RLflutie7

Well Dean, my friend, these were for you baby. Flutie threw like 50 passes for the Bears and people say he was a locker room problem. If these stories show anything. It shows the Bears players (McMahon mostly) didn't want Flutie around. Flutie wasn't going around undermining McMahon as people have said in this thread. Flutie just happened to be where QBs that were starters always got hurt. And that includes New England and Buffalo. Eason had a bad thumb and elbow and Grogan had a sprained neck, so Flutie ended up playing and doing well. Flutie also replaced Grogan in 89 after he stunk the joint up. No ego was involved. People got hurt.

Wow! We all have our different view points.

From Steve McMichaels: Tales from the Chicago Bears sideline (book). Welcome Bambi (page 139). Doug Flutie was supposed to solve our quaterback problems, hail the conquering hero, the Heisman winner, the guy who hadn't really been given a chance to prove himself in the NFL because he was only about five foot nothin'. It wasn't the easiest deal for him. They brought him in late, taught him the system and threw him out there in the playoffs against the Redskins, who gave him fits. Of course, some of his teammates did, too. There was a lot of talk that nobody on the team really liked Flutie, mostly because he had Thanksgiving dinner with Ditka, but really it was all on the offensive side of the ball. I think they really felt like he was the usurper to Jim McMahon's throne, so he wasn't going to be accepted. Somebody even started calling him "Bambi", not the manliest nickname in a football locker room. I don't know who started it, but I have to admit it fit. You know, the little baby deer, how a deer runs around - he was kind of a prancer back there. Me, the only problem I had with Flutie was him throwing two f*cking interceptions and fumbling the ball twice against Washington in the playoff game. I don't give a sh-- if he eats dinner with Ditka. If he'd had have gone out there and won the Superbowl, I'd be fine with him being the quaterback. But he didn't Four f*cking turnovers. We lost 27-13 to Jay Schroeder. Of course, I don't know if Sid Luckman would have helped us against the Redskins that day. Sometimes things just don't go your way. I mean, some days you have to beat a double-team to get free, but the quaterback holds the ball too long, so you get a sack. There was a time in this game, Schroeder's first touchdown pass where we ran a blitz. I was on the line of scrimmage, got off with the ball, the line parted, blocking the other guys, and I was set free. I ran back there as fast as I could, nobody touching me, he backed up, threw it falling over backard as I hit him. Touchdown pass. sh-- happens like that, it ain't your day, baby. For the record, if I'm running the team, I'm looking for a quaterback too. Maybe not a midget like Flutie, but somebody. Jim getting hurt and us having to play Flutie in the first place, that's why I love Jim, but I say it's his fault we didn't win three Superbowls in the 80s. He was getting hurt all the time. It ain't his fault, now. But, dammit, every dynasty had one quarterback." Book was wrote in 2004. Funny stuff.

another article: Headline: Ditka decides against waiting a year for Flutie. Gordon Forbes USA today. NFL week 7. Coach Mike Ditka, embarrassed by the Chicago Bears offense with Steve Fuller and Mike Tomczak at quarterbacks, has decided the time is right to bring in Doug Flutie. The original plan was to sign Flutie for the 1987-88 seasons and hand him a Bears playbook to study in a nearby hotel. Then the Minnesota Vikings held the Bears to 190 yards - Fuller completed 13 of 22 passes and was sacked seven times - and Ditka decided the future is now. "Mike has decided to accelerate (Flutie's signing)," Bears general manager Jerry Vainisi said. "It is our intention for him to come in and compete for one of the quarterback jobs. "I don't want to say all of the quaterbacks, because we don't see him as being the guy to replace (oft-injured starter) Jim McMahon." Flutie could appear at the Bears training complex as early as this week. Vainisi said the club would seek a two-week exemption for the USFL refugee. "We want to put him in a position where he can learn the system and possibly be available later this year," Vainisi said. "This would make him better prepared to compete for the quaterback job next training camp." Skip two paragraphs. Flutie will be welcomed by Ditka, but maybe not by McMahon. Last week after the Bears obtained Flutie's rights, McMahon second-guessed the front office. Skip one paragraph. McMahon's comments upset Vainisi "We're doing this strictly for the future," he said. "We wouldn't bring him in here to compete with McMahon anyhow. Mike's just not satisfied with the production of the other two quarterbacks." Bob Woolf, Flutie's agent, said Flutie understands and "doesn't want to disrupt anything, but just wants an opportunity. If it's next year, fabulous. If it's this year, more than fabulous."

