2021 NFL Season Thread

[Soxbadger]

3 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

I expect Bears, if serious, would put pedal to mettle and be in a position to where they are breaking ground a year from now to be in a position to be in the new stadium the very first year they can opt out of the lease. $85M or whatever it is is rounding relative to the Billions the stadium will cost.  

 

It took Rams years and they had the cash. Bears are going to be begging for money. Im not sure why people think the Bears have the capacity to do this. 

[Dick Allen]

The Bears pay $6.5 million a year in rent.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Dick Allen

[Chisoxfn]

1 minute ago, Soxbadger said:

 

It took Rams years and they had the cash. Bears are going to be begging for money. Im not sure why people think the Bears have the capacity to do this. 

Rams did have cash -> but I think people underestimate what Arlington will do for Bears too.  If not -> than this is just a negotiation tactic and we'll figure that out in another year or as some have said Bears are positioning for a sale but I kind of expect we'll see public funding / special treatment at Arlington.  

[whitesoxfan99]

14 minutes ago, maloney.adam said:

The Bears are moving to Arlington. It’s just a matter of when. They want more capacity, a state of the art retractable roof stadium that can host Super Bowl’s and other big revenue generating sporting events and an entertainment complex. It’s all about the fan experience. 

It is all about money.  Nothing more, nothing less.  They don't give a damn about the fans.

[bmags]

6 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

Rams did have cash -> but I think people underestimate what Arlington will do for Bears too.  If not -> than this is just a negotiation tactic and we'll figure that out in another year or as some have said Bears are positioning for a sale but I kind of expect we'll see public funding / special treatment at Arlington.  

There is zero chance this is a negotiating tactic. The sun has set on Soldier Field for the bears, the only question is if Chicago can put up an alternative site, which there aren't places remotely comparable to Arlington.

As for money, I don't think Bears will have any issue raising it. The Rams had to deal with the STL litigation, and had to act like they weren't moving to LA. Bears won't have the same issues, they aren't leaving the market.

The NFL has none of the headwinds that the other sports are having, and when you add in the gambling aspect, that's where I think the partnerships will be pretty straightforward to raise the money.

[maloney.adam]

15 minutes ago, bmags said:

There is zero chance this is a negotiating tactic. The sun has set on Soldier Field for the bears, the only question is if Chicago can put up an alternative site, which there aren't places remotely comparable to Arlington.

As for money, I don't think Bears will have any issue raising it. The Rams had to deal with the STL litigation, and had to act like they weren't moving to LA. Bears won't have the same issues, they aren't leaving the market.

The NFL has none of the headwinds that the other sports are having, and when you add in the gambling aspect, that's where I think the partnerships will be pretty straightforward to raise the money.

I agree, I don’t forsee them having any issues raising the money as well. Also, that area has everything your looking for in building a new stadium. The highways, access to the Metra station, hotels, restaurants, Woodfield Mall, close to O’hare, etc. Corporate businesses close by. This is will probably be most likely a private venture I would have to imagine. See article below.

https://www.si.com/nfl/bears/news/bears-confirm-purchase-of-race-track-property

Edited September 29, 2021 by maloney.adam

[Dick Allen]

1 minute ago, bmags said:

There is zero chance this is a negotiating tactic. The sun has set on Soldier Field for the bears, the only question is if Chicago can put up an alternative site, which there aren't places remotely comparable to Arlington.

As for money, I don't think Bears will have any issue raising it. The Rams had to deal with the STL litigation, and had to act like they weren't moving to LA. Bears won't have the same issues, they aren't leaving the market.

The NFL has none of the headwinds that the other sports are having, and when you add in the gambling aspect, that's where I think the partnerships will be pretty straightforward to raise the money.

I agree. The Bears, as bad as they are, and the NFL, has outgrown Soldier Field just like the league has outgrown the mom an pop organization that is the Bears. 

And the city and state would be foolish to build them a stadium. 

[ptatc]

44 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Would it though?  How many books are in Vegas?  People are gonna gamble, in a lot of different places.  There a lot of people in and around chicago as well as flying in and out of Chicago regularly.   

This was Lightfoot's response and her reason why it won't happen.

