AZ54 Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 I thought D.J. Moore was in Lovie's doghouse. I'm also surprised to see him sign Maneri so perhaps he is gong to revise his "Run First" offense in Tampa. I'd say this indicates he'll make a strong push to sign Tillman. If the price is high I think we let him go. ------------------------ http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/rumors The Buccaneers have signed former Bears D.J. Moore and Steve Maneri. The team announced the moves. ------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 I thought D.J. Moore was in Lovie's doghouse. I'm also surprised to see him sign Maneri so perhaps he is gong to revise his "Run First" offense in Tampa. I'd say this indicates he'll make a strong push to sign Tillman. If the price is high I think we let him go. ------------------------ http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/rumors The Buccaneers have signed former Bears D.J. Moore and Steve Maneri. The team announced the moves. ------------------------ Tillman will be this years Urlacher deal, come back at our price or go somewhere else. I like Peanut a lot but if he costs to much just to big of a risk to take with recent injuries. We cant be giving him 12 for a couple of years with so much to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 Tillman will be this years Urlacher deal, come back at our price or go somewhere else. I like Peanut a lot but if he costs to much just to big of a risk to take with recent injuries. We cant be giving him 12 for a couple of years with so much to do. Peanut will most likely end up playing 1 to 2 years with another team (Tampa most likely) and then sign with the Bears for a day so he retires a Bear. I hate that but he's not worth more than 2 to 2.5 million a year now. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted February 17, 2014 Report Share Posted February 17, 2014 Peanut will most likely end up playing 1 to 2 years with another team (Tampa most likely) and then sign with the Bears for a day so he retires a Bear. I hate that but he's not worth more than 2 to 2.5 million a year now. Peace Agreed. And Lovie will definitely overpay for the intangibles that Peanut brings, so he can create the level of expectation he desires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 Agreed. And Lovie will definitely overpay for the intangibles that Peanut brings, so he can create the level of expectation he desires. And paired with Revis it could prove to be a dangerous duo for a year of two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 And paired with Revis it could prove to be a dangerous duo for a year of two. As long as he stays healthy, that would be a dynamic two, I also seen more rumors mentioning Hester with TB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 Hold up. So the dude has been the representation of health for several years, but last year he has a freak triceps injury and suddenly he's injury prone and not worth a good contract? No more than 2-2.5 million? He had just as many INTs last year in 8 games as he did the previous season in 16. He had 3 forced fumbles in 8 games. That's 6 for a season. Good for third in the NFL. Dude punches more balls than Jean Claude Van Damme. But he has one injury and he suddenly sucks? He hasn't missed a game since 2009, or more than a single game since 2006, and suddenly he's injury prone? Mark these words: If the Bears let him walk because they low ball him, it will hurt. They did the same thing last year to Urlacher, and there was definitely an impact. He wouldn't have been able to save a defense so ravaged by injuries, but he would have definitely helped. The loss of Peanut will have similar results. The Bears may plug the hole on the left side of the dike and stop the run, but doing this will cause another leak too far away to reach. Plain and simple, it was a bad move last year, and it'll be a bad move this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackerDog Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 Hold up. So the dude has been the representation of health for several years, but last year he has a freak triceps injury and suddenly he's injury prone and not worth a good contract? No more than 2-2.5 million? He had just as many INTs last year in 8 games as he did the previous season in 16. He had 3 forced fumbles in 8 games. That's 6 for a season. Good for third in the NFL. Dude punches more balls than Jean Claude Van Damme. But he has one injury and he suddenly sucks? He hasn't missed a game since 2009, or more than a single game since 2006, and suddenly he's injury prone? Mark these words: If the Bears let him walk because they low ball him, it will hurt. They did the same thing last year to Urlacher, and there was definitely an impact. He wouldn't have been able to save a defense so ravaged by injuries, but he would have definitely helped. The loss of Peanut will have similar results. The Bears may plug the hole on the left side of the dike and stop the run, but doing this will cause another leak too far away to reach. Plain and simple, it was a bad move last year, and it'll be a bad move this year. I agree with you more on Nut than Url but have to ask you if you didn't think Peanut looked a lot older last year, despite his numbers? To me, he did. No doubt it'll hurt to lose him if we do, but I'm not expecting him to play at the level he played in his prime, by any stretch. So, I expect a hometown discount, an old guy discount, call it whatever you'd like. He isn't going to be paid top 10 CB money, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 Hold up. So the dude has been the representation of health for several years, but last year he has a freak triceps injury and suddenly he's injury prone and not worth a good contract? No more than 2-2.5 million? He had just as many INTs last year in 8 games as he did the previous season in 16. He had 3 forced fumbles in 8 games. That's 6 for a season. Good for third in the NFL. Dude punches more balls than Jean Claude Van Damme. But he has one injury and he suddenly sucks? He hasn't missed a game since 2009, or more than a single game since 2006, and suddenly he's injury prone? Mark these words: If the Bears let him walk because they low ball him, it will hurt. They did the same thing last year to Urlacher, and there was definitely an impact. He wouldn't have been able to save a defense so ravaged by injuries, but he would have definitely helped. The loss of Peanut will have similar results. The Bears may plug the hole on the left side of the dike and stop the run, but doing this will cause another leak too far away to reach. Plain and simple, it was a bad move last year, and it'll be a bad move this year. Double Z said on the score that of more concern was his lingering knee injury that kept him out of practice and made him miss the Giants game. I love Peanut but he is 33. He is not worth more than a 2 year 5 million dollar deal to me. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 Have to agree with Connor and Cracker. Peanut is getting older and with the injury that will still effect his overall playability. I still think he would be better as a safety for a few more years. But if he were paired with someone like Revis he wouldn't have to cover the #1 as much so the lack of speed wouldn't be as necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 I agree with you more on Nut than Url but have to ask you if you didn't think Peanut looked a lot older last year, despite his numbers? To me, he did. No doubt it'll hurt to lose him if we do, but I'm not expecting him to play at the level he played in his prime, by any stretch. So, I expect a hometown discount, an old guy discount, call it whatever you'd like. He isn't going to be paid top 10 CB money, IMO. Did he look slower? Maybe fractionally. But it wasn't really that noticeable to me. I think if anything he, as a veteran, was probably trying to make up for the flaws up front, and it distracted him from his assignment. He probably cheated towards the line, or felt the obligation to go towards the line, because he knew they were sucking. In regards to your final statement, I don't know if there are ten other CBs I'd take over him, despite how much he may or may not have slowed down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackerDog Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 Did he look slower? Maybe fractionally. But it wasn't really that noticeable to me. I think if anything he, as a veteran, was probably trying to make up for the flaws up front, and it distracted him from his assignment. He probably cheated towards the line, or felt the obligation to go towards the line, because he knew they were sucking. In regards to your final statement, I don't know if there are ten other CBs I'd take over him, despite how much he may or may not have slowed down. I'll never fault you for being a guy who defends true Bear greats. Kudos for that. I hope it works out and he's able to close out his tremedous career wearing Blue and Orange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 Did he look slower? Maybe fractionally. But it wasn't really that noticeable to me. I think if anything he, as a veteran, was probably trying to make up for the flaws up front, and it distracted him from his assignment. He probably cheated towards the line, or felt the obligation to go towards the line, because he knew they were sucking. In regards to your final statement, I don't know if there are ten other CBs I'd take over him, despite how much he may or may not have slowed down. From week to week, he did not practice because of his knee and missed the Giants game because of it. Peanut is a great player and I would love for him to play for the Bears until he retires. That being said, he should not be paid more than he is worth and I believe that amount is no more than 2 years, 5 million total. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Hold up. So the dude has been the representation of health for several years, but last year he has a freak triceps injury and suddenly he's injury prone and not worth a good contract? No more than 2-2.5 million? He had just as many INTs last year in 8 games as he did the previous season in 16. He had 3 forced fumbles in 8 games. That's 6 for a season. Good for third in the NFL. Dude punches more balls than Jean Claude Van Damme. But he has one injury and he suddenly sucks? He hasn't missed a game since 2009, or more than a single game since 2006, and suddenly he's injury prone? Mark these words: If the Bears let him walk because they low ball him, it will hurt. They did the same thing last year to Urlacher, and there was definitely an impact. He wouldn't have been able to save a defense so ravaged by injuries, but he would have definitely helped. The loss of Peanut will have similar results. The Bears may plug the hole on the left side of the dike and stop the run, but doing this will cause another leak too far away to reach. Plain and simple, it was a bad move last year, and it'll be a bad move this year. The problem is (the getting older thing), he has never been injury prone, but as you see last year age starts to have its toll on a body. The problem is do we give him a 12 for 2 years contract and then he ends up not playing 4 to 8 games? The more you spend on him the less you have to get good backups or other positions. It is better to let a player go one year early than a year to late. Urlachers leadership was missed last year, but his play wouldnt have changed anything, his time was done. It isnt my money so I would take the chance and bring him back, but they have to figure the valve of it. They made the right call on Urlacher, so we will see if they make the right call here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Did he look slower? Maybe fractionally. But it wasn't really that noticeable to me. I think if anything he, as a veteran, was probably trying to make up for the flaws up front, and it distracted him from his assignment. He probably cheated towards the line, or felt the obligation to go towards the line, because he knew they were sucking. In regards to your final statement, I don't know if there are ten other CBs I'd take over him, despite how much he may or may not have slowed down. The bad line wasnt distracting him, he has his job and when the QBs get tons of time to throw and the RBs are always in the DBs area, it is more pressure and physicality on him,so he stayed injuried. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted February 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Did he look slower? Maybe fractionally. But it wasn't really that noticeable to me. I think if anything he, as a veteran, was probably trying to make up for the flaws up front, and it distracted him from his assignment. He probably cheated towards the line, or felt the obligation to go towards the line, because he knew they were sucking. In regards to your final statement, I don't know if there are ten other CBs I'd take over him, despite how much he may or may not have slowed down. I have always liked Peanut going back to times when he wasn't well liked by everyone on this board. Those who go back that far will know what I'm talking about. He does have an injury history but he has always tried to play through them and gives 100% of effort at all times. Can't ask for anymore than that. While I agree with your last statement for THIS season, the evaluation IMO must go beyond that. I don't know what salary Tillman is seeking but I don't think it's going to be low, I also expect he'll be looking for more guaranteed money of the sort he'll get in a 3yr deal. I don't know, it's just my uneducated guess. The question for me is can we find another CB and DT (or CB/S) for that money that yields a better overall defense than we'd have if that money is used solely to sign Tillman? In this evaluation I consider the quality of the players for length of the contract so at least 2 and maybe 3 years. We don't have a lot of cap space. We do have depth issues all over the field on defense. If his demands are too high for our cap space (even if his expectation is realistic based on the market) and force us to give up on signing another quality player then I'd have to pass. First priority for me right now is fixing the Dline. Having said that I don't think the market for Tillman is going to be very strong but he is going to get some attention especially once the first wave of FA is over. Teams looking for veteran leadership among their secondary and defense overall should see him as a great fit. I'll keep my fingers crossed we can keep him but I'm not optimistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 The problem is (the getting older thing), he has never been injury prone, but as you see last year age starts to have its toll on a body. The problem is do we give him a 12 for 2 years contract and then he ends up not playing 4 to 8 games? The more you spend on him the less you have to get good backups or other positions. It is better to let a player go one year early than a year to late. Urlachers leadership was missed last year, but his play wouldnt have changed anything, his time was done. It isnt my money so I would take the chance and bring him back, but they have to figure the value of it. They made the right call on Urlacher, so we will see if they make the right call here. I don't see how you can say Urlacher's leadership was missed and then say his play wouldn't have improved the team. Personally I think that's 100% wrong. Not only would he have put the team in better position, but he would have been starting over a rookie. You think Urlacher would have overrun the hole as many times as a rookie? C'mon man. I admit that he might not have been as good as in previous years, but it's almost unequivocal that he would have improved the defense. How much he would have helped is the question. And given how horrible the defense was last year, I'm not sure we can say they made the right call with Urlacher. I'm personally convinced they did not. It can't be proven either way, but what we do know is that the defense sucked on a historical level last year without Urlacher (other obvious issues as well). I just don't see a way he wouldn't have helped the defense last year, and because of that I don't believe it was the right move last year. Especially considering the minimal difference they had in salary requests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 The bad line wasnt distracting him, he has his job and when the QBs get tons of time to throw and the RBs are always in the DBs area, it is more pressure and physicality on him,so he stayed injuried. Yes, that's the other side of the coin. He was disadvantaged twice. Once as the leader knowing he had to make up for a garbage front line, and another as a guy who had to cover WRs for much longer than average. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 I have always liked Peanut going back to times when he wasn't well liked by everyone on this board. Those who go back that far will know what I'm talking about. He does have an injury history but he has always tried to play through them and gives 100% of effort at all times. Can't ask for anymore than that. While I agree with your last statement for THIS season, the evaluation IMO must go beyond that. I don't know what salary Tillman is seeking but I don't think it's going to be low, I also expect he'll be looking for more guaranteed money of the sort he'll get in a 3yr deal. I don't know, it's just my uneducated guess. The question for me is can we find another CB and DT (or CB/S) for that money that yields a better overall defense than we'd have if that money is used solely to sign Tillman? In this evaluation I consider the quality of the players for length of the contract so at least 2 and maybe 3 years. We don't have a lot of cap space. We do have depth issues all over the field on defense. If his demands are too high for our cap space (even if his expectation is realistic based on the market) and force us to give up on signing another quality player then I'd have to pass. First priority for me right now is fixing the Dline. Having said that I don't think the market for Tillman is going to be very strong but he is going to get some attention especially once the first wave of FA is over. Teams looking for veteran leadership among their secondary and defense overall should see him as a great fit. I'll keep my fingers crossed we can keep him but I'm not optimistic. This is fair. And this is the same approach I thought the Bears should have taken with Urlacher. Don't pay him all pro money. At the same time, don't low ball him. Urlacher would have worked with the Bears if they had just negotiated. Instead it was a low ball offer and nothing else. That shouldn't have happened, and I hope they learned from the experience and find a nice lower-middle ground for Peanut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 This is fair. And this is the same approach I thought the Bears should have taken with Urlacher. Don't pay him all pro money. At the same time, don't low ball him. Urlacher would have worked with the Bears if they had just negotiated. Instead it was a low ball offer and nothing else. That shouldn't have happened, and I hope they learned from the experience and find a nice lower-middle ground for Peanut. Your right, I think his leadership would have added something but dont think the results would have been much better. He would have been just like Peanut, on the field for 8 to 10 games and the money just sitting there. From a business point of view, that was to risky. The thing that bugged me about Url was he put a gun to the Bears head for that 5 year 43 mil extension when he was in his prime.He whined like a little baby. That was top pay for a MLB at the time. The Bears took care of him in his career and then when it was his turn to show some loyalty to the Bear, he wanted 12 for 2 years. He should have played one more year retired a Bear, and took the 2.5 mil and thanked the Bears, nope whined like a little baby how unfair they were. Screw him, he got what he deserved , out of the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Your right, I think his leadership would have added something but dont think the results would have been much better. He would have been just like Peanut, on the field for 8 to 10 games and the money just sitting there. From a business point of view, that was to risky. The thing that bugged me about Url was he put a gun to the Bears head for that 5 year 43 mil extension when he was in his prime.He whined like a little baby. That was top pay for a MLB at the time. The Bears took care of him in his career and then when it was his turn to show some loyalty to the Bear, he wanted 12 for 2 years. He should have played one more year retired a Bear, and took the 2.5 mil and thanked the Bears, nope whined like a little baby how unfair they were. Screw him, he got what he deserved , out of the league. They also gave him a 1-year extension in the middle of his contract. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Your right, I think his leadership would have added something but dont think the results would have been much better. He would have been just like Peanut, on the field for 8 to 10 games and the money just sitting there. From a business point of view, that was to risky. The thing that bugged me about Url was he put a gun to the Bears head for that 5 year 43 mil extension when he was in his prime.He whined like a little baby. That was top pay for a MLB at the time. The Bears took care of him in his career and then when it was his turn to show some loyalty to the Bear, he wanted 12 for 2 years. He should have played one more year retired a Bear, and took the 2.5 mil and thanked the Bears, nope whined like a little baby how unfair they were. Screw him, he got what he deserved , out of the league. For the most part, that's fair. I like neither how the team nor Urlacher went at it, but I put the onus on the team. Bargaining happens the way you laid things out. One high, one low. If the team had budged just a bit, we would have gotten to see Urlacher play one/two more season(s), and everything would have been well. I know Connor hard-balled at that time and ended up being accurate, but would it have really killed the Bears to budge or at least tell him that was all they could offer? That's what upset Urlacher. I think it would have been better, and I said so at the time, for the Bears to say, "Sure, Brian, how about 1 year for $2.5M?" I don't know how much his presence would have impacted the team last year, but it would definitely have been positive. BTW, you and I both know it's conjecture to say how many games he would have played. The previous three seasons he played 12, 16, and 16 games, respectively. And all accounts were that he was healthy during the '12 season, and his stats were actually getting better as the season progressed. This has been noted many times before on this board. Hamstring injuries are just fluky like that; one never knows when they'll happen. Other than the 2009 wrist thing that none of us believed would last the entire season, Urlacher was on the field every Sunday. Period. I think that's why it's very likely he would have been on the field for most of the games in 2013 if he had been signed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selection7 Posted February 23, 2014 Report Share Posted February 23, 2014 Gotta say, I didn't notice Peanut being anything but within the range of what he normally is. And the only thing I've heard about him not being starter quality, let alone not even worth 2.5 mil, is on these forums. But then, some of yous are crazy. I agree with Jason. How ironic that the Bears cut Urlacher because of accrued injuries, for all intents and purposes, then the guy they get to replace him misses most of the season...due to injury. Then the defense does a slow, painful dive to the bottom of the NFL. You guys are free to think whatever you want, but if Urlacher's position was that the Bears need him and the Bears position was that they can replace him and get better in the process...well, this past season almost couldn't have gone any more in Urlacher's favor. Which brings me to Peanut. Newsflash...our defense sucks, Tillman is a starter on most teams in the NFL that don't already have two studs, and we need him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted February 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2014 Gotta say, I didn't notice Peanut being anything but within the range of what he normally is. And the only thing I've heard about him not being starter quality, let alone not even worth 2.5 mil, is on these forums. But then, some of yous are crazy. I agree with Jason. How ironic that the Bears cut Urlacher because of accrued injuries, for all intents and purposes, then the guy they get to replace him misses most of the season...due to injury. Then the defense does a slow, painful dive to the bottom of the NFL. You guys are free to think whatever you want, but if Urlacher's position was that the Bears need him and the Bears position was that they can replace him and get better in the process...well, this past season almost couldn't have gone any more in Urlacher's favor. Which brings me to Peanut. Newsflash...our defense sucks, Tillman is a starter on most teams in the NFL that don't already have two studs, and we need him. I used to think I was the only one stunned that Urlacher didn't get any interest from any other team, then I listened to Urlacher on TV and realized he too was surprised. 32 teams, none of which got better with Urlacher. It is interesting that we look back at a MLB who was known for not being able to get off blocks by Olinemen and think he would have somehow been able to do so with street FA DTs playing in front of him. Had Urlacher been subjected to all that abuse he'd have wished he retired. We'd have been better with him than Bostic in the middle but not much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TerraTor Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 Hold up. So the dude has been the representation of health for several years, but last year he has a freak triceps injury and suddenly he's injury prone and not worth a good contract? No more than 2-2.5 million? He had just as many INTs last year in 8 games as he did the previous season in 16. He had 3 forced fumbles in 8 games. That's 6 for a season. Good for third in the NFL. Dude punches more balls than Jean Claude Van Damme. But he has one injury and he suddenly sucks? He hasn't missed a game since 2009, or more than a single game since 2006, and suddenly he's injury prone? Mark these words: If the Bears let him walk because they low ball him, it will hurt. They did the same thing last year to Urlacher, and there was definitely an impact. He wouldn't have been able to save a defense so ravaged by injuries, but he would have definitely helped. The loss of Peanut will have similar results. The Bears may plug the hole on the left side of the dike and stop the run, but doing this will cause another leak too far away to reach. Plain and simple, it was a bad move last year, and it'll be a bad move this year. I'm with u Jason. Tillman needs to. Come back 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.