ChileBear Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 ...isn't it? To read all the KFFL, PFT, etc. blurbs about guys visiting teams and not see the Bears mentioned once? I just wish JA would show a bit more movement. We do have holes and there are players out there that can help. My gosh, are we painting ourselves into acorner for the draft or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 I guess you haven't heard. We are "close". We have the talent now to compete for the SB. We have already added one starting OL, which wasn't necessary, but a luxury. We are likely to bring back St. Clair, who will be considered a huge upgrade over Tait, while we bring back our red shirt freshman to upgrade us at LT. Also, while Kevin Jones was on the roster last year, he was hurt, but is now healthy and is yet anotehr player we are going to bring back to stabalize our RB situation. So don't you understand. We were already close, and all we needed to do was retain St. Clair and Kevin Jones, while adding a bit of depth/competition for the OL. The only question I have is, what city is the SB in next year? ...isn't it? To read all the KFFL, PFT, etc. blurbs about guys visiting teams and not see the Bears mentioned once? I just wish JA would show a bit more movement. We do have holes and there are players out there that can help. My gosh, are we painting ourselves into acorner for the draft or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dasox24 Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 Hey, at least we added the biggest free agent on the market in Rod Marinelli... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azbearsfan Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 ...isn't it? To read all the KFFL, PFT, etc. blurbs about guys visiting teams and not see the Bears mentioned once? I just wish JA would show a bit more movement. We do have holes and there are players out there that can help. My gosh, are we painting ourselves into acorner for the draft or what? Man, I have to agree here. It would be nice to at least hear something about something.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 It is Chile! We all want to be a big boy franchise, yet the people making the decisions seem not to want to play with the big boys... I swear, so many fans are starting to get upset. I see more and more negativity in the press everyday regarding this franchise. ...isn't it? To read all the KFFL, PFT, etc. blurbs about guys visiting teams and not see the Bears mentioned once? I just wish JA would show a bit more movement. We do have holes and there are players out there that can help. My gosh, are we painting ourselves into acorner for the draft or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawhizz Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 The ironic thing is, I think Jerry would argue that it is better to not go after people (and not even to appear to go after people) because if you do and you don't get the guy, your fan base will be upset. In reality, I think the opposite is true. For instance, say the papers reported that the Bears were "interested in" Housh, were "intrigued" by Cassel, "exchanged figures" with Michael Clayton, and had "contacted" Stacey Andrews. At the very least, that sends the impression to your fans that you are actively trying to get better. I think most of us would agree that the prices paid for those players didn't really work for the Bears (with the possible exception of Cassel), but that, had we heard reports like that, we would have had increased faith in Jerry's dedication to upgrading this team. As it is, I don't understand how he expects people to be excited when you imply, without a hint of sarcasm, that Rod Marinelli will be your big free agent pickup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 X takes a square! You are spot on dawhizz! It gives the impression they are trying! Now, it just looks like they've thrown in the towel! The ironic thing is, I think Jerry would argue that it is better to not go after people (and not even to appear to go after people) because if you do and you don't get the guy, your fan base will be upset. In reality, I think the opposite is true. For instance, say the papers reported that the Bears were "interested in" Housh, were "intrigued" by Cassel, "exchanged figures" with Michael Clayton, and had "contacted" Stacey Andrews. At the very least, that sends the impression to your fans that you are actively trying to get better. I think most of us would agree that the prices paid for those players didn't really work for the Bears (with the possible exception of Cassel), but that, had we heard reports like that, we would have had increased faith in Jerry's dedication to upgrading this team. As it is, I don't understand how he expects people to be excited when you imply, without a hint of sarcasm, that Rod Marinelli will be your big free agent pickup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChileBear Posted March 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 It is Chile! We all want to be a big boy franchise, yet the people making the decisions seem not to want to play with the big boys... I swear, so many fans are starting to get upset. I see more and more negativity in the press everyday regarding this franchise. Ain't that the truth! It feels like we are not a big market team the way the leadership goes about things. Just sit bak and let the league move on around us. God forbid we'd bring in a top F and he'd bust. But then again, we aren't doing anything without them. So why not take a shot once in a while? Are they afraid of actually making it all the way to the top? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 You make a great point! We seem to be far from reactive than proactive! Ain't that the truth! It feels like we are not a big market team the way the leadership goes about things. Just sit bak and let the league move on around us. God forbid we'd bring in a top F and he'd bust. But then again, we aren't doing anything without them. So why not take a shot once in a while? Are they afraid of actually making it all the way to the top? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 The lack of activity has me wanting but I remember last year I was saying the same things I am feeling now. So what happened, I thought we would finish 6-10 and we finished 9-7 and many games were fun to watch whether we won or lost. So I guess I will judge this off season at the start of training camp and quite being a little bitch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASHKUM BEAR Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 One reason we are in such great cap space, 30mil or so, with most starters signed long term is b/c we don't bite on the high priced FA's. We wait it out, prices go down, and we can get the bargains. It may not be flashy, but right now the Bears would prefer to bring in their stars through the draft and be able to resign them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'TD' Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 One reason we are in such great cap space, 30mil or so, with most starters signed long term is b/c we don't bite on the high priced FA's. We wait it out, prices go down, and we can get the bargains. It may not be flashy, but right now the Bears would prefer to bring in their stars through the draft and be able to resign them. Why does it matter that you have 30 million if you don't spend it? The Bears had 10 million apparently last year, and didn't sign Berrian. Berrian pretty much put the Bears out of the play offs in the game against Minnesota. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Why does it matter that you have 30 million if you don't spend it? The Bears had 10 million apparently last year, and didn't sign Berrian. Berrian pretty much put the Bears out of the play offs in the game against Minnesota. Would you rather have Briggs or Berrian? To give Berrian $15 million guaranteed or whatever it was and $42 million over 6 years is f***ing absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'TD' Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Would you rather have Briggs or Berrian? To give Berrian $15 million guaranteed or whatever it was and $42 million over 6 years is f***ing absurd. The cap space was still there after Briggs was signed. Hester got a contract similar to that of Berrians. Even after that money was spent, the Bears were able to sign a guy hoping his 10 million dollar incentive based contract would be carried over to this year. The simple facts are 10 Million dollars was there. This year the Bears would have been fine carrying his contract also. A division rival got made stronger. Berrian played an integral part in the deciding game that sent the Vikings to the play offs and made the Bears sit at home. The Bears are still in need of a WR and the market for all players this year has steadly increased. That's shown in the contract that a player that's played like 11 games in 4 years got when he signed with the Bears, only starting one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Agreed. There are other stores than Big Lots! While Bloomingdale's seems to be out of the question even when there's a Labor Day sale, maybe we could shop at Target at least once in a while... The cap space was still there after Briggs was signed. Hester got a contract similar to that of Berrians. Even after that money was spent, the Bears were able to sign a guy hoping his 10 million dollar incentive based contract would be carried over to this year. The simple facts are 10 Million dollars was there. This year the Bears would have been fine carrying his contract also. A division rival got made stronger. Berrian played an integral part in the deciding game that sent the Vikings to the play offs and made the Bears sit at home. The Bears are still in need of a WR and the market for all players this year has steadly increased. That's shown in the contract that a player that's played like 11 games in 4 years got when he signed with the Bears, only starting one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 That has been my argument for years. I always hear about how great Angelo is managing the cap, but are we really doing such a good job if we are not best utilizing our cap space, and if we are not stocking out team w/ talent? If a team sucks, but is under the cap every year, some could argue they are done a good job managing the cap, but I think most would say they simply wasted cap space. Also, when so many of the players we do sign fail to live up to their new contracts, again, are we doing such a good job managing the cap? Doing a good job and creating cap space is meaningless if you are not putting a winning team on the field. Why does it matter that you have 30 million if you don't spend it? The Bears had 10 million apparently last year, and didn't sign Berrian. Berrian pretty much put the Bears out of the play offs in the game against Minnesota. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 The simple facts are 10 Million dollars was there. This year the Bears would have been fine carrying his contract also. A division rival got made stronger. Berrian played an integral part in the deciding game that sent the Vikings to the play offs and made the Bears sit at home. The Bears are still in need of a WR and the market for all players this year has steadly increased. That's shown in the contract that a player that's played like 11 games in 4 years got when he signed with the Bears, only starting one. The Bears used closer to every cent of their cap room in 2008 than any other team in the league. A big part of the reason why the Bears have cap space this year is that they were so effective in using every cent of their cap room the last couple years to get guys extended. The money may have been there, but it was used elsewhere to good effect. If you want to give that money to Berrian, you get to pick which guys the Bears shouldn't have extended: Urlacher, Hester, Harris, Briggs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 But isn't a part of why we were so close to using all our cap space moves like when we signed that DB to a deal w/ like $10m in likely to earn incentives, or however it is termed? We used our cap, in part, but eating 2008 cap space up and pushing it to 2009. I was never for signing Berrian for #1 WR money. Further, I would point out that just because Minny signed him for that deal, doesn't mean it is what we could have signed him for. If we more seriously jumped into the action, it could have easily led to a bidding war that found the ultimate deal signed to be significantly greater than the one that was signed. W/ that said, I do think we "could" have signed Berrian, and done so w/o having to give up on other players. Heck, I would argue that our current $34m in cap space is evidence of that. Most teams backload deals so as to sign more players now, while we continually front load deals to create more cap space later. It would not have been too difficult to afford Berrian last year, while at the same time keeping the rest of the players. We might not have $34m in cap space this year, but thus far, I question if we really need $34m in cap space. The Bears used closer to every cent of their cap room in 2008 than any other team in the league. A big part of the reason why the Bears have cap space this year is that they were so effective in using every cent of their cap room the last couple years to get guys extended. The money may have been there, but it was used elsewhere to good effect. If you want to give that money to Berrian, you get to pick which guys the Bears shouldn't have extended: Urlacher, Hester, Harris, Briggs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 The cap space was still there after Briggs was signed. Hester got a contract similar to that of Berrians. Even after that money was spent, the Bears were able to sign a guy hoping his 10 million dollar incentive based contract would be carried over to this year. The simple facts are 10 Million dollars was there. This year the Bears would have been fine carrying his contract also. A division rival got made stronger. Berrian played an integral part in the deciding game that sent the Vikings to the play offs and made the Bears sit at home. The Bears are still in need of a WR and the market for all players this year has steadly increased. That's shown in the contract that a player that's played like 11 games in 4 years got when he signed with the Bears, only starting one. Took the words right out of my mouth. Also, in hindsight the Berrian deal would have been more than worth it to us, as it elevated the the Vikes and lowered us in one move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 The Berrian situation sort of touches on a long term gripe of mine w/ Angelo. Often it is not so much our letting a player go so much as it is our lack of action w/ the money saved. I remember years ago saying I could handle letting Parrish go, so long as we earmarked that money to find a suitable replacement, or at least see a solid upgrade at another position, but we really did nothing w/ the money saved. Similar, when we let Colvin walk. I think NE gave him like $25m, which was a heck of a lot more then than it is now. I was fine letting him walk, but w/ the idea we would use that money on other FAs to better the team, if not the position. Well, we assumed Knight would replace Colvin, and didn't see that money used to upgrade our LB or pass rush. Same w/ Berrian. We had the money to re-sign him. That wasn't the problem. We didn't feel his play or potential warranted the cost. Okay, fine. But what did we do w/ the money instead? Lloyd? Booker? Nothing for the OL. For me, it isn't nearly as much about the lost players as the lost opportunities. Took the words right out of my mouth. Also, in hindsight the Berrian deal would have been more than worth it to us, as it elevated the the Vikes and lowered us in one move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Great points nfo! I really agree whole-heartedly. It's one thing to let a player go, it's another to sit idley by... The Berrian situation sort of touches on a long term gripe of mine w/ Angelo. Often it is not so much our letting a player go so much as it is our lack of action w/ the money saved. I remember years ago saying I could handle letting Parrish go, so long as we earmarked that money to find a suitable replacement, or at least see a solid upgrade at another position, but we really did nothing w/ the money saved. Similar, when we let Colvin walk. I think NE gave him like $25m, which was a heck of a lot more then than it is now. I was fine letting him walk, but w/ the idea we would use that money on other FAs to better the team, if not the position. Well, we assumed Knight would replace Colvin, and didn't see that money used to upgrade our LB or pass rush. Same w/ Berrian. We had the money to re-sign him. That wasn't the problem. We didn't feel his play or potential warranted the cost. Okay, fine. But what did we do w/ the money instead? Lloyd? Booker? Nothing for the OL. For me, it isn't nearly as much about the lost players as the lost opportunities. 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.