Bill Swerski Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 (edited) Robn isn't nuts, he's right. This guy does NOT want to play for the Bears and that "influential circle" is making sure he doesn't. I strongly suspect they are doing it to make sure he still has a decent career in the longer term. They probably think of the Bears as a career wrecking franchise and they may well be right. The Bears are a franchise in desperate trouble, trouble of Arizona proportions. Apart from drafting Urlacher, I honestly cannot think of a good decision this pathetic mom'n'pop shop have made in the past 15 years, and that includes their ridiculously small stadium. Until someone comes along and buys them, things are not going to get better because anyone with any talent in any position - player, agent, coach, front office - knows that this is a poisoned chalice as long as the McCaskeys own it. 946893[/snapback] If Benson didn't want to play for the Bears, he would've told them outright (it's not exactly unprecedented, you know). We'd be hearing his agent demanding a trade right now. I don't see that happening. For all of the stupid decisions that the Bears have made over the past decade or so, they're still one of the wealthiest and most strongly-supported franchises in the NFL. When was the last time a Bears game got blacked out because they didn't sell out Soldier Field? How did they get a new stadium funded almost completely by city and state? How can the Bears still make quality free-agent signings? Why is Urlacher one of the most popular players in the NFL? Even if they haven't won a SB in 20 years and haven't been consistently competitive since the early '90s, they're A LOT better off than a number of other franchises right now (Cardinals, Colts, Saints, Chargers, Jags, Falcons). Edited August 25, 2005 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrobn26 Posted August 25, 2005 Author Share Posted August 25, 2005 Back to football....Now I hear Blake is going to challenge Orton. Orton has done nothing but kick a** all camp...he is exuding leadership, toughness, and skills. I think we should let Kyle Orton and Jeff Blake compete for the starting job. I simply am repulsed by the idea of Chad Hutchinson leading my team onto the field opening day at FedEx Field v. Washington (Ill be there as I live near DC). the Bears may win that game, but it'll probaby be 5-3 or something. 947299[/snapback] The #2 spot is still undetermined as of today's Trib, regardless of the DC. Blake will probably go before Kyle, but that's JMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 If Benson didn't want to play for the Bears, he would've told them outright (it's not exactly unprecedented, you know). We'd be hearing his agent demanding a trade right now. I don't see that happening. For all of the stupid decisions that the Bears have made over the past decade or so, they're still one of the wealthiest and most strongly-supported franchises in the NFL. When was the last time a Bears game got blacked out because they didn't sell out Soldier Field? How did they get a new stadium funded almost completely by city and state? How can the Bears still make quality free-agent signings? Why is Urlacher one of the most popular players in the NFL? Even if they haven't won a SB in 20 years and haven't been consistently competitive since the early '90s, they're A LOT better off than a number of other franchises right now (Cardinals, Colts, Saints, Chargers, Jags, Falcons). 947439[/snapback] Define "better off". How are they better off? They sell out Soldier Field because they have a waiting list of about 30,000 people and then REDUCE capacity by about 5,000 instead of building something on the same scale as the Skins, which they could certainly have sold out. Sure, they have a ton of executive suites, but their stadium is a joke in terms of numbers for the third biggest city in America. Quality FA signings? Maybe some - but have they put the money in the right places? The missing ingredients are front office and coaching - who else would have hung on to Jauron and Shoop that long, and hired Shea in the first place - because that has to be paid for out of the owners pocket. They always opt for cheap, and cheap typically sucks. They also like company men or first-timers, because they won't rock the boat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 What this franchise needs is a QB...they thought they had him with Grossman but due to injuries we still don't know.. He will sign with the Bears by week 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 (edited) Define "better off". How are they better off? 947587[/snapback] The Bears are "better off" than the following franchises in terms of an average of income, facilities, and fan support: Lions, Vikings, Falcons, Saints, Cardinals, Seahawks, Bills, Jets, Bengals, Colts, Jaguars, Raiders, and Chargers. IMO, they're in the top third of the league in terms of overall franchise quality, the idiot front office notwithstanding. They sell out Soldier Field because they have a waiting list of about 30,000 people and then REDUCE capacity by about 5,000 instead of building something on the same scale as the Skins, which they could certainly have sold out. Sure, the Bears could've probably kept the capacity the same. No arguments there. But does the fact that Danny Boy Snyder built a 75,000-seat stadium doesn't translate into wins? If the Bears are making up for the loss of 5,000 seats with the extra high-priced skyboxes and PSLs, does it really matter? Sure, they have a ton of executive suites, but their stadium is a joke in terms of numbers for the third biggest city in America. As noted above, the income lost from 5,000 nosebleed seats is made up for by the skyboxes and PSLs. I'm not sure that they could've supported the vast