Guest TerraTor Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Does anyone else relize just how terrible our offense looks right now. Starting Recievers Mark "sheila" Bradley Devin Hester Runningback Cedric "im gonna run for 2000 yards" Benson QB Rex Grossman Kyle Orton Its sounds like the last round of a 12person fantasy draft. My god its pathetic. Jerry better get off his ass and sign a few free agents to shore up the Oline and draft some frikkin talent. Heres my ideal FA - SHane Olivea, Max Starks, DJ Hackett Draft - As our picks stand now 1. Rashard Mendenhall 2. James Hardy or Malcolm Kelly 3. Chad Henne 3. Oniel Cousins 4. Josh Barrett or Quintin Demps 5. Dre Moore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Does anyone else relize just how terrible our offense looks right now. Starting Recievers Mark "sheila" Bradley Devin Hester Runningback Cedric "im gonna run for 2000 yards" Benson QB Rex Grossman Kyle Orton Its sounds like the last round of a 12person fantasy draft. My god its pathetic. Jerry better get off his ass and sign a few free agents to shore up the Oline and draft some frikkin talent. Heres my ideal FA - SHane Olivea, Max Starks, DJ Hackett Draft - As our picks stand now 1. Rashard Mendenhall 2. James Hardy or Malcolm Kelly 3. Chad Henne 3. Oniel Cousins 4. Josh Barrett or Quintin Demps 5. Dre Moore For the 816th time, Starks was franchised by PIT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenom283 Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 For the 816th time, Starks was franchised by PIT. Starks was not franchised he got the Transition tag which allows Pit to match any offer he receives the same way we got Tait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawhizz Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 You've been wrong all 816 times. Max Starks was NOT franchised by Pittsburgh. He got the "transition" tag, with a one year tender of just under $7 million and the right to match any offer, but any team who signs him would not be giving up any draft picks. So it's certainly difficult to make a deal work, but not nearly as impossible as it would be if he was franchised (Steve Hutchinson was transitioned by Seattle and the Vikings managed to make it work). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Hester, you seem to be having a lot of trouble w/ this issue. Transition is a far cry from franchise in terms of tag, and Starks was transitioned. If we wanted him, frankly, it would not be that difficult to steal him. If Pitt was loaded w/ cap space, it may be difficult, but as they are not, it would not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Hester, you seem to be having a lot of trouble w/ this issue. Transition is a far cry from franchise in terms of tag, and Starks was transitioned. If we wanted him, frankly, it would not be that difficult to steal him. If Pitt was loaded w/ cap space, it may be difficult, but as they are not, it would not. It would be tougher than you think. I'm pretty sure the league has, behind closed doors, put the kibosh on the type of BS terms that netted the Vikes Hutchinson. It would have to be done legitimately by out spending them. As for how much cap space they have, you have to remember that they have a $6.8 mil headstart for cap space commited to him for next year. That would be a significant chunk of what we currently have left after you subtract for rookies. We were at about $15 mil before we signed Briggs. It really wouldn't be that simple to get him, and if we did, that would probably be it for free agency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azbearsfan Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Come on now. You don't hate being Johnny Raincloud, you revel in it. That Super Bowl season must have killed you. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChileBear Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Come on now. You don't hate being Johnny Raincloud, you revel in it. That Super Bowl season must have killed you. lol Well az, look on the bright side. At least Terra warned us with the thread title. As opposed to the threads of mythical injuries to everyone on the team that he posted on the other board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azbearsfan Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Well az, look on the bright side. At least Terra warned us with the thread title. As opposed to the threads of mythical injuries to everyone on the team that he posted on the other board. So true..