BernieSki wrote: The Briggs TRADE may be dead, but didn't Lance say that he was not going to play for The Bears this year, he is willing to sit out the first 10 games and come back for the final 6 games just to get his time-in-service in. The Bears may decide to rid themselves of the problem and release him and then we can sign him without giving up any picks or players.
We'd still have to pay him a crazy amount of money.
We have to sign Landry.
We gotta resign ey and Taylor soon....
Briggs is a want not a need. Briggs won't play as well here due to an inferior defensive line and no Brian Urlacher.
Why not save this cash and resign our own talent and keep this unit intact?
BernieSki wrote: The Briggs TRADE may be dead, but didn't Lance say that he was not going to play for The Bears this year, he is willing to sit out the first 10 games and come back for the final 6 games just to get his time-in-service in. The Bears may decide to rid themselves of the problem and release him and then we can sign him without giving up any picks or players.
Do you really think the Bears are just going to give away a young Pro Bowl linebacker?!? They'd trade him for a 7th before they did that. And it's still way too early to call his bluff on the sitting out the season stuff. Camp hasn't even started! Besides, do you think any front office is just going to roll over and release any guy threatening to sit out because he doesn't like his deal? There's just no way they're going to release him for nothing. Stop with this Briggs obsession!
I'm just shocked that people are falling for this "all-in-one solution" gimmick. I swear, its year after year that someone gets marketed to the sheep and they go right off the side of the cliff for it.
I woke up out of that dream. Just take the pill and you too will awake from the Matrix.
Chris Luva Luva wrote:Why not save this cash and resign our own talent and keep this unit intact?
Because the guys we have are not getting the job done. Our defense was ranked 31st out of 32 teams, if that is not proof enough I do not know what else is. We set the NFL record for lowest number of takeaways with 12, that's a problem. We need better players. If you guys think that we can get by with the current players thats great, but I think we need upgrades. I know that cap space is limited, but I think that is why we have not made any big moves, maybe we are clearing up space for 2008.
I am glad that several of you are more optimistic then I am, I hope you guys are right.
Chris Luva Luva wrote:Why not save this cash and resign our own talent and keep this unit intact?
Because the guys we have are not getting the job done. Our defense was ranked 31st out of 32 teams, if that is not proof enough I do not know what else is. We set the NFL record for lowest number of takeaways with 12, that's a problem. We need better players. If you guys think that we can get by with the current players thats great, but I think we need upgrades. I know that cap space is limited, but I think that is why we have not made any big moves, maybe we are clearing up space for 2008.
I am glad that several of you are more optimistic then I am, I hope you guys are right.
So we sign one guy that will make it harder for us to resign 3 other guys that are critical to the team?
So we sign Briggs...but we potentially lose Taylor and ey because they want too much.
So then we'll have a gaping hole at safety and TE. Then you're going to want to sign some other big name to fill those voids....
Then we'll lose someone else.
It's a carousel of retardation. We'll draft someone next year, we can't plug EVERY HOLE IN ONE YEAR. We can't do it without pissing away the future and ending up with no picks.
Chris Luva Luva wrote:I'm just shocked that people are falling for this "all-in-one solution" gimmick. I swear, its year after year that someone gets marketed to the sheep and they go right off the side of the cliff for it.
Amen to that. Haven't we already learned that giving away all of our future bargaining power for one hyped-up, gonna-fix-every-problem-we-have type of player is futile?
Chris Luva Luva wrote:I'm just shocked that people are falling for this "all-in-one solution" gimmick. I swear, its year after year that someone gets marketed to the sheep and they go right off the side of the cliff for it.
Amen to that. Haven't we already learned that giving away all of our future bargaining power for one hyped-up, gonna-fix-every-problem-we-have type of player is futile?
Apparently they haven't. It appears that Gibbs change of philosophy regarding player acquisitions was too swift. Many fans have gone into withdrawal because they weren't weened off of sauce the skins have been selling.
He will cost too much. Not to mention the Bears are going to want alot in return.
We now have Strong side Linebacker Marcus Washington, Weakside will be between Marshall and Mcintosh maybe even Sartz , Middle will be London and H.b. Blades. So we are set at linebacker. I said it before I would rather have Lavar back then get Briggs.
Briggs rarely gets sacks and we need a linebacker who can also give us some production in terms of sacks since our Dline will be mostly occupying blockers. Most of our pressure will be coming from blitzes.
That "deal" was for last w/e we get their pick and Briggs and they get the 6 pick - we selected Landry = end of Briggs deal!
We did not need that deal IMO - our LB situation has been improved and I think Rocky will show why a lot of us were excited to get him.
IMO Landry is going to be very good for us but if we could have got Briggs and the 31 pick that might have worked too - the Briggs deal was over after the draft - He's a Bear
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
ey and Taylor soon....