I wanted to shed some light on Doug Flutie's time with the Chicago Bears. I've read this thing about how Flutie had problems with every team he played for and it's not true in my view. Anyway, here's some articles that I have from that time that I had. Most of these newspaper stories will be the whole story with some paragraphs left out. USA Today: By David Leon Moore USA Today Headline: Packers put Flutie, Fusina back in action. Doug Flutie and Chuck Fusina, unemployed stars of the dormant USFL, got the telephone calls they had been waiting for. Now it's up to the judgement of the struggling Green Bay Packers if they can play in the NFL. Both quarterbacks had workouts Tuesday for the 0-4 Packers. Fusina, 29, who quarterbacked two USFL Championship teams, tried out first. "He didn't seem to show the layoff you might expect. He looked to be in good condition and threw the ball well," said Packers director of player procurement Chuck Hutchinson. Flutie, 23, the former Heisman Trophy winner who is considered by some teams as too short (5-9) to succeed in the NFL, worked later. Asked what he thought of Flutie's half-hour, closed workout with receivers, Coach Forrest Gregg said, "Interesting." Flutie's NFL rights are owned by the LA Rams, who selected him in the 11th round of the 1985 draft. The Rams last week signed Purdue rookie Jim Everett. My take: The Rams signed Everett and were not interested in Flutie because they signed Everett. The next article should clear up the most debated things here on Flutie's time with the Bears. Sporting News article or Chicago Tribune: Headline: Some Bears question trade for Doug Flutie Chicago - He had yet to sign a contract and his rights had only belonged to the Chicago Bears for an hour. But that didn't stop Doug Flutie from dreaming. "I can see the publicity shots now," Flutie said. "Me standing knee-high to the "Fridge". First, the 5-9 QB has to make it onto the field with William Perry and the rest of the defending NFL champion Bears, but at least he was one step closer. One minute before the October 14 NFL trading deadline, the Bears acquired the rights to Flutie from the LA Rams, who selected the former Heisman Trophy winner in the 11th round of the 1985 draft. The Bears, who also received a fourth-round pick in the 87 draft from LA, gave up third and sixth-round picks for the rights to Flutie. Contract talks were expected to begin, with the Bears planning to sign Flutie to a contract beginning in 1987. However, they could subsequently sign him to a 1986 contract if injuries created a problem at QB. After winning the Heisman Trophy in 1984, Flutie signed a six-year $8 million contract with the New Jersey Generals of the USFL. The first three years of that agreement worth, $3.95 million, were guaranteed. Skip two paragraphs. When Flutie became officially clear of his USFL obligations October 7, time was of the essence with the NFL trading deadline a week away. The Rams had no interest in signing Flutie, but knew a deal was necessary. Flutie was planning to report to the Rams, ready to sign, if no deal was made and threatening a grievance if he wasn't signed or released. That would have left the Rams with nothing. Chicago and Green Bay were the teams most interested. The Packers offered a sixth-round pick, but the Rams wanted to switch positions in the second round of the 87 draft with Green Bay, a price that was too high for the Packers. Flutie had also said the Bears were the only team with which he would agree to sign a future contract. However, Coach Mike Ditka wasn't thinking about the future. "It may work out we'll have him this year," Ditka said. "That was my original thought - to bring him in now. The trade was my decision and I'll live with it. I had to talk long and hard with a lot of people in this organization before the trade was made." Some Bears questioned the move, however. Quaterback Jim McMahon, still nursing a sore shoulder, wore a red jersey with Flutie's number (22) during an October 15 practice. "There's a lot of unhappy ball players here right now," McMahon said. "Why bring in another quaterback? Why not bring in another receiver or defensive back, or something where we need help.?" Claiming the Bears had capable backup quaterbacks in Steve Fuller and Mike Tomczak, McMahon questioned Ditka's loyalty. Responded Ditka: "When you analyze what's best for the business and what's best for the football team, if you put loyalty ahead of talent, you've got some problems. If we were 0-6, who would be loyal to me? Ask them (the players) how many were loyal to me when we were 3-6 in 1982." McMahon wasn't the only Bears player to have an opinion of the trade for Flutie's rights. To wit: Defensive lineman William Perry "Good luck. That's what I say. Center Jay Hilgenburg: "I suppose I'm a little disappointed. I feel bad for our QBs. I hope he does have to make the team. I hope it isn't given to him." Linebacker Otis Wilson: I don't think he's gonna get no million dollars around here. What's he worth to me? How much change have I got in my pocket?" Ditka dismissed the criticisms and negative reactions. "I frankly don't give a damn," he said. "Wasn't that a line in a movie? I think it's a bargain and if you don't tak advantage of bargains, you're foolish." My take: It was McMahon who started the complaining. He was always hurt.

