LT2_3

I don't know what you have in mind as "a while", but the deadline for extending franchised players to long term contracts was July 15th. If they had waited, they would have had to wait until after the season.

Pix - I honestly don't buy the argument that Cutler has to do anything spectacular to get a top of the line contract from the Bears. His value as a top QB in the league was established when we gave up 2 1sts, a third, and Orton to get him. I'll tell you some more things about Cutler's new contract. It will account for the years he still has left under contract too. So, if he signs one later this year, it will probably be a 5 year extension to the 2 years that will be left on his current contract, but restructured to the Bears benefit. He has 2 years left that are scheduled to pay him roughly $5.5 million in 2010, and $14.8 million in 2011. So, if they give him another $80 million over the following 5 years (avg of $16 mil per year) then he has a $100 million contract easily. A decent rule of thumb for long term contracts for high end players is to pay them a contract average per year of the current franchise tag at the player's position. If you tack on a few mill this year to use the cap we have, then the average over those 7 years drops to right about what Cassel was scheduled to make on th franchise tag this year. We'll see, but I think the Sun Times was way off by suggesting that Cassel's contract is a starting point for the Cutler negotiations. They should have said that Stafford's contract (6 years $72 mil ($12 mil per yr avg) and $40 million guaranteed) is the baseline. Other contracts for comparison: Peyton Manning: 7 yrs $99 million ($14 mil per yr avg) - signed 3 years ago Carson Palmer: 6 years $118.75 million (19.1 mil per yr avg) - signed last year Ben Roethlisberger: 8 years $102 mil contract (12.75 mil average) - signed last year Now I don't know the details of the incentives for each guy's contract, but I could see giving him a base average of $12-14 mil per year and a million bonus for each level of the playoffs we win each year maxed at $4 mil per year. That puts him in the Carson Palmer range per year if we win the SB, but puts his base closer to the Aaron Rogers / Ben Roethlisberger / Matt Cassel range if we miss the playoffs. Cliff Stein will write a contract that will allow Cutler's agent to crow about the max value, and also protect us a bit on the high end with incentives and escalators. That's at least what sounds reasonable IMHO.

Because we have no experience with it. We've never had anyone since the dawn of free agency that would have been worth a top contract. I guess I also find it funny that anyone would think that Cassel's deal is similar at all to what Cutler will eventually sign for. He's easily in the Manning / McNabb / Favre arena that's worth 7 years $100 million with probably $45 million guaranteed. The smartest thing Cutler can do for his next contract is simply wait until Eli signs his and look for something in the same neighborhood.

I find it funny that Bears fans are suggesting that another team overpaid a QB. While I question Cassel's future prospects for success, obviously the Chiefs at least have a very good idea of what they have in him. Now let's look at the situation in detail. Once he was franchised, they were guaranteeing him $14.65 million under the franchise tag. The following year's franchise tag would cost at least $17.58 million. They only guaranteed him $28 million in his new 6 year contract - $4.23 million less than 2 franchise tags in a row. So, this gives the Chiefs his rights for 6 years for less guaranteed money than 2 years on the franchise tag - and they can release him at any time. It seems like a totally reasonable deal to me and I would suspect that, due to inflation, the same "going rate" deal for a starting QB would cost even more next year. For me, the bottom line is that they are paying him less than the Jets are paying Sanchez. If Cassel were to be included in the draft with a body of work equivalent to what he did last year with the Patriots, he would probably get drafted in the top 7-8 and made even more.

I totally see that as a possibility. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me a bit. Without a journeyman QB as backup, the season is pretty much toast if Cutler goes down for the season. In the case of both QBs going down, they can pick someone up to learn on the fly and run alot more Wildcat.

Exactly.

