DuffMan Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 from a peter king column talking to Drew Roshenhaus (Brigg's Agent): e. He said the Bears had a seven-year, $33-million contract offer on the table for Lance Briggs last year, and haven't offered him a multi-year deal this offseason. It's either play the year at $7.2 million (poor guy) or sit out (he'll never do that) or hope some team comes to the Bears (the Patriots?) and says, "We'll give you a low first-round pick for Briggs,'' and then signs him to a $7 million-a-year deal with $20 million guaranteed."The Bears haven't given us many options,'' he said. "Come in and play this year at $7.2 million. That's it. They've said to us they have no intention of signing him to a long-term deal. If we'd have signed the deal they offered last year, Lance wouldn't have been among the top 15-paid linebackers in the league.'' I said, "The Patriots ought to send the 28th pick to Chicago for him. The Bears would have to take that, wouldn't they, rather than have a pissed-off player?'' Rosenhaus said: "From your lips to God's ears.''If Briggs can play in our system, I'd pull the trigger on that deal in a second. If we only have 2 first day picks might as well make one an impact player at a position of need. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 I'd still rather forget about Briggs and use that #18 on an actual rookie. I don't know how we'd even be able to afford him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJBestInAFC Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Trade Justin Smith and John Thornton for Briggs. That would free up money for the Bengals and they wouldn't have to lose any draft picks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Trade Justin Smith and John Thornton for Briggs. That would free up money for the Bengals and they wouldn't have to lose any draft picks.I could see the Bears being interested in Thornton, but they have no use for Justin. Also after such a trade, we'd have two defensive tackles on the roster, both of whom are still unproven as Bengals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Thoughts?Not much of a team guy. Too worried about himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekshank Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Thoughts?Not much of a team guy. Too worried about himself.I don't know if I agree with that. Careers in this league can end very quickly. He just wants some security, and feels disrespected by the Bears organization. He's been a pro-bowler there for 3 years (I think) and they have made no effort to extend his contract. The Bears management is worse than the oft criticized Bengals when it comes to making their players feel wanted. The Bears had 2 years to try to extend him when he was playing a great deal better than his contract would indicate. He didn't complain. He didn't threaten to sit out if they didn't renegotiate. He played out his contract. Now, he simply doesn't want to play under a 1-year contract. Maybe he won't get much sympathy from the majority of fans... but I understand his complaint.That said... I don't want him. He's too expensive, and we have needs elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Thoughts?Not much of a team guy. Too worried about himself.I don't know if I agree with that. Careers in this league can end very quickly. He just wants some security, and feels disrespected by the Bears organization. ...The Bears had 2 years to try to extend him when he was playing a great deal better than his contract would indicate. He didn't complain. He didn't threaten to sit out if they didn't renegotiate. He played out his contract. Now, he simply doesn't want to play under a 1-year contract. Maybe he won't get much sympathy from the majority of fans... but I understand his complaint.The Bears offered him a seven-year, $33 million deal before starting the 2006 season. He didn't accept. So it's not about stability or he would have had it -- if that was his concern. And "respect" and "disrespect" is about the most over-rated big steaming pile of BS in sports today (not directed towards you D... we just hear it all the time). I understand your POV, and agree on most situations. But Briggs is playing a game that has a majority of the Bears fan-base ticked off at him because they feel he's "disrespecting" them. Coming off a Super Bowl losing game, having declined a seven-year deal and bitching about a $7.2 million in guarantee money for one-year of work, is, IMHO, not much of a team guy that's too worried about himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekshank Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Thoughts?Not much of a team guy. Too worried about himself.I don't know if I agree with that. Careers in this league can end very quickly. He just wants some security, and feels disrespected by the Bears organization. ...The Bears had 2 years to try to extend him when he was playing a great deal better than his contract would indicate. He didn't complain. He didn't threaten to sit out if they didn't renegotiate. He played out his contract. Now, he simply doesn't want to play under a 1-year contract. Maybe he won't get much sympathy from the majority of fans... but I understand his complaint.The Bears offered him a seven-year, $33 million deal before starting the 2006 season. He didn't accept. So it's not about stability or he would have had it -- if that was his concern. And "respect" and "disrespect" is about the most over-rated big steaming pile of BS in sports today (not directed towards you D... we just hear it all the time). I understand your POV, and agree on most situations. But Briggs is playing a game that has a majority of the Bears fan-base ticked off at him because they feel he's "disrespecting" them. Coming off a Super Bowl losing game, having declined a seven-year deal and bitching about a $7.2 million in guarantee money for one-year of work, is, IMHO, not much of a team guy that's too worried about himself.I hadn't heard that they offered him a long-term deal. He basically said in an interview that they hadn't done anything like that. That information could certainly change my opinion about the situation. However, I do think that fans often take management's side on these issues. Just because T.O. was a jerk doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't owners taking advantage of players out there. I guess that's my main point - whether it applies to this situation or not is up for debate I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 The Bears offered him a seven-year, $33 million deal before starting the 2006 season. He didn't accept. So it's not about stability or he would have had it -- if that was his concern. It wasn't so much that he didn't accept the Bears offer, but the fact that he showed such disdain for it that they felt further negotiations were pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Thoughts?Not much of a team guy. Too worried about himself.I don't know if I agree with that. Careers in this league can end very quickly. He just wants some security, and feels disrespected by the Bears organization. ...The Bears had 2 years to try to extend him when he was playing a great deal better than his contract would indicate. He didn't complain. He didn't threaten to sit out if they didn't renegotiate. He played out his contract. Now, he simply doesn't want to play under a 1-year contract. Maybe he won't get much sympathy from the majority of fans... but I understand his complaint.The Bears offered him a seven-year, $33 million deal before starting the 2006 season. He didn't accept. So it's not about stability or he would have had it -- if that was his concern. And "respect" and "disrespect" is about the most over-rated big steaming pile of BS in sports today (not directed towards you D... we just hear it all the time). I understand your POV, and agree on most situations. But Briggs is playing a game that has a majority of the Bears fan-base ticked off at him because they feel he's "disrespecting" them. Coming off a Super Bowl losing game, having declined a seven-year deal and bitching about a $7.2 million in guarantee money for one-year of work, is, IMHO, not much of a team guy that's too worried about himself.I hadn't heard that they offered him a long-term deal. He basically said in an interview that they hadn't done anything like that. That information could certainly change my opinion about the situation. However, I do think that fans often take management's side on these issues. Just because T.O. was a jerk doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't owners taking advantage of players out there. I guess that's my main point - whether it applies to this situation or not is up for debate I guess.Yea, it's in the middle of this ESPN piece. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2796645And I'm not here to demand anything or rip Briggs for anything. It's his choice, his life, live it how he sees fit. Just don't think much of him as a team player. Then again, those type of players are a dying class... IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GapControl Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 With his stats and ProBowls he would be the best LB we have ever had here. That would be something to get him in a trade and sign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.