"You have to remember...this is a business" -White GMs
The NFL is a business. And business is booming. But I for one am sick to my stomach with the tired old stench of a mantra that eminates not only from Halas Hall but every other team office around the league: this is a business. Is it?
The case-in-point will always be Terrell Owens. T.O. didn't want to go to Baltimore. He wanted Philly. Philly took him away from Baltimore. T.O. evil. Philly...not. T.O. takes reduced salary to play in Philly and gives a heroic, career-risking performance in the Super Bowl. He asks for a deserved raise. Philly says no. T.O. evil. Philly not. Why? Because this is a business for the teams (not the players) and "the player" signed a contract. A CONTRACT WHICH THE EMPLOYER CAN TERMINATE AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON THEY SEE FIT. Excuse me? What business operates like that? Meanwhile T.O. has never had an off-field issue in his long career and I believe Andy Reid has thankfully removed himself from Father of the Year contention. This might seem an unfair comment but it makes you re-adjust what your value system really is as a fan. T.O may be a dick but if the Reid family moves to my neighborhood, I've got four words for you: For Sale By Owner.
No one is going to argue that Lance Briggs should complain about earning 7.2 million dollars this season. And - believe me - he's not. But what happens if Lance Briggs tears his MCL in the 2007 postseason and has to spend the following year recovering? After all we're talking about football - where not getting injured is becoming the rarity. Lance has done what every fan has asked of their athletes over the ten plus years of big time, post A-Rod contracts: he's earned it. The Bears have the upper-hand and the same old arguement. It is so easy to get the fans on your side when the player makes so much money - to instill the rallying cry of "I'll take 7 million dollars!" Meanwhile the Bears remain 20 million under the cap. But I pay to see guys like Briggs and right now I'd like to see Briggs paid.
#2 mikebdot said . . .Then why didn't he take the 6 year 33 Million contract before the last season. This is why he can't have it both ways. He needs to pick is it about security then sign a deal for less money but guaranteed money or is about the most per year you can get. To me how can Briggs be shocked that he was Franchised 32 out of the 32 teams would do the same.
March 8, 2007
#3 Megan said . . .He was also warned that that option existed last year. I have much less sympathy for a player represented by Dr.(ew) Rosen-rosen.
Also, have the Bears actually offered him his one year deal yet? It just has to be a minimum of $7.2M. What if they signed him for one year at $9M? What then?
He signed a four year contract when he entered the league. The Bears have honored the contract. They obviously feel that the offer they made him last year was fair. He doesn't. He comes out in the media and bad mouth's the organization. Has the management bad mouthed him? No, they used the agreed upon framework to designate him as a franchise player so they could free up some cap room for other players.
I don't understand how anyone can have beef with the Bears over this. How have they disrespected him? There is always the risk of an injury in a contract year. That's how it happens. The insurance is you're going to get more this year than you otherwise would have if you signed a contract (which are usually light up front, unless there is a signing bonus).
March 8, 2007
#4 Pissed off said . . .Why didn't Lance take last year's deal?
I am just hoping that Jerry has a plan all formulated for that 20mil. Maybe I am niave, maybe I'm unrealistic but I am really hoping that Jerry has a plan.
Did I mention that I hope Jerry has a plan?
This off-season has really sucked, I feel like the dreams for '07 are slipping through my fingers. The one player I was worried about losing in the off-season --- Briggs. The TJ deal was a bummer but, we knew that he was probably gonna go. I'm just not confident in where all this is going, anybody else??
March 8, 2007
#5 Pissed off said . . .I think Angelo will end up spending that extra 20 million eventually. He's just not rushing into anything but I think he will have it spent eventually.
I like the way the NFL is run. I like the fact that teams can cut and/or decide to not pay anyone they choose. These rich players get plenty in guaranteed money (signing bonuses, etc.) and it keeps them honest and playing hard when they know they can be cut and have their non-guaranteed money taken away at any time. Look at the NBA, all these guaranteed contracts, it makes it a bitch for teams to make trades because of the matching money issues. Also these players only play hard in contract years and then dog it during the entire contract.
March 8, 2007
#6 beardown1982 said . . .I think Angelo will end up spending that extra 20 million eventually. He's just not rushing into anything but I think he will have it spent eventually.
I like the way the NFL is run. I like the fact that teams can cut and/or decide to not pay anyone they choose. These rich players get plenty in guaranteed money (signing bonuses, etc.) and it keeps them honest and playing hard when they know they can be cut and have their non-guaranteed money taken away at any time. Look at the NBA, all these guaranteed contracts, it makes it a bitch for teams to make trades because of the matching money issues. Also these players only play hard in contract years and then dog it during the entire contract.
March 8, 2007
#7 mikebdot said . . .I understand the frustration that the Bears aren't giving Briggs the big dough...but nowadays, players and teams both want one thing before anything else: money. Lance can say all he wants about this issue not being about money, but that is total bs. If the Bears said it wasn't about money, it would be bs to the same extent. He got offered a nice deal last year, didn't take it, knew the franchise tag was this year and that the Bears would probably use it...why would you be surprised? Especially when the Bears already have a linebacker making huge money. It is generally not smart to have more than one player at a certain position making buku money. Not to mention we are dealing with Drew R. here. And, guess who else has him as an agent......Tommie Harris. In the near future, we have to worry about locking him up too. Might not be so easy doing so if both Briggs and Urlacher are making a bunch of money.
Not to mention, if Rex does actually grow up this coming season (and of course, that is a big IF), he will be demanding a huge QB salary.
Sure, maybe Briggs wants the big contract now because he is worried about having a major injury next year....but why is that the Bears problem? What if they signed him to a huge deal this year, with a bunch of guaranteed money, and Briggs gets a major injury next year. Then the Bears are screwed. So, it goes both ways. Its not like Briggs would give the money back because of his injury...so before you want to feel bad for Lance, just remember that the risk is on both sides.
As good as Briggs is, you can't just throw money around in this league at every great player you have. Lance Briggs is a great player...but you can't keep them all anymore. I think the Bears made the right decision in Franchising Briggs, and not giving him the kind of money he wants.
March 8, 2007
#8 Pissed off said . . .I guess, technically, it's not a contract year if you have the franchise tag.
The good news, if he plays like he did the past two years, his value goes up even further.
There are always two sides to the coin.
March 8, 2007
#9 Pissed off said . . .I think Angelo will end up spending that extra 20 million eventually. He's just not rushing into anything but I think he will have it spent eventually.
I like the way the NFL is run. I like the fact that teams can cut and/or decide to not pay anyone they choose. These rich players get plenty in guaranteed money (signing bonuses, etc.) and it keeps them honest and playing hard when they know they can be cut and have their non-guaranteed money taken away at any time. Look at the NBA, all these guaranteed contracts, it makes it a bitch for teams to make trades because of the matching money issues. Also these players only play hard in contract years and then dog it during the entire contract.
March 8, 2007
#10 Phil from SATX said . . .Sorry about the triple post, thing got fucked up.
March 8, 2007
#11 jeff said . . .Jeff, what's happened to you? Since the SB it's like you've been replaced by your evil twin. I almost always agreed with your takes before SB, then totally agreed with you about Rex after, but recently you've lost me.
Bringing up TO as an example of why management is greedy is astounding to me. This is the most selfish player in the NFL. I live in Cowboy country and had to live in the every day barrage of his antics. He hated his new make-me-rich free agent contract a scant one year after signing it! We cannot compare the complexities of the CBA with our jobs - most of us are in right-to-work states and our employers can fire us any day for any reason, but most of us are also not contractually obligated to stay at our business - we can walk for more money.
I agree with the near-unanimity shown by posters today - the Briggs situation seems easy to read, decidedly in the Bears' favor. He got a fair middle round contract, Bears made good faith effort to re-sign early, Briggs made equally fair decision that he'd be better off waiting despite knowing that Bears had the option of the tag. He gets the tag -- and goes nuclear? "I'll never play for this organization - ever!" We apparently have the new T.O. on our team! Does that sound like Briggs? Who knows, he's never talked before. He may be more like T.O. than we would ever have imagined - great talent, great work ethic, but can't think rationally about contract/money issues. (I would never compare Briggs with TO in as far as being a team player though - Briggs has never shown any negatives here, and TO is one of the worst team players ever).
Dr. Rosen-Rosen is I believe the most infamous agent out there - I seem to remember that he cost TO a lot of money with the Eagles situation. He either feeds, or allows, irrationality by his clients. Since I am sure he is an extremely smart person, my guess would be that he allows foolish clients to dictate strategy rather than coming up with it himself. Briggs is being a foolish client.
Let's hope Tommie Harris dictates differently - and we know enough about Tommie (who IS vocal and who has let us learn who he is) for me to be very hopeful that he will be reasonable when the time comes. He is a mature guy who shows both smarts and wisdom. Can't say the same here about Briggs. Jeff, what up?
March 8, 2007
#12 jeff said . . .i shall reply:
1. 6 years, 33 million. stinks. it's a horrible contract for one of the best linebackers in football.
2. this isn't a contract year! last year was and he made the pro bowl. so instead of saying, "let's re-negotiate and keep you here long term" they've decided "here's one year, let's piss you off"
3. i don't defend t.o.'s character. but if the eagles simply paid him what he deserved a few years ago, there never would have been a story. is he selfish? yes.
4. PO'Dd...why not spend it on one of the best linebackers in football?
5. phil, i have become a different writer on here and its because the bears are acting with an arrogance i don't understand. they embarassed themselves in the super bowl and since: they traded the player who got them to the super bowl, played games with their winning head coach and have pissed off their best defensive player of 2006. where do i look for optimism?March 8, 2007
#13 Pissed off said . . .all of this being said with the knowledge of how the mccaskeys destroyed the foundation of the 85 team in the years that followed and it took the bears 20 years to recover. it's history repeating itself. that's what i'm afraid of.
March 8, 2007
#14 G-Train said . . .I dont think Briggs wants to play here anymore, extended contract, big money, whatever, I still dont think he wants to play here anymore. So spending money on him is a moot point. Lets dump this cancer and move on. With Briggs out of the picture Urlacher will shine through and show he's the best linebacker in football even without Briggs at his side. Plus it gives some other guys, who could be the next Briggs, to show what they've got.
March 8, 2007
#15 G-Train said . . .I think the problem is what you brought up in your post about injuries. If you want guaranteed money take less and put that in your contract if you want big money sign a one year deal and play for cash each year. You can't have everything in a salary cap system. That is the problem with Briggs. As far as his skills I think he may maximize his value on the free agent market as most teams are moving away from the Cover 2-4/3 to 3/4 and I don't see Briggs as good fit for the 3/4.
March 8, 2007
#16 Phil from SATX said . . .Sorry it should read Not Maximize
March 8, 2007
#17 mikebdot said . . .What we can hope for is that the current brain trust (who does not include a certain Michael McCaskey, a first balloter, nay, the inaugural member of the Bears Hall of Shame to be constructed in Joliet right next to the prison) - the current brain trust is good enough to make tough decisions that are in the best interests of the team. Let's just imagine we were Patriots fans, in the old days when the whole concept that the Patriots have patented of moving out great players because of money concerns was a new thing - I imagine those fans absolutely hated Belichick, Scott Pioli and Robert Kraft for letting great players go. Eventually their success in continual rebuilding bought them respect and trust from the fans.
I think that what the brain trust is thinking about Briggs may be on the money - he's a great linebacker, worth $7MM to the team this year, maybe worth $8+ next year, but not good enough [TO THE BEARS, IN THIS SYSTEM] for the deal he's seeking. Would Urlacher? Unquestionably, yes. But what linebackers wouldn't look better when playing next to the Freak of Freaks. Again, $7MM is A LOT OF LOVE.
Jeff, I think for you, the problem is not these transactions taken singly. The problem is there's been nothing but negatives strung together since the BIG NEGATIVE (sb). Stay positive, because positive things will come - free agent signings, contract renewals and draft day. These will all mark positive steps that you can get excited about. The positive will come.
March 8, 2007
#18 Al in WI said . . .I was hoping Dr. Rosen-rosen would stick...
It's from Fletch in case anyone was wondering...
Also, Jeff, the offer of 6 years/$33M was a good offer LAST YEAR. What do you think he is worth this year? I can understand his problem that he won't know since he's got the tag, but he doesn't have to whine to the media about it. I contend it reflects poorly on him and not management. It also makes him look like an ass since he was all but told he would be franchised this year. His feigned outrage is transparent.