The major problem with his analysis is that he counts "near-INTs" in his calculation. I worked his numbers backwards and he is apparently counting 24 "near-INTs" for Cutler over the past 3 years. I'd love to see how he breaks that down because Cutler's numbers have improved each year at least in the form of actual INTs per attempt. >ints att rate percent 18 616 34.22 0.029220779 14 467 33.35 0.029978587 05 137 27.40 0.03649635 37 1220 32.97 0.030327869 He went from 1 INT per 27 passes in his rookie year, to 1 in 33 to 1 in 34. So he's improving in this regard anyway. As for the rest of the league, here's the breakdown for last year.... >Player Att Int Percent Rate Gus Frerotte 301 15 4.98% 20.07 Brett Favre 522 22 4.21% 23.73 Ben Roethliser 469 15 3.20% 31.27 Dan Orlovsky 255 08 3.14% 31.88 Tony Romo 450 14 3.11% 32.14 Marc Bulger 440 13 2.95% 33.85 Jay Cutler 616 18 2.92% 34.22 Jake Delhomme 414 12 2.90% 34.50 Tyler Thigpen 420 12 2.86% 35.00 Derek Anderson 283 08 2.83% 35.38 Joe Flacco 428 12 2.80% 35.67 Shaun Hill 288 08 2.78% 36.00 Drew Brees 635 17 2.68% 37.35 Trent Edwards 374 10 2.67% 37.40 Matt Schaub 380 10 2.63% 38.00 Kyle Orton 465 12 2.58% 38.75 Matt Ryan 434 11 2.53% 39.45 David Garrard 535 13 2.43% 41.15 Aaron Rodgers 536 13 2.43% 41.23 Ryan Fitzpat 372 09 2.42% 41.33 Kurt Warner 598 14 2.34% 42.71 Philip Rivers 478 11 2.30% 43.45 JaMarcus Russ 368 8 2.17% 46.00 Peyton Manning 555 12 2.16% 46.25 Matt Cassel 516 11 2.13% 46.91 Eli Manning 479 10 2.09% 47.90 Donovan McNabb 571 11 1.93% 51.91 Kerry Collins 415 07 1.69% 59.29 Jeff Garcia 376 06 1.60% 62.67 Chad Pennington 476 07 1.47% 68.00 Seneca Wallace 242 03 1.24% 80.67 Jason Campbell 506 06 1.19% 84.33 Now these numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. While Jason Campbell is very impressive in this regard, very little else can be read into it. The 3 INT difference between Warner and Brees puts them in entirely different parts of the list but I would bet that Brees had to play from behind more often. The same argument applies to Cutler. Another reason to disregard this stat is that Rothlisberger is third on the list behind Frerotte and Favre (Cutler is 7th) and his team just won the SB.

I don't think you'll have to worry about that because you respond in the topics you start and aren't a troll.

Works for me

Yeah - I'd suggest a Sunday evening time slot would work well for most. I really won't have a clue on my detailed schedule until far closer to the time it happens. But that's why I want to get my player rankings all lined up early - in case something comes up last minute and I get autodrafted.

Great! email me an invite for the free flex league and I can get started on my player rankings. lloydt56@yahoo.com

I don't have a problem with players being automatically suspended for unresolved felonies that occured during the previous season. Plax's main problem is that he wants to sign a contract before he resolves this. If he hadn't been such a douche, the Giants wouldn't have had to release him.

Hey guys - Can we get these leagues setup and scoring established? I'd like to start setting up my positional rankings during the dead time of the year instead of waiting until TC is in full swing.

While I would agree with you to a certain extent, there is a limit even for wealthy individuals. Otherwise they would just keep getting things delayed forever and never face trial. Burress has already gotten 2 continuances that have delayed the process 6 months already. If they can get a grand jury indeitment by the end of August, then I really don't think his attorney will be able to delay the process another 6 months. For that to happen, the prosecutors would have to be amenable to doing that and his attorney has already blown any goodwill he may have had by telling the press that another 6 months delay is a slam dunk. Even if his attorney manages to get things continually delayed, Plaxico probably won't be allowed to not show up for court. That would mean that he would be missing team practices and meetings at different points during the season. I understand your cynicism about our legal system and how the wealthy can get things done that others can't, but really there is a limit to what even the wealthy can do and I really don't think that getting an open and shut case like this delayed for over a year is within the realm of reality.

I disagree 100%. I think he'll get an 8 game suspension and I think his court case will come up during the season and he'll then miss the rest of the season in jail. While his attorney gets points for trying to get him signed somewhere by suggesting that his court case won't come up this year, he loses points for pissing off the prosecutors. I think that signing him will only accomplish setting higher expectations and create more distractions. So instead of low risk - high reward, we have high risk - low reward. Don't get me wrong. I'd love to add a talent like that to the Bears, but simply saying he has some baggage is a complete understatement. He's got a long prison term hanging over his head. Don't underestimate the level of distraction that he'll cause. Every court date, every grand jury meeting, and every burp from the league office will inundate the players with questions on their take of the situation. I'd prefer that our young players be focused on - you know - football.

