LT2_3

Well that's your first mistake right there: listening to the Score. I thought it was the Score saying that they aren't pursuing free agents and not Angelo. As far as I know, Angelo hasn't said squat beyond wanting to sign our own guys. If we lose out on Briggs and Berrian, I would think that we would pursue some FAs. Also, the comp picks would be in 2009. I seriously doubt we're taking a QB OR RB in rd 1 and I seriously doubt Angelo even considers a trade up. If neither Grossman nor Orton step up and show that they deserve to be the future QB this year, they will take one early next year with Orton as starter next year. I'm pretty sure the front office blames the Oline for the lack of production at RB last year and any new RB will either be drafted in a later round, or be a 2nd tier free agent. There's just no reason to invest in the position so highly when it was our Oline letting our RBs get hit in the backfield last year. I don't think Harris is going to get a new deal. He appears to want money based on how well he plays in the first half of a season which I don't think Angelo will cave to. I see him franchised next year. I don't see Urlacher getting a new deal unless Briggs walks. If Briggs walks, we can afford it. Hester would be nuts to sign a new deal now. He's worth more after next season if he can prove to be a threat at WR. Gould's extension isn't going to cost that much. We will still have plenty of cap space. That's not Angelo's plan unless he gets Briggs and Berrian both signed. Even then, I expect some 2nd tier FA signings. LOL I find it funny that you say that Angelo's gonna stand pat with the guys on our roster, but have us signing 3 FAs there. Also, forget the trades.

You got a link for this? I'd like a bit more detail about Benson "possibly" losing a step other than "a source". "A source" told me that if I buy a ticket, I may win the lottery.

Actually, it's harder to make the incentives NLTBE than it is LTBE. There are only specific stats that can be used for NLTBE bonuses. I don't recall the details right off the top of my head, but one thing is for certain, Grossman would have to agree to them whatever they are - I'll try to do some research on this. Nfo is right. Our limitation this year isn't the cap, it's how much cash we have budgeted. The simplest way to save cap is to give signing bonuses that get prorated. Unfortunately though, you actually have to give them the cash right then. So a $20 million signing bonus over 5 years costs you $4 mil in cap space, but you actually have to give them $20 million. The other route that Angelo likes to go is to give larger roster bonuses - like say $7 mil per year over the first 3 years which actually amortize the payments themselves, but not the cap hit.

It's hard to say since there haven't ben many details published. I'm pretty sure Rex costs $5 mil as the incentives are probably LTBE and Clark probably costs us an extra $650kish due to his $2 mil signing bonus, but I've heard no useful details on Brown. I'd guess he costs another $1 mil roughly from his signing bonus unless they upped his next year's salary too. I'd ball park it at $23 million available not counting rookies.

From what I've heard, he's Oakland's version of Daniel Manning. He's fast and athletic but doesn't tackle particularly well. As for his contract, he's got 2 cheap years (under $1 mil) but 2010 balloons into a salary of about $6 million

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble or anything, but with the cap increases over the past few years, the cap really doesn't mean much in regards to signing players. At this point, it has more to do with how much money teams have to ACTUALLY spend on the players depending on their cash flow. Some teams are even using the LTBE cap forwarding device as a way to get to the league minimum cap. So, in regards to the Bears, they have a set budget of how much they can spend this year and THAT is what will dictate how much they do in free agency - not how much cap space they have.

Nfo - Here's how it looks now: New $5 mil SB (I'm positive it's a SB because we can't spare the room otherwise) with a proration of 1.25 mil per year 2008 Salary 605k + old proration 916k + new proration $1.25 mil = cap hit $2.771 mil Don't worry about the "other bonus". That probably got replaced with the $5 mil SB. The $5 mil salaries are in 2010 and 2011.

It's a local sports radioism. I believe it refers to the scrotum of someone who masturbates. I'm not exactly sure why that would be a bad thing inherently though, I've always figured it came from general 7th grade mentality of sports radio. I believe the translation into British would be a "wanker bollocks". Unfortunately that doesn't rhyme.

There is no rule that technically prevents it, but if the player doesn't like it, he just fails to report. Teams put contingency clasues in their trade deals about this. An example is Darwin Walker who was traded to the Bills and refused to report. Then the Bills made a deal with us, so he reported so they could complete the deal. If Walker had not liked that deal either, he would have reverted back to the Eagles. In this case, Grossman could fail to report and the whole trade would get cancelled. The bottom line is that you just can't treat players like commodites to that extreme. It's impractical.

Why are you even including Rex in the discussion? He's a free agent. We have no claim on his rights whatsoever.

LOL I type in the html tags manually {quote} and {/quote} using Brackets intead of braces. I'm ok with the entire exchange so far. We've said much worse to each other in the past. Btw, I used the term assinine because the original poster used it in his post. I personally think using a word like Assinine when discussing the offseason when 1.) We don't know which potential UFAs will be re-signed before FA begins, and B.) How the combine will affect the draft board, is Assinine itself. I suppose it's my own bizarre sense of humor and irony that made me use the term. I apologize if it irked you unreasonably. Well stop it. We MUST disagree or it's no fun! Remember: Well then don't write it off. Obviously, it would be silly for a GM to enter a draft without being willing to do that, but without knowing which players would fall, you can't really project what would be reasonable or not without a different scenario for every player in the draft. That being said, if it's at a position where we are already strong, the falling player could make a great opportunity to trade down. I dunno about letting Griese go. He's awesome for a backup. I think HIS numbers would have been much better if our oline was better and if the defense didn't keep making him play from behind. Ok. But please not in the 2nd. I'm hoping for us to get our LG of the future there. If we keep Berrian, I'm against drafting a WR before our 2nd 3rd rounder. Me too. Ok. Works for me.

As opposed to other offseason plans that have to make assumptions on the same decisions? Free agency comes before the draft. For anyone to project what they think will happen in the draft, assumptions have to happen about what happened in FA first. I think you just don't like the assumptions that I have made. Ok. You have just listed some of your own assumptions that differ from mine. I look at last year as a lost QB evaluation year because ALL of our QBs were working behind a line that would make Tom Brady or Peyton Manning look, at most, average. I also look at it that Grossman, when evaluated in terms of starts, is right where Brees was when SD felt the need to draft a QB in the first round. He's also statistically where many other very good QBs were before they really made that next step. You can disagree with the prognosis on Grossman, but these facts make me hesitant on drafting a QB in the first 3 rounds when drafting another position could help us THIS year. If we draft a RB high, chances are he'll take time learning the nuances of being a RB at the pro level and won't provide TRUE competition for Benson because he's a developmental project when compared to a veteran. I think you aren't considering the coaching staff and their tendencies in this. Sure, if we draft a guy that doesn't play much, it gives the opportunity to complain about the coaching, but IMO it's a reality and think we should call a spade a spade. A FA RB would already know how to block and make their reads at this level, and have a much better chance at helping the team THIS year. Okay. Rex has said he wants to return, and the team has said they would like him to be back. Why is it such a stretch for you to think it gets done? I think he'll get something done in February before other teams have a chance to pry him away from us, that s pays him well if he's the starter, but not much if he's injured or on the bench. Most fans, not realizing how performance based contracts work, will be outraged about what gets reported in the media in regards to his new contract. My main thing about not drafting a QB THIS year has to do with Orton though. If we draft a guy, Orton gets less attention from the coaching staff (due purely to numbers) and he would get fewer opportunities to be evaluated. He's only got 1 year left under contract. If he shows us nothing due to lack of opportunties, then he's gone and we have lost an opportunity. Well, it depends on who you read and believe. We can shelve this until after the combine when the "pundints" will be more in agreement. Well this is all relative and again depends on who you read and believe. I think it's tough to say that Tommie fell when he was the 14th pick and first DT off the board. Add to that, that there were zero teams drafting ahead of us that play the Tampa-2 scheme that would take advantage of his skills and it even makes sense. As for Olsen, he was projected as a late 1st rounder which is where we got him. I'm talking about picks in the 2nd and 3rd. Got any examples from the mid 2nd round and beyond? BTW I'm not a big basher of drafts - you should know this about me by now. I think these type of discussions get difficult when some are arguing what they think SHOULD be done, and others are arguing what they think WILL be done or any combination of the two. My perspective is based on a little bit of both. I think this team is really close to contending for SB next year and the key is the Oline. I don't want to see a bunch of offensive picks that won't help us this year. Going OT, OG, S makes sense to me with the first 3 picks. Sliding a QB, RB, or WR in there doesn't help THIS year. I could see a WR in the third though. The other thing I keep in mind has to do with roster spots. I think we're going to keep 9 Olinemen and 4 RBs including FB this year. That means to me that ALL the other guys on the roster have to be able to step in and perform because there is little leeway on the roster in case of an injury. There is little or NO room for developmental projects. I read about a WR that was rated highly that may fall due to a wrist injury. I could see taking him in the third if we intend to IR him. That's the type of exception I see. I'm glad to be of service. Another little thing I have in mind is that with FA prices skyrocketing this year, our 14th pick gives us an opportunity to get an elite OT prospect under contract for 6 years at a price that will cost less than half of what will be paid to a Wharton, Gross, or Starks - at least in guaranteed money. It's a prime year for us to draft an OT in terms of prospects and relative cost. I can't see us going any other direction in the first round. As always Nfo, it's a pleasure debating with you.

I mean specific to us this year. It's based on the guys on our roster and contract lengths. I expect us to re-sign Grossman and like the luxury of having Griese around. We can draft a QB next year depending on what we learn from Rex and Orton when Orton's a UFA anyway. If we're going to be stuck with 4 RB on the roster this season, I'd rather the guy we add be a 2nd tier FA that would be easier to both get on the field at full speed and cut ties with if he doesn't work out. If we draft a guy in the 2nd or 3rd and Benson plays to his potential and the rookie takes awhile to get up to speed, then we're stuck with another high draft choice that isn't producing much. Looking at mocks now is pointless. All the rankings will change after the combine. Heck, look at how they've changed after a week at the Senior Bowl when most of the top guys didn't even play. I'm not convinced we have a franchise QB on the roster, but one more year of evaluation of Orton and Grossman will tell us a heck of alot more if we do. The key to this is that Grossman will sign a contract that will make releasing him pretty painless, and Orton is a FA after next season. Any drafted QB will ride the pine this year anyway. Let me clarify: I think this WR draft class is weak at the top, but solid in the middle. What I've read is that guys will go in the 3rd this year that would've gone in the 2nd other years. I agree that the FA WR class is thin. I think Berrian will get franchised. Don't get me wrong, if a guy with incredible talent at any position falls to us inexplicably with our picks in round 2 or 3, I would want us to take them. However, that doesn't happen often unless there is something wrong with them that caused them to fall in the first place. Now something I will be watching this year is Angelo in round 3. He's always done well in round four and I've attributed that to Angelo and his team having a knack for reevaluating their board for the guys remaining after the first day. The first day only has 2 rounds this year so I'm looking forward to his 2 3rd round picks to see if the trend continues.

Not gonna happen. No chance at all. Even with the cap space added by releasing those guys, chances are that we will only be able to sign 3 major FAs. You are proposing 4. I would also point out that R Brown is a UFA anyway so releasing him doesn't need to be done. As for the other stuff, neither Berrian nor Bryant Johnson will be cheap so I think you can write off both unless we franchise Berrian. If you're looking for cheap DTs, we probably already have 2 really decent prospects in Toeina and Kennedy to enter camp with. I also think taking RB or QB in the first 3 rounds is assinine much less the first round. I would also add that since this WR group is pretty deep, taking one of them in the first is assinine too.

The main reason we haven't received many compensatory picks is that we haven't had many players leave that would even qualify. In FA 2001, we lost Todd Perry and Casey Wiegmann, and signed Brad Maynard and got a 6th in 2002 In FA 2002, we lost James Allen, Walt Harris, and Tony Parrish and signed Mike Caldwell and got a 5th, 6th, and 7th in 2003. This kinda proves that not every free agents signing counts. In FA 2003, we lost Colvin and signed Kordell Stewart and Des Clark and got nothing in 2004. We didn't get anything primarily because Colvin blew out his hip and missed 14 games. He finished the season with 3 solo tackles, 2 assisted tackles, 2 sacks, and 0 passes defensed. Had he gone to the probowl, we would have gotten something.

No Nfo, that's not how it works. If we lost Briggs to FA and signed 5 scrubs, we'd still get a 3rd. It's based on both contract size and performance. And I should point out that the FAs signed also have to make the team. And udfas don't count either. I will admit that signing Faneca would mostly cancel out losing Briggs in that equation. However, look for Briggs to sign a 7 year $63 million deal with $25 million guaranteed. If we signed Faneca to a 5 yr $35 mil contract and Briggs went to the probowl and Faneca didn't then we'd still get something. Probably a 4th. Because this is something that is tough to figure out and isn't published, I've been tracking this issue somewhat for the past 5 years. You really only have to count guys that get contracts that are at the league average for their position and better. I could map it out for you in detail, but don't really have the time.

What we got for Jones will be Wolfe and whomever we take with our 2nd 3rd rounder this year. Bauzin is really just putting us back in the 2nd round where we started.

The Bears swapped their original 2nd rounder (63) for the Jets 2nd rounder (37) for T Jones. Then we traded (37) for (62) and (93) + a 2008 3rd rounder from SD. That's why we have 2 3rd rounders this year.

FYI - A couple of years ago, they changed the accounting rules slightly so that 2 players per team could be cut prior to June 1st, but allows the split cap hit as if they were released after June 1st. Post June 1st cuts don't really exist anymore - in relation to the cap anyway. The same guys will get released, it'll just happen March 1st or thereabouts.

Excellent breakdown Nfo. I think this is another one of those mark the calander situations where we agree. The only thing I'd add is the old chestnut "The best way to build a team is from the lines out" We have a perfect opportunity to get a good LT prospect with the 14th pick that allows us to sign them for 6 years, but is one of the lowest contract slottings that can be signed for 6 years. Without getting caught up in the shiny new offensive skill position player type thing, I can't imagine us taking any other position than OT if there is a good value available.

Can you give an example of a team that plays rookie RBs, WRs, or TEs alot unless there is an injury? Teams usually make more of an effort to bring 1st rounders into the mix more than later round guys, but even then, look at how the Colts used Addai his rookie year. He had 15 or fewer carries 9 of 16 games and didn't break 100 yards until week 12. It seems like you're trying to indict either the drafting or coaching when I think it's pretty common practice throughout the nfl.

Not really. The specific thing I was interested was this: The NFLPA website only provides annual salary info - unless there is a section that I am currently unaware of. I'm very interested to know where the info came from; was it an article that a journalist wrote with inside help from an agent, or some guy on the internet that has better access than myself?

I thiought the reference was to QB Shane Falco.......

Where did that bit come from? It wasn't in the link.

A couple points of clarification: Angelo said that our defense is not designed to be a run stuffing team. I'm pretty sure he wasn't implying that he expects them to suck at it, but just that the scheme isn't oriented around that like one would if they have 2 buddas at DT. As for the Mike Brown comment, it WAS in repsonse to a question. He was specifically asked if he could count on Mike Brown. The key to me in that exchange was that he wants Mike back.