No surprise but the Bears are not going to keep Bernard Berrian from the free agency market. Not if you believe what you read in the paper. According to Brad Biggs:
"The contract offer the Bears made to the wide receiver that he turned down included $8 million to sign and totaled $25 million over five years...Berrian is seeking $24.5 million over the first three years of a contract, so you can see the distance between him and the Bears as the shopping season is about to open."
I was a firm supporter of applying the franchise tag to Berrian to keep him in Chicago another year but these contract demands are a bit absurd. Berrian wants to make over eight million dollars a year in a league where the average salary of the top five receivers in the game is under eight. A good young player with tremendous potential? Yes. One of the league's elite? No.
But he'll probably get it because there's always someone out there looking to pay it and his name is usually Dan Snyder.
#2 JB said . . .I was a more than a little incensed when I read that. This is why stupid franchises screw things up for everybody. The latest stupid franchise related to this deal was Seattle - the Deion Branch deal is the one BB is trying to beat. Deion got $23MM for 3 years. Deion's career numbers, amazingly, are not as good as Berrian's, but of course he was the MVP of the SB that year so he got more than all the money from stupid Seattle.
The funny thing is, don't you think Seattle regrets doing it now? Don't you think they realize they grossly overpaid? Yet that is the new market, and it's pretty easy for Bernard, he can just point to Branch's numbers and say, I'm better than that guy, why shouldn't I make more money than him? The answer is, just because Seattle was stupid doesn't mean other clubs have to be.
Berrian grossly overrates himself. Now I'm sure I don't want him or his greedy ass back. I think $5MM per year was more than generous for him. He's not that good.
February 28, 2008
#3 Al in WI said . . .Wow...the reason I liked B-Twice in the first place is because of his seemingly humble nature. That is absolutely nuts. I don't think he will get that, that's obviously his very high aspiration level. But make no mistake, with an asking price that high, he will go to the highest bidder and not give chicago a hometown discount.
Jeff, i'm on board with the vilma trade possibility. Every game I've seen him play, he's been a stud. I don't think we'll do it, but i like the idea.
February 28, 2008
#4 Phil from SATX said . . .These demands are out of line. But remember that these are opening bids. You always start out asking for more then you're going to get to try and drive up the price.
The way I see it the choice is still this; overpay for an improving young player that you know, or overpay for someone else's player who probably has injury issues.
I don't know how, but the Bears have to find a way to get this done or we are going to have no passing game this season.February 28, 2008
#5 DTB said . . .I just think it's ridiculous to think that one guy, and only one guy, is the only answer and key to our offense next year. How about teams that have new coaches and coordinators that install all new plays? Are those teams automatically doomed? If this was true, no FA WR or drafted WR would ever have a good year in his first year of trade. Didn't happen to Randy Moss this year. Good receivers know how to run routes, a good QB will throw to a spot no matter what the number on the jersey. It's not that complicated. Rex, Kyle or whoever will have plenty of time to get to know the new receivers on the team.
The future of 2008 is NOT tied to Bernard Berrian.
February 28, 2008
#6 Pissed Off said . . .Does anyone remember B2's game against Carolina in the playoffs a few years back. Joe Buck exclaimed, "when did Bernard Berrian turn into Jerry Rice?"
I think B2 is completely delusional, and thinks that he actually is in fact Jerry Rice. At least his contractual demands suggest so.February 28, 2008
#7 mikebdot said . . .From the previous thread, I love Vilma, if we can get him for a third rounder, I'd do it, I dont know if that would be responsible given our other needs and the draft picks we plan to use to fill those needs but I've always loved Vilma.
I'll say it again...I dont mind Berrian moving on. I didnt mind before I read this article and I dont mind now. He's gonna get overpaid and he isnt that good. He's just lucky he's the best FA WR this year, thats all.
I still want Hackett.
February 28, 2008
#8 Phil from SATX said . . .I put his chances at re-signing with us at about 25%. 1% for each million dollars we offer him.
It's kind of sad really, I said that in jest, but I bet it's about true...
February 28, 2008
#9 DTB said . . .You know how Jerry said, if it's all about the money, I don't want that guy. I want someone who wants to be a Chicago Bear.
I agree, Jerry, and I think you have just given the epitaph for the late Chicago Bears/Bernard Berrian relationship.
One thing I know about Rex, with him it's not all about the money, and he definitely wants to be a Chicago Bear. And I like him for that.
February 28, 2008
#10 minnie Mad Dog said . . .I seriously want to see Bryant Johnson in a Bears uni next year. Tons of athleticism, seems to be durable (unlike Hackett) and desperately wants to escape the big two's shadow. I think these ingredients will add up to solid production in the upcomming season.
February 28, 2008
#11 Phil from SATX said . . .Al in Wisconsin is surely right regarding BB. This is just opening negotiations and "talk is cheap". I also agree, however, that some team will probably over pay for BB. Still, I have a simple, naive question.
The Bear's management chose to dump Moose and not to Franchise BB. So they must have SOME PLAN in mind. Based on past history, it may be (and probably is) a stupid plan. But what can they be thinking? Is there another quality receiver they are after, and we don't know about? Do they have that much confidence in the remaining receiver corps? Do they really intend to turn DH into a starting, full time wide-out? (Hope not). I am totally mystified. Blog persons, help me out.
February 28, 2008
#12 Phil from SATX said . . .Hey, Minnie, speaking of that, it just dawned on me - how is Moose allowed to sign with Carolina, as reported? I thought free agency period doesn't start until tonight?
I agree with your comments, and remember, we will know MUCH more in the next few days. I don't know how it behooves the BT to even make comments about guys they're interested or not interested in ("Bears not interested in Marty Booker") - how does this help their cause, especially saying they're NOT interested - I can see how they may be signalling in the marketplace with comments that they ARE interested - but won't the guys' agents know it anyway at about 11:01 p.m. central time tonight?
Don't really understand the whole process. But these guys are paid to have plans, and I am sure that JA has a plan to replace Moose and Berrian, if necessary (and it WILL be necessary, Mr. $8MM/Year Man). I think they have to look at Bradley and Hester as the presumed #3 and #4's - and the degree to which they believe those guys have the potential to move into #1 and #2's will only affect the level of guys they pick up in FA and draft, not WHETHER they pick up two receivers.
I could be wrong.
February 28, 2008
#13 Al in WI said . . .I'll answer my own question - read this very interesting article about the reality of how teams ignore the "no-tampering" rules for several weeks before free agency:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=yasinskas_pat&id=3263750
All in the interest of furthering our NFL knowledge!
February 28, 2008
#14 mikebdot said . . .According to the trib today, the Bears are still hoping to sign BB and Briggs and are therefore out of the Faneca fray:
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-080227-bears-free-agency-alan-faneca,1,7927597.storyFebruary 28, 2008
#15 Phil from SATX said . . .Phil: Isn't the reason they were allowed to sign Moose is because his release as a veteran receiver makes him an IMMEDIATE free agent, so, anyone can sign him or talk to him, etc? At least, that's how I understood it.
February 28, 2008
#16 Rancid said . . .Yeah, I was just about to post, you're right Mike. And I suppose the only reason for the early decision on Moose was a courtesy one, to cut him early so he'd have time to beat the "real" free agent market, which he did.
As I was searching for that, I ran into a Brad Biggs blog entry talking about the Justin Gage re-signing by the Titans - 4 years, $14.5MM, $6MM guaranteed, similar to Crayton's deal. He also brought up Bobby Wade, who has been successful in Minny. He suggests that the progression of these receivers may be why the Bears believe Bradley can continue to improve, and he may be onto something - the only thing is, those guys apparently did all their improving AWAY from the Bears. Cause they sure sucked when they were here. I won't dispute that it may be simple age and experience in improving them, but still...
things that make you go Hmmm...
February 28, 2008
#17 DTB said . . .Bye Bye Bernie.
Many of us here had said all along that if someone has to get ripped off by BB/Rosenass, it shouldn't be us. I was not entirely opposed to franchising him, but now I don't want to pay him more than we offered. While no one will pay him the 8 a year, someone will pay him more than what the Bears offered so I hope it's goodbye. I could see him having an incredible year somewhere, and I could also see him driving a new QB insane with the drops. Who knows. No one should have to pay 8 mill a year just to find out.
February 28, 2008
#18 Bill said . . .Could it be?
http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm
February 28, 2008
#19 Bill said . . .Free Agency is insane - but the cap is supposed to curtail it. Unfortunately, the cap keeps going up, so teams overspend on need; then their own players feel underpaid and dissension sets in (and of course the player agents are very happy to create the dissension that leads to even bigger contracts.)
Since few players REALLY care about fans or even winning a Super Bowl (c'mon - there are 32 teams; there will be several teams who will have never one a Super Bowl even by the time all of us are gone), we will always have this upheaval.
Then we have the insane contracts for high draft chocies, that actually PENALIZE a team drafting high because they have to committ so much cap space to an unproven rookie (remember when the draft was set up to help bad teams get good?)
And we have rules set up that make one player (QB) a disproportionate part of winning - more of a problem considering there are so few good QBs to begin with.
It all starts to make sense to me that we can have a near dynasty on the one hand and a rotating series of "fluke" SB winners on the other.
Too many teams, not enough talent, and once you someone decent (B2) they end up leaving to be overpaid somewhere else (and that team will eventually be sorry, I assure you.)
Goodbye, Bernard. I wish we had a decent replacement handy, but you aren't worth what you think you're worth.
February 28, 2008
#20 Max said . . .DTB - if you're referring to the Favre retirement thing, it's pretty certain it was a pre-written piece that the Packers had ready just in case he DOES decide to retire - and it got put on the Packer Web site by mistake.
February 28, 2008
#21 Max said . . .Im not sure what the word is about him (who else is looking for him or if he is signing somewhere), but I think Brandon Lloyd could be a cheap signing at WR. He is an Illinois guy and he is looking to redeem himself after the awful play for the 'Skins. I realize we might be a little tentative to sign another underperforming Redskin play after AA but Lloyd could be cheap and he was showing alot of promise in San Fran.
February 28, 2008
#22 B.A. Baracus said . . .Im not sure what the word is about him (who else is looking for him or if he is signing somewhere), but I think Brandon Lloyd could be a cheap signing at WR. He is an Illinois guy and he is looking to redeem himself after the awful play for the 'Skins. I realize we might be a little tentative to sign another underperforming Redskin play after AA but Lloyd could be cheap and he was showing alot of promise in San Fran.
February 28, 2008
#23 startOlsen the animal said . . .Good riddance to Berrian if he wants that much money. Proof is in the pudding and unfortunately for Mr. Berrian, his pudding last year was down right crappy. At best, he is a #2 receiver and doesn't command that amount of money.
Fortunately for the Bears, they have a decent amount of cap room to work with this offseason. However, given the Bears track record with just about everything, I am not going to hold my breath for their free agency moves.
February 28, 2008
#24 Phil from SATX said . . .Wait a sec...
Is being forced to play Devin Hester full time, and to play way more 2 TE sets to use Olsen and Dez a BAD thing?
hmmm.February 28, 2008
#25 Tim said . . .Hey Bill - that was a great post - where've you been? Coming back on the eve of FA, perhaps?
I'd like to mention something about JA and the coaches regarding Bradley. Did anyone else spend any time thinking about the fact that JA boldly stated that "we screwed up by not using Bradley more." Now he saved Lovie's and RT's face by couching his words with "I can say this because THEY [the coaches] said it." Problem is, I basically never heard the coaches say that. I just heard them basically trash Bradley the whole year.
I think there's very clear evidence there that JA (and maybe people above and beyond him) were NOT HAPPY with their coaches regarding Bradley. Now I don't know whether RT or Lovie or both are more to blame, but I think JA was kind of rubbing the puppies' noses in their shit with that one. (and call me mean, but that made me very happy).
Anyone else catch this? And by the way, if you believe this to be true, you can also imagine that Angelo et al were probably equally pissed at some of the other deployment issues on offense - like pulling Benson in that game, not using Wolfe, not using Hester - all the things that miraculously changed in the last 3 games.
SOMEBODY had a talking to around that time, is my guess. Why it didn't end with a Trumpian YOU'RE FIRED is still beyond me (as you know, and perhaps share...)
Anyone agree?
February 28, 2008
Rex should launch a DEEP phone call to BB and talk some sense into him. This age of GREED is killing the greatest sport on the planet and I for 1 would not mind seeing him go.
February 28, 2008
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.