I've re-read the entire post and nowhere did I see anything that limited the discussion to WRs. I realize that isn't your point, but I think that Nfo discussing the passing game as a whole is completely legit - and I agree. For me, the bottom line is that Cutler is going to find someone to throw the ball to and as long as the offense works well, I don't care if the guys getting the yards are WRs, TEs, or RBs. That's really too vague to respond to without any clarification. What argument FOR our WRs are you talking about? That none of them other than Hester is a good FF prospect at this point? That the national media doesn't have a receiver to hang their hat on when evaluating them? They aren't proven. No argument there. But so what? At what point does "not proven" = "won't produce"? In what context do they need to stand on their own merits? Back in 2001 we entered the season with no proven WRs and Booker stepped up with 100 receptions and 1071 yards. My point is that someone will catch the ball. Can someone please explain to me what a #1 receiver is beyond having the most receiving yardage in the WR corps? I think the concept migrated from the FF world where you can discuss whether a WR is worthy of being your top producing WR. The problem is that NFL teams don't work lilke that. Players are looked at for matchups they create. So, for instance, Hester is very valuable on the field because of the attention he attracts like double coverage deep which opens up the running game and underneath routes. That doesn't show up on the FF stat sheet because he's creating openings for other players to be productive. So, is he a #1 WR from a yardage standpoint? It really doesn't matter because he makes the team more effective whether he touches the ball or not. IMO he's a #1 WR already because of that even though he doesn't have prototypical yards. And if you want a baseline of what to expect from Hester this year, start by taking last year's stats and adding in the pass interference yards that he racked up last year even though Orton couldn't get passes to him in the same county. You can add 77 yards from the Saints game alone. Well they may not be part of your point, but they are a huge part of the passing game. The offense works as whole or not. Those guys being good at their jobs draws attention from the WRs so indirectly they are a key piece of the equation. Of course TerraTor has the right to say anything he wants, but that doesn't mean that anyone will take him seriously. I take his negative opinions as a fundamental part of the nature of the universe. It conveniently allows me to ignore anything he says because it's always the same: negative. I get that you are making the argument to go after a proven WR. The problem is that Marshall isn't coming here even if he gets traded (which I doubt) and I personally don't think Plax is going to play much this year at all - which would make him nothing more than a distraction. I think he's going to get an 8 game suspension and I don't believe his attorney that his court case will get continued all the way to February. Without knowing his availability for the season, signing him would be stupid.

I'd like to be in one of the free leagues. Doesn't really matter which. Although, I think I'd prefer the traditional flex one if there's a slot available.

The key things IMHO about the Stallworth thing are: 1. He cooperated 100% throughout. He could have kept driving and they would have had zero proof that he was drunk at the time if he even called to report it the next morning. If he hadn't reported it, they might have never found him without someone getting his license plate. (CSI Miami is just a TV show folks btw) 2. He ALREADY completed a civil settlement with the family before the deal was made. - Geez, talk about taking responsibility. 3. It was a plea bargain and they probably couldn't have sustained the charge of DUI/Manslaughter because of what was mentioned above. 4. The other punishments including 2 years of home confinement and 10 yrs probation. Dem ain't nuttin to sneeze at. 5. Another issue about current punishments in general: The economy sucks. Many local/state governments are broke. It costs alot more money to keep someone in jail than it does to put them on house arrest and there isn't alot of money to go around. Some states have considered taking the death penalty off the table because the appeals cost the government so much money in comparison to simply life in prison. I'm not taking a side on the issue. I'm just pointing out that the issue exists. As for Marshall, why does anyone think that Denver would trade him here anyway even if we offered the best deal? I just think that the thought of watching Cutler to Marshall highlights on ESPN every Sunday would make McDaniels' balls drop like flying over a peak on a rollercoaster at high speed. Sure he's not the sharpest tool in the shed, but some things are just instinctual. If it were me, I'd pick the deal from a team with the hardest assed coach that made an offer just to keep Marshall from having an easy time succeeding.

And to just add a bit about the scenario, his BFF was getting looked at for DC positions elsewhere, and Rivera's contract was up. If he wanted to keep his BFF around, he had to make this move. I can't see a scenario where Rivera stays even if he was a cover-2 disciple and they agreed on everything.

I agree that was the implication. (at least from my perspective) The funny thing though is that these perspectives are based on a single point in time, and are not really predictive of what the future holds. Here's an example of another coach. He started as a head coach in 1992. He went to the playoffs in 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 01, 02, and 04. He had a Super Bowl appearance once during that period and lost. There were alot of questions about how good a coach he was because he hadn't won a Super Bowl. (This is where I give it away) Then, in 2005, he won the Super bowl and suddenly all of those questions went away. Yes - It's Bill Cowher. He got to the playoffs all those times, made the SB once, and finally was able to win it once he got a good QB in Rothlisberger. Rothlisberger as a rookie and guys named Maddox, Stewart, Tomczak, and O'Donnell couldn't get him over the hump. Why do I bring this up? Because it's tough to realistically blame just the head coach for not winning a SB without a legit QB. That's why I think that judging Lovie for not winning a SB so far is silly. I'm not sure any other coach could have won one in those circumstances. Sure, someone could propose that had he made different decisions in a particular game, he might have won. Then again, with a different philosophy, who's to say that other teams wouldn't have figured that out too and the team perhaps doesn't even make it that far. It's like you're in a race. There are no guarantees that you'll win even if you have the fastest car. Alot of other things have to go right. That being said, it's almost impossible for the best driver in the world to win a race if they are driving an oldsmobuick. (gratuitious Fletch reference there)

I'm in to play. Heck if the leagues are already up on Yahoo, I say get them set up now and get a good draft time!

I'm not saying it was a meaningful distraction. It may have just been a distraction to Lovie. Who knows? The gist of my point though is that Lovie probably wanted someone in that position that really wanted to be there and wasn't constantly looking for their next gig. DG - I also wish Lovie had given Rivera a new contract.

While I agree with 99% of everything you typed there, I would like to point out one thing. Lovie didn't fire Rivera, he decided to not offer a new contract to a coordinator that had been interviewing for HC gigs that caused a distraction during playoff runs for 2 years in a row. It may be a small distinction, but I think it's an important one. I personally believe (and this is solely my opinion) that had he retained Rivera, Rivera probably would have gotten a HC gig after the 2007 season (primarily due to the Bears showing more faith in him by not replacing him when his contract was up after the 2006 season). I think Lovie screwed up there, but Babich was getting DC interviews already and Lovie didn't want his guy to be somewhere else once Rivera got his HC job. I don't agree with Lovie's decision, but I understand it.

Actually, Babich didn't lose his job - meaning he's still employed by the Bears. He did not lose his title either - seeing as how his title is still DC. He also is not "gone" as you unequivically stated he would be if the Bears didn't make the playoffs. You are absolutely correct that you are entitled to your opinion. Part of the problem is that you have not been expressing your view as an opinion. You have been stating it as a prediction of fact. See if you can see the differences in the following statements: 1. I think that if the team fails to achieve X, then the coach should be fired. 2. If the team doesn't achieve X, the coach WILL be fired. Your approach, by method, precludes the acceptance of differing viewpoints. By using that method, you don't allow for someone to start a sentence "I understand your perspective, but respectfully disagree......." because the way you phrase things suggests that you will not accept differing opinions under any circumstances. So, by presenting opinions as statements of fact and discounting the views of others, you are inevitably inviting people to rub your nose in it when you harp on about things that you have been wrong about in the past. If you don't like that, then try being more respectful of other's opinions by not trying to present your opinions as fact. It's really that simple.

Geez BigDaddy. Do we have to go through this every year? Lovie is under contract through 2011 with a guaranteed contract. The only way Lovie get's let go with time left on his $5 mil per year contract is if there is only 1 year left and he's a lame duck coach. While I agree that most of the penny pinching ways of the past are over, that doesn't mean that the McCaskey's would do something as mind-bogglingly financially stupid as letting Lovie go with 2.5 years or $12.5 million left on his contract mid-season in 2009. Sure, you can point out that any salary he makes during that period would offset what the Bears owe him. But who's to say that Lovie doesn't move back to Texas for a couple years and coach HS football for a couple of years? The Bears would be on the hook for all but about $20k per year of it. BigDaddy - You've been a Lovie basher for a long time. You have made countless predictions saying what will happen and been wrong: http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...amp;#entry49991 http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...amp;#entry45456 http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...amp;#entry41089 http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...amp;#entry28197 Your predictions of what Lovie has to do to keep his job have been wrong since 2007. At what point do you realize that your opinion is based solely on your own wishful thinking, and that you really don't understand how things work?