Thread: Forte & Olsen on fans calling players greedy

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

I'm not saying why they are at fault, but the facts are the facts, the mc's have a below 500% for each season since 1990; if your happy w/that I'm sorry, I'm not. They've been to(and lost) 1 Sb, I'm not satisified. We have as many Sb's as the St Louis Rams and New Orleans Saints, not championships mind you, SB's I wasn't around for the non SB years and don't give 2 boots about them since that wasn't under the mc's anyways. Those aren't exactly the elite nfl franchises, and not the ones I want the Bears to be associated with. In the mean time, the GB packers been to multiple SB's, and won.
Bears have been a better run franchise great since the departure of Mike, great but he was put into his position by Ginny to begin with. I don't fault them at all for how they got the franchise btw, that is how it works. I cannot wait for Ginny to kick off so they can be sold, to hopefully a better owner. But the mck's got to reap huge rewards for little investment compared to many new owners, and they have done very little w/the franchise while in their tenure.

As for Dallas/Texas. If the NFL movies had named the Bears "America's Team" Every Chicago Fan would have eaten that up to, bank on that. Hell I would have, and I don't know to many fans of to many teams that wouldn't have. It's a hell of a monicre. And again most big states have that attitude, look at NY, it's any and all things NY or go the F home. CA is it's own damn country w/how it's run and how they act compared to the rest of the country. That's just the way things are. Trust me, I live in San Antonio, came from Indiana, the people day to day that you run into are pretty much the same. You have your jag t shirt sports fans and you have yoru more sensible ones; but the larger the city/state the more out of porportion it gets.

The Bears have had 9 seasons above .500 since 1990 Ric and a .506 winning percentage since then. The majority of those losses can be attributed to the Wannstedt and Jauron era when we went 80-96 (.454) over 11 years. That was in the middle of Mike McCaskey's heyday after he'd gotten rid of Ditka and Jerry Vainisi. During the 10 years that Lovie and Ditka coached since 1990 the Bears have gone 90-70 (.562) or very nearly their .565 all time winning percentage. We've made the playoffs 5 out of 10 years under Lovie and Ditka but only twice out of 11 years with Wanny and Jaumoron.

Mikey knew a lot about business but virtually nothing about football. His cost cutting measure and poor personnel decisions ran a great team into the ground. It's true that Ginny put him in charge against GSH's wishes but he was the oldest grandchild and wanted the position. It's very obvious that he had far more of his father's genes than he did his mother's or his grandfather's and manged the team like an idiot. Call it a mother's love or whatever. It was clearly misguided but she finally knew enough to replace him as CEO and put Ted Phillips in charge. Ever since then the Bears have been a completely different organization and their old reputation as cheapskates has been ill deserved.

The McCaskeys also owned the team when we won the 1996 Super Bowl so actually their SB record is 1-1. In fact during the era of the McCaskey's ownership 1983-Present (28 years) the Bears record has been 246-201, a .550 winning percentage, and we've made the playoffs 12 times or 43% of the time. Most of those (10) of course came during Lovie's and Ditka's time as HC. If it weren't for Mikey and his complete incompetence that record would have been even better. During that same period of time, 1983-2010, the Packers have won exactly one less game than the Bears so for all intents and purposes the teams have been equals. It's just that the Packers domination came more recently than the Bears so it's fresher in everyone's minds. Don't get me wrong, I don't love the McCaskey's but when you look at the facts it's easy to see that Mikey was the problem. Not the entire family.

Ric, I don't think that the whole of Texas is bad or that every Texan is an a$$hole but in general my experience with Texans has not been good and strangely enough they were all ego maniacs much like Jerry Jones. San Antonio is a great city and If I weren't presently ties to Denver I'd move to Austin in a heartbeat. No matter who delcared the Cowboys "America's Team" it's certainly a lable they've never denied and they boast of it at every opportunity. One look at that fan who dresses up like a 4th of July Cowboy is enough to prove that. I've just had it with the "tall hat, no cattle" types that's all. The Bears will never be "America's Team" and I doubt either they or their fans would ever want to be. Representing a great city and the Monsters of the Midway heritage is enough for most of us I'd guess.

You also have to keep in mind that the McCaskey clan inherited the Bears and, unlike Jerry Jones with his oil wealth, they are not cash rich and able to throw money around like he can. But despite that I think the Bears have had greater success of late than the Cowboys. The majority of the McCaskey wealth is tied up in the value of the team so if anything they would be most intersted in preserving that and not as much about how many sheckels they put in their pockets this year. They don't have the outlay that Jerry Jones has but that's off his own making. No one asked him to build the Taj Mahal of NFL Stadiums. That is no one but the rest of those egocentric jerks that surround the team. Ric, I'll take the McCaskey clan over owners like Al Davis and Jerry Jones anyday. The McCaskey's care about their heritage but all Davis and Jones care about is themselves.

Originally Posted by 4th and 26

The NFL is a completly different business than what we are exposed too. The NFL deals with the elite players where the next Joe Smoe can replace my position at my current job. One big difference with my job vs the NFL is that I don't get a huge signing bonus when I start work and I doubt anybody at my current or former company became an instant millionaire before ever setting foot in the building. The NFL players do have the ability to leave their current team when their contract is up. NFL players can suck it up and be total douchbags yet they still get paid where I get fired for my behavior. If players are don't like their current team then don't sign those huge long term contracts. Once your contract is up then leave to a different team. I do think the unions and both owners have put themselves into this mess. These contracts are just too big and more and more unproven talent cripples organizations that struggle to fill seats.

No doubt the rookie deals have become way overboard and that's about to be corrected. From my perspective the current players should also be willing to forego some of today's dollars in exchange for better pensions and post retirement health benefits too. There's ample evidence that most of them will suffer from some sort of permanant disablity within a decade or so of retirement so why not face that fact and assure that there are monies out there to take care of it. That's a monetary contribution the players should be making as well as the owners.

Pension plans for both current players and past players need enhancing as well. That too is something both sides should share in. I posted an interview with Gale Sayers and I think he makes some good points regarding both of these issues. Today's players and owners would not be enjoying the financial success that they are if not for those who came before them. No pension plan or health care plan conceived of 30+ years ago could even hope to meet the needs of today. No one had any idea that health care costs would sky rocket like they have and inflation over the years has made what seemed like a reasonable pension payment a joke today. These are not issues which affect only pro athletes but in most cases their employers are better able to fix the problem than those in other industries.

As you say most of us fill positions that can be filled by others very well and getting sign on bonuses is almost unheard of today. Still there are others in everyday businesses that do get them and the advent of granting stock options as inducements has made many an employee wealthy the minute they joined a company. I admit that those are exceptions to the rule but they do exist for the chosen few just as NFL players are a chosen few. But no matter how you look at those facts NFL players are still chattel during the early parts of their careers. Without those signing bonuses they have little if any job security because their annual salaries are not guaranteed for the life of the contract.

If a player is very good he gets to keep playing sometimes for far less than he's worth and his contract and restrictions on becoming a free agent tie him to his team. Conversely if he underperforms his owner need not keep him around for the duration of his deal. I don't disagree that restrictions are needed in order to maintain competitive balance within the league but in principle it is still a restraint on players marketing their services to the highest bidder as you and I are entitled to do. Like I said bro, to me it's about the principles that are being debated and not so much the money. It's all gone overboard as far as I'm concerned and that's why I won't spend $200 to attend a game when it used to cost me less than $50 and that included a night on the town after the game. That's about the only time GB nightlife was ever really exciting. Following a Packer win, LOL.