'TD'

I'm really not trying to troll you by correcting you, but I want to get the correct info on here. I had thought it worked the same way in an earlier post, but I was wrong. Basically, Peppers would count the full 18 million until June 2nd hits. Here's an article that has the wording from the collective bargaining agreement. http://www.thephinsider.com/2013/6/2/43866...t-karlos-dansby Here's another article that spells it out pretty clearly at the end. Basically, the only savings the Bears would have on Peppers would be the 100k work out bonus until June 2nd. He would count over 18 million against the cap until then. http://russellstreetreport.com/pollard-rel...e-until-june-1/

Cap savings aren't available immediately. http://overthecap.com/explaining-the-june-1st-designation/

Oh yea if they dip too much each of the first 3 years, it can get ugly, I didn't understand you were asking that when I wrote my last reply. My post above considered no dipping in before year 4.

You can basically forget years 6 and 7. They are optional and won't be affected by bonuses from previous years or dead money. I'm not sure what you mean by cutting his cap hit to 6M in year 4. Basically any conversion they make in year 4 will be spread over year 4 and year 5 evenly. Right now his cap his for year 4 is 15M and year 5 is 16M. If they convert 10 million of year for to to bonus, 5 million of that bonus will still apply to each year. His cap number for year 4 would drop to 10 million and his cap number for year 5 would raise to 21M. If the Bears cut Cutler the 5th year, the Bears would then have 5 milion of dead money on the cap for that year. It's impossible to drop his cap number to 6 million in year 4, so I just used 10 million as an example for easier numbers to work with. I hope this helps some.

His contract doesn't work that way. In March, he will have 38 guaranteed on his contract. If he is cut next month. His guarantee goes up to 48 million of march of next year and 54 million in march of 2016. Below I will put his money if cut each year. Dead Money: 2014 38,000,000 2015 15,500,500 2016 10,000,000 2017 0 2018 0 It's all considered salary, so it doesn't take the effect of bonuses where it could be spread out. However, it is considered a 5 year contract. If the Bears convert 10 million this year to bonus money, then the Bears will have 8 million extra in cap space this year. The 10 million will be spread out over 5 years and each ear will take a cap hit of 2,000,000 more due to dead money spread out. The next 2 years of Cutelr's contract, 2017 he has a base salary of 12,500,000 and 13,500,00 in 2018. Each year he has a 2.5 milllion roster bonus after the first 3, so his cap number in 2017 is 15M and 16M in 2018. Any money spread out will bump up those years. If we take 10 million converted this year to free up 8 million in cap space, 2017's cap number goes up to 17M for the year and 18M for the 5th year. If he is cut, his dead money would be bumped up to the following. Dead Money 2014 46,000,000 2015 23,500,000 2016 16,000,000 2017 4,000,000 2018 2,000,000 I know went off track from what you asked, but basically no the Bears can't do that.

Agreed, I think it will take a few years for the D to develop. They were bad this year and will be losing a few of their best this year. Other than maybe a spot or 2 at linebacker, there's not a player on the team that you can say has a spot locked up starting on D 2 or 3 years from now.

The contract gives the team flexibility within the contract, but everyone has to pay the piper. If they convert 10 million this year to bonus, it will free up 8 million in cap space and bump up the next 4 years by 2million. 2015 it will go up to 17.5 million, 18 million in 2016, 17 million in 2017, and 18 million in 2018. If they have to do it again next year 2016 will go up to 20.5 million, 19.5 million in 2017, and 20.5 million in 2018. Each year they use it like a credit card, it still adds up and needs paid down the road. I'll avoid the his play to not distract from the topic. I think it's irrelevant anyways, even if you play like Peyton Manning that kind of salary is prohibitive to your team. Players like Tillman and Melton will likely be cap casualties. It will also make it hard to resign players coming into their prime like Jeffery. The cap casualties and dead money are never good for a team. We could debate a players worth, but you can't debate how that size of a contract restricts a team.

Peppers is 34. A restructure just delays the inevitable and makes it costlier to cut him next year. I really don't see an extension being plausible as he will be 36 when this contract expires. He is almost 1/6th of the Bears cap this year if he plays. Cutting him saves close to 10 million this year. Cutting him with the June 1st designation frees up 14 million this year. Basically, Cutler's contract screwed the Bears this year. He has a 22.5 million salary. The bears have 47 spots filled and only 3 million in cap space and many starting caliber players needed. Any June 1st designation or moving of Cutler and other's money, is just going to hurt the team in the future capwise. It will be needed tho just to field a team.

Cutting Peppers using the June 1st designation would make sense. Untill June 1st, it would be the same as cutting Peppers. They would save near 10 million. Once June 1st hits, they'd save an additional 4.3 million or whatever. This money could be used towards the rookie pool, and 4.3 million of what they would have to save back for the rookie pool anyways could be spent now.

Yea, i just meant in the article confirming the 4-3. Did Emery, Trestman, or Tucker say anything to confirm it that they didn't write? I just read the writer of the article saying they are sticking with the 4-3.

I'm not saying they are going with a 3-4, but did anyone involved with the Bears actually confirm it? I didn't catch it other than the reporter saying it.

I think you wrote rather eloquently NYC. We are in disagreement on the subject, however I will not retort. Another argument on the subject, even if a response is due, would be rather counter-productive for the board's best interests. In reply to Cracker, I just wanted to make a few points. -Homophobia is not applicable to disagreeing with your social issue, however theophobia is overly apparent -Religion is not responsible for the varying laws on marriage. The opposition to gay marriage is not strictly religious people. - Arguing with undertones of hatred for a person's views only diminishes any stronger points you may have. -The term bigotry is being used too lightly. .

His genius came up with the "drafed Pro Bowl", where the players from the best teams can't play. He deserves every dollar... lol

My understanding was the when they run hybrids, it's mainly a pass rushing LB drops down to the DE position. With the Bears it would be whoever they sign/draft/SMC. I'm not going to lie tho, I'm not knowledgeable about it at all. I agree, in most scenario's they need to cut Peppers for the money. They haven't yet, so i put him in my comment.

If the Bears can keep Melton and they go 3-4 or hybrid, it basically takes DE off the need list in early picks if not for the whole draft. Wooton, Peppers, or a cheap FA could fill the other DE slot depending on who they sign/cut. If they don't keep him, they are going to need a DE, CB (depending on Peanut), Nose Tackle, Safety, and pass rushing LB (depending on your faith in Shea). I know some of this can be filled in FA, but it would be nice to have DE as an non-issue.

I saw the article a day or 2 ago. I didn't post it because Cutler's contract has made me lose a lot of the interest I normally have in the offseason. When even Jerry Angelo is saying what I am thinking on an offensive player, it's just not good. I think this is the first time I have ever agreed with him on a player.

Bless your grandma, she's good in my book, Chitownhustla too. I'll have to try that recipe sometime, but unfortunately I don't live anywhere near Chicago. It looks pretty good in my book.

I'm prejudice against Lithuanians, but only the sane and happy ones.

Ignore what I said above. For some reason I was thinking the Dolphins were 3-4, with out even paying attention to who the head coach was. I guess Kim coached in both defenses more evenly, slightly favoring 3-4.

This may be yet another sign the Bears are switching to a 3-4. I'll list the teams and Coaches he has consulted for below. I can't remember all the schemes, but I think a good majority of his years were spent consulting on 3-4 defensive lines. It looks like 12 of the years off memory, I could be wrong. I'm pretty sure the Browns, Dolphins, Bills and Chiefs ran a 3-4 those years. I could be wrong tho. Browns (92-95) HC: Bill Bilichek DC: Nick Saban (92-94) Rick Venturi (95) Cowboys (98) HC: Chan Gailey DC: Dave Campo Dolphins (01-06) HC: Dave Wannstedt (01-04) Nick Saban (05-06) DC: Jim Bates (01-04) Richard Smith (05) Dom Capers (06) Packers (05) HC: Mike Sherman DC: Jim Bates Broncos (07) HC: Mike Shannahan DC: Bob Slowik Bills (09) HC & DC: Perry Fewell Chiefs (10-12) HC: Haley (10) Romeo Crennel (11-12) DC: Romeo Crennel (10-12)

Well in a 3-4 we may be better off with a free safety, lol. I guess I will just wait a while to speculate on the draft. Especially since I know next to nothing on the draft class at this point.

Have they committed on a defense yet this year? I haven't been keeping up with the news lately. It's really hard for me to comment on what to draft with out knowing what they are running or what will be available in FA. I understand Jason's point on getting the most value on the picks, I think the system will also play into the value of the pick. In the current system, I think getting a better pass rush is more important than having an elite FS. The year before last, the same mediocre safeties were just fine in the system when it had a better pass rush. A 90 DE and 60 FS may have more of an impact than a 90 FS and 75 DE. I'd prefer a young Peppers and Chris Harris over a young Idonoje and young Ed Reed in this system.

I posted more than anyone in that thread. I strongly feel that my posts or anyone elses posts were meant to give you the impression you walked away with. I will not take a step back from what I said or apologize, as it would be dishonest and unwarranted as I stand by my opinions. Instead, I will say this. This forum is a small knit family. You're apart of that. I am sure myself and others here never want someone to walk away feeling like you do. We may fight, disagree, and such on many issues. Honestly, i don't know anyone that agrees with every issue on here. This board in my experience, has one thing that most the internet lacks and that is heart. I don't think you'll find a more family knit environment out there in your experiences discussing the Bears online. It definitely isn't a place that has boarders that exclude race or sexuality. About the only thing this board excludes is trolling and unwarranted disrespect for other posters.

You really shouldn't have try to discredit or insult people's religion to make your point. I think you will find that many true religious people, whether it be Muslim, Christian, or other, do not hate people. That alone would go against their beliefs and morals. I totally agree with you on the right to employment. That, however, is covered under law now. The only issue that I know of, is marriage and the benefits there of. A gay couple should be able to be on their partner's insurance, file taxes together, and visit each other in the hospital and such. You will get no argument from me on that. The only argument from me is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Traditionally and historically, it has been defined that way for a long time through many cultures. A gay marriage by any other name is completely acceptable to me. The can both be recognized as civil unions by the government, but recognized as different terms. All of which, I think has nothing to do with this young man coming out as a homosexual.

It became my business when you called anyone that doesn't agree with you wrong and a bigot. I don't agree with you, so apparently I am a bigot. However, I do not strongly or unfairly dislike people or their ideas. I do not hate or refuse to accept someone of a group. You clearly stated you do. I disagree on the definition of a term. I do think they should get equal treatment, and respect what they want.