
nfoligno
Super Fans-
Posts
4,931 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by nfoligno
-
Who is your BEARS sleeper/suprise contributors for 2008?
nfoligno replied to ParkerBear7's topic in Bearstalk
Right now, I am not sure there is a player I would say is going to surprise on offense. That can change if we add players, but just going off what we have now. W/ our OL, or even some mediocre replacements, I do not see Benson surprising any. I actually think Benson could be a surprise if we built and OL, but w/o, I do not see any of our backs doing jack. WRs? you have to be kidding me. May make some great catches, but will struggle too much w/ consistency. I can even call Olsen a surprise, as I think he has higher expectations, and w/ our QB/OL/WR situation, doubt he will even meet those expectations. On defense we have candidates. McBride - I think he could take over the nickel job, as well again provide a solid replacement if Vasher/tillman go down again. Dusty - Obvious choice. My vote though is going to go to Payne, who I think will (sooner or later) take over the starting SS position, and bring an all around game we have not had at SS in a LONG time. -
We have seen Rex, and I would say few still believe he will ever be a great QB. Most Orton has his supporters, there really aren't "that" many. Rogers may be nothing. At the same time, he at least offers that "unknown" element Rex does not. At least w/ Rogers, there is hope. It may be false hope, but hope that has yet to be tested and destroyed. I would also point out that he has a pretty damn solid offense to work in. GB's OL may not be Minny's equal, but is solid. Grant didn't get his first start until week 8, and racked up nearly 1,000 yards from there. He was the best RB in the league in the 2nd half of the season. Driver, Jennings and Jones form a trio of WRs, w/ any one better than ours. I am not trying to love on the fudge packers, or hate on the bears, but the reality is Rogers has a shit load more to work w/ than Rex/Orton, and while he may be crap, he at least offers that unknown element which is better than our known element. I would take potential crap over known crap anyday.
-
Hester, you seem to be having a lot of trouble w/ this issue. Transition is a far cry from franchise in terms of tag, and Starks was transitioned. If we wanted him, frankly, it would not be that difficult to steal him. If Pitt was loaded w/ cap space, it may be difficult, but as they are not, it would not.
-
Should have retired two years ago? 4155 yards. 66.5% completion. 28/15 TD/Int ratio. 95.7 QB rating. The season he is coming off is one Bear fans can only dream about. And did you happen to see Aaron Rogers against Dallas? Right now, I think I would take Rogers over either of our two QBs.
-
The leauge might strike that one down. Anything too specific would draw too much scrutiny, and likely not meet w/ league approval. Minny got cute and put a clause in there (for Hutch) which basically said he had to be the highest paid OL on the team, which killed Seattle as they have Walter Jones. Since that deal though, which I think was the first to got so team specific, the league has come down hard on the issue (at least w/ tough talk). A far more basic poison pill deal is like the one we used w/ Tait. Simply put, you put a chunk of money upfront. Write in a $5m roster bonus, which counts fully against the cap, and it is difficult for a team w/o a lot of cap space to match. Make a players 1st year salary cap hit high enough, and most often you get him. Traditionally, that is what was considered a poison pill.
-
I hate to say it, but I think our SB season was also a bit of a fluke. Just as everyone went wrong last year, most everything went right the year before. It is normal to be hit w/ injuries, and while we were hit w/ more than our share last year, we were hit w/ relatively few the year before. Moving forward, I hate to be chicken little, but while I do see a solid chance our defense gets back to greatness (unless Babich continues to hold them back), I simply have FAR less faith in the offense. I agree the OL stunk last year. That is not an arguable point. I disagree we should not have seen it coming. Maybe not the level we saw, but a dropoff I think could have been predicted, and I know plenty who saw it coming. Brown and Miller were at points in their careers where you tend to expect injury and/or a dropoff in play, and Angelo did little to provide depth behind them. Tait was not spring chicken either, and frankly, while he is as popular as you get, many bear fans have commented on a drop in his play for the last couple years. Anyway, that was then, this is now. When I look at our current team, I simply question whether improvements to the OL will really have enough of an effect. Further, I question whether we will see those changes. OL, much like WR, have been getting steep prices which we seem to be avoiding. In the draft, there is talent, but (a) Angelo does not have a good track record on offense and ( we have so many needs, how much should we expect. Think about this. On offense, we need: 2 OL 2 WR RB QB That is damn near an entire offense. Nice to have hope, but is there really much reason?
-
But, how soon before we make a decision on the 2008 draft? I mean, if you go off last year, Olsen wasn't worth a 1st round pick. I think most all of us expect more, but if you do not give the rookies time, how good is the evaluation of that draft. I have a feeling Angelo will have another 2 years. I do not know how many years he has left on his deal, but I am thinking he has this year and next, unless we are REAL good or REAL bad. I also think Angelo is totally tied to Lovie, so if and when Angelo goes, so will Lovie and the rest.
-
Crap? Maybe not, but please do not pretend they are all that either. Walker - In his 6 year career, he had had a grand total of one great season, and that was back in '04. Since then, he acts like the world owes him something. He demands to get out of GB, and Denver takes a shot. He does okay for them the first year, but okay is all. In year two, once again he is missing due to injury, as GB had to deal w/. Oh yea, and once again, he complains about his situation. Forget the solid QB, upgraded OL, and emerging stud WR to play opposite. Nope, they are not kissing his ass enough, and he wants out. Not worth the headache, and was released. W/ all this crap, he would still be worth a look from many teams, but from what I read, he still thinks he is a stud and should be paid/treated like one. No thank you. Hackett - Lets see. The most consistent thing about him would be injuries. Best season was 45 catches for 600 yards, and his ypc averages are not all that either. Bobby Freaking Engram pretty much tripled Hackett in catches and yards. Even the great Nate Burleson was better. I am not saying he is crap, but when VERY mediocre WRs are signing big dollar contracts, I do not believe it is a great idea to jump into the stupidity. If Walker or Hackett were not looking for the big bucks, great. But I have a feeling they, as well as Bryant Johnson, Booker and others, are smart enough to look at what these other WRs are getting, and to start high in their demands. Think about this. Our top out offer to Berrian had $8m in SB. That is for the WR we drafted and developed, and really liked. That is for a potential #1 who provides a homerun threat. $8m was what we felt his value was. Counter that w/ Andre Davis getting what? You guessed it. $8m SB. You have to believe we would have put his SB value closer to $4m, if that high. I doubt we would have Hackett much different.
-
While I don't believe your post was for me, as I have not said a word about Angelo not jumping to over-pay for mediocre talent in FA, at the same time, I wanted to respond to one thing our wrote. "Maybe we should give them a chance to do their job. We will have plenty of time to judge their success later." Angelo has been here for what, 6 1/2 years? He has more than had a chance. The results are mixed, and can be discussed, but I am not sure Angelo any longer should be simply given the benefit of doubt. ESPECIALLY when it comes to holes on the offense. If we were talking about some defensive issues, and he said he intended to take care of that through the draft, I might have to give him some leeway as his record in the draft on defense is so much better than on offense. But it is offense we are in such dire need, and it is offense where Angelo has been somewhere between very bad and pretty bad, in the draft. While I am not running around screaming right now, at the same time, your post sounded too similar to Lovie's, "Trust me" comment, which still leaves a sick feeling in me.
-
OLB Calvin Pace just signed w/ NYJ. 6yr/$42m w/ a $20m SB. Like Adalius Thomas, Pace was seen as an OLB in a 3-4 that can generate a pass rush, as well as play OLB. I realize Briggs could not have fit, but he can not be happy about this. Once again, I use this as evidence Harris better not over-play his hand. IMHO, a big reason the market was not there for Briggs is because he plays in a system that caters to his position, thus putting into question his ability to play in any system. Also, his value in a 3-4 is really questioned, as he never showed much of a pass rushing potential in Chicago. IMHO, Harris does not fit every team, and frankly, I am not confident he fits the majority. So as the number of teams that might have an interest dwindle, so may the market.
-
Well, in a year Andre Davis can command 4yr/$16m w/ $8 SB, I have a feeling any WR can expect more than we might expect. Hackett is still young and has speed, to go along w/ size. It simply would not surprise me to see him get a bigger deal than you think, particularly in terms of his guaranteed money.
-
Well, if you are still here after the bears trotted out the likes of Henry Burris, Quinn, Cade, Kordell, Chandlier (you get the point), then I think you would still be a fan, even if we added Pepper. W/ that said, I do not see us adding Pepper. Maybe if we had not re-signed Rex, but not after re-signing Rex and extending Orton.
-
Exactly. Our staff has said they believe Hester can be Steve Smith. If we re-sign him this year to a 5 year deal, and in two years he looks like Steve Smith, you think he is going to just be a good boy and play out his deal. I look at Alex Brown, and his story has become too common. I mean, two years into a new 5 year deal, he already started griping, and that was not after a pro bowl season. Now, after the 3rd year of that 5 year deal, he gets another extension. Call me crazy. I just think that if we re-sign Anderson/Hester to new deals now, we are not going to get value on those deals. For Anderson, I think we are going to have to give him starter money. Not great, but starter pay. IMHO, he is either a #3 DE, and questionable whether he is worth that starter pay. Or he takes the starter job back (which means he plays at a high level) and soon enough will seek a new deal. For Hester, he has already earned a new deal. That I am not questioning. What I would question is how we structure that deal. Does he seek a deal like Berrian just got? I just have no clue what sort of money it will take to get him to sign.
-
I think we could have traded him if we tagged him. If you look at the interest he got in FA, I absolutely think we could have netted a draft pick. Some will talk about how we could not get a deal last year for Briggs, but we held out for a lot of comp. Rumor was, a fairly high 1st and 3rd. If we tagged Berrian basically just to trade him, we simply take the best offer. I have a feeling, especially looking at the interest he got, we could have received a 3rd for him. Better than nothing.
-
Wanna bet. Looking at what WRs have gotten so far, I think Hackett will get more than what you are showing here.
-
I think you miss the point. My point is, if we sign them now and then they go on to have "monster years", do you think they will sit content w/ their non-monster contract? Anderson is not going to get a monster deal, yet if he takes the starting job from Brown and has a "monster year", he is simply going to start making new demands again. Ditto w/ Hester. There was a time when teams signed players before the broke out, and the players would still ride out their contracts. Today, I simply do not see that being the case.
-
It isn't that I want these players gone, or that I do not want to re-sign them. The issue is what their contracts should be. You want to re-sign Hester. Okay, I do too. But how much. Is there even a player in the NFL to model his contract after? Would you agree we are not going to give him top tier WR money? At the same time, the staff feels that is what he could become. If he does just that, no way he is going to be happy w/ whatever deal we give him today. That is my issue. It is a nice idea to sign them early, but I just no longer see the point when we end up giving them new deals in a couple years anyway.
-
I just read that we may be negotiating w/ Harris, Hester, Gould and Anderson. Harris, fine. I think it goes no where, but the process has to begin sometime. Gould. Fine. He deserves it. I do not like the idea of looking to lock up Hester and Anderson though, and before I get ripped, let me explain why. In years past, every organization tried to identify those players on the roster who had a good chance to make a jump in development, and lock them up prior to that jump. Player gets long term security when still unproven, while the team potentially gets a bargain if the player does step up. Some would argue that is a sign the bears are cheap, but it is how EVERY team in the NFL did business, and was a key in dealing w/ the salary cap. IMHO, that is no longer a valid strategy. Think about this. Let's say we do lock up Mark Anderson now. Most likely, he is the #3 DE on the team, and while his deal may not be truly reflective of backup money, it is not going to be huge either. Now lets say he does win the starting job in the next couple years, and blows up. What happens then. I'll tell you. He hired Rosenarce to be his agent, and he seeks money reflective of his new status. If he nets 12 sacks as the starting DE, he is not going to be content to play for backup money. How about Hester. The staff has said they believe he could be a #1 WR, but does anyone think we are going to give him #1 WR money today? So we get him locked up for whatever, but if he does turn out to be the next Steve Smith, does anyone believe he will continue to play for that "bargain" deal? No, while it may have been a solid strategy once, I do not think it works any longer. It is a nice idea. Win/ win for player and team. Player gets long term security when he is not a proven commodity. On the other hand, the team gets a potential bargain if the player does make the leap to the next level. However, since it is now the norm for the player to immediately demand a new deal when their play goes to the next level, what is the point is signing players early. The player benefits from the new deal, while the benefit the team used to get is now gone. How about Alex Brown as an example. We drafted him, and re-signed him to what was viewed as a very solid contract. After 2 years of his 5 year deal, he start whining about how under-paid he is. One year later, w/ 2 more years left on that "bargain" deal, we give him more money. So I just no longer see the point in trying to lockup players early on anymore. I am not talking about proven players, who has already set a more legit market value. I am talking about trying to lockup young players before they breakout. It seems like that strategy simply no longer works.
-
I was not high on signing him early on, but most reports have the market for him far less than expected. While the WRs are getting sick money, it doensn't appear to be the case w/ RBs. I think the solid crop of RBs in the draft has really dropped the FAs value down. Also, w/ JJ, I think many view him as an average starter best in a 1-2 punch system, like in Dallas. So I do not think he is going to get the money he seeks, and thus I would be interested. Frankly, he is very much what I would like to look at. While he is a fairly proven FA, yet at the same time, not such a stud that if Benson does step up, create an issue in PT. I like that he is an ideal backup if Benson does step in, in that he seems to play best when working from the #2 RB role in a 1-2 punch. Finally, if Benson does not step up, JJ is a solid starter, and actually seems like he would be a good fit in our system. While I honestly do like the idea signing JJ if the price is right, the only concern I have is the great crop of RBs in the draft. W/ AP and Wolfe on the team now, does anyone believe we would draft a RB if we signed JJ? So signing JJ takes guys like Mendenhall, Stewart, Charles and the rest off the board. That could sting, and is frankly, why I think the RBs have not found the deals as quickly as they would like. If I were the agent of these RBs, I would tell them to sit tight until after the draft. Then, teams like us who do not draft a RB could be far more prepared to spend more coin.
-
LOL. I just hope Rosenarce reads my stuff in light of Harris coming due. I believe that if Harris hits FA talking loud about $30m and Freeney's deal, he will turn suitors off. He is an awesome talent, but injuries and 2nd half slides will hurt his chances of getting Freeny money. In addition, he is not going to fit every system, so he has to find not only a team that has huge cap space to spend, but also utilizes a system he works best from. For example, he would likely be a DE in a 3-4, and you are not going to give him that sort of coin when he isn't proven in that regard. In a more power DL system, he simply is not a fit. Or in a system where you have meaty DTs and speed DEs, again, not a fit. So, IMHO, if he makes a big deal about $30m, I think he could easily go the way of Briggs. Harris will be tagged after this season, and while there will be some talk from teams about trading for him, no one will offer enough compensation for us. Not when they also have to give him so much money. Then he will hit FA the following year, and find out that no one is going to give him the money he seeks, and after swallowing pride, re-signs w/ us. Happy ending, but as w/ Briggs, final few chapters were very bitter.
-
Regarding Welker - IMHO, he was always a good WR, but his play this year was largely reflective of the system/team. So what. That would be true for most. There are WRs like Moss, Owens, ect, that can excel regardless who the QB or system is. Welker is more in line w/ WRs who can do okay in most systems, but in the right system, is unstoppable. But for him to be the player we saw, he needs the right QB. Berrian is about the polar opposite to Welker. Berrian is more like Moss, just a minor league version to him. Most QBs can chuck in downfield, and thus Berrian has the potential to be very good in any system. He doesn't need a QB that has great timing or reads on defense. As his route running isn't that great, those attributes would mean less. As I dislike our coaches, part of me does wonder if Berrian will not take off after leaving Chicago, and getting under the guidance of a better coach. Time will tell. As for Welker though, I would say he is a very good possession receiver in most any system, but in a system w/ a QB that displays great accuracy and timing, Welker can look unstoppable.
-
I think last year's offer was a 7 year offer, not 6. Just details. I think there are a couple things at play here. One. He made $7.2m last year, and right or wrong, I think that is a factor. Two. I think he was really banking on Wash jacking up his price, and when they announced they would not be big players in FA, I think Brigg's price really dropped. Three. Right or wrong, I think teams still question how much is Briggs, and how much is the sytstem and/or Urlacher. Four. Briggs was talking big money, and I think that talk may have scared some teams off. At the end of the day, I can not feel sorry for Briggs. Really, while feelings were hurt, it did seem to turn out good for all involved. Ultimately, the Bears retain Briggs, at a reasonable price. And for Briggs, if you use last year's salary, he ended up getting basically a 7yr/$43m w/ a two tier bonus for around $20m.
-
I believe he got more total, but less bonus. I think the money he got was a factor for the bears though. Last year, we offered 7yr/$33m. I do not remember for sure, but I think he was offered $16m bonus. This year, he signed 6yr/$36m. Trib reports $12m bonus, while NFL Network just said $13. While Briggs BS was BS, at the same time, I think he did end up the better for it, purely financially speaking. If you look at this years bonus, plus last year's, you could argue it is similar to a $20m bonus, tiered over two years, on a total deal of 7yr/$43m. Not the payday he wanted, but at the same time, it does not appear the market is what he thought either. Still, I think, looking at last year and this year, he got a pretty damn good deal. But I think PR wise, he has taken a big hit. He took a hit for his antics last year, and now he seems to be eating crow. Hopefully this might be a lessen learned for Harris (same agent) who also seems to think he is worth a sick amount of money.
-
Sort of like our nation and economy. All signs point to a depression, yet our leaders tell us that isn't the case. Our leadership is saying we are not in a rebuilding mode, yet at the same time, all signs seem to point toward just that. A year ago, we tagged Briggs as the stated logic was we were coming off a SB, looking to return, and could not lose Briggs for that run. Sort of like when a GM says this one guy may be expensive, but is the missing piece to get you over the top. This year, I think the logic could have been similar for Berrian, but our choosing not to tag him IMHO is a sign that we are looking at down the road rather than 2008. We enter FA w/ a ton of cap space, but thus far we have only re-sign and extended our own guys, 3 of which were not even FAs (Clark, Brown, Orton). Now, while everyone else is spending on FAs, we are talking about reworking deals of players like Urlacher and Brown. In today's NFL, you can build while you compete, but it sure does look like we are in a more traditional re-building mode, and to be honest, while I hate it, I can also understand it. We are not a player or two away, as we may have felt a year ago. On offense, we need a QB, RB, 2 WRs and 2 OL. On defense, we need a LB and two safeties. Some of those positions may be filled by young players on the roster stepping up, but that is a lot of needs to expect to be filled immediately. I have a feeling 2008 may be more about developing youth.
-
I would add this as well. We have a ton of cap space, yet I do not see that many FAs we are likely to sign that will cost much. To me, that means we can front load a good chunk of Faneca's deal so that while it would cost us today, would not be as painful after. I would much rather we spend the money on Faneca, rather than extending a bunch of players who were not even FAs. While the money spent on Alex Brown, Clark and Orton was not big, it add up. And we are looking at potential new deals for Harris and Urlacher as well. Sorry, but the status quo doesn't seem great to me, and I would rather we spend big on a player like Faneca, rather than spending a ton of our 2008 cap on extending players who are not even FAs.