Handlebar McSkullet

Thats what I was thinking too. About Schmidt....hahaha(like the movie)... Last summer he was on MLB Radio on XM and he talked about Santo, when they were mentioning players he would vote for now that he changed his opinion about first time HOF. Bill James has talked many time about how criminal it is that Santo isnt in the HOF. He rated him as the 3rd greatest 3rd baseman ever.

Im not the only bears fan to question the ownership's frugal-ness. Those players have large contracts but the Bears are still 21 million under the cap. I have no problem with how much they do or dont pay players. I mean I wouldnt want the team to be in the cap hell that the titans, 49ners were or the redskins or colts are now. I just think it sucks that with how bad this team has been over the last 15 years, they finally get a solid head coach who takes them to the superbowl, and there offer is a 2 million dollars less a year than Bobby Petrino, a rookie NFL Head Coach or a couple hundred thousand dollars more than the Dolphins Defensive Coordinator. Its not like they are the Jaguars who are a small market team, and are not pulling in a lot of profit. They are near the top of the league in profits in the third largest market. Uh, the Colts are 7-8 million dollars under the cap even after franchising Freeney, and they still have some easy work that's going to get them even further under. They don't really have cap problems. I got that from John Clayton who said that the Colts are 5.9 million over. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2349505 That page says it was last updated on March 10th, 2006. hahahahha..... well I was more just trying to say I would rather be cap healthy... You'll need to get better figures that represent where the team is cap-wise heading into the season. Being $21million under in March simply means Angelo is managing the cap well. IIRC we started the season somewhere around $5mil under. Going from 5 milion under to 21 million is the product of expiring contracts. But im going to repeat this again, and I dont need better figures to explain it. The teams cap, and what they spend on players has nothing to do their "frugalness". The NFL mandates that a team has to spend a certain percentage of their total cap figure each year. This isnt MLB where a team is free to spend as much or as little on team salary. The cap is already budgeted into the team's spending, and the owners take that into account. COACHING SALARY is not part of the cap and is not under the NFL or NFLPA scrutiny. The Bears can pay or not pay their non-player employees as much or little as they like. Here are facts: 1. Lovie Smith was paid 1.35 million last year, ranking him 32 out 32 in NFL head coaching salary. He is slated to make 1.4 million, ranking him 32 out of 32. 2. As reported by every major newspaper in Chicago, and the national media like ESPN. The Bears offer is somewhere between 3.2 million and 4 million. 3.If that is the case. That offer much less per year than what was given to Bobby Petrino, a rookie head coach, John Fox who makes 5 million a year and his team missed the playoffs this year, and Brian Billick just signed a 6 million per year contract. My opinion is that Lovie's camp is justified in their frustration if Ted Phillips refuses to budge from their offer because it seems that it is below market value. Im sure it will get done, but there are a lot of NFL teams that wouldn't let it get this far considering how much Lovie has accomplished with this franchise. [/b]

Dallas' first choice for QB Coach. Paul Chryst, Wisconsin's Offensive Coordinator. As a huge badger fan, I would much rather have Wade Wilson leave than Chryst.

Im not the only bears fan to question the ownership's frugal-ness. Those players have large contracts but the Bears are still 21 million under the cap. I have no problem with how much they do or dont pay players. I mean I wouldnt want the team to be in the cap hell that the titans, 49ners were or the redskins or colts are now. I just think it sucks that with how bad this team has been over the last 15 years, they finally get a solid head coach who takes them to the super bowl, and there offer is a 2 million dollars less a year than Bobby Petrino, a rookie NFL Head Coach or a couple hundred thousand dollars more than the Dolphins Defensive Coordinator. Its not like they are the Jaguars who are a small market team, and are not pulling in a lot of profit. They are near the top of the league in profits in the third largest market. Uh, the Colts are 7-8 million dollars under the cap even after franchising Freeney, and they still have some easy work that's going to get them even further under. They don't really have cap problems. I got that from John Clayton who said that the Colts are 5.9 million over. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2349505 That page says it was last updated on March 10th, 2006. hahahahha..... well I was more just trying to say I would rather be cap healthy...

Im not the only bears fan to question the ownership's frugal-ness. Those players have large contracts but the Bears are still 21 million under the cap. I have no problem with how much they do or dont pay players. I mean I wouldnt want the team to be in the cap hell that the titans, 49ners were or the redskins or colts are now. I just think it sucks that with how bad this team has been over the last 15 years, they finally get a solid head coach who takes them to the super bowl, and there offer is a 2 million dollars less a year than Bobby Petrino, a rookie NFL Head Coach or a couple hundred thousand dollars more than the Dolphins Defensive Coordinator. Its not like they are the Jaguars who are a small market team, and are not pulling in a lot of profit. They are near the top of the league in profits in the third largest market. Uh, the Colts are 7-8 million dollars under the cap even after franchising Freeney, and they still have some easy work that's going to get them even further under. They don't really have cap problems. I got that from John Clayton who said that the Colts are 5.9 million over. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2349505

His family lives in texas also.