number of skyboxes AND an additional 5,000 seats, but maybe I'm wrong. Quality FA signings? Maybe some - but have they put the money in the right places? The missing ingredients are front office and coaching - who else would have hung on to Jauron and Shoop that long, and hired Shea in the first place - because that has to be paid for out of the owners pocket. They always opt for cheap, and cheap typically sucks. They also like company men or first-timers, because they won't rock the boat. Absolutely no arguments that the McCaskeys don't know how to run an NFL franchise anymore. But that doesn't change the fact that the Bears, despite the past 10 years, are still a marquee franchise. Even when they sucked in the mid/late '90s and the Bulls were winning championship after championship, the Bears were still the #1 team in Chicago. Edited August 25, 2005 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampnuts Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Bill's right. Chicago fans don't care if their teams suck. They're used to it and they show up anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Bill's right. Chicago fans don't care if their teams suck. They're used to it and they show up anyways. 947697[/snapback] Sad, but true. Actually, that applies mostly to the Bears, Cubs and, to a lesser extent, the Bulls. However, nobody shows up to see the Sox or Blackhawks unless they're doing well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavinRJohnson Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Sure, the Bears could've probably kept the capacity the same. No arguments there. But does the fact that Danny Boy Snyder built a 75,000-seat stadium doesn't translate into wins? If the Bears are making up for the loss of 5,000 seats with the extra high-priced skyboxes and PSLs, does it really matter? Danny's stadium now holds 91,665...Hello Super Bowl!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 The Bears are "better off" than the following franchises in terms of an average of income, facilities, and fan support: Lions, Vikings, Falcons, Saints, Cardinals, Seahawks, Bills, Jets, Bengals, Colts, Jaguars, Raiders, and Chargers. IMO, they're in the top third of the league in terms of overall franchise quality, the idiot front office notwithstanding.Sure, the Bears could've probably kept the capacity the same. No arguments there. But does the fact that Danny Boy Snyder built a 75,000-seat stadium doesn't translate into wins? If the Bears are making up for the loss of 5,000 seats with the extra high-priced skyboxes and PSLs, does it really matter? As noted above, the income lost from 5,000 nosebleed seats is made up for by the skyboxes and PSLs. I'm not sure that they could've supported the vast number of skyboxes AND an additional 5,000 seats, but maybe I'm wrong. Absolutely no arguments that the McCaskeys don't know how to run an NFL franchise anymore. But that doesn't change the fact that the Bears, despite the past 10 years, are still a marquee franchise. Even when they sucked in the mid/late '90s and the Bulls were winning championship after championship, the Bears were still the #1 team in Chicago. 947625[/snapback] Your points are perfectly valid - but, yes, it does matter that Joe Sixpack (people like me) can't get in to a game. That waiting list lengthened rather than shortened and it was much the same as the club extending a finger to it's fans, IMO. I'd show up a couple times a season (I live in Minneapolis) if I could get in at a reasonable rate. As for the stadium itself, it should have been moved completely, not crammed inside the old Soldier Field like a crashed spaceship. The Bears are a marquee franchise in their own eyes. They are a laughing stock to most everyone else. It's all fine and dandy going misty-eyed over Walter and the rest over a decade on, but hopelessness is pervasive and it's settled around the club like flies round a cows ass. Sure, they're the #1 team in Chicago, but you can say the same about almost any NFL franchise (unless they put one in LA). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arizona_hawks Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 It's looking good! Hopefully he signs and is able to pack up after a year or two. IMO he doesn't want to stick around long w/ the Bears. He needs to go to a younger more agressive team to really shine. His pick w/in mid-late round will yield minimal value or a possible trade prospect for someone needing a decent starter. give this guy a pen and sign him up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akfatha Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 HOOK EM HORNS! and for what its worth, the word doughbag is hilarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrobn26 Posted August 29, 2005 Author Share Posted August 29, 2005 Ok....I started this poll and it was interesting. I initially said he wouldn't sign. I later said 20% chance he wouldn't sign. I was wrong on both counts. Oh well, that's why I usually don't like to predict anything. Roulette is not ma game. I hope he does well Go Bears!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Benson will sign eventually. 941108[/snapback] told ya so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 I voted that I positively think it's negative that He WILL not NOT sign without the Bears. 942456[/snapback] I was right too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Ok....I started this poll and it was interesting. I initially said he wouldn't sign. I later said 20% chance he wouldn't sign. I was wrong on both counts. Oh well, that's why I usually don't like to predict anything. Roulette is not ma game. I hope he does wellGo Bears!!! 953906[/snapback] Go Bears when they play the Vikings and Lions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.