TJ Quietly Having A Good Year

**Gotch** · November 20th, 2007, 11:26 AM

Make that 2 good seasons or 3 fair ones. About 2,700 yards shy of Earl Campbell.

**sup-rbeast** · November 20th, 2007, 11:39 AM

But, my point is this...who really cares what amount of $$ their favorite team spends? I don't see any of it..all I see is the games. And most fans don't delve into anything more than wins and losses. And for the most part, since the late 60's the Bears haven't been much better than the Lions...IMO 75% of the time, the Bears have been bottom feeders as well. So, spending x amount of dollars vs. spending less means nothing. I guarantee you that the fans in Chicago would rather have TJ regardless of the investment, cuz they don't see Deangelo's money either.

**imported_mega** · November 20th, 2007, 02:34 PM

It does matter because if your a team like the Raiders or Skins that have spent money beyond sanity, you have mortaged the future of your franchise. The words cap hell are relevant here. Why do you think the skins cant get a winner. Its not that they havent had the players, its the fact that team chemistry is important and when you consistently bring in new players and get rid of old players, the cohesiveness of your team isnt going to be good. We arent talking about since the late 60s, they didnt even have a salary cap until the middle to late 90s.

They might rather have TJ but at the same time, they are going to be upset when Tommie Harris cant be resigned. They are already upset enough about Lance Briggs not being able to be resigned but they gotta understand that if they want a QB like McNabb, they are going to have to deal with that. Its not really possible for teams to stock pile talent anymore. Back in the day, if you had an injury it didnt really even matter. Montana gets hurt, so what, throw in Young. Now it only takes one or two injuries and your season is done. Again, the nature of salary cap football. As good as the pats are this year and they are the exception to the rule, Im still taking the Niners and Cowboys teams from the early 90s against them. The 1960,70s, 80's, and half of the 90's have nothing to do with a salary cap or the Bears spending money. In the past, they didnt spend money, but like I said, look at the cap numbers and they are spending more than 20 other teams. The whole spending thing is a joke anyway, everyone has the pockets to spend all they want because 88% of contracts in the league are already paid for through revenue sharing through tv contracts. Meaning, owners dont even have to shell out funds to pay players, its already taken care of. Why do you think Jerry Jones gets pissed at that thought whereas Ralph Wilson loves it. There are very few owners that are extremely cheap these days. John York is the worst but even the niners went out and got Clements for 80 million last year. Guess what, he wasnt the one paying the 80 million. It was already paid for. As revenue sharing increases the salary cap will increase and spending will increase as will player salary. Simple economics.

**sup-rbeast** · November 20th, 2007, 02:49 PM

Well, that's another point...there was no cap until the mid 90's and the Bears still sucked 75% of the time..proving they don't know how to spend the money they spend...with today's front office..or the front office then. The cap doesn't matter one bit if you only spend money on players that help you compete 25% of the time. So you can go on and on about how the Bears save this, or get quality here or there...but there is no question that they have no offense and probably should have kept their best RB from last year...but, i'm content to let the Bears be the Bears...but unless I'm seeing some of the money saved, I want the teams I pull for to spend it on what it needs to be spent on. Maybe tho, one day they'll make the award for the most saving under the salary cap...Maybe that's a trophy Chicago could win.

**imported_mega** · November 20th, 2007, 06:01 PM

right they did suck alot of the time prior to the salary cap era, funny how there was about 5-6 different people running the team over multiple generations too. People from George Halas, Jim Finks, Mike McCaskey, Mark Hatley, etc. If youre going to make an arguement at least stick to the present and who is running the team, not 3 out of 4 guys that arent even on earth anymore. Look I made a presentable arguement, and youre still not understand that its not about 1 season, its about multiple seasons. If you give TJ a new contract you are investing in 2 players and roughly 57 million dollars in running backs. You tell me one team in the nfl who does that. I guess since your a Raider fan I wouldnt expect you to understand stupid moves. I realize Chicago doesnt have an offense and they dont have a defense either which means they have some cap leverage to make a few moves this offseason. Exactly a reason for not resigning a running back thats 31 years old. Btw, Rex says hello to you raider fans.

Anyway, its pointless to even argue with you. I gave you the cap facts, made a presentable arguement and you litered yours with generalizations and opinion. Qustions tend to go unanswered which means you probably read half of my posts. I'll just have to disagree with you on this one but facts are facts, you stated that the Bears are cheap, yet I showed you http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/numbers.asp that is completely incorrect. If you wanna debate who they should have drafted, why they didnt sign so and so then start a new thread but clearly, they are far from cheap.