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 $15m before we signed Briggs. All reports I read, and I thought you supported this, showed us to be about $23m after our new deals. We started w/ around $20m, then went up to around $30m after the cuts, then back down to around $23m after new deals/extensions for Orton, Rex, Brown and Clark. Are you counting $8m for the rookie pool? That seems a bit high. From what I have read, Pitt has about $10m in cap space, w/o factoring rookie pool. Yes, I realize that right now, they are counting the $7m for Starks, but from what I have read, they are not looking at keeping him for that. They are not looking to use up that much cap on him alone, but tagged him in order for a market price to be set and to buy time to negotiate w/ him. If we made him an offer w/ a large roster bonus, I think we would get him. I am not saying we should, but only saying I think it is more possible that what you believe. Understand, I am not saying we should. Frankly, I have been against signing him as I do not want to spend big on a pure RT in FA. But I think we could slap a big roster bonus to him (maybe in the $10m range) and steal him for Pitt if we wanted to. Is that a big chunk of our '08 cap space? Yes. At the same time, I do not see us being big players in FA anyway, so signing one big time player to a big roster bonus this year may be better use of the salary cap than spreading it out w/ a bunch of weaker talent players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Does anyone else relize just how terrible our offense looks right now. Starting Recievers Mark "sheila" Bradley Devin Hester Runningback Cedric "im gonna run for 2000 yards" Benson QB Rex Grossman Kyle Orton Its sounds like the last round of a 12person fantasy draft. My god its pathetic. Jerry better get off his ass and sign a few free agents to shore up the Oline and draft some frikkin talent. Heres my ideal FA - SHane Olivea, Max Starks, DJ Hackett Draft - As our picks stand now 1. Rashard Mendenhall 2. James Hardy or Malcolm Kelly 3. Chad Henne 3. Oniel Cousins 4. Josh Barrett or Quintin Demps 5. Dre Moore I will go on record as saying I agree with the idea, but COMPLETELY DISAGREE with the idea of drafting Mendenhall in the first. That would be a horrible decision. In fact, I'm slightly irritated that so many Bears fans could be so blind as to honestly think that drafting a RB would help right now. Plain and simple, the OL sucked last year, and unless the Bears have Barry Sanders, Walter Payton, Ladainian Tomlinson, Bo Jackson, or possible another absolute stud at RB, there is not going to be productivity. Enis, Salaam, Benson...how many do the Bears have to get in the first round before fans start to realize that there is just as good of a chance in later rounds of drafting a stud RB? If the OL is right, it can be done year after year after year. Just look at Denver. Besides, RB is one of the easiest positions to transition to in the NFL. Mendenhall in the first is a horrible idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TerraTor Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 We do not have a RB on this team, plain and simple.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 $15m before we signed Briggs. All reports I read, and I thought you supported this, showed us to be about $23m after our new deals. We started w/ around $20m, then went up to around $30m after the cuts, then back down to around $23m after new deals/extensions for Orton, Rex, Brown and Clark. Are you counting $8m for the rookie pool? That seems a bit high. From what I have read, Pitt has about $10m in cap space, w/o factoring rookie pool. Yes, I realize that right now, they are counting the $7m for Starks, but from what I have read, they are not looking at keeping him for that. They are not looking to use up that much cap on him alone, but tagged him in order for a market price to be set and to buy time to negotiate w/ him. If we made him an offer w/ a large roster bonus, I think we would get him. I am not saying we should, but only saying I think it is more possible that what you believe. Understand, I am not saying we should. Frankly, I have been against signing him as I do not want to spend big on a pure RT in FA. But I think we could slap a big roster bonus to him (maybe in the $10m range) and steal him for Pitt if we wanted to. Is that a big chunk of our '08 cap space? Yes. At the same time, I do not see us being big players in FA anyway, so signing one big time player to a big roster bonus this year may be better use of the salary cap than spreading it out w/ a bunch of weaker talent players. I think I'd read in the Suntimes that we had about $20 mil to work with before we signed Briggs. Angelo likes to use roster bonuses so I have no idea the cap hit from Briggs' contract. I'm figuring $5 mil for the rookie pool. It's not inconceivable that Briggs gives us a $5 million cap hit this year. That would leave us with $10 million to compete with their $12 million of the Steelers (current tag + $10 mil available - rookie pool) And then we would be tapped out for FA. I'm not suggesting we go after him either. I'm trying to show that we won't because it would cost too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUZZMAN2333 Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 I agree .. Mendenhall is not the answer in the first round ... Hell .. I would be happy if we have 7 picks and we take all OL! We definitely need to get a WR or two ... do we have anything to trade for Fitsgerald? I always hear about other teams looking for WR's and their likely destinations .. I NEVER hear the Bears looking to trade for one though. What about Javon Walker? Is he worth a contract offer or is he too injury prone/ attitude problem? OL and WR are huge holes to fill right now ... I think we can pick up a RB late .. what about Warrick Dunn? Is he asking too much? Or maybe Julius Jones .. although he reminds me of Benson. All we have done is subtract from a 7-9 team ... I sure hope Angelo is not expecting to have a better record by using rookies next year to fill these holes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Feel free to rain... It's justified. I'm very concerned myself. Your "ideal" is just about the same as mine... Does anyone else relize just how terrible our offense looks right now. Starting Recievers Mark "sheila" Bradley Devin Hester Runningback Cedric "im gonna run for 2000 yards" Benson QB Rex Grossman Kyle Orton Its sounds like the last round of a 12person fantasy draft. My god its pathetic. Jerry better get off his ass and sign a few free agents to shore up the Oline and draft some frikkin talent. Heres my ideal FA - SHane Olivea, Max Starks, DJ Hackett Draft - As our picks stand now 1. Rashard Mendenhall 2. James Hardy or Malcolm Kelly 3. Chad Henne 3. Oniel Cousins 4. Josh Barrett or Quintin Demps 5. Dre Moore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 We do not have a RB on this team, plain and simple.. How can you possibly know that if they are continuously getting blasted at the line by three defensive players? The question was rhetorical...you don't know what the RBs on this team are capable of until the OL stops sucking. There's a reason why each of the Bears' RBs were record setters in some way, shape, or form. They have talent. However, just about any RB will appear poor or average if the OL is horrible...which it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 I think I'd read in the Suntimes that we had about $20 mil to work with before we signed Briggs. Last I read, it was around $23 to $23.5m. I wasn't sure as I didn't know how much of Brown's bonus was roster v SB, but the reports seem to be pretty consistent that we used up "approx" $7m of the $30m in cap w/ the new deals. I'm figuring $5 mil for the rookie pool. Not pinning you down, but is this a guess or based on something. I have never really known how the pool is factored. I remember a few years back that we were factoring about $3.5m, so $5m today is very possible. Just curious if you know how that works. It's not inconceivable that Briggs gives us a $5 million cap hit this year. At the same time, it is also not inconceivable that the contract is a simple one, which could mean a cap hit closer to $3m (about $2m for bonus and $1m base). That would leave us with $10 million to compete with their $12 million of the Steelers (current tag + $10 mil available - rookie pool) And then we would be tapped out for FA. Or we could have about $20m w/o rookie pool ($23m cap after re-signings and extensions minus $3m for Briggs) to compete w/ Pitt's $17m w/o rookie pool. So it is closer, w/ us ahead by a bit. At the same time, last I checked, Pitt had fewer players on their roster, and more holes to fill. By holes, I mean simple bodies, as the last I saw, they had only like 42 players that were counted in those cap numbers. Further, I am not sure how Rothlisberger's new deal, and it was a big one, hits against their cap. I think it likely their cap went down more w/ his signing. I'm not suggesting we go after him either. I'm trying to show that we won't because it would cost too much. I still believe if this is a move we wanted to do, we could do it. At the same time, as I have said before, I wouldn't, and I don't think we will. I think Angelo is looking at our cap space for current players (Urlacher, Anderson, Gould & Hester) as opposed to making any big FA splashes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Just because we've had a bad run of luck drafting RB's high in recent history, doesn't mean you just stop doing it. If a quality guys comes our way, we need him. I like Mendenhall a lot. He's no more a risk than any OL...or any player for that matter. The O line will improve I'm sure. I don't think we're done in FA yet... I will go on record as saying I agree with the idea, but COMPLETELY DISAGREE with the idea of drafting Mendenhall in the first. That would be a horrible decision. In fact, I'm slightly irritated that so many Bears fans could be so blind as to honestly think that drafting a RB would help right now. Plain and simple, the OL sucked last year, and unless the Bears have Barry Sanders, Walter Payton, Ladainian Tomlinson, Bo Jackson, or possible another absolute stud at RB, there is not going to be productivity. Enis, Salaam, Benson...how many do the Bears have to get in the first round before fans start to realize that there is just as good of a chance in later rounds of drafting a stud RB? If the OL is right, it can be done year after year after year. Just look at Denver. Besides, RB is one of the easiest positions to transition to in the NFL. Mendenhall in the first is a horrible idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 I thnk we know what we have in Benson...and unmotivated slacker that is injury prone. I want something better. I'd rather see AP and Wolfe out there becasue at least they give a s^%&. How can you possibly know that if they are continuously getting blasted at the line by three defensive players? The question was rhetorical...you don't know what the RBs on this team are capable of until the OL stops sucking. There's a reason why each of the Bears' RBs were record setters in some way, shape, or form. They have