[ptatc]

26 minutes ago, whitesoxfan99 said:

It is all about money.  Nothing more, nothing less.  They don't give a damn about the fans.

I disagree. It's all about having an area and stdium that will bring more fans to the game and stay in the area to spend more money. So you are correct that the underlying reason is money. But they care about the fans to come and spend more of it. It's all about the fan experience.

[Soxbadger]

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

I disagree. It's all about having an area and stdium that will bring more fans to the game and stay in the area to spend more money. So you are correct that the underlying reason is money. But they care about the fans to come and spend more of it. It's all about the fan experience.

Personally I dont think there is anyway Arlington Heights can compete with walking around Chicago before and after a game. The main difference is that the Bears get $0 when I leave and spend my money elsewhere in the city.

Its really just an unfortunate by product of the Friends of the Park. Had they been unsuccessful, Im pretty sure the city and Bears could have worked something out for the area around Soldier Field and McCormick. As it stands there is just to much risk in any agreement because there are some ultrawealthy people around that area who dont want anything to be built that could get in the way of their views of the lake. 

[Chisoxfn]

34 minutes ago, bmags said:

There is zero chance this is a negotiating tactic. The sun has set on Soldier Field for the bears, the only question is if Chicago can put up an alternative site, which there aren't places remotely comparable to Arlington.

As for money, I don't think Bears will have any issue raising it. The Rams had to deal with the STL litigation, and had to act like they weren't moving to LA. Bears won't have the same issues, they aren't leaving the market.

The NFL has none of the headwinds that the other sports are having, and when you add in the gambling aspect, that's where I think the partnerships will be pretty straightforward to raise the money.

I agree -> they will find money but I also suspect they'll get some sweet heart deals to from Arlington, etc.  And i expect them to move but I also wouldn't be shocked if a last ditch major effort came out of nowhere either.  

[Balta1701]

13 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Personally I dont think there is anyway Arlington Heights can compete with walking around Chicago before and after a game. The main difference is that the Bears get $0 when I leave and spend my money elsewhere in the city.

Its really just an unfortunate by product of the Friends of the Park. Had they been unsuccessful, Im pretty sure the city and Bears could have worked something out for the area around Soldier Field and McCormick. As it stands there is just to much risk in any agreement because there are some ultrawealthy people around that area who dont want anything to be built that could get in the way of their views of the lake. 

I mean, for a football stadium - being able to walk around before and after the game has some consequences. There's a limitation to the number of people you can bring into an area, you need parking for them, you need road capacity, and it only happens rarely. If you have a well situated baseball stadium in an urban area, it can work (Pittsburgh, San Francisco), but it can also be troublesome if you don't have transit options. These NFL stadiums are colosseums. I don't want to be stuck in traffic for 3 hours to get out of the way of one.

[Dick Allen]

4 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

I agree -> they will find money but I also suspect they'll get some sweet heart deals to from Arlington, etc.  And i expect them to move but I also wouldn't be shocked if a last ditch major effort came out of nowhere either.  

Arlington Heights is a 75k population suburb. They aren't going to be able to give the Bears big breaks. Maybe the state will, but if they do it will be a long drawn out fight. I suspect Virginia eventually passes, and the team is sold to someone who can afford dropping big money into a stadium. Patrick Ryan owns just under 20%  of the team. He just gifted Northwestern  $480 million. Maybe it's him, but he is 83 years old, so who knows.

[Dick Allen]

21 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Personally I dont think there is anyway Arlington Heights can compete with walking around Chicago before and after a game. The main difference is that the Bears get $0 when I leave and spend my money elsewhere in the city.

Its really just an unfortunate by product of the Friends of the Park. Had they been unsuccessful, Im pretty sure the city and Bears could have worked something out for the area around Soldier Field and McCormick. As it stands there is just to much risk in any agreement because there are some ultrawealthy people around that area who dont want anything to be built that could get in the way of their views of the lake. 

If they get a little entertainment  district built around the place in Arlington  Heights,  they still will have people from the Northwest suburbs hanging there and spending money after the games, as well as people who take the metra.

[The Grinder]

I believe the Bears DO care about the fans, more specifically the dead presidents in their pockets. It likely ends there. A retractable roof is a recipe for $$. I"m sure a warm fan buys more beer, more souvenirs and will have a better experience as opposed to sitting in the bleachers wearing a snowmobile suit (like I have BURRR).

[Dick Allen]

18 minutes ago, The Grinder said:

I believe the Bears DO care about the fans, more specifically the dead presidents in their pockets. It likely ends there. A retractable roof is a recipe for $$. I"m sure a warm fan buys more beer, more souvenirs and will have a better experience as opposed to sitting in the bleachers wearing a snowmobile suit (like I have BURRR).

They get a roof, hich is probably a given,, they get Final 4s, Super Bowls, Big Ten championship games, and probably plenty more.

[StrangeSox]

RIP to all the advantage of BEAR WEATHER

[Two-Gun Pete]

6 hours ago, TheTruth05 said:

Josh Allen and Lamar Jackson off the top of my head started the majority of their rookie seasons.

 

 why do you want him sitting again? 

Because most GREAT QBs sat early in their career, to include some turd named Tom Brady, a piece of shit named Aaron Rodgers, a dud named Patrick Mahomes who couldn't get drafted before Mitch Trubksky, as well as a total of eight out of the 10 most recent All Pro QBs.

Read it again: Eight out of Ten of the most recent All Pro QBs sat early in their careers. Thats pretty clear-fucking cut that its the better way to go, IMO.

Oh yeah, and Lamar Jackson also started only 7 games his rookie season. GREAT QBs tend to sit early. The shitty ones, like Mitch Tubisky, tend to play early. Sorry, but thems the facts, no matter what stupid shit people hear on the score.

 

Playing Fields in a no-hope season, with exactly Jack and Shit to help him, is moronic, full fucking stop. He will either develop bad habits, get hurt, or lose his confidence if he's played with those shitty skill players, that crappy line, and that moronic head coach.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Two-Gun Pete

[Soxbadger]

9 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Because most GREAT QBs sat early in their career, to include some turd named Tom Brady, a piece of shit named Aaron Rodgers, a dud named Patrick Mahomes who couldn't get drafted before Mitch Trubksky, as well as a total of eight out of the 10 most recent All Pro QBs.

Read it again: Eight out of Ten of the most recent All Pro QBs sat early in their careers. Thats pretty clear-fucking cut that its the better way to go, IMO.

Oh yeah, and Lamar Jackson also started only 7 games his rookie season. GREAT QBs tend to sit early. The shitty ones, like Mitch Tubisky, tend to play early. Sorry, but thems the facts, no matter what stupid shit people hear on the score.

 

Playing Fields in a no-hope season, with exactly Jack and Shit to help him, is moronic, full fucking stop. He will either develop bad habits, get hurt, or lose his confidence if he's played with those shitty skill players, that crappy line, and that moronic head coach.

Guys like Troy Aikman who got their brains beat in year 1 and then went on to be great are the exception not the rule.

Even Montana who played 16 games his first year only threw 23 passes. 

[Chisoxfn]

10 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Because most GREAT QBs sat early in their career, to include some turd named Tom Brady, a piece of shit named Aaron Rodgers, a dud named Patrick Mahomes who couldn't get drafted before Mitch Trubksky, as well as a total of eight out of the 10 most recent All Pro QBs.

Read it again: Eight out of Ten of the most recent All Pro QBs sat early in their careers. Thats pretty clear-fucking cut that its the better way to go, IMO.

Oh yeah, and Lamar Jackson also started only 7 games his rookie season. GREAT QBs tend to sit early. The shitty ones, like Mitch Tubisky, tend to play early. Sorry, but thems the facts, no matter what stupid shit people hear on the score.

 

Playing Fields in a no-hope season, with exactly Jack and Shit to help him, is moronic, full fucking stop. He will either develop bad habits, get hurt, or lose his confidence if he's played with those shitty skill players, that crappy line, and that moronic head coach.

It’s back to don’t force them into bad habits…put them in a spot that they are ready to learn and grow. 

[TheTruth05]

14 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Because most GREAT QBs sat early in their career, to include some turd named Tom Brady, a piece of shit named Aaron Rodgers, a dud named Patrick Mahomes who couldn't get drafted before Mitch Trubksky, as well as a total of eight out of the 10 most recent All Pro QBs.