Im not the only bears fan to question the ownership's frugal-ness. Those players have large contracts but the Bears are still 21 million under the cap. I have no problem with how much they do or dont pay players. I mean I wouldnt want the team to be in the cap hell that the titans, 49ners were or the redskins or colts are now. I just think it sucks that with how bad this team has been over the last 15 years, they finally get a solid head coach who takes them to the super bowl, and there offer is a 2 million dollars less a year than Bobby Petrino, a rookie NFL Head Coach or a couple hundred thousand dollars more than the Dolphins Defensive Coordinator. Its not like they are the Jaguars who are a small market team, and are not pulling in a lot of profit. They are near the top of the league in profits in the third largest market.

I've heard about it, Lance will get over it. Me either until i hear numbers. FWIW Brian Billick just signed a 4 year extension, prior to that on Jan. 17 he signded a one year contract at $5.4M. Lovie should be in his neighborhood. Guys.... you should be worried.... the bears arent even near offerring 5 million which is exactly where the market dictates his pay range. This is a cheap org. regardless of the massive amount of profit that this team enjoys. Where have you actually heard how much the Bears have offered? http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/bears/268372,CST-SPT-bear22.article http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-070221lovie,1,5582293.story?coll=cs-home-headlines http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2774459 http://www.dailysouthtown.com/sports/268428,221SPT1.article Barry Rozner wrote a pretty good article about this situation http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/rozner.asp?id=283715

Me either until i hear numbers. FWIW Brian Billick just signed a 4 year extension, prior to that on Jan. 17 he signded a one year contract at $5.4M. Lovie should be in his neighborhood. Guys.... you should be worried.... the bears arent even near offerring 5 million which is exactly where the market dictates his pay range. This is a cheap org. regardless of the massive amount of profit that this team enjoys.

Lame. Wonder what the problem is. INSERT APPROPRIATE SWEAR WORD- CHEAP!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chris Mortenson says that the Bears and Lovie Smith are in a stalemate, and will probably go into the season without a contract.

Jim Hendry- Say what you want, but the man gets things done.(Whether good or bad).

Also from Pro Football Talk.... and if this is true good for the Bears Players because I honestly believe that not giving Smith a Fair Market Value contract is a slap in the face of the coach, the players, and the fans considering the bears are in the top 3 in profits. MUTINY BREWING IN CHICAGO Keep a close eye on the situation in Chicago, where the Bears have still not given coach Lovie Smith a new contract, and where there is no evidence that significant discussions between the team and the Super Bowl coach aimed at extending the deal that expires after the 2007 have begun in earnest. A source with knowledge of the situation tells us that some members of the team have agreed among themselves to refuse to do any contract extensions or restructurings until Smith gets rewarded for the team's performance on his watch. And there's also an intention among some of the players to be candid with the free agents whom the Bears plan to target in March, with some current Bears players ready and willing to tell any new recruits not to count on Smith being around in 2008. We think the team should move very quickly to lock Lovie up for the next four or five years, at $4 million or so per season. That's fair value for a guy who has one Super Bowl appearance and three years of total head-coaching experience. The sticking point could be that the Bears hope Smith will have reduced expectations because the team lost in the Super Bowl. Then again, the guy who lost Super Bowl XL ended up with an extension that reportedly pays him $7.5 million to $8.5 million per year. Smith would have had more leverage if he'd tried to do a new deal in the dead week before Super Bowl preparations, since there was a much better overall feeling in the air about the Bears and their coach before the team put on a so-so at best performance in the February 4 loss to the Colts. But Smith gambled that the Bears would win the Super Bowl, which might have put him in line for a deal worth more than $5 million per season.

From Pro Football Talk.... this is downright disgraceful

:shock: :D I got really giddy and happy when I read that, then I started hyperventilating thinking of a rotation of a completely healthy zambrano prior and miller, and what they accomplished early in their career, and the rotation, especially when miller went 18 and...... ok... calm down.....breathe.....

Jones does not have a robotic arm. If he did, we would be able to program it to be good. Or that robotic arm is as technologically advanced as an apple II e. AH SNAP... NERDY JOKES MIXED WITH CUBS TALK....PRICELESS.

Greg Easterbrook

When you finish that can you send it my way? :D

Eric Steinbach might as well find a house in lake forrest.

