all about the players. It never has been. It's everything. Your chess pieces and look great, but someone has to put them in position to check your opponent. It's all phases that win or take blame. Sometimes, certain facets hold more responsibility than others.

 

OK, I'll relent...and run with what you said you'd take no issue with (...and apologies to AZ) with a slight ammendment:

 

Until this team does a better job finding quality coaching, they will not have my full respect. They suck at it, but that doesn't mean they are cheap. This years' offseason should put an end to the team being currently called cheap. They are clueless, and make awful decisions, etc., but the idea they are cheap now is simply a weak argument these days. But, I fully understand if someone would want to call them cheap due to their overwhelming history of being so..

 

 

 

I'm not sure either. There are some new coaches out there like Shanahan that could be amking more. I don't have the info. Smith was also paid after a SB appearance and media pressure. Part of the reason for the extremely high salary is speculated that Sweatty Teddy botched the negotiations and also waited too long to make the offer, thus driving the price up. My basic response is "they had too". They didn't want to. Also, for the first few years, he was paid bottom of the barrel, s, when you average it out, I'm not sure how pricey it really was.

 

Actually, I recall a while back doing the math, even if if you average out his two deals, he still comes out well up there. Also have to make one more point in the "damned if you do, damned if you don't." We as fans always want players/coaches to prove themselves before paying them top dollar. But if you wait and make that player/coach prove themself first, you are then going to pay a premium. Use a player analogy. If Knox blows up for huge stats this coming year, and the staff pays him a big deal, wanna bet there will be fans asking why we didn't ink him on the cheap sooner? We could have extended Lovie sooner, but is that really what you would have wanted?

 

I also get where you're going, and by no means do I not think they are not spending money on players.

 

However, for AZ to say no one should ever think the Bears are cheap is a pipe dream. There's too much history of it, and there's a question mark on how they pay staff. But, it is more than true that they are currently (and for a while now) not been cheap paying players. We can debate whether they've made good decisions, but for players, they've not been cheap.

 

Oh, I hope you know where on stand as to how we have spent the money. But the argument I continue to stand by is that our team has not been cheap for some time. I go back to the point Mikey was kicked upstairs, and we spend big bucks (for the time) on Daniels and Smith. As you say above, argue day and night about the merits of the two, but the point remains we spent the money. That was over a decade ago. For the last decade, this team has done what fans screamed for. Remember when we were too cheap to hire a GM? Remember when a player asking for a big bonus was simply out of our reach? Remember when we simply would not consider top tier FAs, and instead would only look at bargain basement guys? This team has spent money of the last decade. I realize that a decade of spending does not so easily offset a lifetime of being cheap, though I find it funny the main person in the stories who was cheap (Papabear) is also the same individual who is worshipped by most all Bear fans.

 

It's also perception. You bring up Jerrah and Danny... We can argue the specifics, but the perception is that they thow nickels around like confetti. Our team has a different perception... Right or wrong. But usually perception, while not the entire story, is based in reality. And it takes a lot to completely change that.

 

You avoid the point. Why are Jones and Danny "perceived" to be big spenders? This is the point I try to make. Danny and Jerry are NOT considered big spenders due to how they deal with coaches, scouts, staff or what sort of meals they provide players in the locker rooms. They are considered the big spenders plain and simply due to money spent on players. That is the point I try to make. Its about the players. All the rest can be talked about, but at the end of the day, its about the players.

 

I love the signings and agree that the idea of cheapness should be curbed. but until I see them actually pay for a legitimate coaching and support staff, I'm weary still.

 

Again, I go back to the prior point. Jerry Jones came in and replaced Landry w/ Jimmy Johnson, a long time college football coach. Jimmy was not paid anything resembling top dollar. Jerry dumped Jimmy, to be replaced by Switzer, then Gailey, then Campo. Through all these years, Jones was public is denouncing the idea coaching had so much to do w/ the success of the team, and said it was all about the players. But all this time, as Jerry was going to very cheap route w/ his coaches, he was also spending big on players. That Jones today is considered one of the big spenders in the NFL I would show as proof it is about the players, not the coaches.

 

If you want to say something like, "until this team does a better job finding quality coaching, they will not have my full respect," I would agree fully. But to me, how they deal w/ coaches simply is not a matter of being cheap. They may suck at it, but that doesn't mean they are cheap.

