Lyer says show Faneca the $$$

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=352067

[adam]

At 31, how long of a deal would you give him? I would love to have him (for about the next 3 years), but it seems like he is looking for a monster deal. It would probably be worth it for a couple of years, but I could see a team regretting a long deal.

[madlithuanian]

I think it's reasonable to expect he'd want at least a 4 year deal. I'd do it. It gives us until he's 35... It locks up a spot for a few years while we groom a replacement.

 

At 31, how long of a deal would you give him? I would love to have him (for about the next 3 years), but it seems like he is looking for a monster deal. It would probably be worth it for a couple of years, but I could see a team regretting a long deal.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

I agree. I'd do a 4 year, $24 million contract, and then add a $10 million signing bonus or somethin'.

[DrunkBomber]

Im pretty sure hes gonna want more than a four year deal. That said I wouldnt mind giving him 5 or 6 if they worked it where we could cut him after the third/fourth year if needed and not a huge cap hit. 31 isnt old for an offensive lineman and he more than likely has 5 or more very good years in him and probably about three stellar years. Seeing what moves like this do to teams like Minny and Cleveland, i say if we can get him, we have to go for it.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Im pretty sure hes gonna want more than a four year deal. That said I wouldnt mind giving him 5 or 6 if they worked it where we could cut him after the third/fourth year if needed and not a huge cap hit. 31 isnt old for an offensive lineman and he more than likely has 5 or more very good years in him and probably about three stellar years. Seeing what moves like this do to teams like Minny and Cleveland, i say if we can get him, we have to go for it.

Amen to that. Good post

[BearSox]

He has probably 3 pro-bowl caliber seasons left in him and around 3 old but still decent/good seasons in him. Ideally, we could get him to a 5 year deal that is back loaded.

[bradjock]

I agree. I'd do a 4 year, $24 million contract, and then add a $10 million signing bonus or somethin'.

 

HUH??? Have you seen the deals top guards are getting??? We're talking at least 50+ million. Fanacea is the best guard available, and most teams have tons of dough to spend.

 

If he were younger I think he'd be worth it. But at his age, and considering we need major help at the tackle position, it's just too much to ask.

[balta1701-A]

HUH??? Have you seen the deals top guards are getting??? We're talking at least 50+ million. Fanacea is the best guard available, and most teams have tons of dough to spend.

 

If he were younger I think he'd be worth it. But at his age, and considering we need major help at the tackle position, it's just too much to ask.

The amount guards have been getting has been related in no small part to their age as well. Hutch, for example, was about 28 when he signed with the Vikings.

 

Anyway, its' an NFL contract. The total amount and total length don't matter. What matters is the guaranteed money and the cap hit. Offer him 8/80 for all I care, if the cap hit and guarantee is small. Look at your cap situation for the next 2 years, one of which is uncapped, and be smart about it and it will work.

[bradjock]

The amount guards have been getting has been related in no small part to their age as well. Hutch, for example, was about 28 when he signed with the Vikings.

 

Anyway, its' an NFL contract. The total amount and total length don't matter. What matters is the guaranteed money and the cap hit. Offer him 8/80 for all I care, if the cap hit and guarantee is small. Look at your cap situation for the next 2 years, one of which is uncapped, and be smart about it and it will work.

 

What I failed to mention is that the guys signing 50 million $$$ deals are getting around 20 million of it guaranteed. For instance, last season Leonard Davis signed with the Cowboys for 49.6 million (as per espn.com) 18.75 was guaranteed, and he'll receiver 24 million over the first 3 seasons. I'm no cap expert, but I'm guessing the 18.75 was spread out over 6 years, (meaning he'll receive over 3 million a year for six years, depending on how it was distributed.) Which means if they dump him after year 3 they'd still owe him 9 million (I probably screwed that way up.)

 

I'm the wrong person to be arguing this (because I'm retarded in cap matters) but the bottom line is, top players & agents aren't going to settle for a stupid deal.

 

Faneca will cost a shit load and he's already 31.

[nfoligno]

Agreed that Faneca will cost a shit load, but at the same time, do not expect him to get the same as Hutch, or Leanord Davis, or some others you might think of. As great is Faneca is, he is 31, and the reality is few, if any, are going to offer him the same sort of deal as Hutch got. He simply is not going to get a 6 year deal, which means he is not going to get the same bonus either.

 

What I think is possible would be to look at Hutch's deal, and play w/ the numbers a bit. Offer less money, due to fewer years, but at similar averages.

 

I looked it up, and it looks like Hutch actually got a 7 year deal for $49m, w/ $16m guaranteed.

 

What I think we should be doing is looking at similar averge money, but proportioned for 4 years instead of 7. I just do not see anyone offering him a 6 or 7 year deal, which simply means the money is not going to be the same.

[nfoligno]

I think we have to consider what Faneca brings to the table for us.

 

He would bring his pro bowl level play. That alone may be worth the money, but I think he also brings a thing or two else that may also make the money worth it.

 

I think there is a solid chance we draft an OT in the 1st. While he may not start at LT year one, I think that is likely the plan. A young LT will likely develop much better playing next to Faneca than not. So signing an OG like Faneca would not only add talent to the OL, but give us a far greater chance of developing a young LT.

 

I also love the potential of creating a dominating 1-2-3 on the left. Draft a 1st round OT, put him next to Faneca, who would be next to Kreutz. That trio could pave the way for even Benson to become a pro bowl RB.

 

Finally, as the article mentions, Faneca is a throw back, flat out mean player. Next to Kreutz, we could develop a nasty OL reminicent of the old days.

[adam]

If we are going to overpay for any position, it seems like O-Line would be the best place to do it. I was just concerned with the length of the contract.

 

Like nfo said, Faneca would have a positive effect on the entire offense. Better pass protection, and a better running game. Also, adding a nasty attitude always helps too.

[madlithuanian]

Sold!

 

I think we have to consider what Faneca brings to the table for us.

 

He would bring his pro bowl level play. That alone may be worth the money, but I think he also brings a thing or two else that may also make the money worth it.

 

I think there is a solid chance we draft an OT in the 1st. While he may not start at LT year one, I think that is likely the plan. A young LT will likely develop much better playing next to Faneca than not. So signing an OG like Faneca would not only add talent to the OL, but give us a far greater chance of developing a young LT.

 

I also love the potential of creating a dominating 1-2-3 on the left. Draft a 1st round OT, put him next to Faneca, who would be next to Kreutz. That trio could pave the way for even Benson to become a pro bowl RB.

 

Finally, as the article mentions, Faneca is a throw back, flat out mean player. Next to Kreutz, we could develop a nasty OL reminicent of the old days.

[Mongo3451]

I think we have to consider what Faneca brings to the table for us.

 

He would bring his pro bowl level play. That alone may be worth the money, but I think he also brings a thing or two else that may also make the money worth it.

 

I think there is a solid chance we draft an OT in the 1st. While he may not start at LT year one, I think that is likely the plan. A young LT will likely develop much better playing next to Faneca than not. So signing an OG like Faneca would not only add talent to the OL, but give us a far greater chance of developing a young LT.

 

I also love the potential of creating a dominating 1-2-3 on the left. Draft a 1st round OT, put him next to Faneca, who would be next to Kreutz. That trio could pave the way for even Benson to become a pro bowl RB.

 

Finally, as the article mentions, Faneca is a throw back, flat out mean player. Next to Kreutz, we could develop a nasty OL reminicent of the old days.

 

Agreed on all accounts. There is something to be gained by a rookie tackle learning a work ethic, technique and a nasty demeanor from a pro-bowler/SuperBowl winner. I also want Rueben Brown starting at RG next to Tait. Backups to be St.Clair, Garza, Beekman and another rookie.

[DrunkBomber]

Faneca and a top flight rookie LT changes this whole offense by leaps and bounds. He is the best offensive FA available and it happens to be at a position we are desperate for. this is as close to a slam dunk fit as there is.

[Controlled Chaos]

I think we have to consider what Faneca brings to the table for us.

 

He would bring his pro bowl level play. That alone may be worth the money, but I think he also brings a thing or two else that may also make the money worth it.

 

I think there is a solid chance we draft an OT in the 1st. While he may not start at LT year one, I think that is likely the plan. A young LT will likely develop much better playing next to Faneca than not. So signing an OG like Faneca would not only add talent to the OL, but give us a far greater chance of developing a young LT.

 

I also love the potential of creating a dominating 1-2-3 on the left. Draft a 1st round OT, put him next to Faneca, who would be next to Kreutz. That trio could pave the way for even Benson to become a pro bowl RB.

 

Finally, as the article mentions, Faneca is a throw back, flat out mean player. Next to Kreutz, we could develop a nasty OL reminicent of the old days.

 

Agree 100%. Faneca is worth every penny.

[BearSox]

I think we have to consider what Faneca brings to the table for us.

 

He would bring his pro bowl level play. That alone may be worth the money, but I think he also brings a thing or two else that may also make the money worth it.

 

I think there is a solid chance we draft an OT in the 1st. While he may not start at LT year one, I think that is likely the plan. A young LT will likely develop much better playing next to Faneca than not. So signing an OG like Faneca would not only add talent to the OL, but give us a far greater chance of developing a young LT.

 

I also love the potential of creating a dominating 1-2-3 on the left. Draft a 1st round OT, put him next to Faneca, who would be next to Kreutz. That trio could pave the way for even Benson to become a pro bowl RB.

 

Finally, as the article mentions, Faneca is a throw back, flat out mean player. Next to Kreutz, we could develop a nasty OL reminicent of the old days.

don't forget that Tait would go back to his original position of RT and be able to play at a higher level. Then, we bring in someone to compete with Garza and backup the guards, and we are talking about a complete 180 from last year.

[AZ54]

I agree too. We must be in hot pursuit of Faneca and we must overpay for him because of what he will bring to the team overall, not just his position. It was a similar concept when we went after Moose and I think to revamp the Oline we'll have to do it again. My guess is we'll offer him a 5 year deal with the 5th year setup in a way we can get out of it with minimal hit.

[Iguana]

with the amount of cap space and the number of players already locked up, I dont see any reason not to overpay a bit for him if he is able to make this line a whole lot better. A very good OL can make even average players look good.

 

I would like to see Faneca signed and then go after Ken Hamlin from Dallas. Maybe then resign Berrian if possible.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

with the amount of cap space and the number of players already locked up, I dont see any reason not to overpay a bit for him if he is able to make this line a whole lot better. A very good OL can make even average players look good.

 

I would like to see Faneca signed and then go after Ken Hamlin from Dallas. Maybe then resign Berrian if possible.

That's what I said in the "Which one is more exciting, the draft or FA" thread.

[bradjock]

What scares me is:

1) His age. The guy's 31 years old already and he'll want a 5 year deal.

2) Why is Pittsburgh ready to let him walk? Pittsburgh and New England have a talent for letting good players walk at the right time.

3) Unless they sign with New England, FA's rarely do as well as expected. Big name guys the Bears have signed in the past few years, Moose, Tait, Wale, and even Thomas Jones, had very questionable first seasons. Maybe they were bad because the players around them were bad, but they were still bad. In other words, if we signed Faneca, he's likely to have a down 2007. So we'll be hoping for more in 2008 when he's 32?

 

I'd just rather we don't over-pay for a guard, and if we do, find one who is not as old.

 

I think we have to consider what Faneca brings to the table for us.

 

He would bring his pro bowl level play. That alone may be worth the money, but I think he also brings a thing or two else that may also make the money worth it.

 

I think there is a solid chance we draft an OT in the 1st. While he may not start at LT year one, I think that is likely the plan. A young LT will likely develop much better playing next to Faneca than not. So signing an OG like Faneca would not only add talent to the OL, but give us a far greater chance of developing a young LT.

 

I also love the potential of creating a dominating 1-2-3 on the left. Draft a 1st round OT, put him next to Faneca, who would be next to Kreutz. That trio could pave the way for even Benson to become a pro bowl RB.

 

Finally, as the article mentions, Faneca is a throw back, flat out mean player. Next to Kreutz, we could develop a nasty OL reminicent of the old days.

[DrunkBomber]

What scares me is:

1) His age. The guy's 31 years old already and he'll want a 5 year deal.

2) Why is Pittsburgh ready to let him walk? Pittsburgh and New England have a talent for letting good players walk at the right time.

3) Unless they sign with New England, FA's rarely do as well as expected. Big name guys the Bears have signed in the past few years, Moose, Tait, Wale, and even Thomas Jones, had very questionable first seasons. Maybe they were bad because the players around them were bad, but they were still bad. In other words, if we signed Faneca, he's likely to have a down 2007. So we'll be hoping for more in 2008 when he's 32?

 

I'd just rather we don't over-pay for a guard, and if we do, find one who is not as old.

Tait, Wale and Jones were all solid pick ups and were well worth the signings or trades to get them. Im sure Pittsburgh wants to keep him but they cant afford him. Its not like he got released he is just a free agent and wants to explore his options. 31 isnt that old for an offensive lineman.

[bradjock]

Tait, Wale and Jones were all solid pick ups and were well worth the signings or trades to get them. Im sure Pittsburgh wants to keep him but they cant afford him. Its not like he got released he is just a free agent and wants to explore his options. 31 isnt that old for an offensive lineman.

 

Eventually they were solid pick-ups, but immediately they were huge dissappointments. In their first seasons with the Bears:

 

Tait: Played RT for arguably the worst o-line the NFL has ever seen. Shea & Q-Mitchell were the main culprits, but he was part of a god-awful mess. Don't forget Tait was only 28 when we signed him.

 

Wale: Was injured most of his first season with the Bears & his 15 sacks dropped to 5. He only started 12 games. This is the first season with Chicago he's lived up to his paycheck.

 

Thomas Jones: He was mediocre enough that we targeted Cedric with the #4 pick the next year.

 

I forgot to mention that last year's major acquisitions were Arch & Walker.

 

In other words, whatever player we pick up, we had better not expect great results immediately.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

I think we have to consider what Faneca brings to the table for us.

 

He would bring his pro bowl level play. That alone may be worth the money, but I think he also brings a thing or two else that may also make the money worth it.

 

I think there is a solid chance we draft an OT in the 1st. While he may not start at LT year one, I think that is likely the plan. A young LT will likely develop much better playing next to Faneca than not. So signing an OG like Faneca would not only add talent to the OL, but give us a far greater chance of developing a young LT.

 

I also love the potential of creating a dominating 1-2-3 on the left. Draft a 1st round OT, put him next to Faneca, who would be next to Kreutz. That trio could pave the way for even Benson to become a pro bowl RB.

 

Finally, as the article mentions, Faneca is a throw back, flat out mean player. Next to Kreutz, we could develop a nasty OL reminicent of the old days.

I think the key with Faneca is that he can come in and be next to Kreutz and Tait to give you a real dominate side of the line while the Bears draft a tackle to start working on the other side (and the other guard spot I think they can fill in house with there current options, whether that means Garza or old man Brown). Faneca and a 1st round tackle could have the Bears line as one of the best in football in no time. However, they could also opt to go with Max Starks or someone else that is younger and than take a non tackle in the first round (go with a skill player on offense or someone like Phillips at safety or even a trade down) and than grab one of the best guards in the draft in rd 2.