I too see opportunity. But the UFL needs name players and cheap tickets and that means thin profit margins and losses to start out with. I think Jeff George wants to play and he could give the new league some legit talent, even though he's old. You can have a mix of old guys and young guys. I'd rather have the younger guys, unless they're not as good. Then I'd want the older guys. But I see the media ignoring this league. They'll rip it like they did the XFL because they don't want to cover it. They'll call it a minor league. If they bring in Michael Vick they'll get attention but that attention will be short lived. The biggest mistake I see is not having enough teams. The XFL tried to get ratings with no teams in Detroit, Boston, Dallas, Denver, Baltimore/Washington, Philadelphia. The list goes on and on. The XFL had small markets like Birmingham, Memphis and Vegas (although growing) and they were trying to get ratings? I think the UFL and XFL should merge and bring back the uniforms of the XFL. The WWF did a great job of marketing the teams. They just didn't have the markets. The UFL could also have their own teams and logos but the brand recognition of the XFL would help.

I wish they would eliminate FGs. You'd have a better brand of football. I wish them well. This is like a trial year with only a few teams. But to get people excited, I think they need many more teams. People are not going go watch if they don't have a team in their town. The USFL was strongest when they expanded during the 1984 season. Many FB fans don't think so, but after the XFL's TV ratings, I think you need more teams in the bigger markets. The newUSFL is also going to start play next spring. They've toned down their website a little and I think they're going to wait and see what happens with the UFL. I guess they're going to bring back some of the old USFL team names and logos.

Bernie Kosar's last pass with the Cleveland Browns was a touchdown pass that he drew up in the dirt. NFL films did a special on Kosar and he talked about that and how he and Belichick conflicted with their offensive philosophy. Bernie basically said he believed in a offensive offense rather than a defensive offense, something like that. He said he didn't intend to be insubordinate but that's how it might have come across to Bill B. If Kosar didn't have "Marty Ball" to contend with he probably would have won a SB. But such is life.

I was going to post this but I never got around to it. I always put Bernie Kosar in my top 10 all time QB list. Just something about the guy. He had Joe Montana like qualities. Very accurate, aware, smart as hell. Yahoo sports ran a little thing about him losing all those big games in college pro. Really the guy should have led Cleveland to two Super Bowls. Denver and Elway got lucky two out of those three times. In the wake of his bankruptcy, his name is in the news and I didn't want this to get lost in the shuffle.

I was shocked also. I thought he worked for the NFL too. That being said, most business people are just stupid. They over estimate the amount they are going to get on a return on their investment. Most businesses fail. They are debt ridden and many can hardly service the debt they take on even if they are booming with customers.

Good to see you working! Seriously, a very funny post.

Very good post. Very accurate. However, I don't think that the media disliked him so much. I think they were divided at best. Those at Empire seemed to love him. Larry Felser didn't love Flutie and was the lone holdout to complain about the guy. The national media seemed to love him too. I can't think of one announcer who didn't like Flutie with the exception of Bob Trumpy (early in Flutie's career). The only thing I found was the preseason magazines would rip Flutie. And really they did a every year. But they do that all the time to all sorts of players. I just read a rip job on Marion Barber. How can you rip that guy?

I think the hate involves the contract that RJ signed. He was the starter based on contract alone. And fans want to see that money used. They don't want to see a guy sit on the bench, collecting a kings ransom, and not playing and having the backup play. And yes Flutie was the backup. But in the NFL draft status is all that matters along with salary. Kind of like Detroit, they're going to have to play the rookie QB based on salary alone.

