Stinger226 Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 Here are contracts for the top WRs in the NFL Fritz-8/120 mill C. Johnson-7/62 mill A. Johnson-6/55 White-6/48 Marshall-5/47 Holmes-5/45 Smith-6/44 S. Rice-5/41 I think Jackson will be about 5/49 Bowe will be about 6/48 Colston will be 5/45 S. Johnson will be around 6/43 None of the top WRs will come cheap, so who will we pay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 The Bears are in a position where any of the "Will be" numbers you quote would be acceptable to them and a top flight WR should be worth that to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Jackson and Bowe, if they hit the market, will get somewhere between $9.5-12 (yes, 12). Guys like Stevie Johnson and Colston would cost anywhere from $7-10. (FWIW, PFT released an article today saying that Johnson and the Bills are very far apart) I could definitely see a desperate team, like Jacksonville or Cleveland, offering up $12 for either guy, but especially Colston. If Cleveland drafts Griffin, they will NEED to surround him with talent. If they take him at 4, they can land Floyd/Sanu/Wright at 23, and then another playmaker in round 2, like a TE or RB, + a FA WR, and their offense would instantly be very good. Griffin-Hillis (if they re-sign him)/Wright/Colston/Fleener is very scary. (sorry, I follow Cleveland closely. My brother in law is a huge Browns fan.) Another example is NE. If they sign a guy like Stevie Johnson, they're offense goes from really good to great. Point is, the Bears have to be prepared to spend that type of money, because teams out there feel, and should feel, like they're one more playmaker from winning a championship or contending, which in a city like Cleveland, would be huge for that PO'd fan base, or Jacksonville, where that would generate much needed ticket revenue. Would I pay $11+ for Colston or Johnson, no. But I would be ready to on Bowe or Jackson, no doubt. If you sign a guy like the latter two, you can go BPA at 19, and who knows, that might be Mike Adams, who I think can be the LT for the next 10 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 If the difference between $9 and $11 million was what cost the Bears one of those 2 WR"s you say should be at $9 million, then that's a major failure. Clearly they need to be on the phone first thing at midnight with either Jackson or Bowe, but if somehow they lose out on those guys, I'd rather overpay one of those last 2 WR's by $2 million than fail to come away with one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Jackson and Bowe, if they hit the market, will get somewhere between $9.5-12 (yes, 12). Guys like Stevie Johnson and Colston would cost anywhere from $7-10. (FWIW, PFT released an article today saying that Johnson and the Bills are very far apart) I could definitely see a desperate team, like Jacksonville or Cleveland, offering up $12 for either guy, but especially Colston. If Cleveland drafts Griffin, they will NEED to surround him with talent. If they take him at 4, they can land Floyd/Sanu/Wright at 23, and then another playmaker in round 2, like a TE or RB, + a FA WR, and their offense would instantly be very good. Griffin-Hillis (if they re-sign him)/Wright/Colston/Fleener is very scary. (sorry, I follow Cleveland closely. My brother in law is a huge Browns fan.) Another example is NE. If they sign a guy like Stevie Johnson, they're offense goes from really good to great. Point is, the Bears have to be prepared to spend that type of money, because teams out there feel, and should feel, like they're one more playmaker from winning a championship or contending, which in a city like Cleveland, would be huge for that PO'd fan base, or Jacksonville, where that would generate much needed ticket revenue. Would I pay $11+ for Colston or Johnson, no. But I would be ready to on Bowe or Jackson, no doubt. If you sign a guy like the latter two, you can go BPA at 19, and who knows, that might be Mike Adams, who I think can be the LT for the next 10 years. I think the major problem is that a lot of teams have a lot of money to spend. And of those teams, there are quite a few that could use an impact wideout. This means a lot of money is going to get passed around at the wide receiver position. And it leads me to believe you might be better jumping on guys like Wayne, Garcon, etc, and grabbing them for a little less, while putting more of an effort on a DE (even if that DE is an older guy like Mathis). Than the Bears can add a young wideout via the draft but still be in a good spot. Garcon could actually be a pretty big-time signing. Albeit, if I'm the Colts, I'm not letting him go. He's 25 and has gotten better each of the past 2 years. He isn't small (not huge either) and is pretty fast with solid hands. Whose to say he doesn't continue to get better and turn into a real nice wideout. Than there is a guy like Wayne, whose older, and probably wants to sign with a team that wins, and the Bears offer that chance. Add those 2 with a young wideout via the draft and you have a pretty nice corp's (without having to hit on the one of the big name guys). This could allow the Bears to sign a CB and DE. They'd also be fine to extend some of there young players like Melton. And probably could even look a bit at a FA olineman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 If the difference between $9 and $11 million was what cost the Bears one of those 2 WR"s you say should be at $9 million, then that's a major failure. Clearly they need to be on the phone first thing at midnight with either Jackson or Bowe, but if somehow they lose out on those guys, I'd rather overpay one of those last 2 WR's by $2 million than fail to come away with one. Would you rather spend 11M Bowe/Jackson or spend say 6M on Wayne & Garcon; Or Meachem & Garcon. And I don't know, maybe It costs more than 6M for those 2. But it might