The Bears Offseason Thread

[Chocolate Milk]

I really like this because this gives us the chance to grab one of several impact players. We'd be in a position to grab any of the top 4 if they drop and we're in prime position to take one of Willis or Landry filling 2 positions of need.

 

I doubt they'd get a much better offer than this. That's pure speculation on my part, but it's the way I feel. It is also a way to turn a potential big negative into a big positive.

 

Edit: Also DT Omobi Okoye would probably be available at #6.

[Soul]

I really like this because this gives us the chance to grab one of several impact players. We'd be in a position to grab any of the top 4 if they drop and we're in prime position to take one of Willis or Landry filling 2 positions of need.

 

I doubt they'd get a much better offer than this. That's pure speculation on my part, but it's the way I feel. It is also a way to turn a potential big negative into a big positive.

 

Edit: Also DT Omobi Okoye would probably be available at #6.

 

Yes, this is also the perspective I am taking on it.

[goonys evil twin]

Not sure if it's been mentioned but the value of the move is equal to about the 16th overall pick.

 

I've been trying to point out the overall value of going from #31 to #6, but yes I like the way you put it. This is like gaining the #16 overall.

 

It is like gaining the #16 overall. But, it's only "like gaining the 16" and isn't exactly gaining the 16. The Jones deal was easier to swallow because there was an obvious replacement for him already on the team, one who I think is already better. If you can trade a guy who is no better than a platoon player then moving up in the draft without actually gaining additional picks is still attractive. When trading Briggs, you are opening up a huge hole with no real internal solution. Without adding quantity to your draft picks, you are therefore adding more needs while keeping your supply the same. The Bears have needs. Trading Briggs without adding addition picks is just going to make it harder to fill all those needs.

[Soul]

Sorry for making you angry, but you're still making assumptions that you can not make. Why would you assume that trading Briggs at the proposed level represents a downgrade from what his "true" value is?

 

I think you're underestimating the level of upgrade of going from the #31 to the #6.

 

...which is odd, since you were the one who pointed out the value of getting the #37 for TJ in exchange for the #63. Are you just forgetting that argument now?

 

Like I said, you're wrong. And we can only hope Angelo doesn't think like you. I'm not making assumptions I can't make. What I'm doing is not allowing frivolous meanginless information to cloud the issue.

 

No, I'm not wrong. You're starting from a point of "this deal is bad."

 

That's a false starting point. I'm simply pointing it out.

[goonys evil twin]

I really like this because this gives us the chance to grab one of several impact players. We'd be in a position to grab any of the top 4 if they drop and we're in prime position to take one of Willis or Landry filling 2 positions of need.

 

I doubt they'd get a much better offer than this. That's pure speculation on my part, but it's the way I feel. It is also a way to turn a potential big negative into a big positive.

 

Edit: Also DT Omobi Okoye would probably be available at #6.

 

Briggs is already an impact player though. Why not just sign him to a longterm contract and then draft 2 good players at 31 and 37? They have the cap space, as they have been completely inactive in free agency and already had the space.

 

Angelo refusing to talk longterm with Briggs is a big mistake.

 

If you trade him, you not only have to take back quality, but you better get quantity, otherwise your no better off than you were going in.

[goonys evil twin]

Sorry for making you angry, but you're still making assumptions that you can not make. Why would you assume that trading Briggs at the proposed level represents a downgrade from what his "true" value is?

 

I think you're underestimating the level of upgrade of going from the #31 to the #6.

 

...which is odd, since you were the one who pointed out the value of getting the #37 for TJ in exchange for the #63. Are you just forgetting that argument now?

 

Like I said, you're wrong. And we can only hope Angelo doesn't think like you. I'm not making assumptions I can't make. What I'm doing is not allowing frivolous meanginless information to cloud the issue.

 

No, I'm not wrong. You're starting from a point of "this deal is bad."

 

That's a false starting point. I'm simply pointing it out.

 

Your selling your own assets short for no reason. It's PR nonsense that has no place is a discussion about the actual values being traded.

 

I'm starting from a standpoint that this isn't the slam dunk that some people think it is. I could probably live with it, but it's hardly great for the Bears and stupid for the Redskins.

