This article on ESPN.com by Pasquarelli contains the most stirring indictment of the Chicago Bears organization since Jim McMahon. Lance Briggs doesn't just want to burn the bridge as he leaves town...he wants to re-ignite the great Chicago fire.
My only comment is he's right but the Bears must do everything possible - from Lovie to Jerry to Ted to the McCaskey family - to make Lance happy and keep him here. This is a great football player who belongs on this defense. Sign him and sign him long-term and pay him what he wants.
#2 AfroCelt said . . .This does not look good at all right now! Wow this situation is a lot worse then I first thought it would be. You think there is any chance Briggs will still be playing for Da Bears next year??
March 5, 2007
#3 mikebdot said . . .He is a great player, but why does he want out so badly?
I wonder if offering him even more money will even work...gotta try, I guess.
March 5, 2007
#4 Danimal said . . .People will get upset with this, but here goes:
Fuck Lance Briggs. If he can't take his $7M and play quality football, fuck him. Trade him immediately. He will become a cancer. He might be better Urlacher at some point in his career (highly unlikely, but a possibility none the less), but if he's going to whine like a little bitch through the media like this, he can suck my balls. I have no desire for this year's Bears to be the 2006 New York Giants...
Looks like we'll be drafting a LB or two...
March 5, 2007
#5 beardown1982 said . . .I agree with mikebdot that we should send Briggs packing. We would receive quality in return. Briggs' words aren't going to sit too well with the rest of his team and a player that would do that isn't someone you want in your lockeroom. I think that Urlacher is the reason why Briggs is mentioned as a top OLB in this league, so lets see how Briggs does without Urlacher.
March 5, 2007
#6 Phil from SATX said . . .Briggs has gotta go. And he will. No way the Bears pony up. Even if they did...we wil have to pay others in the future. (aka Tommie Harris, perhaps Bernard, maybe Rex if he has a big year) If they did pay Briggs, someone else won't get paid down the line.
Sucks though...the vibe for next season has been terrible ever since we lost the bowl. Seems that may have beeen our best shot at winning the super bowl.
Can't hate Briggs though. He wants his money, but I do believe him when he says he likes playing with the team and likes the city. Still gotta boo him the rest of his career though. Principal of the thing.
March 5, 2007
#7 CoolestMotherFucka said . . .I'm mystified by this as well. Wasn't it Briggs who spurned the Bears attempts to lengthen his contract last year, betting on doing better by waiting? Didn't he know at that time that the Bears had the franchise tag option? And as an important part of the collective bargaining agreement, why is using the franchise tag somehow an evil thing? Getting a 10 times raise for a season - earning enough in one year to set you for life if managed properly - that's evil and bad faith? Remember that this is not Brigg's agent saying these things - it's Briggs. Big difference there. I say trade him now or let him sit out the season and save the money.
What insane burning bridge talk that was. I guess this will be the latest hot story in the NFL, but in this case, I'm on Bears side, not Briggs's. I think that being underpaid eats at every player and coach, but some more than others. Those that it consumes, I would argue, lack business sense, and more importantly, wisdom. Lovie is wise, Briggs apparently not. Time to move on, I guess.
March 5, 2007
#8 big rob said . . .Hewitt took the Las Vegas title. That's right. On we go. Vicht.
March 5, 2007
#9 Al in WI said . . .wasnt it also Briggs that said at the end of the season that he would take less $$ to stay with the Bears... I am sure havein Drew Rosenfuck as an agent doesnt help... Him and TJ are with that bastard....Hate to see him go....
March 5, 2007
#10 Phil from SATX said . . .I wouldn't read too much into this yet, as it's likely just posturing from Briggs and his dip shit agent. Remember that Smith's agent mouthed off about not getting a deal done before the season and week later it did. I'm not saying that the Bears will get a deal done with him, but I'm not so sure he's going to sit out or something.
I'll say the same thing I said before when the topic of Jones being traded came up. I'd only do it if the Bears got an impact WR in return. And in this case I'd expect a 2nd or 3rd round pick as well.
I do have some major questions as to how good he actually is. I remember a few years ago when Warrick Holdman looked really good in that spot next to Urlacher, and he did nothing after he left. I suspect that Briggs may be bennifiting from playing next to Brian, and the system he plays in.
Still I think we should wait and see on this one, remembering that TO's agent is known for his antics.March 5, 2007
#11 Max said . . .I still think it's different since it's Briggs making those comments. After wasting a lot of sweat and anxiety about Lovie, I vow to never again be taken in by any comments by agents (synonym for pathological liar) but when the player says it, I still believe it. Maybe these are words at the instruction of his agent, and if so, shame on the agent.