Another thing, my employer can fire me any time they want in the guise of "cutting resources". I can leave any time I want for another company. It's nearly always a two way street (there are some poorly run businesses out there where that isn't the case, but it should be).
March 8, 2007
#19 jdawg said . . .7.2 Million dollars would be enough for me to not have to work and live comfortably for the rest of my life, and like Lance I am in my 20's. So the injury concern is mitigated somewhat there. Also to keep in mind is that Julian Peterson went on the market with a Achillies injury and got huge cash the next year anyway.
As for what Angelo is going to do with the cash I think it's simple for us to think about. Would your rather have Briggs, and lose T Harris, Tilman, Vasher, A. Brown, Berrian, Bradley, Davis, Grossman? Or would you rather lose Lance and keep the the other guys? That's what management has to consider, and I think they'll spend that money on draft picks and extending the rest of the team.
Jeff, I hear you about the dismantling of the '85 Bears which took place essentially in the spring of '88. But I think the dynamics have changed, that didn't have to happen, and it did happen because the Bears choose to be cheap. In today's age keeping teams together has more to do with desire. Angelo comes from Tampa where they rolled with the punches and kept that team in contention every year for apx a decade...March 8, 2007
#20 Rev said . . .Oh Lawd!
The Vikes just signed Bobby Wade for $15 Million.
Lance's price just went up to $infinity plus one.
March 8, 2007
#21 Lazarz said . . .I usually just read, don't post, but I haven't seen this in here yet. Anybody see that Todd Johnson is now a St. Louis Ram?
March 8, 2007
#22 jdawg said . . .god dammit, in the past 4 days we've lost TJ, Cam Worrell, and now Todd Johnson. Our team has no soul.
March 8, 2007
#23 Lazarz said . . .I'm not really a glass-half-full type of guy, but come on, losing Johnson and Worell is not exactly losing our heart and soul. I'll admit that I thought Johnson could have made a difference in the playoffs, but he didn't.
Keep in mind that, except for the o-line (and Moose), we are a very young team.
March 8, 2007
#24 jdawg said . . .Jdawg, name me a player other than Urlacher that showed some passion when he played. Tom Jones running like a freaking animal at times, Todd completely destroying anything that came over the middle, Worrell dancing around like a kid after he layed another returner out. These are the kind of guys I want staying on my team, not leaving it.
March 8, 2007
#25 Pissed off said . . .Man, I'll miss the big hits but those aren't the only passionate guys on the team. As far as Jones goes, yeah, he was passionate when he ripped a big gain but when he met a d-lineman at the line of scrimmage it was tippy-toes and hello turf.
March 8, 2007
#26 Still said . . .The Vikes signed Wade a day or two ago already. I wish we would have got in on the Willis McGahee talk, I would have loved to have that guy, but now he's in Baltimore. I think he's the biggest name all year that was out there, that and Dre Bly, stud corner, but now Washington is trying to take him away from Denver. If we didnt have Vash and Tillman, I'd be up for trading for him. Hell if we could trade Vash or Tillman for him I'd be interested.
March 8, 2007
#27 Midway Monster said . . .Jeff, brother, I can feel your pain. This has been a yucky couple of months.
But every business runs like this. All businesses put clauses in contracts that limit the payouts in some way. Even executives get buy-out clauses in their contracts. If they suck, the business doesn't have to pay them the whole amount of the contract, they pay them a negotiated lesser amount. In other words, guaranteed money.The rest of us who work for a living are at-will employees. We can get fired or quit without repercussion as long as no other laws are broken (like they fire me because I am a black, disabled, 80 year old gay woman who won't blow the boss).
I am pissed at Lance because he made this ugly and public. I hate this about sports today. All you need to do to heat up your contract talks is give Peter King at ESPN a call. Makes me feel USED. I really just want to watch guys make blocks and tackles. If I think about the likes of a Bobby Wade making 15 mil...it really makes my head hurt.
I should probably give up and start going to the local high school games.
March 9, 2007
#28 Midway Midget said . . ."I know on the outside it looks like we want to dismantle the team,'' Angelo said during a conference call with reporters on Tuesday. "It has nothing to do with that. We want to keep this the best possible football team that we can. And that's what we're trying to do.''