be a question that Emery has to ask, especially if he likes some of these 2nd tier wide-outs and thinks they can step forward. In Garcon's case, he has done nothing but get better and last year with a crap QB he still put up good numbers. Put him with Cutler and that should help. In Meachem's case, he's young, has tons of talent, and the question is, is his lack of production a result of all of Bree's other weapons or is he just not very good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Would you rather spend 11M Bowe/Jackson or spend say 6M on Wayne & Garcon; Or Meachem & Garcon. And I don't know, maybe It costs more than 6M for those 2. But it might be a question that Emery has to ask, especially if he likes some of these 2nd tier wide-outs and thinks they can step forward. In Garcon's case, he has done nothing but get better and last year with a crap QB he still put up good numbers. Put him with Cutler and that should help. In Meachem's case, he's young, has tons of talent, and the question is, is his lack of production a result of all of Bree's other weapons or is he just not very good. I'd rather spend the $11 million on Bowe/Jackson. Yes, there are positives to Wayne/Garcon, and yes, signing the big WR will leave the Bears still needing to fill that 3rd WR spot...but I don't think this is a case where you go for the double, you swing for the fences. The hole is so big there that adding good but not great won't leave me satiated. Especially when you have Jay Cutler sitting there, I want a single, go to guy for him, a guy who is always double-teamed, a guy who the defense will game plan around, where it makes the other WR's better having him, and that's not Garcon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TerraTor Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Considering the great Earl Bennett makes 4.5M, none of those numbers seem unrealistic. 2008-2011 (3 years stating 2009) 124Rec - 1659yrds - 6TDs AVE - 41rec - 553yrds - 2tds With that in mind, any of the guys below should be about double that Stevie Johnson 2008-2011 (2 Years starting 2010) 158Rec - 2074yrds - 17TDs AVE - 79rec - 1073yrd - 8td Dwayne Bowe 2007-2011 356Rec - 4927yrds - 36TDs AVE - 71rec - 985yrd - 7td Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 I've heard that Wayne is more than likely going to end up where Peyton goes, so he is probably out of the picture. I agree that we need a true #1, a Top 10 WR. I still lean towards Bowe because even on bad teams with bad QB's, he still did good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Jackson and Bowe, if they hit the market, will get somewhere between $9.5-12 (yes, 12). Guys like Stevie Johnson and Colston would cost anywhere from $7-10. (FWIW, PFT released an article today saying that Johnson and the Bills are very far apart) I could definitely see a desperate team, like Jacksonville or Cleveland, offering up $12 for either guy, but especially Colston. If Cleveland drafts Griffin, they will NEED to surround him with talent. If they take him at 4, they can land Floyd/Sanu/Wright at 23, and then another playmaker in round 2, like a TE or RB, + a FA WR, and their offense would instantly be very good. Griffin-Hillis (if they re-sign him)/Wright/Colston/Fleener is very scary. (sorry, I follow Cleveland closely. My brother in law is a huge Browns fan.) Another example is NE. If they sign a guy like Stevie Johnson, they're offense goes from really good to great. Point is, the Bears have to be prepared to spend that type of money, because teams out there feel, and should feel, like they're one more playmaker from winning a championship or contending, which in a city like Cleveland, would be huge for that PO'd fan base, or Jacksonville, where that would generate much needed ticket revenue. Would I pay $11+ for Colston or Johnson, no. But I would be ready to on Bowe or Jackson, no doubt. If you sign a guy like the latter two, you can go BPA at 19, and who knows, that might be Mike Adams, who I think can be the LT for the next 10 years. B Bear Great Post! You go through all the scenarios plus come up with a solid draft pick. Me Like! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 In the past I have posted the idea of grabbing Meachem who we all know is going to hit the open market but may not command the big salary that some of the top tier WRs would and he has the speed and size that this team needs.Teamed with a Jackson or Bowe and we got something to talk about.Then the focus of the draft would be to get Cutler some protection at 19 unless a DE prospect falls that we need to grab like Coples, Ingram or Upshaw.I know the kid from Illinois will be there at the 19 pick but he will have to set Indy on fire for me to believe they should take him over the other prospects I mentioned. With Bennett and a mid round pick the WRs have been upgraded and the OL and scondary could be the focus the rest of the draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 In the past I have posted the idea of grabbing Meachem who we all know is going to hit the open market but may not command the big salary that some of the top tier WRs would and he has the speed and size that this team needs.Teamed with a Jackson or Bowe and we got something to talk about.Then the focus of the draft would be to get Cutler some protection at 19 unless a DE prospect falls that we need to grab like Coples, Ingram or Upshaw.I know the kid from Illinois will be there at the 19 pick but he will have to set Indy on fire for me to believe they should take him over the other prospects I mentioned. With Bennett and a mid round pick the WRs have been upgraded and the OL and scondary could be the focus the rest of the draft. If the Bears are in the range of $25-$30 million, I can't see how they would really go after a top flight ($10 million) WR and a second tier (maybe $5-6 million) WR without sacrificing Forte. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixote Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 You would be surprised how far they can stretch a dollar with innovative contract structuring. If they have 25-50 Million to spend, they can do a lot in FA and still sign Forte. That is where the expertise of Stein comes into play, he is one of the best in juggling the books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 I would also kick the tires on the Mike Wallace situation. He would cost the 19th if you sign him but,that would be versus drafting one of the first rounders and hoping they pan out when this guy is a proven commodity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 I would also kick the tires on the Mike Wallace situation. He would cost the 19th if you sign him but,that would be versus drafting one of the first rounders and hoping they pan out when this guy is a proven commodity. I was thinking about that today, but that would essentially negate one of our options. We can just pay for a UFA AND draft someone at 19 (OL, WR, DL, DB), compared to just getting Wallace and no 1st rounder. We need at least two impact players, one from FA and one from the draft. Going the Wallace route would only give us one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixote Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 I was thinking about that today, but that would essentially negate one of our options. We can just pay for a UFA AND draft someone at 19 (OL, WR, DL, DB), compared to just getting Wallace and no 1st rounder. We need at least two impact players, one from FA and one from the draft. Going the Wallace route would only give us one. I think for Brandon Marshall I would be tempted, but with all the talk about Marshall, Miami would be crazy as hell to let him go. I want our first round pick, and I want Emery to hit gold on it, I do not care what position he fills with it, as long as it is a blue chip player that contributes big time in his first year and does not spend a year red-shirted, on the IR, or on the bench. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Wallace is not worth the 1st Rd pick and the high contract. It was interesting to hear Jerry Rice rank the FA WRs: 1: Vincent Jackson 2: Desean Jackson 3: Wes Welker 4: Marques Colston 5: Dwayne Bowe I've heard other pundits say Bowe is a good WR but not someone you need to worry about when drawing up a game plan. It seems there might be more love for Bowe here on the board than there is around the league. The positive with this is that it might make it less likely for KC to use the franchise tag on him and if KC lets him hit FA then his price tag might not be as high as speculated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 No to Wallace and a 1st rounder. There are plenty of talented WR's that will be available in the free agent pool. Mike Wallace isn't good enough to make an exception for in regards to throwing away a 1st round pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted February 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 I would also kick the tires on the Mike Wallace situation. He would cost the 19th if you sign him but,that would be versus drafting one of the first rounders and hoping they pan out when this guy is a proven commodity. If they tender him, he will cost a 1 and a 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 If they tender him, he will cost a 1 and a 3. I believe it's just a first actually now, isn't it? Anyway, if he were the only WR on the market I'd give up a first and a big contract for him. I don't think he's the best WR on the market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 I read just a firston PFT. There was some new restructuring to the tag w/ the new CBA that caused such. I believe it's just a first actually now, isn't it? Anyway, if he were the only WR on the market I'd give up a first and a big contract for him. I don't think he's the best WR on the market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Wallace is not worth the 1st Rd pick and the high contract. It was interesting to hear Jerry Rice rank the FA WRs: 1: Vincent Jackson 2: Desean Jackson 3: Wes Welker 4: Marques Colston 5: Dwayne Bowe I've heard other pundits say Bowe is a good WR but not someone you need to worry about when drawing up a game plan. It seems there might be more love for Bowe here on the board than there is around the league. The positive with this is that it might make it less likely for KC to use the franchise tag on him and if KC lets him hit FA then his price tag might not be as high as speculated. Chiefs have a ton of money to spend though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 If they tender him, he will cost a 1 and a 3. New CBA makes it a 1st only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Honestly, I couldn't give a s*** what Jerry Rice says. His English is on par with Emmitt Smith's, and so he might just be illiterate. He also claimed Wes Welker is a "terrific work product," whatever that means. Oh, and he called Marques Colston "Mar-keez Colston." I understand he's the greatest WR of all time, but the fact that he thinks DeSean Jackson and Reggie Wayne are better FA options than Dwayne Bowe just proves how big of an idiot he truly is. As for Wallace, I'll say pass. He'd be a great acquisition, but the Bears need big WR's, not another shorter/quick type. Plus, if they sign 2 WR's, then they can use that pick for a CB, DE, C, or OT, all of which are positions that the Bears need to get younger and better at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted February 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 New CBA makes it a 1st only. I listen to the score all day,everyday, and heard from Hub that it would cost a 1 and a 3, Im not actually that knowing on my own. 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.