Cant I just like Grossman, and think that he getting unfairly "stepped on" by the media because of essentially one game (against the Packers). I really believe that all of this hostile rhetoric stems from the last game, and if he would have delievered a mediocre performance, we would NOT be talking about replacing grossman. Lets disregard his post game statement for the time being. I hate doing the "if you throw that game away he..." argument but I think the Bears-Packers game is one game that warrants this treatment because: 1. it was a meaningless as a game gets, pack out of playoffs, bears clinch home field. 2. Grossman, and all other injury prone starters should not have been playing anyway(I was one of the people who thought they should play for "momentum", and they proved that it was a moot point anyway by playing terrible and still going to the super bowl.) Lets throw it out or augment the stats for the game for illustration purposes. If he didnt play against the pack, he would have ended with these numbers: Lets say he played the packers with his season average/ a half of football(he wouldnt have played the whole game)<18 for 30 213 2 td 1int> to put him in a fair light and because his 4th quarter numbers are much worse than his first quarter lets say he threw 9 comp 15 att 106 yards 1 td 0 int OR lets throw out GB but add his playoff numbers to his overall performance in '06, then average them over a 16 game season. That one meaningless half dropped his qb rating by 3 points!!! It doesnt mean he wasnt at best..average... but it doesnt make him the worst qb to ever start a full 16 game season(I know no one is saying this, but the tone of grossman analysis is close to this). He also leap frogs 6 qbs in quarterback rating for the year: manning, vick, hasselbeck, smith, big ben, leinart. What does it all mean? Probably nothing but the green bay game was disastrous for public opinion of the guy, and it shouldnt be and I hope the Bears realize this. Imagine if grossman went into the playoffs without the green bay game hanging over him: 1. If he didnt play against the packers his last three qb ratings going into the playoffs were 114, 104, and 80. 2. If he played green bay with his season average, his last four games qb rating would be 114, 104, 80, and 152(or to be fair lets give him and int and say) 113.... Do you think they would have asked questions that would have resulted in grossman saying he was unprepared, etc..? What about the seahawk game? Instead of people saying, grossman played to not lose, or didnt hurt the team. Maybe they would have said... Grossman leads winning drive, or maybe Don Banks doesnt say he threw a costly interception and instead recognizes that in the forth quarter, he lead the team to three drives that ended in a dropped pass that was intercepted(would have been a touchdown), a dropped pass that would have been a touchdown, and a drive that led to Gould's game tying fg. How did the other young qb's fare in the playoffs this year? Eli Manning, other hugely criticized young qb had an 85 qb rating. Tony Romo had an 89 qb rating and led them to a game winning fg drive(that didnt end up winning the game). How bout Phil Rivers? a 55 qb rating, and his team lost despite going 14-2 in the regular season, and who Peter Kings says has a better team than the Bears regardless of the Bears going to the super bowl. My point in all this is, maybe the bears qb situation isnt as bad as it is made out to be, maybe Grossman had a pretty solid year for his first full season. The best part of all this is what are the chances he plays that poorly like he did against green bay? what if his five worst games get leveled out next year, and he improves on his game averages? its possible, maybe even probable.