 

As for what Az said, I totally agree. This years offseason should put an end to the team being called cheap, especially by bear fans. Say they are clueless, and make awful decisions, etc., but the idea they are cheap is simply a weak argument these days.

 

[nfoligno]

Just going to make one point here.

 

You said Jerry did it with Jimmy, Barry and Tuna. Well, Jerry said bye bye to Landy, and replaced him with a college coach. Jimmy did well in college, but this was not a Steve Spurrier signing, and was not a big contract. In fact, it was deemed a risky signing at the time, but history forgets that and makes it seem similar to if we signed Cowher. But that wasn't the case. Then he also hired Barry, and again, he avoided proven NFL talent and went "cheap" w/ a college guy. Then yes, he hired Parcells, but (a) how did that workout for him and ( you could just as easily make the argument he only did that when a gun was pointed to his head.

 

The simple reality is, when it comes to the discussion of perception, it isn't about the hiring of coaching staffs. Jerry went a route that would be considered cheap by many here in Chicago. He avoided successful NFL guys, and further, didn't pay to keep those coaches once they found success. But Jerry always spent big on players. That is why I argue that it is all about spending on player that counts. Not in terms of reality, but in terms of perception. If a team spends big on big name coaches, but goes cheap on players, he will be considered cheap. If a team spends big on players but not coaches, he will still be considered a big spender. When it comes to perception, I simply argue it is all about the players.

 

I readily admit that hindsight is always 20/20...and wish we would have let Smith walk. But, more realistically, he should have been extended with some out clauses before the SB run. He had just delivered 2 playoff appearances and looked poised for another. Waiting to fruition ended up costing far too much. Maybe having a pres and Gm that many think are unfit cost us more in this situation by having to pay Smith a large amount and for so long w/o any type of out clause?

 

It's all in the timing. And sometimes you should let a player walk or coach walk when they are asking for too much. Carolina sure did...

 

I agree on your assessment on when Mikey was booted. I agreed back then, and still do now. They are spending money on players. But, since then, they've only spent on staff when a gun was pointed to their head. Maybe the same can also be said of players? Would we have taken Peppers and the lot if JA and Zombie's jobs were not on the line?

 

I completely hear you on your take on GSH! but, let's be honest, he gets a pass! He created the Bears...and the NFL for that matter! He's allowed to be cheap. he buil;t it from the bottom up. The mcCaskey's had it handed to them. They did not earn it. Therefore, for them to be cheap, is just being cheap. For GSH to be cheap, well...he came from that era and it's tough to teach old dogs new tricks. Especially when you built it. How's that for spin!?

 

Huh? WAS and Dallas have paid for players. Charles Haley, D. Sanders, TO, Haynesworth, Bruce Smith, etc... And Danny and Jerry not spending on staff? Martyball, Gibbs II, Spurrier, and now Shanny all had a whirl in WAS and Jimmy, Barry and Tuna all had shots in Big D. That's spe nding... They don't do it at every change of regime, but they've done it. The Bears have NEVER done it. We always hope for the best with an up-and-comer. And the one time they kind of lucked into it in 2006, they paid to keep him or face too much wrath from the media.

 

It's not all about the players. It never has been. It's everything. Your chess pieces and look great, but someone has to put them in position to check your opponent. It's all phases that win or take blame. Sometimes, certain facets hold more responsibility than others.

 

OK, I'll relent...and run with what you said you'd take no issue with (...and apologies to AZ) with a slight ammendment:

 

Until this team does a better job finding quality coaching, they will not have my full respect. They suck at it, but that doesn't mean they are cheap. This years' offseason should put an end to the team being currently called cheap. They are clueless, and make awful decisions, etc., but the idea they are cheap now is simply a weak argument these days. But, I fully understand if someone would want to call them cheap due to their overwhelming history of being so..

 

[madlithuanian]

I think you may be too close to Dallas...