Edited March 27, 2007 by goony's evil twin

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Think of it this way. In terms of draft points, this would be like picking up 2 mid-2nd round picks. Or, a mid 2nd-rounder and 2 3rd round picks.

 

Briggs himself was a mere 3rd round pick.

 

What he was is meaningless. He is a pro bowler. He is one of the best in the game. And he is very young. Pointing out that he was a 3rd rounder is as meaningful as pointing out that Michael Haynes was a 1st rounder. That has no reflection on present value.

 

Briggs for the equivalent of 2 mid-2nd round picks is not something Angelo should go gaga for. It's something you should consider, but opening up an absolute must fill hole at linebacker is hardly a favorable situation.

 

It has meaning in terms of the additional value we're getting from him over & above what we drafted him at and what we wound up paying him.

 

No, it has no meaning. It's absurd to include it in any sort of negotiations involving a potential trade. It's something to talk about from a PR standpoint, but it's meaningless.

 

I never said it should be included in negotiations. I have every confidence Angelo could replace Briggs with an equal or better player. You apparently don't.

 

From my perspective, we're on the verge of turning a 3rd round pick into a 1,000 point draft point gain. That's significant, not meaningless. Especially since I believe Angelo can replace Briggs with a better ballplayer.

 

Briggs hasn't been 3rd round value in years - that's a poor argument.

 

Sure, I would take an added 3rd rounder from the Redskins, but I don't see them sweetening it. I'd definitely take this deal.

[Chocolate Milk]

Not sure if it's been mentioned but the value of the move is equal to about the 16th overall pick.

 

I've been trying to point out the overall value of going from #31 to #6, but yes I like the way you put it. This is like gaining the #16 overall.

 

It is like gaining the #16 overall. But, it's only "like gaining the 16" and isn't exactly gaining the 16. The Jones deal was easier to swallow because there was an obvious replacement for him already on the team, one who I think is already better. If you can trade a guy who is no better than a platoon player then moving up in the draft without actually gaining additional picks is still attractive. When trading Briggs, you are opening up a huge hole with no real internal solution. Without adding quantity to your draft picks, you are therefore adding more needs while keeping your supply the same. The Bears have needs. Trading Briggs without adding addition picks is just going to make it harder to fill all those needs.

 

What if Briggs sits out the first 10 weeks? Then what? He's really burned his bridges here. I have started to come around to the fact that this is a real possibility. If that's the case, you'll still have the big hole and have either a a lower caliber player filling it or without an extra impact player on one side of the ball.

 

I think this is a no brainer for the Bears if offered. I'm still not convinced that the Redskins have a big need at LB, but they like the make a splash.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

These are the guys i want with #6 and they can still get a very good OLB at #37.

 

They wouldn't get anybody that could come close to Briggs' production, and they'd still be desperate for O lineman, not to mention RB depth and secondary help.

 

If you go DT with the 6 and OLB with the 37, then I think you have to go O line with your 3rd, and your already at the 94th pick by then. Your 4th round pick is 130, and by then your pickings will be slim for Benson's running mate or WR help, and you haven't even addressed the secondary.

 

Well its a given that nobody will come close to Briggs production on 2007, expecting a rookie to produce as much as him isnt what is being traded for here. You want Briggs production, wait 10 games and get 6. Even if Briggs isnt traded im going to think hard about burning a high pick on an OLB anyway

 

Brown was just re-signed, drafting an OG with 31 or 37 isnt as much a priority if he wasnt signed. AA in secondary isnt as important high round pick anymore either.

 

You've just described all the need areas, how is not trading Briggs going to solve what you just laid out here.

 

I subsribe to the philosophy that 'it all starts up front.' Especially with this defense. This will be the Bears last chance (baring another trade like this)in 5 years to draft an Impact DT, thats why i jump on this opportunity. Sure Patrick Willis at 6 and an OG at 37 would fill needs quicker but i dont think an OLB is as important at as an impact DT. OLB is very strong in this draft, waiting til 37 to get that isnt that big a drop off from Willis, i would take that gamble.

 

The point of drafting OL wasn't necessarily to replace current O-lineman but to re-stock and replace in the future the aging lineman. Even with the Bears re-signing Brown, the better address G early in the draft. I am not a fan of this aging line.

[da bears]

I really like this because this gives us the chance to grab one of several impact players. We'd be in a position to grab any of the top 4 if they drop and we're in prime position to take one of Willis or Landry filling 2 positions of need.

 

I doubt they'd get a much better offer than this. That's pure speculation on my part, but it's the way I feel. It is also a way to turn a potential big negative into a big positive.

 

Edit: Also DT Omobi Okoye would probably be available at #6.

 

Briggs is already an impact player though. Why not just sign him to a longterm contract and then draft 2 good players at 31 and 37? They have the cap space, as they have been completely inactive in free agency and already had the space.

 

Angelo refusing to talk longterm with Briggs is a big mistake.

 

If you trade him, you not only have to take back quality, but you better get quantity, otherwise your no better off than you were going in.

 

Yeah I agree with this assessment. With the incnrease in salary cap, why can't they get a deal done? Is it really that difficult?

 

Anyways, if the Bears do do this deal, I personally would love Patrick Willis. I know people have said it before, but this guy is a stud.

[goonys evil twin]

Not sure if it's been mentioned but the value of the move is equal to about the 16th overall pick.

 

I've been trying to point out the overall value of going from #31 to #6, but yes I like the way you put it. This is like gaining the #16 overall.

 

It is like gaining the #16 overall. But, it's only "like gaining the 16" and isn't exactly gaining the 16. The Jones deal was easier to swallow because there was an obvious replacement for him already on the team, one who I think is already better. If you can trade a guy who is no better than a platoon player then moving up in the draft without actually gaining additional picks is still attractive. When trading Briggs, you are opening up a huge hole with no real internal solution. Without adding quantity to your draft picks, you are therefore adding more needs while keeping your supply the same. The Bears have needs. Trading Briggs without adding addition picks is just going to make it harder to fill all those needs.

 

What if Briggs sits out the first 10 weeks? Then what? He's really burned his bridges here. I have started to come around to the fact that this is a real possibility. If that's the case, you'll still have the big hole and have either a a lower caliber player filling it or without an extra impact player on one side of the ball.

 

I think this is a no brainer for the Bears if offered. I'm still not convinced that the Redskins have a big need at LB, but they like the make a splash.

 

Angelo should start talking longterm contract if he doesn't want Briggs to sit-out. Cutting off negotiations was a fun little jab at the guy, but it's really a stupid longterm strategy.

[brinoch]

It's great that we can get an impact DL player. But who do we get to replace Briggs?

 

One fact that's been more or less swept under the rug is that by trading Briggs and the 31st pick for the 6th pick, the Bears create a need. They are not solely upgrading their draft opportunity -- the Bears are simultaneously creating a hole that must be filled. And they aren't gaining any picks with which to do it.

 

One of the criticisms of the Thomas Jones deal was that the Bears didn't receive any new picks -- they merely traded Jones to upgrade their current pick. I would contend that Peterson is probably good enough to replace Jones, but if there weren't someone like Peterson standing by, this isn't a great deal. (And I still think the Bears would be wise to draft a running back.)

 

With regard to Briggs and this deal as proposed, I would rather re-sign Briggs. If I can't resign Briggs, I'd much rather trade Briggs for a pick straight up.

[Soul]

I never said it should be included in negotiations. I have every confidence Angelo could replace Briggs with an equal or better player. You apparently don't.

 

From my perspective, we're on the verge of turning a 3rd round pick into a 1,000 point draft point gain. That's significant, not meaningless. Especially since I believe Angelo can replace Briggs with a better ballplayer.

 

Briggs hasn't been 3rd round value in years - that's a poor argument.

 

Sure, I would take an added 3rd rounder from the Redskins, but I don't see them sweetening it. I'd definitely take this deal.

 

So you think Briggs is worth the 16th overall (i.e. 1,000 draft points)? I agree, if that's the case.

 

I'm just trying to put the whole "Briggs Arc" on a long-term, organizational scale. I mean, we got absolutely nothing for Colvin. But nobody cares because we replaced him with a better player. That was all Angelo -- and he's still here.

 

That means something to me. If it doesn't to anyone else, that's fine.

[Chocolate Milk]

Not sure if it's been mentioned but the value of the move is equal to about the 16th overall pick.

 

I've been trying to point out the overall value of going from #31 to #6, but yes I like the way you put it. This is like gaining the #16 overall.

 

It is like gaining the #16 overall. But, it's only "like gaining the 16" and isn't exactly gaining the 16. The Jones deal was easier to swallow because there was an obvious replacement for him already on the team, one who I think is already better. If you can trade a guy who is no better than a platoon player then moving up in the draft without actually gaining additional picks is still attractive. When trading Briggs, you are opening up a huge hole with no real internal solution. Without adding quantity to your draft picks, you are therefore adding more needs while keeping your supply the same. The Bears have needs. Trading Briggs without adding addition picks is just going to make it harder to fill all those needs.

 

What if Briggs sits out the first 10 weeks? Then what? He's really burned his bridges here. I have started to come around to the fact that this is a real possibility. If that's the case, you'll still have the big hole and have either a a lower caliber player filling it or without an extra impact player on one side of the ball.

 

I think this is a no brainer for the Bears if offered. I'm still not convinced that the Redskins have a big need at LB, but they like the make a splash.

 

Angelo should start talking longterm contract if he doesn't want Briggs to sit-out. Cutting off negotiations was a fun little jab at the guy, but it's really a stupid longterm strategy.

 

He probably thinks Briggs demands are unreasonable and don't fit in with his long term plan. He should reopen the negotiation based on a player's threat to hold out?

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I never said it should be included in negotiations. I have every confidence Angelo could replace Briggs with an equal or better player. You apparently don't.

 

From my perspective, we're on the verge of turning a 3rd round pick into a 1,000 point draft point gain. That's significant, not meaningless. Especially since I believe Angelo can replace Briggs with a better ballplayer.

 

Briggs hasn't been 3rd round value in years - that's a poor argument.

 

Sure, I would take an added 3rd rounder from the Redskins, but I don't see them sweetening it. I'd definitely take this deal.

 

So you think Briggs is worth the 16th overall (i.e. 1,000 draft points)? I agree, if that's the case.

 

While I do, I definitely see the other side of the argument - and I think brinoch put it best (surprising :roll:) in the reasoning against giving up the 31st pick. I'd love to get a 3rd or 4th rounder back.

 

I just don't see the Bears getting better value - and this is good value for Briggs. I think Briggs has worn out his welcome, so if the Bears get good value, I have no problem in trading him. The Bears will still have a chance to trade down, especially if, say, a Brady Quinn or Adrian Peterson is at 6.

[Chocolate Milk]

Basically this whole thing boils down to what caliber of player you think Briggs is.

[Soul]

I really like this because this gives us the chance to grab one of several impact players. We'd be in a position to grab any of the top 4 if they drop and we're in prime position to take one of Willis or Landry filling 2 positions of need.

 

I doubt they'd get a much better offer than this. That's pure speculation on my part, but it's the way I feel. It is also a way to turn a potential big negative into a big positive.

 

Edit: Also DT Omobi Okoye would probably be available at #6.

 

Briggs is already an impact player though. Why not just sign him to a longterm contract and then draft 2 good players at 31 and 37? They have the cap space, as they have been completely inactive in free agency and already had the space.

 

Angelo refusing to talk longterm with Briggs is a big mistake.

 

If you trade him, you not only have to take back quality, but you better get quantity, otherwise your no better off than you were going in.

 

Yeah I agree with this assessment. With the incnrease in salary cap, why can't they get a deal done? Is it really that difficult?

 

Anyways, if the Bears do do this deal, I personally would love Patrick Willis. I know people have said it before, but this guy is a stud.

 

I believe Angelo has determined that he doesn't think Briggs is worth what he is asking for. So he franchised him.

 

I don't think it's a case of Angelo simply not wanting to negotiate for no reason. It's that Briggs wants more than what Angelo thinks he is worth -- right or wrong.

[RynoRules]

Sheesh I would love to get my hands on that 6th pick and get Landry. He's a mean SOB.

[goonys evil twin]

It's great that we can get an impact DL player. But who do we get to replace Briggs?

 

One fact that's been more or less swept under the rug is that by trading Briggs and the 31st pick for the 6th pick, the Bears create a need. They are not solely upgrading their draft opportunity -- the Bears are simultaneously creating a hole that must be filled. And they aren't gaining any picks with which to do it.

 

One of the criticisms of the Thomas Jones deal was that the Bears didn't receive any new picks -- they merely traded Jones to upgrade their current pick. I would contend that Peterson is probably good enough to replace Jones, but if there weren't someone like Peterson standing by, this isn't a great deal. (And I still think the Bears would be wise to draft a running back.)

 

With regard to Briggs and this deal as proposed, I would rather re-sign Briggs. If I can't resign Briggs, I'd much rather trade Briggs for a pick straight up.

 

I've been trying to unsweep this point the whole time.

 

Jones for a move up is completely different than Briggs for a move up, since there is no Cedric Benson ready to take Briggs' job. The value of the move up is real, and I'd be pretty happy with that value. However, are the Bears any better off? I don't know. They have to get better on the offensive line. Browns' return doesn't change that at all. They weren't a great line last year, by any stretch, but they were lucky with health. One injury in 2007 and they could go from pretty good line to bad. They might need D-tackle help. And I'm pretty convinced they need secondary help and some sort of offensive playmaker help.

 

Jones and a pick for a higher pick wasn't a bad move. I don't think it was great myself, but I was fine with it on a value basis. But if you do that again (2 assets for 1), you start stripping away your quantity pretty quickly, and for a team that is already in good cap situation and needs to keep getting better, that's tough to swallow.

 

This is a deal I'd really have to consider, but I'd try and hold out for something to add back to the team.

[goonys evil twin]

He probably thinks Briggs demands are unreasonable and don't fit in with his long term plan. He should reopen the negotiation based on a player's threat to hold out?

 

He should reopen negotiations based on the fact that he's a really good player who doesn't have a contract right now. We're not talking about caving in to some 2nd year player wanting to renegotiate his rookie contract.

[Banedon]

If the Bears believed that Briggs was actually going to hold out, then they aren't creating a need. They may have already viewed LB as a need.

[Soul]

If the Bears believed that Briggs was actually going to hold out, then they aren't creating a need. They may have already viewed LB as a need.

 

Indeed. There may be several factors happening behind the scenes that we aren't aware of that signficantly alter the dynamic.

 

 

Also -- I haven't heard an Angelo response to this yet. He might be scoffing at the whole thing :wink:

[Chocolate Milk]

He probably thinks Briggs demands are unreasonable and don't fit in with his long term plan. He should reopen the negotiation based on a player's threat to hold out?

 

He should reopen negotiations based on the fact that he's a really good player who doesn't have a contract right now. We're not talking about caving in to some 2nd year player wanting to renegotiate his rookie contract.

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. If you think that I want them to make some sort of stand on principle, that's not what I am talking about. They aren't negotiating because they feel that his cost outweighs his value. If this is the reason they stopped negotiating then I don't see why his threat to hold out would change their minds.

[Banedon]

If the Bears believed that Briggs was actually going to hold out, then they aren't creating a need. They may have already viewed LB as a need.

 

Indeed. There may be several factors happening behind the scenes that we aren't aware of that signficantly alter the dynamic.

 

 

Also -- I haven't heard an Angelo response to this yet. He might be scoffing at the whole thing :wink:

 

Rosenhaus is saying that both sides are amenable to the deal...I think the only thing holding off the formal offer is Joe Gibbs approval.

[Chocolate Milk]

If the Bears believed that Briggs was actually going to hold out, then they aren't creating a need. They may have already viewed LB as a need.

 

Exactly. Linebacker is already a need. I think the Bears aren't going to extend Briggs so they would have to replace him next year. This Franchise tag was Briggs' first step out the door. Also considering the fact that there is a good chance he'll hold out for a large portion of the year, I don't think you could pass this up if offered.