LT2_3

Then I guess I'm crazy. I trust Tice that Webb will do fine at LT - or Omiyale will replace him, I trust that the improvement that Williams showed toward the end of last season wasn't a mirage and that he will improve with another TC at LG, I trust that Garza will do fine at C until Spencer learns the line calls and either one will be an improvement to the highest false starting C in league history, I trust that Louis is improved over last year and Garza will be his consistent self at RG, and I trust that Carimi will do fine at RT as his press clippings have suggested so far in camp. Guys, we have over a month of TC for these guys to build from what they learned last year from Tice and gel as a unit. Personally, I think that they will, at the least, start from where they ended the season last year and improve through the season. Will they be perfect? No. Will they miss assignments from time to time? Yes, but every o-line does anyway. But will the team as a whole be improved over last year when we went to the NFCC game? Yes. I think we will. But then again, I must be crazy to even contemplate all that.

Aw geez Griz, don't you know you aren't supposed to think positively at all?

Probably because they all restructured contracts instead of releasing players. What many don't realize is that quite often, releasing players costs more against the cap than keeping them.

I'll kick off the free league again and send out invites. I'll post here soon about openings from people that didn't re-up.

True enough Really? I had not heard that. Got a link to a source? The current groupthink on the subject is that the Franchise tag will continue and that UFA will begin at 4 years like it used to. If that is accurate, neither one of these guys will be available.

I think that would depend on what they are asking for. What I've read is the equivalent of 4 transition tags where original teams only have the right to match. I don't think that would be too tough on the players and I don't think the owners would have to give up too much to get it either.

We'll really have to see how this all sorts out. I've read elsewhere that the owners are going to want to protect a certain number of these players (3 or 4) because the resulting free agency frenzy otherwise would likely set many teams WAY back if they are having to replace starting players all over their team. I'm certain that free agency will revert to the previous 4 years eventually, I'm just not convinced that it will take full effect this year with such a shortened free agency period, and such a large number of players being available since nobody was negotiating long term deals when the form of the new labor agreement was so uncertain. Sure, it would benefit the Bears because we have signing our core players far in advance, but I'm really not sure that it will ultimately happen this way.

I have to say that I'm impressed guys. This is the closest I've seen people getting to a definition of a #1 WR. I think that the problem generally in this sort of discussion is that everyone agrees that we need one, but usually people can't agree on the traits. See, in my book, a #1 WR doesn't need to stretch the field (although it's nice if they can) but a #1 WR needs to be able to at least move the chains ala Anquan Boldin in his prime. That requires not only a laundry list of moves that allows them to get off the line and get open, but also a relationship with his QB so that they both know what the other is thinking in any given situation to allow those key 3rd down conversions. So, while it's important that a receiver doesn't get jammed up at the line, it's not as important that they run precise and textbook routes - as long as the QB knows where he will be eventually. The important thing is consistency. So if a WR is running a 10 yard button hook, it doesn't matter if they run inside or outside a jam, or whether or not they run in a straight line. Heck, they don't even need to get to a spot and come back for the ball - as long as the coverage dictates his moves, his QB sees those moves, and they both adjust accordingly. As for the WRs on the roster, I think Knox has some upside if he can build up his body a bit and get stronger. The time on the field with Cutler and an improved Oline should help loads with the intangibles. It's just the "tangible" he really needs to work on is changing himself from a fast skinny guy, to a guy that can keep from getting out-muscled. Bennett has some upside too. I forget which game it was precisely, but he had been out injured for a few weeks and came back with a vengeance. Now maybe it was because he had been out a few weeks and the other team hadn't game planned for him, but he was where he was supposed to be and making catches all over the place. That tells me he's capable of being a solid #2 - and we can make a go of it with a bunch of #2s even though it's not optimal. I'm not too hopeful that any FA WR we bring in will be able to succeed as the #1 WR that we want. The chemistry and unspoken communication required between the QB and WR makes it problematic. If you were to make a list of #1 WRs and then subtract the receivers that excel due to their communication with their specific QB, you MIGHT have a handful of guys if you're lucky. Listing the guys in the league right now that might possibly be able to step in and make a significant difference, there's Greg Jennings, Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, and Larry Fitzgerald. What do those guys have in common? They've all put up great stats with multiple QBs. The only other one even close is Reggie Wayne, and he's getting old and I'm not convinced he would play at anywhere near the same level without Peyton Manning throwing him the ball. So, could Santonio Holmes be a guy that fits the #1 role for us? Maybe possibly, but if he actually HAS those portable skills that are independent of the QB, then he's probably not making it out of NY and we don't really have a shot at him anyway.

I think that it's one of the toughest positions to find a really good player for, not to mention, keep healthy. It takes a unique combo of size, speed, tackling, and instincts. Steltz has the tackling and instincts, but not the size and speed while Manning has the size and speed, but not the tackling and instincts. Afalava, I have read somewhere, was injured. One of those shoulder injuries with nerve damage that was just never likely to be right again. (I can't find a link now - it may have been a beat reporter on the radio or some other source) I have no idea how this kid will pan out but I like his size and speed and hope he has the instincts and continued health to give him a CHANCE to pan out. I'll be hopeful about him until I see see him as inactive on game day with some injury that we never heard about at which point I'll figure we broke him and need to draft another replacement.

Except he was rated as the 99th best overall player here: http://www.newerascouting.com/defense-ratings/safety/

I disagree on your assessment. First, the only way this is a major defeat is that the judge didn't stay the order during appeal immediately. It still may get a stay from either this judge or the appeals court. Also, just because the lockout is lifted, even if free agency technically starts, doesn't mean the owners have to sign anybody. It's like just because the store is open doesn't mean people have to go buy stuff if they feel like waiting for the prices to come down. And when it comes to things like working out, teams could say "okay, we're your bosses and today we want you to sit in this room all day and do finger exercises." See, the key issue is that the league is able to act like a league because they operate by a series of rules that mostly maintain competitive balance. It's the rules that maintain competitive balance that the players are attacking as anti-trust (or anti-competition) because they hope it will give them more leverage in negotiations. The problem is that unless the court imposes work rules or approves a set of work rules that the league proposes, to shield the league from the anti-trust issues, then the league isn't going to much of anything until the appeals process works it's way through. This is far from over.

I don't think you are using the phrase "good faith" properly. It's a legal term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice or the desire to defraud others. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary....od+faith+effort In this instance, the owners made an offer in "good faith" because it was designed to forward the process towards a deal. The timing of the offer near a deadline does not diminish the fact that it was a "good faith" offer. In fact, it's a standard negotiating tactic that has no bearing on whether an offer was in "good faith." In fact, if anything is not in "good faith" it's the players decertifying to take this strategy to court. See, the problem is that they are suing for things like no draft, and no salary caps - which would never get agreed to by the rank and file of players because it would accompany no salary minimums too. So those scrub players that now make a minimum of $300k per year, would see their salaries decrease significantly. Basically, with what they are suing for, the rich players would make even more money, and the poor players would earn far less. There would be no middle ground. So, the players are fighting in court for something that would hurt the majority of their members simply as a bargaining tactic. If that isn't a complete lack of "good faith" then I don't know what is. Why? I agree that they wouldn't sign the deal unexamined, but if they came to a tentative agreement in principle, both sides could announce the deal and open free agency within a day or two. I have no idea what you're talking about. The offer itself was a sign of good faith. I don't see how an offer that includes third party appeals for ALL infractions can be taken so lightly. It may not be the main thing to the union, but it's still a major concession. Also, if you could provide a link that the owners didn't propose a time extension, I'd appreciate it. From everything I've read, the owners made their proposal, the players said "we have to think about it" and before responding, announced the decertification. Now I don't want to make this more complicated than it has to be regarding what either side should have done, but if you can show me something that indicates that the ball wasn't in the players court when they simply walked away, I'd really love to read it.

I'm switching most of your quotes to italics because I exceeded the maximum number of quotes in a post... Your usage of the word is wrong in the context. Technically, you are correct, but if the players had executed that clause they would have done so unilaterally as well. Using the word "unilaterally" in that context is completely incendiary and redundant since there is no possible way to execute that clause without it being unilateral. Also, both sides had the option to terminate, but both sides also had the option to negotiate a new deal when the old one expired, without exercising the termination option. The owners didn't go that route - they decided to terminate the CBA and force a lockout instead. No - the owners opted out May 20, 2008. That was so long ago that there were many different paths that could have been taken and the players never got serious about negotiations either. Without opting out, the players would have had no reason to renegotiate a thing because the CBA would have run for 2 more years. The owners had no option but to execute that clause if they wanted a new deal earlier than 2013 because the players would have had no incentive to negotiate. Saying that the owners opted out of the CBA early so they could force a lockout is complete and utter bullshit. One other mechanism the owners had was to negotiate with the players' union in good faith for a new CBA that they felt was more favorable to them, without illicitly trying to gain leverage in the negotiations. Instead, they bargained for guaranteed money from the TV networks to fund the owners during a lockout (which violated their contractual obligations to the union) and then exercised their option to terminate the CBA. They (and I'm carefully trying to avoid hyperbole here) made sure that they would get paid even if a lockout occurred and then made a lockout happen. The owners lock the players out, the owners get paid while the lockout goes on, the players don't. It doesn't take much to see that that's an unfair bargaining position. Honestly, I think that's a bit overblown. I think you need to be careful of how you characterize those deals because they weren't going to get "free money" they were basically getting an advance on future payments. Should they have negotiated those deals that way? No. But they could have achieved the same results with either an insurance policy to pay out in case of a work stoppage, or they could simply borrow money from a bank. The reason they didn't go that route is because they got interest free terms that way. To borrow your parallel to a strike, this would be like if the players decided to strike, intentionally bargained in bad faith to make a strike happen, found a way to get paid the same wages for not working while they were on strike, and had the ability to keep the owners from conducting their businesses while the strike went on. If any of that were true, it'd look like a pretty unfair thing for the union to do. Nope. That's all legit. The players could strike, picket the teams to keep scabs out, and take out loans against their future earnings. That's how labor negotiations go my friend. The players refused to sign another extension without getting financial disclosure, and I don't wholeheartedly agree with them on that, especially after the two sides had gotten to within $300 million a year on the increase in off-the-top money. But they're saying that they honestly felt that litigating was the surest way to get back on the football field without cutting into the season, and I haven't seen any evidence that they're being dishonest about that. I disagree. I think that their law case is hot air and has no legitimate legal basis. I don't want to get into defining wins and losses for possible outcomes in court, but I don't think the players are going to get the outcome they want and things will stay in court for longer than they expect which will in turn put the season in more jeopardy. And I'm not even getting started on Dee Smith's personal ambitions and how he may be leading the union astray with this strategy. To sum up, the NLRB is probably going to carry more weight in this than the court in Minnesota. The union could end up reconstituted and locked out pretty quickly. Given the timetable of this litigation, they would get to court and win their injunction well before the 2011 season starts. The injunction would force the owners to open the doors under the 2010 CBA rules, which would at least ensure that there's football this year. It's not an ideal solution, I don't really like it, and I wish they'd kept negotiating, but I believe their argument for now, until I have a reason not to. What if the court defers to a ruling from the NLRB? What if they lose? Do they appeal it pushing things back further? What if it gets appealed to the Supreme court? How long would that take? They can't reconstitute the union and start negotiating until they have a final ruling in court. That opening offer was, for all intents and purposes, an absolute demand, until the owners found out that their lockout money from the TV networks wasn't coming through. I haven't seen anything that suggests that they budged an inch while they still thought they could weather a lost season. They only started making any kind of concessions after Judge Doty's decision, once they didn't have their lockout insurance. And neither side was ready to negotiate until the 11th hour. That's just how these kinds of things go. I don't know why you are so set on laying this on the owners. The players knew it was coming. The players knew that they weren't going to get to see everything they wanted to from the owners books too. That's just a negotiating ploy and a play for public sympathy. As for them not being able to weather a lost season, the league most certainly could take out loans to cover what they would have gotten from the networks that they would have had to pay back anyway. Saying otherwise is silly. I'm not objecting to the fact that they wanted a better deal for themselves; that's how negotiations go - each party is trying to get the best deal for itself. What I object to is that they planned to use an extended lockout to put pressure on the players' union to take an owner-friendly deal. And I discount that view because they made serious efforts in their mediated sessions with the union before the CBA expired. The players got an offer where they got ALL of the non-financial stuff they wanted and they were close on the numbers and still decided to walk away. Why did they walk away? Why not do another extension? Even if it was only a 3 day extension? How much does a 3 day extension change their strategy in the long run? Answer: Not at all. They worked out the TV deals so that they would get paid either way, giving them the financial ability to weather a season-long lockout. The players don't have that ability, and eventually the union's support would have fragmented and they would have capitulated. I don't have a problem with the owners trying to get themselves a better deal, but if their plan to get that was by negotiating in bad faith, intentionally causing a lockout, and planning to have that lockout cut into the 2011 season, THAT I have a problem with. As a fan, I'm not OK with that. Well you are welcome to your opinion. Again, I think you're making a bigger deal out of the advanced payments than it deserves. As I've pointed out, they can easily get loans to cover whatever they need anyway. I also don't think they were negotiating in bad faith either. They gave up all sorts of stuff in that last offer. I was shocked that they offered an independent arbiter for all grievances. A revenue-sharing model doesn't need a constant revenue:expense ratio to work, it just needs adjustments to the sharing agreement as that ratio changes. That's why in principle, I have no problem with the owners asking for more money to cover their expenses, provided that those expenses are actually getting higher. The owners have access to the information that would tell everyone whether that's true or not, and they won't turn it over. Given that their incentive is to get the best deal possible for themselves, there's a tremendous reason to be skeptical of whether they're telling the truth, absent that evidence. On top of that, the NFL as a whole is highly profitable, and the only team whose books are open (the Packers) made a profit despite the economic downturn. Alright, the key problem is that the owners want to act like businessmen. The only way they can build stadiums like Jones did in Dallas, is if they can pay the debt off quickly. They can't pay the debt off quickly if their player costs are tied to the increased revenue that it generates. The model just simply has to change. The business world has changed since the original model was developed. It takes more to make more, but the costs are higher too. Sometimes those things change in a matter of months and tweaking a revenue model every 4 or 5 years just doesn't cut it. If the owners are right that the revenue:expense ratio has changed or will change during the term of the next CBA, then they should have no problem proving it. And if they prove it, the players have repeatedly said that they'll go along with it. So what's their incentive not to prove it, if it's true and proving it will get them the money they need? The owners have no problem proving it, but the players are asking for too much information. The players want to see the complete books with full line item disclosure. There is no way they will ever get that. The players asking to see the books is simply a play for sympathy and a negotiating tool. They don't really care what the books say. They just want the threat of having to see them in play so they can get the best possible deal. I have no problem with them trying to get a good deal for themselves, but they are doing it in an obstructionist manner and making this all take a lot longer than it needs to. That's all well and good, but it comes down to this: the owners wanted more money each year before revenue-sharing (or however the players will be paid) occurs. The players don't see a dime of that money. Regardless of whether they were negotiating a different revenue model or how they were splitting the pie after the expense money comes out, the owners are asking to set aside more money just for them. That's a worse deal for the players unless they get an equal-sized increase in their take of what's left over, which the owners never offered. Haven't I said that they were about 2 counter offers away from a deal? Did I ever say that the players should have taken that deal? You're bitching about the last offer from the league like it was an ultimatum or something. Just to remind you, it was the players that walked away without making a counter offer. And since that money goes directly to the owners, and is earmarked for the expenses that they refuse to demonstrate, they could very well be trying to get the union to sign a deal that keeps the owners' revenues constant while shifting a significant chunk of their expenses onto the players. What? The players ARE an expense. How do you put an expense on an expense? Quite simply, as long as the players don't get paid less than they are right now, the cap continues to go up, the players are getting better benefits, and retired players are getting better taken care of, I think that would be a great deal for the players and I could not possibly care less about where the rest of the money goes. The cap ceiling is not the same as the players' union's cut of revenues. And whether people's current contracts are adjusted isn't the point - the point is what happens to future contracts during the term of the next CBA. Whether or not you want to call it a pay cut, they were asking the players to sign on to a deal that would reduce their future contracts (in the aggregate) from what they would have been under the old rules. Whether you call that a pay cut or a smaller contract, it's still less money than they would have made under the status quo. No argument on any of that - except that with the CBA expiring, there is no longer any status quo. It's time to cut a brand new deal. The past CBA is expired, dead, it's pushing up daisies, it's bereft of life, it's joined the choir invisible and shuffled off it's mortal coil. As I said, it's time for a new deal and worrying continuously about the deal that has expired is pointless. The players aren't going to get the same deal they had. They are going to get a lot of non-monetary things that they want too. It's going to be a brand new deal that can't be properly compared to the last one. Stop trying to do so. I don't have a problem with adjusting the way the cap works or reducing some players' salaries - nobody thinks JaMarcus Russell was a good deal for the Raiders. The players were proposing a system that would have substantially reduced the top-15 rookie salaries and redistributed that money to the lower-paid veterans, so that the players' overall pay didn't go down. That would be fine. But if the owners are asking to reduce player salaries overall and use the extra money to benefit the owners themselves, then why shouldn't they have to prove that they need that benefit? The owners haven't asked to reduce anyone's existing salaries. The only thing they have suggested on that note is to reduce what rookies earn and whatever rookies don't earn would have to get paid to SOMEONE to reach the newly proposed salary cap floor of 90% of the cap. I really don't see why anyone gives a crap about this. Even with the last offer from the owners, the cap will go up and players will get paid more than ever and continue in that trend. Did you read that from a credible source or is that the paranoid delusions of a player that doesn't understand the salary cap? Link please.

Correct in that that was the last deal. That deal expired by the owners executing an option in the last CBA that BOTH sides were able to execute if they felt the deal needed an adjustment. So, because of that, they didn't unilaterally cancel it. Both sides agreed that both sides legally and legitimately had that option. Wow. Use hyperbole much? The owners made an opening offer of an extra billion off the top and negotiated down from there. When it comes to the lockout, that's the mechanism the owners have to get a new deal after the last one expired. If the players would have decided they needed a better deal than the last one and opted out early, it would have been a strike. Quite frankly, I discount any player complaints about the lockout because they were the ones that refused to extend the last CBA to keep negotiating and decided this decertify and sue in court path. If their members really have such hardships from being locked out in the offseason, then maybe they should have chosen a path that kept their insurance paid while they were negotiating. Again, you are confusing an opening offer with an absolute demand and attaching that to their motives. The players got a great deal last time and have said as much. The owners wanted a better deal for themselves this time. Why didn't the players just extend the last CBA and keep negotiating. I can only think that we would have a deal by now if they had just kept negotiating. Which is why the revenue sharing model seriously needs to be replaced. For a revenue sharing model to work, it is assuming that revenue and expenses will maintain the same ratio forever. Let's say you buy a widget for $3 and sell it for $10. Then, widgets get more expensive and you raise your prices, so now you buy them for $5 and sell them for $12. If you pay someone a percentage of profit, then you pay them the same because you still have a $7 profit per widget. If you are paying someone a percentage of revenue, you have to pay them more because you raised the price even though your profit is exactly the same. This is precisely why they need to get off the revenue sharing model and it was going to take a work stoppage for that to happen. The last proposal they were discussing involved set cap increases over the next 4 years and had nothing to do with revenue sharing - which is why I'm so against the players right now. They were probably 2 more counter offers away from a deal when they just walked away to put all of this in court. Quite frankly, all this "smaller piece of the pie" crap rings totally hollow to me since they had already been negotiating a different revenue model and set annual increases that would already be a smaller piece of the pie. And finally, no one was ever asking for a pay cut. The cap was never going to go down. No player was ever going to get the numbers in their current contracts reduced. Quite simply, the owners are asking for a slower RATE of cap increase. In their "pegged cap" negotiations, they had already established numbers that would increase each year and nobodys current contract would go up or down either way. Nobody was being asked to take a pay cut!!!!!!

That's ridiculous. That assumes that's the only reason they don't want to open their books. They shouldn't open their books on principle. Actually, I think that most teams wouldn't have a problem opening their books, but it's probably Jones and Snyder that have a serious problem with it. I don't think there will be much happening until after the April 6th court date. Things might pick up after that.

I did just read at PFT that Rice may get a RFA tender.

Though the league has never said so publicly, I'm pretty sure that the type of poison pill like was used on Steve Hutchinson has been outlawed. That type of poison pill has never been used again since that year. That being said, I can't imagine the Bears making an offer that the Vikes wouldn't match. I don't mean to rain on your parade, but it seems like every year people get excited about which players will be eligible for free agency, and 99% of the time, none of the blue chip players ever make it to free agency either through contract extensions or getting tagged. Peppers was part of the other 1%. Like I said, I'd love to see us get Rice at a decent price, but I really don't think he'll be available - and a transition tag is unavailable in my book - unless there is a new lower salary cap and we can structure a financial poison pill that the Vikes simply can't afford, but still have it be a reasonable overall deal.

2 things 1. I've read that they haven't made up their minds yet 2. They can still transition tag him I'm all for getting Rice if he's available, but I seriously don't think he'll be available.

I've heard that VJax is going to be franchised so you can pretty much write him off the list of available guys. The Vikes, on the other hand, have so many guys coming up for free agency that it appears that Rice might actually be available once we ever get to a free agency period.

I just wanted to comment on this bit. It appears to me that the best strategy on kickoffs to the Bears is to kick it to an up back around the 20. At that point, they have a decent chance to hold the return to about the 30 yard line with really good coverage. That's about the best average that could be achieved without risking the really long returns.

And I'm going to throw out there that it wasn't really a 3rd round pick. It was an untradeable supplemental pick at #99. The third round technically ends with pick #96. Because it can't be packaged to move up, or traded down for more picks, I don't consider it a 3rd round pick because the value in the 3rd round is, in my mind, to be able to move up or down to get a player you really like. Also, the WR position was addressed with Bennett the year before and Iglesias and Knox that year in a shotgun approach. I don't think it really matters which picks work out as long as you can hit on 2 out of 3.

If we beat the Vikes and the Pack lose to NE next week we win the division. I'd hardly call winning a division with two weeks to play "eeking in". Unfortunately, we played in "Patriot's weather" yesterday. I also think that refs made some bad calls/non-calls. Their first TD should have been a penalty by Gronkowski for hitting Urlacher and evidently either that DB has humongous feet, or Knox's ass is so small that he could sit on a shoe and his ass wouldn't touch the ground. I'm also pretty sure that making the playoffs will keep Angelo around especially since his contract runs through 2013.

Here's the video : Do we get an extra home game next week?

TO is having a good year, but Moss has only averaged 39 yards per game with Tom Brady and Brett Favre throwing to him. Knox is having a better year than Moss. I'll buy that Owens could have been signed to a multiple year deal (although history has shown that TO does best with 1 year deals), but to get Moss, it would have required taking his current contract which runs out at the end of the season. Unless you're suggesting the Franchise Tag for a guy averaging 39 yards per game this year, Moss wouldn't be here next year. How would Moss and Owens being on the team possibly keep Cutler from getting creamed? Also, I'm not so sure there is more to the idea of a regime change for the Bears next year than a lot of wishful thinking by some fans. The Bears are right in the thick of the playoff hunt currently and a win against the hapless Vikes puts us back in first place in our division. That and the labor situation could prevent a lot of coaches from getting fired if owners think a lockout may last until August and new coaches wouldn't have time to implement new systems - which usually happens in mini-camps and OTAs that the players would not be around for. And for the record, I think signing TO or Moss would've been a really bad idea. TO is an A-hole and we don't need him throwing Cutler or anyone else under the bus, and Moss wouldn't have been useful this season because he didn't know the offense, he would have been a distraction, and he's simply not producing this year.

Thanks you. And, we should have learned that there is no place for Tommie in a 3-4 defense from the previous, and equally as stupid, rumors of a Tommie for Haynesworth trade.