CrackerDog

Thanks for the info on March 11th. As to his switching to safety, I'd agree the fit is probably better but along with being in on more action, he'd be more susceptible to injury, one would think.

Interesting read. I'm still all for firing him based on what I saw but there's two sides to the argument. http://www.windycitygridiron.com/2014/1/9/...vie-smith-again

Are you sure it's with the Bears? I'd love to have him back. His tweat isn't specific.

Letterman used to have him on fairly often. Always enjoyed those interviews!

Excellent read! I wonder how the board's Chicken Little's will respond to it? THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

Nice rant, dude. I agree with you on a few things but mostly on the penalties for hitting too hard. The league is killing itself with this BS and there could come a time when it isn't remotely close to "real" football and long time fans will walk away. I fully support efforts to protect player health but they've gotten carried away. You can contact a RB's helmet but not a WR's. Blah blah blah. Let's strap 'em on and play football! Dammit!

I agree. If they added two teams per conference I'd be against it but because of your points above, I like it. It's still few enough teams to keep the regular season's importance.

You're not ignorant of anything. What you say above is 100% right based on what I've read about the clause.

The Bears have the opportunity to do this immediately. They can take the biggest hit this year if they don't need the money and it may turn out to make sense to do so. But they have the option to say $10 million of his 2014 money is now bonus and prorate it, thereby saving themselves a lot of room this year. I realize you don't think they will but the fact remains they can. And that's, once again, the point of the clause.

I've never seen a contract designed for specifically that purpose. Not sure it hasn't happened but just don't recall it. Every other deal I've seen where early reworking happens (like you said, year 2 or later) typically had a signing bonus. Cutler's contract does not.

Another favorite of mine... I think it's fair to argue that the Bears shouldn't have signed Jay. I'd disagree with that but at the end of the day, I'd have to respect your opinion. But if you thought we should've signed Jay, this contract, it seems to me and Biggs, is market. And now that we know about the salary conversion clause, it's a flexible deal that provides the team with valuable opportunities to improve via free agency. End of discussion.

I posted it to Facebook!

And the beauty of the deal as reported seems to be that now Emery has the flexibility to go either way. If the FA's he most wants aren't available, he can do what you suggest above. If he can land a few top-notch players for the D, he converts some portion of Cutler's salary to bonus and... BAM! Shortest rebuilding process in NFL history.

I guess you really are that friggen stupid. I've been consistent throughout saying the deal didn't make sense to me as initially reported. I reacted to new information positively and then was disappointed. But now we hear there's a magic bullet clause in the deal which makes you look like the moron you were all along. The sun rises in the East, death, taxes and Jason is a dope. Things you can always rely on.

But see, it isn't a downside. They can convert salary to bonus without Cutler's approval. Which means they can free up cap space as needed. That's the whole point of the article and something I've been suggesting had to be out there because the deal as written didn't pass the sniff test. This clause effectively means Cutler's deal can be anything we want it to be cap-wise. I wonder what our #1 whiner is going to say about that?

Interesting. Not 100% on your math but I'm not going to doubt you either. Just want to stress that your numbers represent cap space, not real dollars. So they could, in theory, spend a LOT more than even your most generous number above. To me, even if you're close to right, there does seem to be a light at the end of the tunnel.

Very true. Hence why I think there's more to the story. Those that want to hate on Cutler or ream the Bears for anything and everything are going to do so. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until I see it play out. It feels like they screwed the pooch on this one but they're smarter than that.

I think the Bears share my significant concerns with Nut's health. I think the world of him but it wouldn't surprise me at all if his Bear's career was over.

I tend to agree with you but for your last comment about FA's. Per the article I posted, and I'm not saying he's right, but the Bears could backload THOSE contracts and still do plenty of damage in free agency. Possible. Further, there are cuts coming. And some of those are going to free up cap room even if they create dead space at the same time. And don't forget that contracts once negotiated can be amended such that a portion of the current year salary is converted into a "bonus". Favre used to do it for the Packers every season, it seemed. I think Peppers has done it for us. This practice can lead to a ticking time bomb if abused (Peppers deal may be one of those) but it's a tool that can be very effective if used properly. Cutler won't care because he's getting the same dollars and the team is improving which should help him get his hands on the ball more often. So, all I'm saying is, there might be a silver lining in what looks like a cloud right now. I've always had a lot of trust in Cliff and I'm not going to accuse him of losing his mind over night. Time will tell.

But for the two blown defensive holding / interference calls in the end zone those may have been TDs. The Packers got a lot of calls in their favor today.

OK, now I can relax for the rest of the playoffs.

Duplicate

Not sure I agree with this but it's a "glass half full" take on what many of us are struggling to understand. http://gapersblock.com/tailgate/2014/01/be...iendly-deal.php Again, I don't know what the real contract details are but it seems most are agreeing that first year salary is $22.5. If as this article suggests this doesn't stop them from going after the star defensive FA's out there, it might make sense. I'm still trying to come to grips with it.

I can't. If those numbers turn out to be accurate, as I said before, I don't understand this deal. It may still be "market" but I don't like it at all. Not given that cap hit. They'll need to amend it to convert salary to bonus should the need arise.

Yeah, that's why it made sense to me. However, Spiegel is pulling back and saying his source was in error so we'll have to continue to wait and see.