Angelo went on to say:"i own the brooklyn bridge- wanna buy it? i once flew the space shuttle, and .... we need to get Midway out of rehab".
--Midway--
(rehab)March 9, 2007
#29 HOUSE said . . .Briggs wants to play for a team with a QB.
March 9, 2007
#30 Phil from SATX said . . .I agree with the NFL being a tough business....but I don't agree with the metaphor about Andy Reid. What do his kids getting into trouble have to do with Lance Briggs not wanting to stay in Chicago? They should blame Grossman because he's a bum.
March 9, 2007
#31 Coxy said . . .That sucks about Todd Johnson. He is one that I couldn't wait to get back in the mix when he went down (and Lovie expressed the same) but was apparently not able to play his way back onto the field in the playoffs. I guess that means that signing a safety is even more important - doesn't it become one of the highest priorities? Management cannot count on Mike Brown - they know that. The combo of Daneal Manning and Chris Harris is NOT going to do it.
Having urged Jeff to buck up and stay positive, I am now forced to ask... When is Angelo planning on doing something here? So far it's leave leave leave. I'd like to talk about some additions rather than just nervously mulling the distractions. As of right now, the Bears' clear advantage on special teams (skill players aside) is decidedly diminished. Take off Todd Johnson, Worrell and Adrian Petersen (since he may be a real ball carrier now) - where are the hitters besides Ayanbedejo? Guess I picked a bad day to give up crack...
March 9, 2007
#32 Pissed off said . . .This is a business.
March 9, 2007
#33 Pissed off said . . .Wow, great input by house.....I think a first grader has better takes and a better understanding of the game than you do.
March 9, 2007
#34 JB said . . .Coxy, I've missed you man, we need your input a bit more often on here.
March 9, 2007
#35 Phil from SATX said . . .Okay guys, I think we need to watch our use of the word "Great" with Lance. He is a good linebacker in a great system next to a HOFer that makes everyone better. If you honestly ranked the players on defense, Lance would be somewhere between 4th and 6th (BU, Tommie, and Mike Brown 1-3 and Peanut and Wale in the 2nd tier).
We can't committ Urlacher money to Lance. Our best move would be to trade him now because of his attitude toward the organization and that his value in the trade market will never be higher than it is now (thin year at LB).
If we can get a mid-first plus an additional pick (either a pick next year or a 5th-7th this year), we would be in good shape to draft a new stud.
March 9, 2007
#36 Pissed off said . . .Is there any reason to believe Angelo when he says he's received no contact from any teams interested in Lance? Doesn't sound possible.
March 9, 2007
#37 Phil from SATX said . . .Thats not possible, some teams would have to be calling to do due dillegence to their team. He's too good not to have people calling. I dont buy that. However, becuase of his attitude some teams may not be willing to break the bank or offer a stellar trade for him but they ARE calling.
March 9, 2007
#38 Pissed off said . . .Just did some larnin' about the franchise tag - wikipedia's got it down pretty good. I don't think anyone would be calling because Lance is a non-exclusive franchise taggee. Any team who offers him a contract has to give up two first round draft picks if the Bears opt not to meet their contract offer. Does anyone think Lance Briggs is worth 2 first round draft picks in addition to the money they'd have to give him?
I'm not sure any team has ever paid the 2 pick compensation since the franchise tag was invented. A franchise quarterback would be worth that, but apparently QB's don't seem to get franchised - this year there are 7 franchise players, six of which are the non-exclusive kind - none of which are quarterbacks. Dwight Freeney is the only exclusive kind, and I think teams use that when they are sure they will reach a deal to keep their player and just need more time.
What I don't know about this is whether the team holding the franchise player is allowed to freely negotiate trades with other teams. I would think they wouldn't be - otherwise that puts too much power in management's hands.
If anyone knows, please fill me in. Otherwise, doesn't look like Lance is going anywhere.
March 9, 2007
#39 Phil from SATX said . . .Good take Phil, I think your probably right, since you checked up on it. Thats probably why Briggs is so pissed that he got franchised, he knows no one is calling becuase they'd have to give up two 1st rounders. Yes, I know, call me John Madden, captain obvious.