Not true Promo. Most people remember the games he lost. His stats were better and he played better in games the team lost. That's because the defense gave up early leads and they were forced to throw or Flutie made mistakes early and the Bills were forced to throw the ball early, just like John Elway did often during his career. How many of those 4th quarter comebacks were from Elway mistakes. Flutie's effectiveness dropped in 1999 because the team had three key offensive players that were injured and A. Smith didn't produce much in the running game. The playoff game against Miami, Smith had 30 something yards rushing.

And you just summed up the problem with the US auto makers. I'd buy their top of the line trucks but not their cars. They have nothing that appeals to me either. If I were to buy a new car or truck, it would be a Honda Ridgeline or a Chevy Silverado, Tahoe etc. I don't like Toyota but I'd probably on buy their truck, but not the Camry.

A very interesting article and it is true the benefits are way too generous. We shouldn't be letting these people in and after they come in they should be deported. It's a complex problem with no real solution, because like it or not, you have to have these kind of programs. I just don't like illegal immigrants getting the benefits. It would be nice if the media would stop portraying them as victims. They are "low wage" victims but they are not "lifestyle" victims.

An increase in unionization would make it harder for illegal immigrants to find work. That's right and if the illegal immigrants couldn't find work they wouldn't come here. A strong union bass would make it harder, if not impossible for illegal immigrants to find work. Or it'd be a lot less. You have a "Plantation Owner's" view point. Last I checked "the War of Northern Aggression" was was by the North.

California's encouragement of illegal immigration (low wages) has articically expanded the ranks of the poor (low wages). This means an expansion in social services (more schools, clinics, welfare and aid, etc) and a worsening of the net flow of tax dollars. And that's why you can't build an economy based on low wages because you end of with the expansion in social services. It's not government's fault. It's the fault of business and corporations. And it's also why the death of labor unions has been a terrible thing.

This is the real reason California is in trouble. Illegals are sending their wages out of the country. That's why low wages will always destroy an economy. Even if the money stayed in California, it wouldn't help much.

I would say a USFL team colors would look cool. And that team would be the Michigan Panthers. Royal Plum and Champagne Silver. It also has blue in it, Honolulu Blue.

Your most successful and accurate post since I've been here. What's gotten into you! And I'm a ticket scalper, another low life scum bag occupation if there ever was one. These people are crying because they can no longer rip people off and they got ripped in the end. Although, I do think they should get some form of a buyout.

As the article noted, credit is already drying up. This is already happening. It's happened to me, like I said. I was offered a $264 credit if I paid $500 on an $850 balance. I love Meredith Whitney and I agree with most of what she has to say. I watch CNBC all the time and I've seen her interviews. She's right when she said that proper lending standards were not used. But she's wrong if she thinks this law will make credit less available. Companies that issue credit will still make unsecured loans regardless of their ability to reprice risk. They'll do it because others in the same industry will do it and when one does it, the dominos will start to fall and all others will do it.

Read the posts. The discussion centered on those people who pay off their credit cards and have no annual fees. Those credit card users don't get as many late fees or unfair overlimit charges. My mom got tagged with late fees and overlimit chargers (she always has a credit card balance in the thousands, but she always pays and has great credit) and she switched cards and closed four accounts because she was charged and she wasn't late. It's those people who don't have good credit that are getting ripped off more often. In the old days consumers had a five day grace. That doesn't happen any longer.

Plus more companies, similiar to MNBA, will be able to enter the market place. The most likely situation is that the deadbeats will hold more accounts with smaller credit lines, but more overall credit. Wall Street will love that. If you think I'm drunk . . . What's going to happen to the housing market? Here's a clue . . . People with bad credit with be able to get easy credit . . . because there is not enough buyers. It's a numbers game . . . figure it out.

No they won't be able to because they've already proven that much of the income they've made from late fees and overlimit charges are unsustainable. They won't be able to increase fees on all card holders because the best card holders will close their accounts. It's that simple. It's like rising fuel costs and airlines. The airlines can't pass the extra fuel cost to consumers because it would kill their sales. They raise fares for a short while, but it always goes back down. If what you are saying is true, then airlines would be able to increase their fares to $1000 each way for a flight from LA to SF. Moreover, you don't understand the credit card industry. Credit card companies found out in the 90s that giving cards to anyone with a pulse was very profitable, because there was only a 1-3% default rate. So cutting off new card holders is not going to happen, which is what you suggest. You say, in a nut shell, that credit will dry up. That won't happen because it hurts profits too much. If anything, the opposite will happen. More credit will be issued at reasonable rates and repayment plans.