ChileBear Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 As per PFFT: Posted by Mike Florio on March 25, 2009, 4:39 p.m. Earlier this month, the Browns cut right tackle Kevin Shaffer. To potentially replace him, they signed Bears free-agent tackle John St. Clair. And, of course, the Bears have now replaced St. Clair by signing Shaffer. The Bears announced the transaction moments ago. It’s a three-year deal. Shaffer has started all but two games over the past five seasons, which include his three-year tenure in Cleveland and the back half of his four seasons with the Falcons.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azbearsfan Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 As per PFFT: Posted by Mike Florio on March 25, 2009, 4:39 p.m. Earlier this month, the Browns cut right tackle Kevin Shaffer. To potentially replace him, they signed Bears free-agent tackle John St. Clair. And, of course, the Bears have now replaced St. Clair by signing Shaffer. The Bears announced the transaction moments ago. It’s a three-year deal. Shaffer has started all but two games over the past five seasons, which include his three-year tenure in Cleveland and the back half of his four seasons with the Falcons.> So I guess the question is who is better? Shaffer or St Clair? Anyways good to get another tackle in there. Now it will be interesting to see if the move Omiyale back to guard. I think if they do, and still draft Britton and Duke then the line will be much improved. But I think this will allow us to go WR with one of the first two picks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 You beat me to it Chile! Well, at least it provides some insurance! At only 29...could be a very good signing. hey, it's something! As per PFFT: Posted by Mike Florio on March 25, 2009, 4:39 p.m. Earlier this month, the Browns cut right tackle Kevin Shaffer. To potentially replace him, they signed Bears free-agent tackle John St. Clair. And, of course, the Bears have now replaced St. Clair by signing Shaffer. The Bears announced the transaction moments ago. It’s a three-year deal. Shaffer has started all but two games over the past five seasons, which include his three-year tenure in Cleveland and the back half of his four seasons with the Falcons.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 bio http://www.nfl.com/players/kevinshaffer/profile?id=SHA080928 As per PFFT: Posted by Mike Florio on March 25, 2009, 4:39 p.m. Earlier this month, the Browns cut right tackle Kevin Shaffer. To potentially replace him, they signed Bears free-agent tackle John St. Clair. And, of course, the Bears have now replaced St. Clair by signing Shaffer. The Bears announced the transaction moments ago. It’s a three-year deal. Shaffer has started all but two games over the past five seasons, which include his three-year tenure in Cleveland and the back half of his four seasons with the Falcons.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChileBear Posted March 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 You beat me to it Chile! Well, at least it provides some insurance! At only 29...could be a very good signing. hey, it's something! I only beat you after siging in and posting at lightening speed! And yes, I still want us to draft an OL, a OT ion the first day and also add a WR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Silly fast Chile! Yep...me too! I only beat you after siging in and posting at lightening speed! And yes, I still want us to draft an OL, a OT ion the first day and also add a WR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawhizz Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 I predicted this as soon as St. Clair was signed. IMO, this does decrease the chance an OT is taken in the first. Shaffer is still relatively young, is starter-quality, and signed to a three-year deal. Maybe the Bears look more at a developmental tackle in the 3rd-4th round (Jason Watkins, TJ Lang, Gerald Cadogan, Xavier Fulton). I can see a situation where Omiyale starts at RT with Shaffer backing him up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChileBear Posted March 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 I predicted this as soon as St. Clair was signed. IMO, this does decrease the chance an OT is taken in the first. Shaffer is still relatively young, is starter-quality, and signed to a three-year deal. Maybe the Bears look more at a developmental tackle in the 3rd-4th round (Jason Watkins, TJ Lang, Gerald Cadogan, Xavier Fulton). I can see a situation where Omiyale starts at RT with Shaffer backing him up. I think that Omiyale was brought in as a OG and they'll move him there and Schafer is now the starting RT. I hope JA still sees that we need to get a quality OL in the draft for our future, and at least in the second or thrid rd. now. All depends, though, on BPA when we pick at 18. QB, WR OT, DE? It does give us some options, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 I think that Omiyale was brought in as a OG and they'll move him there and Schafer is now the starting RT. I hope JA still sees that we need to get a quality OL in the draft for our future, and at least in the second or thrid rd. now. All depends, though, on BPA when we pick at 18. QB, WR OT, DE? It does give us some options, though. He is a similar player to St Clair, execpt younger. They will draft a OT, but now wont be a need in the first round. He has started for 5 years, and was bad last year. Two years ago, he played well. He is average but will be a starter, and maybe in our sceme can play better. Now in the first we can take the best player available and get someone in the 2nd or third that can start in two years. He will then be a the swing tackle his last two years of his contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 I popped on a Bengals site...it appears he is known as their turnstile that got Anderson killed... Hopefully, it's just sour grapes. I predicted this as soon as St. Clair was signed. IMO, this does decrease the chance an OT is taken in the first. Shaffer is still relatively young, is starter-quality, and signed to a three-year deal. Maybe the Bears look more at a developmental tackle in the 3rd-4th round (Jason Watkins, TJ Lang, Gerald Cadogan, Xavier Fulton). I can see a situation where Omiyale starts at RT with Shaffer backing him up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 I popped on a Bengals site...it appears he is known as their turnstile that got Anderson killed... Hopefully, it's just sour grapes. I was reading that although he didnt play well in 2008, the main reason they got rid of him was he was due 6 million next year. They cut him and tried to resign him. He was a left tackle in Atlanta and played well in 2007. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 According to the Tribue it's a 3 year 8 million $$$ deal with 2 guaranteed http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune....in-shaffer.html In case anyone was wondering, he was originally a 7th round pick from Atlanta in 2002. I love the fact he never misses a game. Apparantly we view him as being better then St. Clair since we offered him more money. Cleveland fans may call him a turn-style, but St. Clair has the turn-style label when he came. This was a necessary move. Sure we can draft a RT in the 1st round, but we don't HAVE to. My guess is that we'll start Omiyale at LG, and he'll be the back-up LT should anything happen to Williams. We already have a nice back-up at LF in Beekman. FA needs list: WR (Has anyone heard a single Tory Holt rumor???) Veteran back-up QB (Losman, Leftwich & Rex are all available) Honestly, if we take care of those two needs I'll be satisfied (which is a far cry from happy, but not anywhere near wanting to rip of my Bear jersey & urinate on it.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesson44 Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Like I said before they signed St.Clair when they cut Shaffer that we were in the mix for him, but noooooo some of you laughed at me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 I didn't realize that he'd started 16 games at LT a couple of years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 It's all a crap shoot! I was reading that although he didnt play well in 2008, the main reason they got rid of him was he was due 6 million next year. They cut him and tried to resign him. He was a left tackle in Atlanta and played well in 2007. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 I like this signing because we needed some decent depth. The Bears didn't promise him a starting role either so he knows he has to work for it. Add Britton in Rd 1 and we have the makings of a solid Oline with good depth. Find a starting caliber OG and we could get over the top, finally! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 He was given a big pay day from the Browns for good play, but then he fell off. His pass blocking was terrible this past year and I don't like this for 3 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 He was given a big pay day from the Browns for good play, but then he fell off. His pass blocking was terrible this past year and I don't like this for 3 years. 1. He fits the Bears needs best. He's a solid contributor who can play either side, and he's not a health risk. 2. Ignore the 3 years. If he sucks this year we'll dump him at damn near no cost. Seriously. The 3 years only benefits the Bears, since if he's good he'll have to stick around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoofHearted Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 and he's not a health risk. Well, he DOES have a history of concussions, three to be exact. As for the post of him having a bad year pass blocking, 4.5 sacks given up is better than Tait's 6 or St.Clairs 9.75. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azbearsfan Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Well, he DOES have a history of concussions, three to be exact. As for the post of him having a bad year pass blocking, 4.5 sacks given up is better than Tait's 6 or St.Clairs 9.75. I agree. He seems like an upgrade to last years tackles. We still need a couple of OL in the draft. But these types of moves let us consider BPA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 I hate this move. We entered the offseason in need of MAJOR upgrades on the OL. Instead, we get the same sort of moves we have seen for years. Basically, we signed St. Clair and Garza all over again. We signed a couple guys who "may" be an upgrade over what we have, but that is due more to how bad our previous situation was. These moves are bandaids, and not permanent fixes. Problem is, if anyone believes Angelo will follow up these moves by drafting OL as well, they are fooling themselves. I would not expect Angelo to draft an OL now prior to the 4th round, which I think it is joke. In a perfect world, I would actually like this move as we needed to much added to our OL, but we live in Angelo's world, and in Angelo's world, we just solved our OL problems, and now will enter the draft looking for some late round prospects to develop for the distant future. One final point. I have to laugh a bit. In Angelo's big Q & A a few weeks ago on the Bears web site, he talked about FA. In it, he talked about how you have to question FAs as they were not deemed worthy of being re-signed by the teams, and added that those teams know them best. Well, we just signed an OT who Cle not only didn't want back, but actually felt John freaking St. Clair was an upgrade to. Regardless if that is true or not, when looking at this in the context of Angelo's previous statement, you have to scratch you head just a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 One final point. I have to laugh a bit. In Angelo's big Q & A a few weeks ago on the Bears web site, he talked about FA. In it, he talked about how you have to question FAs as they were not deemed worthy of being re-signed by the teams, and added that those teams know them best. Well, we just signed an OT who Cle not only didn't want back, but actually felt John freaking St. Clair was an upgrade to. Regardless if that is true or not, when looking at this in the context of Angelo's previous statement, you have to scratch you head just a bit. I have to make a point here. What Angelo said doesn't apply to Shaffer's situation. He was talking about impending free agents who were allowed to walk by their teams, rather than being offered a new deal. Shaffer was under contract for 2009 before the Browns cut him. I think it's already been said in this thread, but Cleveland cut Shaffer because he had a $6 million cap figure for 2009, was about to make a $1.5 million roster bonus, and refused to renegotiate. Shaffer's agent said that the Browns wanted to keep him, but they couldn't afford to if he wouldn't agree to a smaller deal. It wasn't that the Browns thought Shaffer wasn't good enough and St. Clair would be better - they thought Shaffer wasn't cheap enough and St. Clair would be cheaper. Shaffer's roster bonus alone was bigger than all the guaranteed money in St. Clair's 3-year contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azbearsfan Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Plus I dont know why anyone takes anything JA says as fact. I would believe none of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 For the record, cap cuts were part of why I disagreed w/ Angelo, but I am not sure how this situation was different. It happens all the time. A player is cut by his team to avoid paying a bonus, but often that team is still in play to re-sign him back if they still want him. That they signed St Clair over Shaffer makes me question how much they wanted him back or how much they thought of him. No question money is a factor, but didn't they sign St. Clair for about the same as we signed Shaffer? At the end of the day, does that not simply mean they preferred St. Clair? I have to make a point here. What Angelo said doesn't apply to Shaffer's situation. He was talking about impending free agents who were allowed to walk by their teams, rather than being offered a new deal. Shaffer was under contract for 2009 before the Browns cut him. I think it's already been said in this thread, but Cleveland cut Shaffer because he had a $6 million cap figure for 2009, was about to make a $1.5 million roster bonus, and refused to renegotiate. Shaffer's agent said that the Browns wanted to keep him, but they couldn't afford to if he wouldn't agree to a smaller deal. It wasn't that the Browns thought Shaffer wasn't good enough and St. Clair would be better - they thought Shaffer wasn't cheap enough and St. Clair would be cheaper. Shaffer's roster bonus alone was bigger than all the guaranteed money in St. Clair's 3-year contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Me, take what Angelo says as fact. That's funny. I simply said I found it interesting how his actions so well defy his words. I questioned his words then. The idea that you avoid FAs because their former team must have let them go for a reason was a joke. At the same time, I just found it comical how he talks one day about how you have to question a player on the market because if his team liked him so much, he wouldn't be on the market, only to see angelo the next day (relative) sign a player who was cast off by his former team. Plus I dont know why anyone takes anything JA says as fact. I would believe none of it. 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.