 

Landry was starting to lose it, and it was fairly apparent. Jimmy was a HUGE college coach. I'm not sure what the contract was, but it was a big and ballsy signing I feel. Risky doesn't mean not splashy or big. Was barry cheap? Again, he was HUGE in college. Again, splashy. And in all honesty, Jerry was just trying to claim all credit. That's why he put the pizza delivery guys in after Jimmy and Barry. Then realizing that was bad, hired Tuna. Tuna worked out well, but couldn't get a long with jerry. Under Parcells, Dallas was at their best and are really where they are today because of him. I visisted a few of his TC's when they were in Cali, and Parcells is the man. He is business. I'm dying to see a Bears camp, but don't want to waste my travel money going to a country club that I could better enjoy in the Caribbean.

 

Jerry may have been cheap, but he looked flashy. And rarely does flashy get perceived as cheap. Who did we hire? Castoffs. We botche McGuinness, so we settled for Animatron. We couldn't lure Saban, so we settled for Zombie. The track record is simply not good. The only splash we made in all honesty was Wanny. At the time, it looked great on paper. At least that was a fairly ballsy move. YOu nabbed the #1 DC at the time on a SB winning team. Jauron and Smith were far from that.

 

We'll just disagree. I think perception is the full 9 yards. Players and personnel. ...and history.

 

 

Just going to make one point here.

 

You said Jerry did it with Jimmy, Barry and Tuna. Well, Jerry said bye bye to Landy, and replaced him with a college coach. Jimmy did well in college, but this was not a Steve Spurrier signing, and was not a big contract. In fact, it was deemed a risky signing at the time, but history forgets that and makes it seem similar to if we signed Cowher. But that wasn't the case. Then he also hired Barry, and again, he avoided proven NFL talent and went "cheap" w/ a college guy. Then yes, he hired Parcells, but (a) how did that workout for him and ( you could just as easily make the argument he only did that when a gun was pointed to his head.

 

The simple reality is, when it comes to the discussion of perception, it isn't about the hiring of coaching staffs. Jerry went a route that would be considered cheap by many here in Chicago. He avoided successful NFL guys, and further, didn't pay to keep those coaches once they found success. But Jerry always spent big on players. That is why I argue that it is all about spending on player that counts. Not in terms of reality, but in terms of perception. If a team spends big on big name coaches, but goes cheap on players, he will be considered cheap. If a team spends big on players but not coaches, he will still be considered a big spender. When it comes to perception, I simply argue it is all about the players.

 

[Mongo3451]

name='MadLithuanian' date='Mar 8 2010, 05:14 PM' post='78955']

Landry was starting to lose it, and it was fairly apparent. Jimmy was a HUGE college coach. I'm not sure what the contract was, but it was a big and ballsy signing I feel. Risky doesn't mean not splashy or big. Was barry cheap? Again, he was HUGE in college. Again, splashy. And in all honesty, Jerry was just trying to claim all credit. That's why he put the pizza delivery guys in after Jimmy and Barry. Then realizing that was bad, hired Tuna. Tuna worked out well, but couldn't get a long with jerry. Under Parcells, Dallas was at their best and are really where they are today because of him. I visisted a few of his TC's when they were in Cali, and Parcells is the man. He is business. I'm dying to see a Bears camp, but don't want to waste my travel money going to a country club that I could better enjoy in the Caribbean.

That's how I remember it. Jerry would have won 3 or 4 more if he'd have kept JJ.

[AZ54]

However, for AZ to say no one should ever think the Bears are cheap is a pipe dream. There's too much history of it, and there's a question mark on how they pay staff. But, it is more than true that they are currently (and for a while now) not been cheap paying players. We can debate whether they've made good decisions, but for players, they've not been cheap.

 

.............

 

I love the signings and agree that the idea of cheapness should be curbed. but until I see them actually pay for a legitimate coaching and support staff, I'm weary still.

 

 

I didn't say the Bears have never been cheap so please don't change the point of the thread because we all know they have been cheap. I also said you can argue over how they spend their money or who they spend it on but they have spent money very comparable to the top teams in the league. That includes our coaching staff as Lovie was one of the highest paid coaches when he got his second contract and many on that Superbowl staff that stuck around got significant raises.

 

I just don't see the data in the last several years showing where we've been cheap. We can go back to Urlacher's first contract extension which put him at or near the top paid in the league. Hester got a boat load of WR money for being the best KR/PR in the league. Tommie Harris picked up $10 mil/yr which got a lot of attention. Our 1st Rd picks in recent years have all had solid contract offers comparable to any other team and almost all have been in camp on time. We even pay our UDFA a little better than average to attract better quality. You can argue whether or not that worked but I think from an ownership standpoint since the new stadium deal they've ponied up the dough but they aren't spending like that fool Daniel Snyder. We now have the highest paid defensive player in the league.

 

As far as keeping Lovie around this year (which I was against) I think this was a deliberate decision by the team to either spend money paying coaches who don't work for them plus the high cost of hiring the new staff (estimated at $15 mil swing) or take the money and use it on FA and go after the best player available in Peppers. I'll live with Smith another year in order to keep Peppers for 5.

[madlithuanian]

AZ, I didn't mean to feathers ruffle, I just came to do the McCaskey-cheapie shuffle...

 

If you keep reading the thread, you'll see I relent. At least mostly...

 

I think I sepell out where we have and have not been cheap... I readily admit we've not been cheap regarding picking up players. My concern rests with staff. You'll see my quasi-retraction at the end...

 

...and I couldn't agree more. I'll gladly take Smith for another year in order to have Peppers for 5 more! I want long term properity. I'd have rather had my cake and eat it too, but I'll settle for cake!

 

 

I didn't say the Bears have never been cheap so please don't change the point of the thread because we all know they have been cheap. I also said you can argue over how they spend their money or who they spend it on but they have spent money very comparable to the top teams in the league. That includes our coaching staff as Lovie was one of the highest paid coaches when he got his second contract and many on that Superbowl staff that stuck around got significant raises.

 

I just don't see the data in the last several years showing where we've been cheap. We can go back to Urlacher's first contract extension which put him at or near the top paid in the league. Hester got a boat load of WR money for being the best KR/PR in the league. Tommie Harris picked up $10 mil/yr which got a lot of attention. Our 1st Rd picks in recent years have all had solid contract offers comparable to any other team and almost all have been in camp on time. We even pay our UDFA a little better than average to attract better quality. You can argue whether or not that worked but I think from an ownership standpoint since the new stadium deal they've ponied up the dough but they aren't spending like that fool Daniel Snyder. We now have the highest paid defensive player in the league.

 

As far as keeping Lovie around this year (which I was against) I think this was a deliberate decision by the team to either spend money paying coaches who don't work for them plus the high cost of hiring the new staff (estimated at $15 mil swing) or take the money and use it on FA and go after the best player available in Peppers. I'll live with Smith another year in order to keep Peppers for 5.

 

[AZ54]

That'd be cake with a little Pepper on it!

[Lucky Luciano]

One. Please to not pretend it is nearly as black/white as you want to make it seem. Lt2 and I have argued w/ you many, many times over the years regarding your belief that money spent on players, including bonus dollars, is not a sign of whether an owner is cheap or not. You have staked your position in the sand, and we have ours. I am NOT looking to get into that discussion today, but the simple fact is there is nothing so factual, or absolute. So please do not pretend your position is so absolute, and we all are so ignorant in our different opinions.

 

pretend it's black and white? yet again you either don't know what you are talking about in regards to my posts or are throwing out another red herring. SHOW me the posts i have made that states anywhere that i stated my beliefs or theories on this subject are remotely >>"absolute fact"

 

what i HAVE shown are models that any 'competent' money manager could easily use to pay out the large bonus money AND salary to players strickly from money received from the NFL in salary cap allotments. thus for anyone to state with authority or "absolute fact" that these large bonus payments or salaries to players somehow 'proves' the owners are not cheap is plain flatout ridiculous.

http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...amp;#entry73524

 

Two. As you (I think) say below, moving past our argument about player salaries in normal business years, this is an uncapped season, and thus out of the norm. I believe I recall you some time back saying you would give credit to the owners if they spent big in FA this year, and uncapped year, as you fully expected them to not only be a "player" in FA, but expected them to be among the group of cheap owners who would take advantage of the lack of a salary floor.

 

again with your "I believe I recall you some time back saying...". instead of throwing incorrect statements or memory damaged assumptions against the wall and hoping they stick why don't you go back and look up these instances of what i really said or didn't say. in other words, SHOW me where i said this.