talent. However, just about any RB will appear poor or average if the OL is horrible...which it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Last I read, it was around $23 to $23.5m. I wasn't sure as I didn't know how much of Brown's bonus was roster v SB, but the reports seem to be pretty consistent that we used up "approx" $7m of the $30m in cap w/ the new deals. Wow you sure have the "quote" thing down now. I really think all those numbers are estimates. The varience is actually enough to make itpossible or not. Not pinning you down, but is this a guess or based on something. I have never really known how the pool is factored. I remember a few years back that we were factoring about $3.5m, so $5m today is very possible. Just curious if you know how that works. Feel free to pin me down on this one. To figure that, I looked at teams from last year picking roughly where we are picking in the first round with the same number of total picks and added 3%. $5 million is going to be REALLY close to what it ends up being. At the same time, it is also not inconceivable that the contract is a simple one, which could mean a cap hit closer to $3m (about $2m for bonus and $1m base). True. Or we could have about $20m w/o rookie pool ($23m cap after re-signings and extensions minus $3m for Briggs) to compete w/ Pitt's $17m w/o rookie pool. So it is closer, w/ us ahead by a bit. At the same time, last I checked, Pitt had fewer players on their roster, and more holes to fill. By holes, I mean simple bodies, as the last I saw, they had only like 42 players that were counted in those cap numbers. It was 43 but your point is valid. Further, I am not sure how Rothlisberger's new deal, and it was a big one, hits against their cap. I think it likely their cap went down more w/ his signing. Actually, because it's an extension, his cap hit could have gone down depending on how the contract is structured. I still believe if this is a move we wanted to do, we could do it. At the same time, as I have said before, I wouldn't, and I don't think we will. I think Angelo is looking at our cap space for current players (Urlacher, Anderson, Gould & Hester) as opposed to making any big FA splashes. I think we could TRY, but I'm not sure that the Steelers wouldn't match. I'm not sure I buy the speculation that they wouldn't match a reasonable deal. Oh, and I wish people would get off the "RB in the first round" bandwagon. It's NOT going to happen. Speculating on it is nothing more than mental masturbation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 All I can say is that if we get Starks, then the 14th pick will either be traded, or we'll select Brandon Albert or Mendenhall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azbearsfan Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 How can you possibly know that if they are continuously getting blasted at the line by three defensive players? The question was rhetorical...you don't know what the RBs on this team are capable of until the OL stops sucking. There's a reason why each of the Bears' RBs were record setters in some way, shape, or form. They have talent. However, just about any RB will appear poor or average if the OL is horrible...which it was. Totally agree with you here. I have been shouting this all year. Some people will never get it though. The funny thing is that when Bensen first started getting playing time towards the end of the year behind TJ, he looked great. Provided a great burst and downhill running style. And people were actually calling for him over TJ. Then he hurt his knee. But that was when the line was better and younger. If we dont get an OL in place, you can bring in Mendenhall, Flacco, Hardy or whatever other savior is out there and in two years they will be the next Bensen and Grossman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da Bears 88 Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Nice weapons JA has given Rex/Orton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 I'm all for helping the O-line...but don't think we have something we don't in Benson. The guy has no work ethic and is injury prone. He cannot be relied upon. If you don't want Medenhall, that's all good. But we best draft a RB. Totally agree with you here. I have been shouting this all year. Some people will never get it though. The funny thing is that when Bensen first started getting playing time towards the end of the year behind TJ, he looked great. Provided a great burst and downhill running style. And people were actually calling for him over TJ. Then he hurt his knee. But that was when the line was better and younger. If we dont get an OL in place, you can bring in Mendenhall, Flacco, Hardy or whatever other savior is out there and in two years they will be the next Bensen and Grossman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TerraTor Posted March 4, 2008 Report Share Posted March 4, 2008 Good points. Benson has shown nothing in any aspect on or off the field. hes been hurt every season, cant catch, quits on his team, its a joke. I think getting a FA Offensive tackle and a reciever who has actually started an NFL game is so huge right now for this team to even think about competing. 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.