The Bears Offseason Thread

[Banedon]

The Redskins message board is saying that Mort was on Sportscenter and said that the Bears are NOT interested in the trade, and that they were mad at the Redskins for starting the rumors.

 

So an hour ago he said that "they were in formal talks" and now the Bears are angry?

 

Per Mort on SportsCenter:

The Skins met with The Bears today.

Jerry Angelo told the Skins that 1. we're not interested and 2. we don't appriciate this getting out to the media.

[Banedon]

I wonder if the Redskins were asking for more than just Briggs and the pick swap?

[Chocolate Milk]

The Redskins message board is saying that Mort was on Sportscenter and said that the Bears are NOT interested in the trade, and that they were mad at the Redskins for starting the rumors.

 

So an hour ago he said that "they were in formal talks" and now the Bears are angry?

 

Per Mort on SportsCenter:

The Skins met with The Bears today.

Jerry Angelo told the Skins that 1. we're not interested and 2. we don't appriciate this getting out to the media.

 

Oh, I saw it, right above the thread that says the exact opposite. Not questioning you, just questioning Mort. I honestly don't see why the Bears would be so disinterested. I doubt they'd get a better deal than this one.

[Chocolate Milk]

I wonder if the Redskins were asking for more than just Briggs and the pick swap?

 

They must have been.

[Soul]

Angelo, he be a'scoffin'

[RynoRules]

I don't blame Jerry for being peeved, but I would still explore the deal. I wonder if Jerry is doing this only to drive the price up. Again, I would demand a top 10 pick and a 3rd rnd pick next year before I'd pick up the phone.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

As Chocolate Milk said, something doesn't add up.

 

And yes, I've been on the Landry bandwagon for a long time.

 

On a completely different note, I wonder what it would take to get McIntosh in this trade too.

 

As a Michigan fan I can say "Just say no to Branch". If we get no. 6 and don't take Landry there ought to be an investigation.

 

The thought of Landry in our secondary makes my pants tight. I'm not afriad to say it.

 

Note that Gaines Adams is also expected to be available there.

 

But I still want:

 

 

http://www.nationalchamps.net/2005/sub/pics/small/louisianastate_laron_landry_sm.jpg

 

You want an XBOX360?

 

Who wouldn't? If Angelo were smart, he'd ask for a Wii too just in case he prefers them.

[Handlebar McSkullet]

John Clayton:

 

The Bears are saying no to a Lance Briggs trade to Washington. That stand won't change during this week's owners meeting, but don't be surprised if they take the weekend and the early part of next week to study the concept.

 

The Redskins are willing to drop from No. 6 in the first round to No. 31 in a trade for the Bears linebacker. The Bears biggest problem is feeling bullied, which is why their initial position is "No."

 

Briggs' agent, Drew Rosenhaus, has a great relationship with Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, so it's no surprise he could use Snyder to shake up the Bears. The other problem is the Bears don't want to draft as high as No. 6. Still, this might be an interesting offer for a franchise player threatening to miss 10 regular season games. Give them the weekend to think about it.

[Banedon]

John Clayton:

 

The Bears are saying no to a Lance Briggs trade to Washington. That stand won't change during this week's owners meeting, but don't be surprised if they take the weekend and the early part of next week to study the concept.

 

The Redskins are willing to drop from No. 6 in the first round to No. 31 in a trade for the Bears linebacker. The Bears biggest problem is feeling bullied, which is why their initial position is "No."

 

Briggs' agent, Drew Rosenhaus, has a great relationship with Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, so it's no surprise he could use Snyder to shake up the Bears. The other problem is the Bears don't want to draft as high as No. 6. Still, this might be an interesting offer for a franchise player threatening to miss 10 regular season games. Give them the weekend to think about it.

 

They don't want to draft #6?

[gflore34]

I believe the Bears should hold their stance on Briggs, Morrissey' got it right:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-070327morrissey,1,7684164.column?coll=chi-news-hed

[RynoRules]

John Clayton:

 

The Bears are saying no to a Lance Briggs trade to Washington. That stand won't change during this week's owners meeting, but don't be surprised if they take the weekend and the early part of next week to study the concept.

 

The Redskins are willing to drop from No. 6 in the first round to No. 31 in a trade for the Bears linebacker. The Bears biggest problem is feeling bullied, which is why their initial position is "No."

 

Briggs' agent, Drew Rosenhaus, has a great relationship with Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, so it's no surprise he could use Snyder to shake up the Bears. The other problem is the Bears don't want to draft as high as No. 6. Still, this might be an interesting offer for a franchise player threatening to miss 10 regular season games. Give them the weekend to think about it.

 

They don't want to draft #6?

 

Read between the lines - they don't want to pay top ten pick cash. I hope its for cap reasons (i.e., we have several guys who will be due extensions in the near future) rather than the other reason that I have been criticized for raising in the past.

[Soul]

I believe the Bears should hold their stance on Briggs, Morrissey' got it right:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-070327morrissey,1,7684164.column?coll=chi-news-hed

 

I believe Morrissey was also on Chicago Tribune live last night. He's taking a real hard stand on Briggs.

 

Someone else (I can't remember who) suggested we take the same stance the Redskins did with Gilbert. They franchised him once, he sat out, then they franchised him *again* and threatened to do it a 3rd time. Finally someone gave them the 2 1st rounders for him (was it Carolina??).

 

There might be something to be said for holding out on a trade for this year, and just letting Briggs sit. I'm not saying that's what I would definitely do. But the Bears might want to consider it. Possible advantages:

 

1) Briggs eventually comes around (perhaps after playing his 6 games and realizing it hurts him more than it helps because all it did was get him franchised again). I believe Gilbert sat out the entire season, if we want to compare the two situations (not saying we *should* -- just throwing stuff out there).

 

2) A franchise-player trade appears, in which case we get 2 1st rounders straight up instead of swapping 1 for 1. Looks like Rosenhaus is willing and able to "assist" the Bears in seeking trades 8-) All the Bears need to is wait for him to work his "magic."

 

3) Sends a message to the rest of the team that players can't bully the Bears.

[minnesotacubsfan]

WITHA #6 PICK COULD WE TRADE DOWN AND GET WILLIS (LB) AND ANOTHER STUD SS?

[Soul]

WITHA #6 PICK COULD WE TRADE DOWN AND GET WILLIS (LB) AND ANOTHER STUD SS?

 

Willis might be gone if we were able to trade down, but Timmons might still be there later in the 1st round. Timmons would seem to be a Lovie kind of player, though he's still fairly raw.

[Brendan]

I believe the Bears should hold their stance on Briggs, Morrissey got it right...

 

But what's the point of the franchise tag if players aren't going to honor it?

 

i think this is probably his best point about the whole mess.

[Soriano12]

Laron Landry would be so sick in this defense.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Laron Landry would be so sick in this defense.

 

a middle lineup of Tommie boy, Urlacher, and Landry would be friggen awesome.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

WITHA #6 PICK COULD WE TRADE DOWN AND GET WILLIS (LB) AND ANOTHER STUD SS?

 

Not both, but definitely one. I'd rather have Landry than replace Briggs with Willis.

[YearofDaCubs]

I believe the Bears should hold their stance on Briggs, Morrissey' got it right:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-070327morrissey,1,7684164.column?coll=chi-news-hed

 

I believe Morrissey was also on Chicago Tribune live last night. He's taking a real hard stand on Briggs.

 

Someone else (I can't remember who) suggested we take the same stance the Redskins did with Gilbert. They franchised him once, he sat out, then they franchised him *again* and threatened to do it a 3rd time. Finally someone gave them the 2 1st rounders for him (was it Carolina??).

 

There might be something to be said for holding out on a trade for this year, and just letting Briggs sit. I'm not saying that's what I would definitely do. But the Bears might want to consider it. Possible advantages:

 

1) Briggs eventually comes around (perhaps after playing his 6 games and realizing it hurts him more than it helps because all it did was get him franchised again). I believe Gilbert sat out the entire season, if we want to compare the two situations (not saying we *should* -- just throwing stuff out there).

 

2) A franchise-player trade appears, in which case we get 2 1st rounders straight up instead of swapping 1 for 1. Looks like Rosenhaus is willing and able to "assist" the Bears in seeking trades 8-) All the Bears need to is wait for him to work his "magic."

 

3) Sends a message to the rest of the team that players can't bully the Bears.

I hope we franchise him 3 times in a row. I lost all respect for him. Him and his weasel of an agent can kiss it.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Now hold on a second, how does franchising him three times and Briggs not playing for us during this time help the Bears?

[YearofDaCubs]

Now hold on a second, how does franchising him three times and Briggs not playing for us during this time help the Bears?

It doesn't at all. Briggs totally went about this the wrong way, so we should return in kind.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Now hold on a second, how does franchising him three times and Briggs not playing for us during this time help the Bears?

It doesn't at all. Briggs totally went about this the wrong way, so we should return in kind.

 

Who cares? I want to what is best for the Bears and having a vendetta with Briggs doesn't seem like that would be the best way.

[Banedon]

Now hold on a second, how does franchising him three times and Briggs not playing for us during this time help the Bears?

It doesn't at all. Briggs totally went about this the wrong way, so we should return in kind.

 

Personally, I'm more interested in the Bears putting a Super Bowl winning team on the field than having a pissing match over who gets to bully who.

[Handlebar McSkullet]

The skins board is going bananas because the news out of DC Radio (The John Thompson Show) is that Briggs and the Redskins have agreed to contract and are waiting for the Bears to sign off on the trade.

 

FROM 980: Briggs, Rosenhaus and Skin's agree to contract - 20 mil guaranteed. Just waiting for the Bears to approve...From WTEM

[Soriano12]

The skins board is going bananas because the news out of DC Radio (The John Thompson Show) is that Briggs and the Redskins have agreed to contract and are waiting for the Bears to sign off on the trade.

 

FROM 980: Briggs, Rosenhaus and Skin's agree to contract - 20 mil guaranteed. Just waiting for the Bears to approve...From WTEM

 

YES! ROCK ON!

 

 

LARON LANDRY! YES!