Bears Stonewall Briggs

by Adam T on Mar 13, 2007 11:59 AM CDT in News Comment 15 comments

I have been critical of our front office many times, sometimes quite often. I have been much more a fan since Angelo took permanent control of player movement and this move makes me like our guys even more.

Also props to this writer, one of a number, who calls Briggs out for going after the Bears instead of the NFL Players Union who agreed to the terms the Bears are operating under.

The part I am happy to see is this one:

The Bears will have no response to anything Briggs says or does until it affects his standing with the team or the depth chart. The earliest that could happen is early May during the first scheduled mini-camp after the NFL draft.

Briggs has alienated a town that practically worshiped him this year. He is probably alienating some team members, though I imagine most sympathize. He has devalued himself for trade talks on other teams and now he is waging a campaign against the team that loses nothing by letting him miss the year. No money lost by us, all lost by Briggs. Smart move, tough guy.

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I've always wondered this

Why players attack their team for the franchise tag and not Gene Upshaw or their union. The Tag is crap and I'd be pissed if I were Briggs too... however it's not the team's fault. They are just using what is legally available to them under the CBA. If this is so horrible for the players, the union should have done something about it. They won't. I can't believe how these players don't see that.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Mar 13, 2007 1:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Maybe the do realize it

but know that criticizing the players union is actually like criticizing themselves, so they try to turn it around.

I also wonder why people always thing that if they constantly bash a team, it is magically going to go their way or it will make the team look bad.

Briggs already has more than half this site against him.

by Adam T on Mar 13, 2007 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because

I also wonder why people always thing that if they constantly bash a team, it is magically going to go their way or it will make the team look bad.

it actually ends up working sometimes and fans forget quickly once the games start. For proof, notice TO still has a job and folks like Chad keep talking about bringing in headcases because "winning cures all".

Visit The Cub Reporter (mvn.com/mlb-cubs)

by thecubreporter on Mar 13, 2007 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hell yeah it does...

by Chad on Mar 13, 2007 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

TO is different, becuase

he has a history as does somebody like Moss.

Briggs has a relatively clean slate. I don't think you can compare the two.

Say it once people take note, hound on it and I think it turns opinion against you. I think teams would actually less likely trade for him, because he is now a question mark. Moss or TO, every team that touches them knows what they are getting.

by Adam T on Mar 13, 2007 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Peter King

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/03/13/mmqbte/index.html?eref=si_nfl

jumps on Briggs a bit too and talks up the misdirected anger angle...

Visit The Cub Reporter (mvn.com/mlb-cubs)

by thecubreporter on Mar 13, 2007 7:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The Bears could "lose" something...

To be fair. It's not a completely win-win situation for them.

Sure, they don't lose any money if he doesn't play, but they're stuck with Jamal Williams or Leon Joe playing linebacker if Briggs sits out. On the other hand, if they let him go at the beginning, or even now, they could have signed (or went after) Adalius Thomas or Cato June.

Those two guys, it can successfully be argued, might not be worth the price paid to sign them, but I would rather have them than the question marks that will be the alternatives if Briggs sits out.

So, yeah, it's not like we're talking as if it doesn't mean anything. If Briggs doesn't play and the Bears haven't replaced him, the Bears go from having one of the best at his position, to something very average.

by tyger1147 on Mar 14, 2007 7:21 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Hey, hey don't get snide with me.

by Adam T on Mar 14, 2007 7:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have no idea what that means.

by tyger1147 on Mar 14, 2007 10:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Besides...

I was just pointing out that they have not a care in the world in the matter. Monetarily and PR-wise (whatever that means) they don't lose anything. The defense will definitely be worse if Briggs isn't on the team. In the end, that is what really matters. This loss could be/could have been somewhat lessened by acquiring Thomas or June as his replacement. But they won't do that because, like everyone else, they expect him to play. Whoever they draft, or whoever is on the team now, simply won't be as good as Briggs.

Although I realize that almost no franchised player has ever sat out, I'm just pointing out that the gamble isn't without risk.

by tyger1147 on Mar 14, 2007 10:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just posted the this in the other thread

We could have still gone after Thomas. Who says we didn't? Anyway, if we signed Thomas, we could have then dropped the franchise tag.

by Chad on Mar 14, 2007 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I posted this in the other thread...

(dammit, cross-threading or something, it's gotta be bad for the universe)

But anyway, signing Thomas to a long-term contract is bad for the same reasons it would be bad to sign Briggs to one. At a lower price, fine. But signing him for whatever New England did puts too much money into one position.

by tyger1147 on Mar 14, 2007 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What are you saying?

Are you saying that we should have gone after Thomas or not? You said that if we didn't franchise tag Briggs we could have gone after Thomas. Then you say Thomas got too much money. So which is it?

by Chad on Mar 14, 2007 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course

The risk that Briggs takes is leaving the window open for another LB to come in and realize success. Maybe Joe comes in and puts up good numbers. In that situation, not only would the Bears be less motivated to worry about Briggs, but teams would likely view Briggs accomplishments as a result of Urlacher/Lovie. There's already rumblings about him being another Holdman or Colvin. If you are reading this Briggs, you should have signed that first offer. 35 Mill is nothing to sneeze at.

by cookding on Mar 14, 2007 10:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Two things...

First, hit reply if you're replying to a specific message. It just makes things easier for fat lazy-asses like me to understand the flow of a thread. (I know that sounds bitchy, but it's really just laziness on my part.)

Second, Briggs is a great linebacker. I know it's easy to sit here and say that Joe might come and do just as well as Briggs, that it's due to Urlacher or the system or whatever, but that's not taking a realistic perspective. It's possible, but the odds of it happening are horribly low.

But even if that is true, you still need to acknowledge that there is a risk, a much more significant possibility in fact, that whoever comes in won't be near the 'backer that Briggs is. If the Bears' brass felt that was a realistic possibility, then why franchise Lance at all?

Because the Bears know their own personnel, and they know what was in the draft and in the free agent market. And they still felt they needed to, for the first time, franchise a player. That right there should tell you the actual possibilities that Leon Joe or Jamal Williams or a rookie linebacker are going to come in and be anywhere close to as good as Lance Briggs.

by tyger1147 on Mar 14, 2007 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs