Bears Likely To Lose Berrian and Briggs?

by Adam T on Feb 21, 2008 8:44 AM CST in News

UPDATE: GM Jerry Angelo has confirmed that the Bears will not be using the franchise tag on WR Bernard Berrian.

While I still haven't seen anything stating how Berrian feels about the revised contract the Bears offered him it is thought that the Bears will not use the franchise tag on him if he does not take the deal. They are not interested in getting into another dispute with agent Drew Rosenhaus.

If Berrian signs elsewhere, barring free agency and draft moves their depth chart at wide receiver would be Devin Hester, Mark Bradley, Rashied DAvis, Mike Hass and Brandon Ridaeu.

A source close to the situation with Lance Briggs has said that the revised offer the Bears have made still falls short of what Briggs and Rosenhaus are looking for. With teams such as San Francisco, Washington, Buffalo, New Orleans and Denver interested I wouldn't expect them to just settle. If Angelo wants to keep Briggs, he needs to step up the offer.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Personally...

...I'd rather keep Berrian than Briggs. Well, I'd rather keep both and find the money elsewhere, but man... that corps without Berrian is saaaaaaaaaaaaaad

by tyger1147 on Feb 21, 2008 8:54 AM CST reply actions

I agree

They've already got a decent replacement waiting in the wings if Briggs departs, unless they're planning on shifting Ulracher over to the side - then they could be in some trouble. I still don't understand why they don't put the franchise tag on Berrian - regardless of Rosenhaus, that's a bad way to conduct business in the NFL these days.

by Dmac on Feb 21, 2008 9:37 AM CST reply actions

Just let them go

I am a supporter of the "Berrian isn't worth the franchise price" club. He isn't. No one can (successfully) argue that he is. I also don't blame him for wanting to go. But, I would rather take our chances with free agency. Sign Booker for a couple of years, and pick up either Johnson or Hackett off of FA. A WR will likely be a prime target in one of our four picks in the first 3 rounds.

As for Briggs, I want him to stay. Except for his "I want to make as much as Urlacher, Mommy" attitude, he's great for the team. I would much rather pony up the money for him than for Bernard "$7.5mil for a decent #2 receiver?!" Berrian. BUT, if we let Briggs go, I'll live. As Dmac said, we have at least average (if not above average) replacements.

Quite honestly, I'm almost more worried about losing Ayanbadejo than the other two because I think we need him on special teams, we can get him for a reasonable amount of money (I think), and he's become a good (pro-bowl) linebacker.

by myronaiii on Feb 21, 2008 10:09 AM CST reply actions

thoughts on WRs to-be released?

the UFA market for WRs obviously isn't that good. moss obviously stays in NE, and berrian is option #2. what about wideouts likely to be released? haven't really seen a list of who cap cuts are likely to be. if there are some good names likely to be cut, i really think we should let berrian walk. if there's a legit top 10-20 WR that will be available to sign, i'd rather grab them and pay them as such than sign or franchise berrian for much more than he's worth. i don't see him as much more than a very good #2 receiver.

by guy incognito on Feb 21, 2008 10:32 AM CST reply actions

Exactly

That's exactly what I'm saying. D.J. Hackett, Bryant Johnson, and Andre Davis are above average WRs. Get Hackett, Booker, a WR in the draft if needed, and spend the rest on outfitting the O-Line, drafting a QB, and fixing the god for saken run game.

by myronaiii on Feb 21, 2008 11:15 AM CST reply actions

guah gagg, eck, blachkck

yeah, those guys suck ass and their "worth" to paid ratio will be worse than Berrian's. You can't build a team of mediocre guys because you don't want to overpay anyone. Seriously, that was about the dumbest thing I've read. If you want, though, you could try to find some facts to support your claim instead of the "Hey-I've-heard-that-name-somewhere-before-so-he-must-be-good" scouting technique. Yeah.

by tyger1147 on Feb 21, 2008 11:35 PM CST up reply actions

wow

how about the "hey you have a dumb idea and we should do something else, but I dont know what cause I dont know much either" technique. that sounds good too

-leopoldjones

by leopoldjones on Feb 22, 2008 4:16 AM CST up reply actions

are you two

the same person?

"Kyle Orton and Jack Daniel's could be the greatest songwriting duo since Rodgers and Hammerstein." - DJ Gallo

by mike b on Feb 23, 2008 6:58 AM CST up reply actions

I understand your reasons for letting Berrian go

But they might wind up having to sign other potential FA's to multi - year contracts, given the market conditions at present. OTOH, a franchise tag on Berrian at least gives you a year to try to develop more alternatives in - house, meaning the draft or non - drafted FA's. Even if they have to pay Berrian more than he's worth for this year, it's only a one - year hit to the team cap, and he'll be under pressure to perform in order to rake in the big bucks for '09.

by Dmac on Feb 21, 2008 11:52 AM CST reply actions

Even if he's overpriced

at a franchise tag, it's only one year. There's no cap ramifications past this year and you're not tied to a long-term deal, Considering the WR corps out there, I think it's a no-brainer to franchise him at this point.

Rotoworld blurb says Ruben Brown won't be coming back either...

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

by thecubreporter on Feb 21, 2008 12:03 PM CST reply actions

Briggs is worth it

Just as Briggs isn't as good without Urlacher, Urlacher in his new and fragile incarnation isn't as good without Briggs. Briggs gets a lot of attention now, gets a lot of double teams and it frees up Urlacher. Vice versa is true. They are a two headed monster of death and destruction. Briggs has proven his worth in the past two seasons. Moreover I thought the reason to take out the trash like they have in the last two weeks has been to keep Briggs. If not, then why dump so much weight?

by bloomerang on Feb 21, 2008 12:19 PM CST reply actions