BillyCarpenter1

DblBogey --

That\'s a lot of ground to cover, but let\'s start with the Jeff Blake/Aaron Brooks arguement. There is an unwritten rule for most teams that a player cannot lose his job due to injury. However, players lose their jobs due to injury all the time. Sometimes a player goes down with an injury and the backup steps in and plays so well that a coach would be foolish not to continue to let the backup play. I seem to remember Kurt Warner replacing an injuried Trent Green and Warner did so well that he was named the starter without Green getting a chance to win his starting job back. The way Brooks played when he came off the bench, it would have been hard for ANY coach not to name Brooks the starter.

You seem to be upset about all the players that Haslett got rid of. Just keep in mind that the \"Ditka Team\" he took over wasn\'t exactly a \"Power House\". There were a couple of players I would like to have back, but there is no doubt this is a much more talented club than the one Haslett inheirted. The fact is, that good players are let go, for one reason or another, by every team.

On the Tom Benson subject -- All I hear is a lot of speculation, based off of little fact. Benson has spent as much as some clubs that have gone to the SuperBowl. So, the arguement that he isn\'t willing to spend the bucks is far from the truth. You can fault Benson for hiring the wrong people, but that\'s about as far as you can go. It\'s hard to assemble a Super Bowl team and just because things don\'t work out, does not mean that an owner isn\'t commited to winning. Losing causes everything to be called into question, but none of us know enough about Benson\'s intentions to be making bold statements, like I have read on here.