March 9, 2007
#40 Phil from SATX said . . .This is from profootball.com - Rumor Mill
"When the Bears traded running back Thomas Jones to the Jets on Monday, the deal hinged on the Jets and Jones working out a new contract by 4:00 p.m. EST on Tuesday.
We're told that the deal is nearly done, and that Jones will get $20 million over four years.
Though the Jets are being praised for the trade and the Bears are being chastised, we think it was a better deal for Chicago than most recognize. First, it cleared out of the locker room a guy who was becoming increasingly discontent. Second, it gives Cedric Benson a chance to become the guy who they thought he was when they used the No. 4 overall pick on him in 2005. Third, it allowed the Bears to upgrade from the bottom of round two to the top of round two in the draft. As we explained earlier on Tuesday, the No. 37 overall pick coupled with the Bears' No. 31 selection in the first-round could enable the team to get into the upper teens.
And if they toss in franchise-tagged linebacker Lance Briggs (as one reader has suggested), the Bears possibly could get in position to snare one of the elite players in the draft, such as receiver Calvin Johnson, or even quarterback JaMarcus Russell.
With their current defense, the Bears are scary. With a blue-chip playmaker on offense, some of their opponents might decide not to even show up on Sunday."
End of quote. I guess the franchise tag does allow for teams owning the player to negotiate trade deals for that player. Interesting take though.
March 9, 2007
#41 Phil from SATX said . . .Here's a quote from Cory Redding about his franchise tag:
"What do I think about it? It's a good situation to be in. I'm not complaining one bit. If it was a perfect world, I'd be gone," said Redding, adding that the Lions' losing record isn't the reason he'd want to look elsewhere.
(from mlive.com)
Hey Briggs, why couldn't you have said that?
March 9, 2007
#42 Gin said . . .This is kind of like standing in front of a mirror and having a conversation with myself. Where is everybody?
Phil, here's the thing... I really wanted an answer to this trading Briggs issue so I sent an email to askthecommish.com. I'm not a fantasy player at all but they were still kind enough to answer my question. Here's the question and answer:
Question:
Bear fan following the Lance Briggs situation. Couple of questions - as a non-exclusive franchise tagee, the Bears would be entitled to 2 first round picks from any team making him an offer that the Bears elect not to match. Does any team looking at franchise players actually consider doing this? Can the Bears negotiate directly with teams and not require the 2 first round picks? If so, it would seem to ircumvent the rules and also seems to put too much power in the hands of management who own the franchise player.Answer: By using the franchise tag to designate Briggs as a non-exclusive rights Franchise Player, they are entitled to 2 first round draft picks. What that means is that Briggs has the right to negotiate a long-term contract with another team. If he and that team agree to terms and sign a contract, then the Bears have 7 days to match the offer. If they elect not to, then the other team must cough up 2 first round picks. Now, 2 first rounders is a hefty price to pay -- and no one (including the Bears) expects any other team to cough up such compensation. However, before an official tender is made, the interested team and the Bears could work out an agreement on alternative compensation -- after which time the other team would then be able to work out an exclusive long-term deal with the player. In essence, what they have done is traded for the Franchise rights of that tagged player. This actually happens quite frequently -- it's called a tag-and-trade. The Bills did this with Peerless Price back in 2003, when the Falcons gave up just ONE first round pick.
So I got my answer - and now we know the Bears' phone should be ringing, and maybe there is a shot to move up majorly in the draft. Who's a crappy team with a high first round draft pick who desparately needs a Lance Briggs?
Phil: I don't know, that's why I asked.
Phil: Well that makes sense.March 9, 2007
#43 mikebdot said . . .Jeff- Long time reader, first time commenting.
I've got to say that after reading your post #12 i was like, wow, that's like the worst case scenario and really scary to read...because it's so true.March 9, 2007
#44 mikebdot said . . .Is Auriese Currie still injured?
Good info Phil!
March 9, 2007
#45 Pissed off said . . .Sorry, Airese..
March 9, 2007
#46 jdawg said . . .If we could move Briggs and somehow move up in the draft for a playmaker, that would be sweet. As you may know, I'm not all about getting a QB, unless its the later rounds and Drew Stanton, Chris Leak or Troy Smith is available. However I wouldnt mind Calvin Johnson, even Adrian Peterson. There is a ton of O-line talent in the draft too.