Read it again: Eight out of Ten of the most recent All Pro QBs sat early in their careers. Thats pretty clear-fucking cut that its the better way to go, IMO.

Oh yeah, and Lamar Jackson also started only 7 games his rookie season. GREAT QBs tend to sit early. The shitty ones, like Mitch Tubisky, tend to play early. Sorry, but thems the facts, no matter what stupid shit people hear on the score.

 

Playing Fields in a no-hope season, with exactly Jack and Shit to help him, is moronic, full fucking stop. He will either develop bad habits, get hurt, or lose his confidence if he's played with those shitty skill players, that crappy line, and that moronic head coach.

Literally zero correlation to “they sat so they good”. You can disagree but you pointing guys who sat and are good is like me pointing at various guys who didn’t sit and are good and saying it’s the ABSOLUTELY correct path. Trubisky wouldn’t have been better if he sat 17 just like Herbert would have benefitted nothing from wasting away behind Tyrod Taylor for half a season or more last year. 

Edited September 29, 2021 by TheTruth05

[Two-Gun Pete]

10 minutes ago, TheTruth05 said:

Literally zero correlation to “they sat so they good”. 

An 80% correlation between sitting and later becoming an All Pro QB is a pretty good correlation.

I'd call it a metric fuckton better correlation than "I heard Bernstein say Fields should play, so he should play."

 

And even the 2 out of the most recent 10 All Pro QBs handed the ball off to their all world RBs most of their rookie years. Do the Bears have one of those? Oh, and does anyone think Matt fucking Nagy would bother to use the run game enough to help a rookie QB?

No? Ok.

 

Sorry, you (and all the media morons) who want to play Fields now are just wrong.

[RichieZisk]

4 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

"Leasing" the land, which is really a stretch given the terms of the deal, to a private entity is BS.

And sorry, but I don't put George Lucas Star Wars -- sorry, "Museum of Narrative Art" lol -- Museum in the category of educational Science and Industry and Field Museum class. George Lucas shouldn't have anymore of a right to lease land on the lakefront than any other resident of Chicago.

It's going to be a very cool museum and would have been nothing but good for Chicago and everyone in the Chicagoland area.   

https://lucasmuseum.org/

 

 

[bmags]

Just now, Two-Gun Pete said:

An 80% correlation between sitting and later becoming an All Pro QB is a pretty good correlation.

I'd call it a metric fuckton better correlation than "I heard Bernstein say Fields should play, so he should play."

 

And even the 2 out of the most recent 10 All Pro QBs handed the ball off to their all world RBs most of their rookie years. Do the Bears have one of those? Oh, and does anyone think Matt fucking Nagy would bother to use the run game enough to help a rookie QB?

No? Ok.

 

Sorry, you (and all the media morons) who want to play Fields now are just wrong.

80% correlation 

[TheTruth05]

23 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

An 80% correlation between sitting and later becoming an All Pro QB is a pretty good correlation.

I'd call it a metric fuckton better correlation than "I heard Bernstein say Fields should play, so he should play."

 

And even the 2 out of the most recent 10 All Pro QBs handed the ball off to their all world RBs most of their rookie years. Do the Bears have one of those? Oh, and does anyone think Matt fucking Nagy would bother to use the run game enough to help a rookie QB?

No? Ok.

 

Sorry, you (and all the media morons) who want to play Fields now are just wrong.

2018 had Baker, Allen, Lamar play most if not their whole rookie year and are now pretty good.

2019 had Murray played the whole year as a rookie and is having a monster year so far.

2020 is still too early but Herbert and Burrow look pretty good, trending up. Tua and Love have sat more than the other 2 and look to be the more suspect QBs so far

Is this proof that sitting a QB is detrimental to their success instead of playing right away? No but it says the more recent trend of letting guys learn on the job is working pretty well. That's all I ask for Fields. Do I want Nagy coaching him? no. Do i want Fields getting acclimated to gamespeed and seeing different defenses and stunts live and not on film? yes.

Also are you an avid radio listener? you mention the score alot and other hosts names for some reason.