 

So where's the props to ownership. Rather than come on here and give credit where it is do, instead you try to ignore the recent actions of our owners and focus on your argument, and how it relates to normal business (salary cap) years.

 

Come on Lucky. There is no real argument against the ownership being cheap right now. give up some credit here where it is due.

 

props to ownership? credit here where it is due?

 

1. do you believe we have a 21st century quality president of football operations in this franchise? wouldn't it be this persons responsibility to oversee his GM, his scouting department, and the overall quality of the draft (that is the muscle and bone of every franchises health. yet it appears that management doesn't even SEE a problem in this area or just doesn't care)?

 

or don't you believe that having professional management in this capacity is even necessary?

 

2. do you believe that our GM is capable of bringing this team to a higher level of quality through the draft and is the health of our franchise in jeopardy or not due to lack of drafted talent over the last EIGHT YEARS? i have stated in the past and will state it again, you CAN'T build a great team by free agents alone. it is just too expensive to do in this cap era. you HAVE to be able to draft players well especially in the first three rounds.

 

are you happy with our GM's scouting department and the results they have shown on draft day? does it concern you that we fired our pro scout a month + ago and have not replaced him yet all of our draft scouts are still in place?

 

here is a list of all the needs we have/had prior to free agency: 2 CB's, 2 S's, 1-2 DT's, 1-2 DE's, 4 OL, 1 RB and possibly WR's. also, in my opinion, you can throw in at least one LB to replace url who is on the definate downside of his career and who really knows what pisa is or isn't. only that our coaching staff believes he is better than any LB's currently on our roster behind him. that is near if not more than half of our entire starting players.

 

do you believe our coaches deserved to be retained due to the quality of how well our team was being coached not only during the regular season but in training camp etc.? isn't it the GM's job to determine whether they get fired or not especially since he is the only person in our entire management capable of making a supposed educated decision to do so?

 

3. do you believe our coaching staff did even an average job of coaching at gametime? how would their gametime adjustments rank in your opinion? how well were our players prepared on gameday? how well in your estimation has our coaching staff brought along drafted talent and made better players out of our veterans? do you believe our team is prepared for the regular season at the end of training camp?

 

so... if you answered no to most of the questions above why would you retain your president, GM, coaching staff? why didn't we get rid of ted the head? why wasn't angelo fired? what was the reason lovie and company weren't fired? was it because it would cost so much money to pay his salary or was it because our GM, our president, and the owners thought that lovie did a great job last season?

 

how much does this decision hurt our franchises health? if you are not sold on our coaching staff you have put this franchise at a minimum 2 year disadvantage. PLUS we have lost out on at least one excellent coach replacement in shanny. if you were a cowher candidate we have in all probability thrown that out the window also.

 

in truth, you don't believe that keeping the personnel above was solely a decision made in regards to dollars and cents? what other reason could it possibly be other than the owners complete and utter incompetence, ignorance and stupidity?

 

in my opinion it is and was a money decision and it cost us a once in a decade or MORE coaching staff that could have propelled this franchise into the future for the next 8-10 years in bill cowher and mike shannahan. it cost us a good director of football operations as president in mike holmgren and whoever he decided was the best fit as a gm to run this franchise.

 

finally... there is NO free agent player out there that can compare or compensate for the failure to address this franchise's long haul overall health by hiring key personnel to manage and run this franchise.

 

 

 

[Mongo3451]

here is a list of all the needs we have/had prior to free agency: 2 CB's, 2 S's, 1-2 DT's, 1-2 DE's, 4 OL, 1 RB and possibly WR's. also, in my opinion, you can throw in at least one LB to replace url who is on the definate downside of his career and who really knows what pisa is or isn't. only that our coaching staff believes he is better than any LB's currently on our roster behind him. that is near if not more than half of our entire starting players.

I was reading the entire post thinking it was destined to be a one I'd remember for awhile. But the above paragraph made it lose some credibility. I would argue 1 FS, 1 DE, and 1 OL as needs. The rest is depth. Now, if you were saying you'd like to have upgrades at those positions, I'd agree. But 11 to 14 positions? That's a lot. It's like you are saying it's a miracle we went 7-9 with the talent we had?

 

Like I said earlier, the rest of the post was solid.