March 9, 2007
#47 jdawg said . . .A couple of points:
After the McGinnis debacle Mike McKaskey was kicked upstairs, and he was the villain behind the breakup of the SB team.
I'd be surprised if the Bears move up in the draft. I don't think they dig paying premium cash for rookies, thus the Benson holdout.
With Porter getting $20 million GUARANTEED from Miami the Bears quickly got their toe out of the free agent pond because somebody has dumped some primo microdot in it, you know, the kind that fucked up half of Woodstock.
Any trade for Briggs would have to involve the same kind of player the Bears will be targeting in the draft -- a play maker. Could anyone envision a straight-up trade for Shockey, hmmm?
March 9, 2007
#48 mikebdot said . . .There will be no QB taken that the Bears are serious about. If you want Chris Leak just get Grossman a shot of novacane in his right arm.
Peterson would be great, but what do we do with Benson? We'd be the Detroit Lions of running backs.
We need help with those in charge of catching the football once its left Grossman's hand.
March 9, 2007
#49 jdawg said . . .jdawg: If we picked up Shockey I wouldn't watch any games this year. I would probably stop watching football all together.
March 9, 2007
#50 mikebdot said . . .piffle
he plays hard and all he'd have to do is change his hame to Shokski.
March 9, 2007
#51 mikebdot said . . .He exudes drama. He's a primadona, plain and simple. And Clark is about the same talent level. More yards with 19 less catches and only one fewer TD catch. 35 of his 45 catches were for first downs...Shockey was 37/66.
He's a punk. I hope he suffers a career ending injury every time I see a highlight or live action footage. I hate him more than Reggie Miller. That says something.
March 9, 2007
#52 Pissed off said . . .To be fair, Shockey had better stats in '05, but I don't care. I think he's a punk bitch...
March 9, 2007
#53 jdawg said . . .Jdawg man, you gotta get smart. "If we drafted Peterson what would we do about Benson?" Are you serious, did we not just use a tandem of two good backs all of the past year? We'd do the same thing we've done the past two years, find time for both players to run the ball, DUH! Many teams have two or more good backs that get touches.....Denver, Chicago, NYJ, Jacksonville, etc.
And I would be more than happy to get shockey on this team. But he's going to stay a Giant since they traded away thier #2 TE Shancoe to Minnesota already.
March 9, 2007
#54 Midway Monster said . . .OK pissed off, I'm calling you on my shoe phone. Are you receiving me?
Do you think harmony will reign supreme in the locker room if the Bears draft a RB first round and then tell Bensen, "hey, you know that stuff we were saying about it being your time? psyche!" Plus, how much moolah do they want in the backfield?
March 9, 2007
#55 Max said . . .Just so everyone knows; Midway Midget is no relation.
--Midway--
(rehab)March 9, 2007
#56 Lazarz said . . .Good stuff Phil.
To hell with Shockey. He crys and complains more than the entire Italian National Soccer Team. Keep Clark, draft if ya really wanna improve the position
March 10, 2007
#57 jdawg said . . .If there is even a remote chance that we can get Calvin Johnson, Jerry and friends sure as hell better be looking into it. All I'm gonna say.
March 10, 2007
#58 Dave said . . .hmmm
Taking a receiver who's slotted to go high -- always a good idea.
Who are the top receivers on the NFL and where were they chosen? If we could turn back the hands of time where would Colston have gone?
As far as Shockey(ski) is concerned, my only point was that, like Hammurabi laid down so many years ago, an eye for an eye and a play maker for a play maker.
Verily, Lance will be with us this season. He shall start on D. And ye shall lament, that for every game he shall play, a sum of five hundred thousand ducats shall be laid before him. I his eyes shall look upon those ducats and know that they are good. And even when temptation is upon him, and Favre lifts up his arm upon him and his house, he shall take comfort in the Lord thy God, and shall smite him unto ruin. Thus speaketh the Lord.
March 10, 2007
Man if I did'nt know better you all have been possessed by the spirit of Dave, or you all finally realize the Bear are a FUCKED organization.
What the hell have I been telling you loser all along?
March 10, 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.