your strange and pointless micro-analysis does little to shed light on the issue, here. I think the reason that most QB's don't have a performace jump in their 5th year is clear and it doesn't apply to Grossman. By the 4th year, most QB's have played enough games to see what they have to offer and most development will probably have occured by then. Not the case with Grossman. That's why I tried to show a page ago about QB's who came in during their 3rd season or so for the first time. Those QB's had more success then either Grossman or a QB who starts from his rookie year. All I'm saying is that Grossman is behind the curve. He doesn't have the same amount of success that normally a player who is just starting for the first time in his 3rd or 4th season usually does. That certainly could be because of his injuries though. As I said also, one of the reasons that I'm skeptical of Grossman's development is completion percentage. Here are the QB's with under 57 percent completion percentage since 2002: 2002: Blake, Vick, Brooks, Plummer, Carr, Matthews, Ramsey, Hutchinson, Harrington 2003: Collins, Blake, Carr, Johnson, Harrington, Gannon, Ramsey, Boller, Stewart 2004: Bledsoe, Vick, Collins, Harrington, Boller, Dorsey, Feeley, Brunell 2005: Bollinger, Brooks, Collins, Eli Manning, Ferotte, Orton, Losman 2006: Leinhart, Hasselbeck, Favre, Plummer, Grossman, Gradkowski, Walter, Vick, Young There are some good names on this list that were good prospects. In 2002, Brooks was in his 3rd year and having a good year except for a bad completion percentage. Carr, Ramsey, and Harrington were in their rookie years. 2003-the 3 rookies appear again, and Boller is a rookie. 2004-Feeley is being developed in this year, along with Harrington, Boller, and Vick 2005-Eli appears, along with Losman, who only threw 228 passes that year. 2006-Leinhart and Grossman appear in their first year starting. There's one big thing on this list-nobody who started out with such a bad completion percentage is developing, with the possible exception of Losman (who was only in for a few games the year he made the list). Brooks, Carr, Ramsey, Harrington, Boller, Feeley, Eli, Vick-all supposed to be great QB's, none could improve their completion percentages. It's not easy to do, which is why you see very few here who appear on this list and then develop. That's the other big reason why Grossman is in trouble unless he can break the mold. Why just take those few years? That's hardly a signifigant sample size. In any event, many QB's have had poor completion % and have improved them over the course of their careers. Matt Hassleback had a 54.8 completion % in his first year starting. Alex Smith had a 50% completion % in his first year and a 58.1% this year. Quite an improvement. McNabb had a 58% and a 57% in his first 2 years starting. Delhomme had a 59.2% his first year with the Panthers and a 58.2 the next year. He had a 61% last year. Drew Bledsoe had a 49.9% in his first year starting. Troy Aikman 52.9% and a 56%, before posting a 65.3% in his third year. Carr went from 52.5% to 56% the 61% and has improved to a 68% this year Trent Green had a 54.6% his first year a 60% his second year and a 56% his third year Jesus man, even Peyton Manning had a 56.7 completion % his first year starting. Do I need to keep going? What tend does Grossman have to buck here exactly? Most of their QB's were actual rookies-those numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt. Mcnabb's completion percentage is actually still quite low, but he makes up for it with his deep passes and by running the ball well. Those are some good numbers though, and some good examples of QB's who broke through-I just went with the info I had in front of me. You cant take those numbers with a grain of salt. The reason a qb is not as good his first year as subsequent years is game experience(the speed of the game, the progressions and reads, familiarity with the system including size of play book and terminology. The only way a quarterback becomes better is by playing in more games. The learning curve is different for some quarterbacks but the rule is the same. The more you play, the better you get. A couple things that have not been disputed that I think are important: 1. He is still young with the "ability" to improve. 2. He can make every throw and possesses a better arm than most quarterbacks in the league.

Probably my most favorite game of the Dusty Era. Certainly the best game of 2006. AND THAT WAS JONES' FIRST HIT!!! UN---FRIEKING' BELIEVABLE!!!!! WHAT A GAME, START TO THE SEASON...and then...:cry:

Why wouldn't he develop? I don't see why he wouldn't. Many great QBs didn't take their teams anywhere near the Super Bowl in their first full years. I won't bother naming names because I'm not going to try to compare Grossman to great QBs, but it's true nonetheless. And "he had a great defense" excuse just doesn't cut it. The Bears defense was quite mediocre throughout the entire 2nd half of the season, and in the playoffs. Grossman should develop, so long as he doesn't let the hack job artists into his head. Those who said Grossman would never take this team to the Super Bowl are desperate for him to fail now that they've been shown to be wrong. Even if it hurts the Bears, many in Chicago will try their hardest to unseat this player. The question is-is he developing fast enough? He might have been in his first full season last year, but he also will be 27 before the start of the year next year. While that's certainly not old for a QB, he's certainly at a cross-roads in his career-most QB's don't start developing that late, even those who haven't had the starting experience. He really has to show that development next season, or he'll be written off like some of the other QB's of his draft class have already (Boller, Leftwich). He could develop and be a very good player, or he could fail to take the next step as those two QB's did and settle for being a backup most of his career-only time will tell I guess. Doesnt it seem that franchise quarterbacks (im not saying grossman is....yet) either start right away or sit for two or more years? For every brady, manning who started immediately there was mcnair, pennington, hasselbeck, bulger who spent two or more years sitting.

Are you kidding? Career QB rating: Ben 87.9, Rex 72.4 Completion %: Ben 62.4, Rex 54.4 Yards per Attempt: Ben 8.25, Rex 6.66 TD/INT: Ben 52/43, Rex 27/26 You were right about one thing - statistically speaking, the comparison between them is a joke. You could have saved yourself time and read the subsequent posts. I was referring to this year only, but was proved wrong on that assessment.

Estrada isnt even that strong defensively. Barrett smokes Estrada. Ill give them the "weeks, fielder, and hall(im from milwaukee and my eyes bug out over how amazing he is) are young and improving" if I can get Murton, Zambrano. Ill give them Sheets "completely healthy" if I get Prior, Miller, and Wood. Ill give them JJ has "more pop", but until he recieves a gold glove, his batting and health is just too poor to be an advantage over Izturis. The Cubs bullpen has a pretty big advantage over the brewers. Buster is on crack!!!