ADVERTISEMENT

Bears

I just want to tell all of you who have complained about the Bears picking Trubisky instead of Mahomes. It doesn't matter how good a QB is, if he's getting pressured and sacked all night his performance will suffer and he won't win.

Last night, we all saw what life would have been like week after week for Patrick Mahomes if the Bears had drafted him and if he played here. Same thing happened against TB when he faced them in that SB.

One thing is for sure. If Mahomes was here he wouldn't have five SB appearances and three rings...period. Same for Terry Bradshaw. He wouldn't have four SB rings, a bust in Canton and he probably wouldn't have the TV gig either. The Bears franchise is cursed. BUT, hopefully things will change. LOL!
 
Last edited:
I understood you post perfectly and maybe I should have elaborated. NFL owners, and all billionaires, main focus will always be the bottom line. Winning is an added bonus, but given the choice between winning and increasing the value of their team every owner in the league will take an the more valuable team.
You and I are talking about two different bottom lines. You are talking about value. Value is wealth on paper, and it can't be spent. I am talking about net profit. Net profit is what the clubs derive from their operations after all the gross revenue and expenses are accounted for. It's what owners pay themselves with.

Phrased differently, you are talking about a balance sheet, and I am talking about an income statement.

Have you ever heard people say that they are house rich and cash poor? It means they have equity (value) built up in their house, but they don't have the cash to do what they want or should be doing. They can't spend their house. It is an illiquid asset. Not a good situation.

All I am saying is that I want an owner wealthy enough so that the club is not his or her primary source of income. Of course, the owner is going to be concerned with profitability. I just don't want that concern to be born from a primary reliance on team profits to support their lifestyle.
 
I just want to tell all of you who have complained about the Bears picking Trubisky instead of Mahomes. It doesn't matter how good a QB is, if he's getting pressured and sacked all night his performance will suffer and he won't win.

Last night, we all saw what life would have been like week after week for Patrick Mahomes if the Bears had drafted him and if he played here. Same thing happened against TB when he faced them in that SB.
Very true. From the Chiefs' point of view, the game reminded me of many Bears' games this year where Caleb was running for his life on most pass plays. It all starts upfront. If you can't block to the the extent the Chiefs could not, there is no offense or QB that can overcome it. It also reminded me of some HS games I've seen where one team is so physically superior to the other. Made me wonder how the Chiefs even made the SB. I guess the Eagles had the personnel upfront on defense to expose the Chiefs' glaring weaknesses on the Oline. It was also a reminder that Vic Fangio is a very good DC.
 
You and I are talking about two different bottom lines. You are talking about value. Value is wealth on paper, and it can't be spent. I am talking about net profit. Net profit is what the clubs derive from their operations after all the gross revenue and expenses are accounted for. It's what owners pay themselves with.

Phrased differently, you are talking about a balance sheet, and I am talking about an income statement.

Have you ever heard people say that they are house rich and cash poor? It means they have equity (value) built up in their house, but they don't have the cash to do what they want or should be doing. They can't spend their house. It is an illiquid asset. Not a good situation.

All I am saying is that I want an owner wealthy enough so that the club is not his or her primary source of income. Of course, the owner is going to be concerned with profitability. I just don't want that concern to be born from a primary reliance on team profits to support their lifestyle.

This is a good post and I agree with your last paragraph. Pretty crazy how and what the NFL teams make as compared to other leagues.
 

This is a good post and I agree with your last paragraph. Pretty crazy how and what the NFL teams make as compared to other leagues.
Even after "all" of those people declared the NFL was dead and that they would stop watching
 
You and I are talking about two different bottom lines. You are talking about value. Value is wealth on paper, and it can't be spent. I am talking about net profit. Net profit is what the clubs derive from their operations after all the gross revenue and expenses are accounted for. It's what owners pay themselves with.

Phrased differently, you are talking about a balance sheet, and I am talking about an income statement.

Have you ever heard people say that they are house rich and cash poor? It means they have equity (value) built up in their house, but they don't have the cash to do what they want or should be doing. They can't spend their house. It is an illiquid asset. Not a good situation.

All I am saying is that I want an owner wealthy enough so that the club is not his or her primary source of income. Of course, the owner is going to be concerned with profitability. I just don't want that concern to be born from a primary reliance on team profits to support their lifestyle.
I hear what you’re saying but if you can’t live off the income you make being an NFL team owner you need to adjust your lifestyle. Just saying.
 
When the Bears decide to sell, it will be interesting to see who is interested but more importantly how the owners react. Remember they have to approve and they are a fickle bunch.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT