A Bears on Hard Knocks Debate................

Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by soulman, Jun 10, 2014.

  1. butkus3595

    butkus3595 Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,901
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    ßearz ßuckz:
    3,061ß
    Please Register or Log in to Remove this Advertisement!
    I'd be all for them doing it, and I dont think its a distraction.
     
  2. soulman

    soulman Position Coach
    SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,060
    Likes Received:
    2,145
    ßearz ßuckz:
    2,922ß
    Touche' :cheers:

    LOL, I'll save you the trouble PB. I already know that it'll be a distraction they don't need and that it COULD have an affect on the early part of the season. Whether or not THAT costs them the playoffs or if it's something else, or if nothing prevents them from doing it I stand by my opinion that it's a bad idea.

    Everyone can stack up all of the positives they want to but when it comes right down to it Trestman and Emery are opposed to it and I'll accept their reasoning over everyone else's. It's tough for me to understand how so many can support every other decision the two of them make but then want to go against them on this one.

    If it wasn't expected to be a distraction why are they opposed to it and why is Emery doing his level best to make certain the NFL understands that and passes on the Bears in favor of another team? It's not like they're even neutral. If the guys who run my team are that set against it then for whatever reason so am I. Finite'.

    PS: It's pretty easy to see from Kaplan's comments that it's the media types who favor it because it makes their jobs easier and I guess that's expected. It's the true fans who should oppose anything that may hurt the team more than they do getting a peak at something they wouldn't ordinarily see despite the fact that it may do some harm. I assume the fans who care more about what happens in January than in July will be the ones in a minority on this issue. I have no vote in this matter so what will be will be.
     
  3. soulman

    soulman Position Coach
    SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,060
    Likes Received:
    2,145
    ßearz ßuckz:
    2,922ß

    Oh and one more thing. I wouldn't need to do that if I wasn't right would I. :rofl2:


     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. dachuckster

    dachuckster Pro-Bowler
    SuperFan

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    584
    ßearz ßuckz:
    968ß
    An interesting discussion on teams not wanting to appear on Hard Knocks (Unwilling Participants is the author's title) ...

    Unwilling Participants

     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. 4dabers

    4dabers Pro-Bowler
    DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,206
    Likes Received:
    983
    ßearz ßuckz:
    618ß
    That's a good read and it makes a helluva lot of sense to me. Jeez, a 24 man film crew? You can't tell me that wouldn't be a distraction. Plus, if guys have questions (especially young guys), they have to feel comfortable asking those questions, and sometimes they don't even feel comfortable asking in front of Vets when they thing it's a "stupid" question. Now throw in cameras and boom mikes and I think there are a lot of guys that will keep their mouths shut when they should be talking.
     
  6. Ski-Whiz

    Ski-Whiz George Halas
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 1996
    Messages:
    37,333
    Likes Received:
    932
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,241ß
    The bottom line is this: Anytime you introduce cameras in the locker room, it becomes a distraction. Players tend to get more vocal when a mic is present.

    So how is NOT a distraction? It is. There is no way that it isn't. Can the teams overcome the distraction is the issue. Also, who wants their business on the streets? How much smack talk happens on camera? How much inside technique is revealed? Yeah it may come late in the season, but it's still an approved spygate. I can probably make a good case that bill belichick came up with this idea after he got caught.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  7. dachuckster

    dachuckster Pro-Bowler
    SuperFan

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    584
    ßearz ßuckz:
    968ß
    I kind of liked the author's point towards the end of the article.

    If he is correct and none of the teams wants to participate it will eventually doom the show.
     
  8. Papa_Bear_7

    Papa_Bear_7 Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    122
    ßearz ßuckz:
    108ß
    I've seen a lot of articles talking about how teams don't want to be on the show. Has anyone seen articles about the teams who have already been on the show? Did they hate it? Like it? Did they think it was a big distraction?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Jimmors

    Jimmors The Rhymenoceros
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2005
    Messages:
    31,674
    Likes Received:
    5,096
    ßearz ßuckz:
    2,628ß
    Right. Because teams that make it to the Superbowl dont face intense media scrutiny before the game of their lives...
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. 4dabers

    4dabers Pro-Bowler
    DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,206
    Likes Received:
    983
    ßearz ßuckz:
    618ß
    There is a pretty big difference between media attention and interviews AFTER a successful season is already in the books and before a big game vs. a huge film crew watching you while you learn. Like I said above, I'm mostly referring to the young guys (rookies and 2nd/3rd year guys) that are only in the second year of their new offense (unless they are rookies), and from the sounds of things an all new (if not, highly revised) Defense.

    Imagine those young guys going through a week of practices and meeting at TC and having certain things covered over and over repeatedly. Then, one of those guys still has a question about one of those things that have already been covered over and over. The right thing to do is to ask the question, but he knows he'll probably get screamed at, only now he's on camera. I think a lot of them will simply forgo the question and ask their room mate later, only maybe their room mate has the same question or plays a different position.

    The point is, you analogy with media attention before the Superbowl is nothing like having those cameras at training camp. The only similarity is that it's a media camera, but the whole dynamic is completely different, to the point that it's not even comparable.
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page