This one I refuse to sweat, however it comes out. The Lovie deal was not in the same league as this. I don't know whether Briggs is as great as he appears to be or whether he simply appears that way because of #54 and a system that benefits him - and I don't care, because I believe that coach and management do know. If he's that important, I believe he'll stay, and if not, plug someone else in. On this one I am willing to trust the organization.
March 5, 2007
#12 jeff said . . .God that pisses me off. I'm inclined to agree with mikebdot on this one. Talk it out, but he doesn't deserve Urlacher money, so I say trade him, only for someone worth trading for, or play him and see how he does. But if he fucks this season up cause $7,000,000 a year isn't good enough, he can rot.
March 5, 2007
#13 mikebdot said . . .listen, i get his case. look at the guys signing for huge contracts. terrible players like leonard david and mediocre players like nate clements. briggs would have been the best player on the market and he knows that...he would have signed for 90 million
March 5, 2007
#14 Midway Midget said . . .Jeff, he signed a contract. If he can't honor it, fuck him. Period. I will say this to any player for any sport. You signed a contract. Fuck you. It's that simple. I say the same with management who try to restructure deals if people aren't performing like you thought they should. There is a contract. Honor it and play some fucking football.
March 5, 2007
#15 mikebdot said . . .Only shitty teams like the Niners give big money to defensive players like Nate Clements. Briggs is an excellent player, but the outside linebacker position is usually not a high paid position on good teams. And, in unrelated news, Rex Grossman still sucks.
March 5, 2007
#16 Phil from SATX said . . .Furthermore, if he plays lights out this year, he'll still get $90M...+$7M for this year...
March 5, 2007
#17 Phil from SATX said . . .This is a character issue. There is nothing immoral or bad faith about the Bears using the franchise label and paying him $7MM. Claiming you are going to sit out the season and totally screw your team IS bad faith, and it's completely selfish. Every single player who is having a good or great year is underpaid that year if they have not just inked a contract. It isn't the Bears fault that Briggs wasn't a first rounder. He got a fair contract for where he went in the draft - otherwise he wouldn't have agreed to the contract. The Bears tried to sign him up a year ago and the negotiations failed. While I'm not putting TO in the same category as Briggs, we already went through this crap with TO where after one year, he decided he was too good for his contract and wanted to tear it up. As far as I'm concerned Briggs is acting like TO here, and that, my friends, is not a compliment.
March 5, 2007
#18 jeff said . . .Mikedbot, you make a great point. Let's think about this logically. Annual salaries don't go down with time, they go up. All Briggs has to do is play this year like he played last year and he'll make EVEN MORE MONEY than he would with whatever contract he signed this year. So what's he worried about? Oh yeah, that he might a) suck next year or b) get hurt. If either a) or b) happens, is he worried about the team who still owes him the money, despite him a) sucking or b) hurt? No, I don't think he would be worried about said team. Players always want it both ways - and the degree to which they do is inversely proportionate to how much I want them. And I guess that means I don't want you any more, Lance Briggs.
March 5, 2007
#19 Phil from SATX said . . .and if he gets hurt in week 3 phil, the money is gone while nate clements has 20 million in guarantees. its the guarantees these players wants. its economic protection from a gruesome sport
March 5, 2007
#20 mikebdot said . . .Jeff, I get that, but Briggs is part of a players union that agreed to a collective bargaining agreement. That CBA includes the concept of a franchise tag. That tag can be applied 3 times to any one player. The reason both sides agreed to it is because if a team wants to use it, they have to be ready to pay that top-5 positional average. If, as in your example, Briggs gets hurt in Week 3, he still gets his $7 mil. Is that the same as $20 mil guaranteed? No, of course not - but these are the rules they all agreed to. If he sucks it up next year and plays for the Bears without getting hurt, he may get the franchise tag again, but he'll probably make $9-$10 mil for his trouble next year. Wouldn't happen in 2009 (because then they owe the average of top 5 players, not just LBs), when he'll still be in the prime of his career. The franchise tag was not meant to be a punitive issue to the player. If it is such a bad deal, the players should not have agreed to it. The franchise tag did not appear out of nowhere last week. If this possibility was such anathema to him, he should have factored that in when he was saying no to the Bears last year.
March 5, 2007
#21 beardown1982 said . . .Jeff,
If he is injured in week 3, he still makes $7M. He could have signed last year for $33M knowing full well the risks involved (namely, franchise tag if he had a good year).
It is 100% selfish. Meanwhile, ticket prices are going up...is anyone surprised? Both management and the players are selfish. But, in this case, you don't hear the management bad mouthing the player...
March 5, 2007
#22 mikebdot said . . .That is true Jeff...the guaranteed money is what it is all about. Lots of these huge contracts are anything but...just cause a guy signs a multi year contract for x amount of money means nothing some of the time. the up front money in your pocket is what these guys really want.
that said, i think briggs agent is completely behind this. after the lovie saga, the organization already had a black eye. now briggs is going to use that as means to get the kind of money he deserves. That is why his comments paint the organization in a bad light, but not the city of chicago or bears fans...lance wants to look like the victim being picked on by the big bad bear organization. Thinking may be that the bears don't want to take yet another character hit...and will sign briggs to stop another backlash.
Could end up being a smart move on his part. That is, depending on how any kind of signa and trade goes down...cause the bears won't take the tag off and pay him the buku money he wants.
March 5, 2007
#23 Phil from SATX said . . .They should trade him to the Lions if he wants to a truly terrible organization...for their first round pick...how sweet would that be?
March 5, 2007
#24 jeff said . . .Beardown, if you're right, I think this move will backfire. Because whatever acrimony was being generated between the Bears and the fans during the Lovie negotiations, it has dissipated like helium in a popped balloon. Last week, it could have been effective pressure. This week, it doesn't work - at least for me it doesn't. In fact, I think this situation could work out just the opposite - Joe Bear Fan sees Lance Briggs thumb his nose at $7MM and call out the organization that is agreeing to pay him that money as a group so low he will never work for them, ever... Briggs looks like the money grubbing ingrate, not the Bears. Especially now. Either way its bad - bad strategy, or bad Briggs.
March 5, 2007
#25 Nicole is miserable in this blue city said . . .i have a rule which is never to criticize a player on wanting the correct compensation. 7 million for one year is ridiculous for him in the current market. he's a kid. he's a brilliant linebacker and he shouldn't be denied compensation because of the psychological fragility of another guy that plays the position on his team or because a team doesn't know how to spend its money.
March 5, 2007
#26 Megan said . . .Send him to this terrible city and my $7 mill is betting on how much he'll miss Chicago during week 1 that he'll fake his own kidnapping just to get back North. Sheesh.
March 5, 2007
#27 jdawg said . . .I am so bummed. I really thought Briggs was a quality player. I loved seeing him get the defense fired up before the playoffs and make all those plays this season. What's a bummer for him is that he has now labled himself "difficult" so no matter where he ends up, it will be a hard pill for his teammates to swallow. Al though, if he is really as selfish as it sounds like he is, then he won't care what his teammates think. He really is a good solid player in his prime. I think it would be a shame to loose him but also a shame to sign him with what he wants.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario.
Losing him would be a big loss for the defense.March 5, 2007
#28 jrock said . . .hmmmm... I'm more pessimistic about this thanI was with the Lovie deal. The only precedent the Bears were setting with Lovie was with Lovie. If the Bears open the vault for Lance what are we going to have to pay Tommie next year? Or Peanut or even Rex if he gets some consistency?
You know, with a large market team like the Bears, Lance could take a little less and then make a public statement regarding how special the windy city is to him. How much he love's the fans, etc... Do you know how many endorsement dollars would come his way? I bet the city would be willing to cart his balls around on a golden platter with a stable of milk maids fanning them off, should they get sweaty.
Or we could trade him to bum-fuck Arizona, or some such team.
Well, at least the fat lady hasn't sung yet (maybe she's practicing with her fans).
March 5, 2007
#29 Eric said . . .just heard on espn news thomas jones will be traded to the jets for a second round swap. bs-they are just giving him away, our second round 63rd pick for the jets second round 37th pick....giving him away.....two words: drew rosenhoser (briggs and jones "agent")
1st post-bs
March 6, 2007
#30 jdawg said . . .I don't get the Bears' owners. They shell out so much money for Lovie and everything looked good; then they decide to get rid of Rivera, trade Thomas Jones, and I can only imagine what will happen with Briggs. I don't think Rivera's loss will be too bad, but the Jones-Benson "team" supported our entire offense. I would be able to accept the trade if we had gotten more than a 26 pick "cut in line." Briggs needs to stay with the team because I have zero confidence in Leon Joe. Another superbowl berth looks bleak unless our draft is as good as it was last year.
Anyways, Go Bears and stick will Grossman. He'll be good...
March 6, 2007
Hate to say it but this makes sense. The Bears were not going to give Jone's the money and years he wants, given his age. This is probably as good a deal as we were going to get. He should do fine in NY and we only see him if both teams get to the SB.
Who are the teams that may come sniff sniff sniffinf for some help at LB?
March 6, 2007
Here at DaBearsBlog, you are free to kill us or the Bears as you so wish. You are not free, however, to be an asshole. So if you spew racism or ill-meaning foul language (cursing about football is just fine) or anything of that ilk, your comments ain't gonna last long, jerk.