One year, $7M, $5.5M guaranteed. 

Too rich for us. 

 

 

DANG IT!!

Greg is too risky to spend 7 mil on. Injuries limited him the 2 years and his production is sliding the wrong way.  Do you really want our 1 2 TEs to be injury risks?

I'm glad for him to get a shot at a Superbowl but given how weak our TE position is we can't possibly afford the risk giving him that much money at this point in his career.  

21 hours ago, Stinger226 said:

Greg is too risky to spend 7 mil on. Injuries limited him the 2 years and his production is sliding the wrong way.  Do you really want our 1 2 TEs to be injury risks?

Would it be any worse in drafting players like White or Grasu knowing they had injury histories BEFORE they started playing in the NFL?

Yes I get the concern with signing him for as much as Seattle did (especially with the Bears having limited cap money and more important needs than TE).  But “injury risks”?  Really?  

So you think having Burton and Olsen does not matter with potential loss time ? If Burton wasn't injured last year we may not be worrying about signing TEs.  At 7 mil , we can't afford to make mistakes this year.  The risk factor matters with anyone we add this year. Olsen 3 years ago , I'm all in but 2 injury seasons and 3 years older. Thank God your not the GM.

EDIT wrong thread EDIT

1 hour ago, Stinger226 said:

So you think having Burton and Olsen does not matter with potential loss time ? If Burton wasn't injured last year we may not be worrying about signing TEs.  At 7 mil , we can't afford to make mistakes this year.  The risk factor matters with anyone we add this year. Olsen 3 years ago , I'm all in but 2 injury seasons and 3 years older. Thank God your not the GM.

And here I thought you were Pace with all your guarantees.  

I won’t take the bait on whether I or anyone else could do a better job than Pace.  And I made it quite clear that now I see the asking price of $7 million I get why the Bears balked if they were even interested. 
 

But citing ‘injury risks’ as a concern for not wanting to bring a guy into your team who has had a relatively low injury history AND a successful career is ludicrous.  
 

That would be like saying we should abandon Trubiksy as our Franchise QB solely based on his “injury risk”.  C’mon man... 
 

 

Your saying injury risk could apply to anybody.  Some people have injury history and some don't.  Olsen has 2 years of history now with age. Not worth a 7 million contract, no matter how you want to play with words.  C,mon man. 

1 hour ago, Stinger226 said:

Your saying injury risk could apply to anybody.  Some people have injury history and some don't.  Olsen has 2 years of history now with age. Not worth a 7 million contract, no matter how you want to play with words.  C,mon man. 

Our need is greater than Seattle's and our cap space is tight.  Gotta make it right.  

I was not happy when he was traded away simply because our coordinator at the time didn't value the TE.  He's had a good career in Carolina but as other's have mentioned that price tag for his injury risk is too steep a risk to take.  If you could guarantee he could stay healthy it'd be different.  

1 hour ago, BearFan2000 said:

price tag for his injury risk is too steep a risk to take.

Agreed. I wanted to be clear that at $7 million and with the bevy of needs Chicago has, Olsen wouldn’t be prudent.  Some just like to ignore all of what’s said to make a point. 

Potential injuries aside, he’s still a better option than the current TEs on the roster.  

6 hours ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

Agreed. I wanted to be clear that at $7 million and with the bevy of needs Chicago has, Olsen wouldn’t be prudent.  Some just like to ignore all of what’s said to make a point. 

Potential injuries aside, he’s still a better option than the current TEs on the 

 

The whole  point was you wanted him here, after your argument gets turned upside down then you always walk back. It's okay we all do that sometimes.

DANG IT

6 hours ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

Potential injuries aside, he’s still a better option than the current TEs on the roster.  

That's a true statement but it does not mean he is the best option for us.  

21 minutes ago, Stinger226 said:

The whole  point was you wanted him here, after your argument gets turned upside down then you always walk back. It's okay we all do that sometimes.

DANG IT

So my typing DANG IT then explaining how I understood him not coming to the Bears because he cost so much means I “walked back” my thoughts?  Wow...just wow.  

I’ll try this again. Yes I would have liked to have seen him come back to Chicago (why I said DANG IT).  At the time I didn’t know he would cost as much as he did.  I don’t really pay attention to all that . But once I saw how much I realized it didn’t make a lot of sense. Not with all the other issues on the team.  

Your counter-claim to me was not about that at all.  You said he was an injury risk.  I didn’t agree to the level you did.  His talent, to me, outweighs what you perceive as an extensive injury history. Which he does not have.  Yes he has had a rough two years but who on the Bears TE grouping is better than he with talent and lack of injury history? 

The beginning of the post gave his contract and I agree he would be the best TE on the team.  Unfortunately we can't look at this with blinders on. First he cost 7 mil, secondly he is older now , 35 in March, and has been injured for the last 2 years.  

https://sportsinjurypredictor.com/player/greg-olsen/2385

This is a link to a website that lists injury history on players and rates the prediction of future performance.  He has a 51.1% chance of a injury in 2020.