Balta1701 Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 QUOTE (knightni @ May 10, 2011 -> 07:55 PM) That's gotta be the best option of all. Keep them in the area, but outside of the city. Within 20 years, the Bears should look at a similar option. Bears shoulda done that in 02. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 QUOTE (knightni @ May 10, 2011 -> 06:55 PM) That's gotta be the best option of all. Keep them in the area, but outside of the city. Within 20 years, the Bears should look at a similar option. No. They should tear down the mistake by the lake and go with a retractable roof, but I believe sports teams should always remain in their city they represent. I don't even like the Bears, but this would be a mistake. Just like it would be for the Bulls, Cubs or Sox or Hawks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ May 10, 2011 -> 08:54 PM) No. They should tear down the mistake by the lake and go with a retractable roof, but I believe sports teams should always remain in their city they represent. I don't even like the Bears, but this would be a mistake. Just like it would be for the Bulls, Cubs or Sox or Hawks. Tearing down soldier and building a new are a on the spot really was the best option, just not the cheapest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 11, 2011 Author Share Posted May 11, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 10, 2011 -> 08:01 PM) Tearing down soldier and building a new are a on the spot really was the best option, just not the cheapest It wasn't an option at all. It was a historical building at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 11, 2011 -> 07:13 AM) It wasn't an option at all. It was a historical building at that point. Were they required to only "renovate" it due to the stadium being a landmark? Doesn't matter now, Soldier Field lost it's landmark status anyways about five years ago. And rightfully so, they basically just built a new stadium but kept the old columns there. The only reason the plays looks so weird from the outside is the columns, too. The two things I don't understand is why didn't they put up a retractable roof (actually, that was probably because ownership wanted to go the cheap route, so I do understand that), and why did they only put in 61,500 seats? I still do think it's a pretty nice stadium on the inside. Edited May 11, 2011 by whitesoxfan101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 11, 2011 Author Share Posted May 11, 2011 QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ May 11, 2011 -> 11:34 AM) Were they required to only "renovate" it due to the stadium being a landmark? Doesn't matter now, Soldier Field lost it's landmark status anyways about five years ago. And rightfully so, they basically just built a new stadium but kept the old columns there. The only reason the plays looks so weird from the outside is the columns, too. The two things I don't understand is why didn't they put up a retractable roof (actually, that was probably because ownership wanted to go the cheap route, so I do understand that), and why did they only put in 61,500 seats? I still do think it's a pretty nice stadium on the inside. Yes. They could not alter the exterior of the building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 I think the Bears just found their next WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 That is one cute dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 D_Hest23 Devin Hester bro abe use to dance at stoney brook plaza n da back and at fina on the side where the garbage... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 17, 2011 Author Share Posted May 17, 2011 If anyone should thank God for football... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 You now realize that Devin Hester makes more money in a year than you will in your entire life. imokwiththis.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenryan Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ May 17, 2011 -> 05:09 PM) You now realize that Devin Hester makes more money in a year than you will in your entire life. imokwiththis.jpg then you should also realize that odds are against Hester being more financially sound than people on this board when he gets in his 40s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 The 2011 season is clearly in jeopardy. -ESPN's Lester Munson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 18, 2011 Author Share Posted May 18, 2011 QUOTE (zenryan @ May 17, 2011 -> 04:52 PM) then you should also realize that odds are against Hester being more financially sound than people on this board when he gets in his 40s. I'd place money on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 I love the one for the Bears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 There are a couple of now-approved rules changes for the NFL next year, if that happens. National Football League teams will face fines next season if their players are fined too many times for flagrant hits. Adolpho Birch, the league’s vice president of law and labor policy, briefed owners on the new plan yesterday at their annual spring meeting. The league wants teams to be more accountable for on-field conduct. In 2007, the NFL introduced a plan to fine teams for multiple conduct violations. League spokesman Greg Aiello said teams have been fined since the policy was instituted but declined to name them. Under the new plan, which is still being worked out, there will be a threshold on the number of flagrant penalties that result in player fines, after which teams would be fined. “We are looking at a system . . . to really encourage clubs and coaches to teach the proper techniques and to correct dangerous play on the field,’’ Birch said. The penalties would be “significant and reasonable,’’ and Birch said it would be within the discretion of commissioner Roger Goodell to dole out further punishment. Birch said that under the new rules, three or four teams would have been subject to the additional fines last year. There's also supposedly potential for loss of draft picks if a team is a repeat offender. The first concerns the defenseless player rule. It now includes language to cover players who have not clearly become runners after gaining possession. “If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player,’’ the rule now states. Kickers, punters, and quarterbacks after a change of possession are also now considered defenseless players. The second change covers defenders launching themselves and now states: “It is an illegal launch if a player (1) leaves both feet prior to contact to spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (2) uses any part of his helmet to initiate forcible contact against any part of his opponent’s body.’’ The third change clarifies the rule that makes hits to the head of the quarterback illegal. It will be a foul only if it is a “forcible’’ blow. “There were a number of plays this year that I don’t think any of us were comfortable with as fouls, so the contact to the quarterback’s head has to be forcible,’’ said Rich McKay, the chairman of the Competition Committee. “That will lead to judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Will they also requires to wear skirts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 25, 2011 -> 01:03 PM) Will they also requires to wear skirts? Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 25, 2011 -> 12:06 PM) Seriously? Not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 25, 2011 -> 01:07 PM) Not really. Ok, I'm seriously sick of people who have that reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 Will they also requires to wear skirts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 How about capri pants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 My 6-year wait on the Bears season ticket waiting list is over, just got an invoice for 2011 season tickets. Perfect timing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 26, 2011 -> 10:15 AM) My 6-year wait on the Bears season ticket waiting list is over, just got an invoice for 2011 season tickets. Perfect timing! I've been on the Packers season ticket list for about 10 years. I will likely die before I get them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/bears/post...dream-come-true This makes me happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts