Kelly the Dog Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 Bears | Briggs says he's done in ChicagoMon, 12 Mar 2007 15:12:20 -0800 Jay Glazer, of FOXSports.com, reports Chicago Bears LB Lance Briggs, who is the team's franchise player, said he is prepared to sit out the 2007 season if the Bears do not trade or release him. He went on to say he's played his last down for the team and will never play in Chicago again. Would they be willing to take a flyer on Spikes and a #3 to get rid of a headache? Probably not, but stranger things have happened. It depends on how much of a disruption they think he is. They could also probably sign Cato June and Spikes with the franchise money they are paying Briggs, which is almost 8 mil I think.
JoeF Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 How about a #3 this year and a #3 next year :-) or even a #2 next year...
Yasin's BILLS Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 How about a #3 this year and a #3 next year :-) or even a #2 next year...thats a really cheap deal for a high profiled LB atleaste a 1st round and 3rd but our head coach isn't george allen, who traded his picks for veteran players. I can't see us getting lance briggs even though jouran coached him his rookie season
D_House Posted March 12, 2007 Posted March 12, 2007 If he's not happy with $8 million a year, how much will it take to sign him? No thanks.
JoeF Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 thats a really cheap deal for a high profiled LB atleaste a 1st round and 3rd but our head coach isn't george allen, who traded his picks for veteran players. I can't see us getting lance briggs even though jouran coached him his rookie season The guy says he's not playing for them....look at the deals that get done when players make that kind of ultimatum...I know we may need to go a little higher but it won't be the 2 1's the franchise tag requires.
The Dean Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 If he's not happy with $8 million a year, how much will it take to sign him? No thanks. It's not usually the $ for the current year that pisses off players slapped with the Franchise tag...it's the lack of a new long-term deal (complete with signing bonus, etc)
Kelly the Dog Posted March 13, 2007 Author Posted March 13, 2007 It's not usually the $ for the current year that pisses off players slapped with the Franchise tag...it's the lack of a new long-term deal (complete with signing bonus, etc) What's good about him complaining is that he may be perceived elsewhere as a troublemaker, but Jauron knows him well. And if he likes him, he will be about to convince Marv that he's a good character guy. Which he probably is. Players just hate that franchise tag more and more. I am not sure we have the money to sign him, although if we lose Spikes we surely have the cap room and more.
The Dean Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 What's good about him complaining is that he may be perceived elsewhere as a troublemaker, but Jauron knows him well. And if he likes him, he will be about to convince Marv that he's a good character guy. Which he probably is. Players just hate that franchise tag more and more. I am not sure we have the money to sign him, although if we lose Spikes we surely have the cap room and more. Agreed. We certainly HAVE the $. The question is, will we spend it?
I 90 Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 Players just hate that franchise tag more and more. Nothing to like. He won't be discounted as a bad guy for wanting commitment at a violent position. It must be tough to play at one's best for the next contract when an injury means no contract.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 13, 2007 Author Posted March 13, 2007 Agreed. We certainly HAVE the $. The question is, will we spend it? I actually think we would, if we could get him. Spikes costs 4.5 this year and 5 next year. That would basically be only about 2 million more than we would have to pay Briggs. We could cut Holcomb and break almost even on it.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 Nothing to like. He won't be discounted as a bad guy for wanting commitment at a violent position. It must be tough to play at one's best for the next contract when an injury means no contract. Actually, franchise means he is guaranteed the money for the season, does it not? Unless he does not make the team, and that is not going to happen.
Buftex Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 What's good about him complaining is that he may be perceived elsewhere as a troublemaker, but Jauron knows him well. Good thing we Bills fans are so sophisticated!
I 90 Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 Actually, franchise means he is guaranteed the money for the season, Sorry if it was unclear, I was referring to his future and the understanding among GM's that holdout threats don't necessarily make him a bad guy.
C.Biscuit97 Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 IMO, investing a lot of money into a LB (especially a OLB) is a bad move. LBs are essentially the rbs of the defense. If the D-line is good (like Chicago's), it makes the LBs better. Obviously it's hard to find a great LB, but solid to good ones are plentiful. Is Briggs great? Tough call but all I know is he plays next to the best MLB in football. I imagine that can only help you as a player.
Mark Long Beach Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 I know, but it's REALLY hard to listen to someone whine about being disrespected for being forced to take 8 million guaranteed.
C.Biscuit97 Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 I know, but it's REALLY hard to listen to someone whine about being disrespected for being forced to take 8 million guaranteed. I understand what you're saying but you're only looking at it from one side. If Briggs blows out his knee next year, you think some NFL team is gonna just feel sorry for the guy and give him some guaranteed money??? Briggs would be SOL. I hate whiny millionaires but will always understand where NFL players are coming from.
Tipster19 Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 I'm sure we still have some surprising moves left. Here's a few notes that could have a big impact in the near future. First, there's a rumor that Holcomb may retire. Don't ask for a link, I forget where I heard it but I didn't pay much attention to it when I did. I mention this because if it's true I don't know how this will affect the cap. The second factor I'd like to mention is in a recent interview Marv stated that it's a general agreement amonst his staff before they make a move with a player. He went on to state that this is something that Polian did and Marv still incorporates that into the decision making in Buffalo now. He said that one time he wasn't on board with a potential trade that Polian wanted badly. Polian wouldn't make the trade until Marv agreed, so Polian hammered him until 3:00 in the morning. Marv finally relented and it was for their two 1st rders and either another pick or a player I forget which, and the trade turned out to work pretty good. Oh by the way, the player they traded for was Cornelius Bennett. Marv didn't sound too disappointed in the results. I think Marv would consider another trade for an impact LB if the price were to be reasonable. The third factor would be the cap. I'm sure Spikes, amongst others, will be gone. As far as I can tell Roscoe is one player that carries a pretty big cap number. Do you think that he could be another casualty? I'm just asking.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 As far as I can tell Roscoe is one player that carries a pretty big cap number. Do you think that he could be another casualty? I'm just asking. He doesn't.
Mark Long Beach Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 I understand what you're saying but you're only looking at it from one side. If Briggs blows out his knee next year, you think some NFL team is gonna just feel sorry for the guy and give him some guaranteed money??? Briggs would be SOL. I hate whiny millionaires but will always understand where NFL players are coming from. He still gets his 8mil guaranteed. The only difference is potentially a combined larger signing bonus/guaranteed yearly salary. If the two aren't larger he's better off with the 8mil guaranteed. Granted, more and more of the truly top end contracts have more and more guaranteed. I'm unsure how the 'guaranteed' salary on multiyear contracts works with injuries though... Since 8mil in one year is larger than most NFL players will make in their careers, I still have no sympathy, and he is certainly NOT being disrespected. It is a small concession to the team owners to ONLY pay one of the largest salaries for that one player so that the majority of the rest of the players gain more freedom and more money.
DrDawkinstein Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 i get why the players dont like it, but if i were the Bears - as a franchise - i'd let him sit. Teams and Players have already taken a stand and negotiated a work agreement. Structure and rules were agreed upon. the Franchise Tag is there for a reason. to give the Franchises SOME ability to keep players since it is so easy to lose players now. the chicago bears organization needs to a. let him sit or b. sign him to a multi-year deal. teams CAN sign the franchise players to multi-year deals, they just dont have the ability to use the tag again throughout the life of that contract. right?
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts