jason

I don't even understand why it's a move! It should have NEVER CHANGED!

I can live with you having your own version, since it's essentially the same analogy I used. Although, I think Crowton also ends up with an edible dish, but there's probably not enough chives (e.g. run) to counteract the metric ton of cheese he used (e.g. pass). The only thing you forgot is that Shoop DEFINITELY burns himself somewhere during the contest. (There is no way I can let him off the hook for the countless plays that everyone in the universe knew were wrong for the down, distance, game situation, personnel, defense, weather, Farmer's Almanac, and stellar alignment.) Shoop definitely burns himself. I'm thinking at least a square foot of 2nd degree burns to his hand, arm, or face.

The rise is minimal. But I will provide these analogies... Crowton = The guy who tries to compete in a cooking competition, only has 2 eggs and a potato, and insists he's going to make chili. He's destined to fail, but at least he's trying. Shoop = The guy who, despite having 2 eggs and a potato, is too dumb and/or afraid to actually compete in a cooking competition after signing up for it, so he decides to boil water and ends up scalding his hand when he repeatedly checks the water temperature. Both are probably going to fail, but only the former has the possibility of making someone happy with the ingredients provided. And since we Bears' fans have been starving for offense for so long, I was/am happy to have at least a baked potato and scrambled eggs. Personally, I'm tired of boiled water. Side note: The Crowton analogy can be applied to Martz to some extent.

Of course...this would be the first year in a long time that I wasted a high pick on a QB. I hope it's a bogus report.

I didn't really laugh, but at least I give them credit for having someone on staff who appears to be familiar with Bears' football: Voices yell at Lovie for his decisions during"...crucial game situations involving clock management, replay challenges, fourth-down play-calls, and decisions regarding when to use Devin Hester."

The Bears have a Full Back. It's just that in the Martz offense he lines up on the line of scrimmage and he's called a Tight End. I'm a big fan of bruising Full Backs. This is the one major problem I have with the Martz offense.

There may not be loyalty, but it's far from a 50/50 split. I'd say the Bears' FO was pretty damn loyal when they gave Lance Briggs a massive 6-year deal that made him one of the highest paid LBs in the NFL. Even remotely siding with Briggs in this situation shows a lack of understanding of the equity of NFL contracts and negotiations, not to mention complete blindness on who is actually being disloyal.

Lance Briggs

Aside from straight up calling Briggs ignorant and greedy, I agree with the article (except the quotes from Briggs). Year 1 - $9 million: Year 2 - $9 million: Year 3 - $8 million Year 4 - 3.65 million Year 5 - 3.65 million Year 6 - 3.65 million

Judging from the fact you're still debating, you clearly don't grasp the differences being discussed. I think it's been said more than one time in this thread. Beginning of contract: -# of years - benefits player & team -bonus - benefits player -front-loaded contract - benefits player End of contract -# of years - benefits player & team -lack of bonus - benefits team -front-loaded contract - benefits team The owners can cut the players, but by the time they cut the players the owners are already at a loss. If they cut the players they don't get the benefit of the later years of productivity which are essentially promised by the player yet unfulfilled. Don't you see how that automatically puts the owners at a disadvantage? They were promised X (contract length) years of service, but only received X-Y (years of productivity) years of service. And you might counter, "they don't have to cut the players." That's correct, but now you're putting the owners in the position paying for a sinking boat. Poor investments are cut before they cost even more money than they already have. In Briggs' situation, he's already ahead on the deal. He got the length, bonus, and front-loading. The team got the promise of the length. Right now, Briggs is ahead 3-1, maybe 3-2 if you want to consider the team's option to cut, but the player is still ahead in the deal. Not to mention the fact that the team takes the greater share of the risk. To argue for Briggs just doesn't make sense when you think of it all logically.

Completely disagreed. I can't believe you honestly believe what you just wrote. To even equate the average joe asking for a raise to how an NFL player holds their team hostage for a raise is utterly ridiculous. And so is his tweet. His tweet does NOT make sense.

Not a huge surprise, but with the recent Briggs news it might be smart to keep an extra LB around. Also, with the not-so-recent flaws on the OL, it might be smart to keep a promising, young Center around.

I'm so sick of hearing this shit over and over and over. The player and the team negotiate for a non-guaranteed contract. The player wants: 1-Lots of money 2-Lots of front-end money (i.e. bonus, higher salaried initial years) 3-Lots of guaranteed money 4-The security of a long-term contract The team wants nearly the opposite. So what happens? 1,2,3, AND 4 get agreed upon, but once 1-3 are satisfied, and the contract is finally to the team's advantage, suddenly the player is not happy with the contract. If players were being honest and forthcoming, they would either A]Offer to have their contracts restructured when they don't play up to previous standards, and/or B] Exclusively seek 1-year deals that yield the highest salary. Until their is one year left on his contract (a common timeline for negotiation and restructuring), Briggs needs to get his ass on the field and shut his mouth. I know what the opposite says, "But the team can cut him!" And they do. Which is the main reason why it's not guaranteed and why the player negotiated for the front end money and bonus.

Is that indicative of the board, the team, or both? Seems to me the traits of the team drive the actions of the board. And if we're all still singing the same tunes, then it probably means the team hasn't addressed the variety of issues that the collective at talkbears finds paramount.

You've clearly been lurking.

Sarcasm or not, my friend who is a diehard Seahawks fan thought it was hilarious that the Bears picked up Spencer. He mentioned that Spencer had a hard enough getting starts on the Seahawks, and asked if we were up for another Rick Mirer trade. I don't view that as a very good sign.

HILARIOUS that you mention those three. I was with my Dad at the Bears v. Titans game and he noted how many players were on the sideline. I told him they hadn't reached final cuts yet, and said, "For intsance, that guy Antle? He's gone. Vittatoe? Not a prayer of being on anything higher than the practice squad. Brignone...too bad it's not Briggsnone and the front office gets confused, because his chances of making the team are slim and Brig-none."

FYI - Okoye came back in after that sack/chest combo. He even had a few tackles. In my opinion, he was the most impressive Bear yesterday.

Agreed. I had a few friends with me at the game (various locations in the stadium) and I got multiple texts making fun of Hanie's throw. It was just a horrible throw. No miscommunication at all. Just a peewee league throw by Hanie.

I was at the game and thought the DB was draped on Roy early. Not to mention the fact that the other defensive player cut right in front of the pass and obscured the view. That was a very difficult catch to say the least.

Agreed. And then most of the Martz flaws would be forgotten because Cutler would have 4000+ yards and DBs all over the NFC North would have nightmares about covering guys like Hester and Knox for more than 2 second routes.

You know that wasn't me, Pix. I thought the WRs were just fine before Roy Williams. It's just a matter of having a system and complimentary pieces that allow for the skill position players to actually, ya know, use their skills.

Not only would it take 1/4 of a second for JA to say yes, he'd have to throw away his underwear after simultaneously jizzing and shitting himself at how great a deal it was. Look, I like Forte too. A lot. But he is not Chris Johnson. CJ is better than Forte. This is not even up for debate. Every front office guy in the NFL would make that trade in a heartbeat if they were on the receiving end of CJ. To argue otherwise is ignorant. Who cares if he knows the system? How hard can it be for a RB? Besides, if CJ missed a block or two it would be offseat by the multiple 50 yarders that he'd break off...runs that Forte can't make. The only possible reason the Bears wouldn't make this trade is money. Period.

Much appreciated. That's the kind of stuff I like to do when I have time. But, who has time?