Free agency isn't where Bears shop

[Pixote]

Here is a good article from the Sun-Times, if anyone hasn't read it yet (especially if you are one complaining about our FA) it is a good read. You may not agree with it but I do. The Bears are not the only team playing the waiting game in FA. Even the Packers, who had a miserable year and are trying to retool their defence to a 3-4, has only signed one player in FA and he certainly was not a household name. None of us know what is planned, but I would be willing to lay a wager with anyone who wants to do so that we will see our needs filled before the start of camp in July and that we will be a force in the NFC this year.

 

Free agency isn't where Bears shop

[Stinger226]

Here is a good article from the Sun-Times, if anyone hasn't read it yet (especially if you are one complaining about our FA) it is a good read. You may not agree with it but I do. The Bears are not the only team playing the waiting game in FA. Even the Packers, who had a miserable year and are trying to retool their defence to a 3-4, has only signed one player in FA and he certainly was not a household name. None of us know what is planned, but I would be willing to lay a wager with anyone who wants to do so that we will see our needs filled before the start of camp in July and that we will be a force in the NFC this year.

 

Free agency isn't where Bears shop

The problem with that statement is they havent drafted well either. I hope your right, the funny part is when we think they suck the most; they suprize us.

[nfoligno]

What ticks me off about these articles,

 

There was a similar article on the Trib about a week ago. A friend sent me the article and acted like that was the end all be all, and explained away the teams lack of aggression this offseason.

 

I looked over the article, and IMHO, freaking shredded it, and really got ticked off as I did at how ignorant the writers must assume we fans are. I wasn't upset so much w/ the argument itself that teams are standing back due to a bad talent FA, but many of the teams used to support the argument just flat out piss me off.

 

For example, looking at this article, and the first group of teams listed to support the argument.

 

Carolina - This was a team w/ less than $9m in cap space, and yet found a way to re-sign their stud OT and used another $17m in cap space to tag Peppers. No, they have not been out there in FA, but lets not pretend that is by choice. They have no dang cap space to be players in FA. To use Carolina as an example of a team that is not being aggressive in FA is simply an insult IMHO.

 

Indy - Another example. They were $2m OVER the cap at the start of FA, and had numerous in-house FAs they needed to find room to re-sign. They were up against the cap to the point they had to release Harrison, and I think others, in order to take care of others they wanted to retain. Again, a team that have not been players in FA, but stop pretending that is by choice.

 

Minny - As I recall, this was a team w/ 30 freaking in-house FAs. No, they don't want to keep all, but that is still a ton of players they need to work w/. Further, while they did not end up getting him, they were competing w/ Seattle for TJ Hous, so lets not pretend they have not been active in FA. Just because they lost doesn't mean they avoided the battle.

 

The point is, it gets real old reading these articles that excuse the bears lack of aggression this offseason by using other teams as examples, but an average fan could see how bad of an example so many of these teams are. I have no problem if someone wants to make the argument, but stop insulting us fans by using teams like Carolina/Indy (for example) to support those theories.

 

We entered FA w/ $30m in cap space. We had nearly zero in-house FAs who were considered a priority to retain. We had/have no other (non FAs) players who we are looking seriously at extensions. Simply put, we were in a position very different from most any other team out there in that we had a ton of money, and simply not much to do w/ it. Other teams either didn't have cap space, had a ton of in-house FAs they had to work to retain or just a few expensive ones, or have players in a position for early extension preventing their teams from spending too much. As much as the writers want to compare so many teams w/ us, I have seen few examples that really compare.

 

 

the Panthers, Minnesota Vikings, Indianapolis Colts and Super Bowl-champion Pittsburgh Steelers -- who haven't signed one.

 

The problem with that statement is they havent drafted well either. I hope your right, the funny part is when we think they suck the most; they suprize us.

[bradjock]

Agreed. The article also does not address:

1. How many teams can't afford to spend as much due to the recession. My guess is there are legitimately hurting financially. Unlike the Bears who are in a large market and continue to easily fill the stadium.

2. How many of these teams have suffered significant losses. We've essentially lost:

--A very good back-up QB who knew the system (Rex)

--A former pro-bowl safety (Brown)

--Both offensive tackles (Tait & St. Clair)

--Two WR's

 

I'm not complaining that we've lost any of these guys, just that we've lost players & it's opened up glaring holes on this team that we've done little to fix.

 

What ticks me off about these articles,

 

There was a similar article on the Trib about a week ago. A friend sent me the article and acted like that was the end all be all, and explained away the teams lack of aggression this offseason.

 

I looked over the article, and IMHO, freaking shredded it, and really got ticked off as I did at how ignorant the writers must assume we fans are. I wasn't upset so much w/ the argument itself that teams are standing back due to a bad talent FA, but many of the teams used to support the argument just flat out piss me off.

 

For example, looking at this article, and the first group of teams listed to support the argument.

 

Carolina - This was a team w/ less than $9m in cap space, and yet found a way to re-sign their stud OT and used another $17m in cap space to tag Peppers. No, they have not been out there in FA, but lets not pretend that is by choice. They have no dang cap space to be players in FA. To use Carolina as an example of a team that is not being aggressive in FA is simply an insult IMHO.

 

Indy - Another example. They were $2m OVER the cap at the start of FA, and had numerous in-house FAs they needed to find room to re-sign. They were up against the cap to the point they had to release Harrison, and I think others, in order to take care of others they wanted to retain. Again, a team that have not been players in FA, but stop pretending that is by choice.

 

Minny - As I recall, this was a team w/ 30 freaking in-house FAs. No, they don't want to keep all, but that is still a ton of players they need to work w/. Further, while they did not end up getting him, they were competing w/ Seattle for TJ Hous, so lets not pretend they have not been active in FA. Just because they lost doesn't mean they avoided the battle.

 

The point is, it gets real old reading these articles that excuse the bears lack of aggression this offseason by using other teams as examples, but an average fan could see how bad of an example so many of these teams are. I have no problem if someone wants to make the argument, but stop insulting us fans by using teams like Carolina/Indy (for example) to support those theories.

 

We entered FA w/ $30m in cap space. We had nearly zero in-house FAs who were considered a priority to retain. We had/have no other (non FAs) players who we are looking seriously at extensions. Simply put, we were in a position very different from most any other team out there in that we had a ton of money, and simply not much to do w/ it. Other teams either didn't have cap space, had a ton of in-house FAs they had to work to retain or just a few expensive ones, or have players in a position for early extension preventing their teams from spending too much. As much as the writers want to compare so many teams w/ us, I have seen few examples that really compare.

 

 

the Panthers, Minnesota Vikings, Indianapolis Colts and Super Bowl-champion Pittsburgh Steelers -- who haven't signed one.

[Stinger226]

Agreed. The article also does not address:

1. How many teams can't afford to spend as much due to the recession. My guess is there are legitimately hurting financially. Unlike the Bears who are in a large market and continue to easily fill the stadium.

2. How many of these teams have suffered significant losses. We've essentially lost:

--A very good back-up QB who knew the system (Rex)

--A former pro-bowl safety (Brown)

--Both offensive tackles (Tait & St. Clair)

--Two WR's

 

I'm not complaining that we've lost any of these guys, just that we've lost players & it's opened up glaring holes on this team that we've done little to fix.

There are several good players that werent signed for big money and would have filled a need here. Its like the only people we sign are invisible to the rest of the league and we got a deal. I would like them to be good pickups but history tells us a few will be ok and a few will fail. Its the arrogance of our leaders that bothers me the most.

[Connorbear]

Agreed. The article also does not address:

1. How many teams can't afford to spend as much due to the recession. My guess is there are legitimately hurting financially. Unlike the Bears who are in a large market and continue to easily fill the stadium.

2. How many of these teams have suffered significant losses. We've essentially lost:

--A very good back-up QB who knew the system (Rex)

--A former pro-bowl safety (Brown)

--Both offensive tackles (Tait & St. Clair)

--Two WR's

 

I'm not complaining that we've lost any of these guys, just that we've lost players & it's opened up glaring holes on this team that we've done little to fix.

- Mike Brown was never a pro bowl safety. Very good, but he never went to the pro bowl.

- Two crappy WRs. Booker and Lloyd did jack squat last yr.

- We need to replace the RT. Williams is the replacement for St Clair at LT.

 

Peace

[azbearsfan]

- Mike Brown was never a pro bowl safety. Very good, but he never went to the pro bowl.

- Two crappy WRs. Booker and Lloyd did jack squat last yr.

- We need to replace the RT. Williams is the replacement for St Clair at LT.

 

Peace

 

 

lol. You read my mind here.

 

Come on brad.

 

Very good back up???? Every time he went in he got booed. Now all of a sudden Rex is worth something. Sorry I dont buy that at all.

 

We lost a SS who was playing FS. A guy whose coverage skills were terrible last year. Whose leadership was disappointing last year. And a safety who couldn't stay healthy. And that is from a Mike Brown fan. Its funny how popular players are held on a pedestal in Chicago, but that is a prime example of it.

 

And the WR's??? Lloyd was looking good for the first couple of games and then wasn't a factor all year. And Booker was a joke. Its funny because all these people were wanting Bennett to play and now that the plan, but you want to lament the loss of a couple of crapbags.

 

And as for the line....we replace our LT who was one of the worst players in pass protection in the league and our RT who was absolutely manhandled, with our 1st round pick last year and Omiyale. So in my mind, at worst it is a push.

 

We are also pretty much sure to see OL and WR be the focus of the draft.

 

Remember this is a 9 win team. So with the coaching changes on defense and the growth on offense, even if we stay put, I think we will see an improvement.

 

It just that some guys need to step away from the ledge.