The Bears Offseason Thread

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I would actually like this deal better vs. the Skins deal. We would have 3 picks in the first two rounds vs. 2. Plus no huge signing bonuses', holdouts, to deal with.

 

Exactly.

 

The bad news is that means no Landry. But the more picks, the better.

[Soul]

but why not just give the money to briggs instead of to 2 first round picks?

 

 

cuz Briggsy (as good as he is) cant play 3 positions at once...

 

but who would play the will spot?

 

posluszny?

 

Timmons if he is availible @ #20, or possible Rufus Alexander...but there are options this year..

 

I'd do this deal, and snatch up Timmons. At 20, Timmons would be ultra-cheap compared to what Briggs wants. And Timmons has incredible athleticism, though word is he's a bit raw.

[rawaction]

but why not just give the money to briggs instead of to 2 first round picks?

 

 

cuz Briggsy (as good as he is) cant play 3 positions at once...

 

but who would play the will spot?

 

posluszny?

 

Timmons if he is availible @ #20, or possible Rufus Alexander...but there are options this year..

 

I'd do this deal, and snatch up Timmons. At 20, Timmons would be ultra-cheap compared to what Briggs wants. And Timmons has incredible athleticism, though word is he's a bit raw.

 

Timmons would be a great fit to replace Briggs. He is raw, but he can run and is pretty good against the pass and can rush the QB a little, similar to Briggs.

 

Alexander would be a huge reach at 20. I've seen him projected in the 3rd round, though not as late as the Bears pick. If the Bears don't go LB in the 1st or 2nd, I'd rather go after Durant than Rufus.

[Handlebar McSkullet]

What about Beason?

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

Alexander would be a huge reach at 20. I've seen him projected in the 3rd round, though not as late as the Bears pick. If the Bears don't go LB in the 1st or 2nd, I'd rather go after Durant than Rufus.

 

Rufus would be a reach @ #20, and I meant to say if we didnt draft Timmons there we could look at Rufus later in the draft, but not at #20.

 

how good is Beason? when would he be a good pick...?

[rawaction]

 

Alexander would be a huge reach at 20. I've seen him projected in the 3rd round, though not as late as the Bears pick. If the Bears don't go LB in the 1st or 2nd, I'd rather go after Durant than Rufus.

 

Rufus would be a reach @ #20, and I meant to say if we didnt draft Timmons there we could look at Rufus later in the draft, but not at #20.

 

how good is Beason? when would he be a good pick...?

 

I like Beason a lot. It's kinda just personal preference between he and Timmons. Beason is much more polished, better tackler, more versatile (can play MLB if necessary) but not as athletic. If it came down to Beason or Timmons, it depends if the team wants finished product vs. upside. I think Timmons is the better long-term prospect, but Beason will make fewer rookie mistakes.

 

I actually like Beason because the U has produced some great LBs.

[Handlebar McSkullet]

So, I have been searching for a more reputable source for the Briggs to NY trade, I couldnt find anything. So im not going to get excited. But here was a mock draft from rotoworld. It reaks of stupidity.

 

31. Chicago – California RB Marshawn Lynch

 

The Bears might package this pick and the one they got for Thomas Jones (No. 37) to move up as high as No. 14, but if the feeling is Lynch will be available, it'd be silly to make a maneuver. Though he has some baggage, Lynch would at least give Chicago a potential backfield partner for disappointing former top-five pick Cedric Benson.

 

Ignoring the two facts that Lynch wont drop this far and the Bears wouldnt draft him if he did. Benson being disappointing? Im not disapointed with Benson in the slightest(except when he opens his mouth).

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Marshawn Lynch has some baggage? What?

[minnesotacubsfan]

Marshawn Lynch has some baggage? What?

 

word on the street is its Samsonite...

[Soriano12]

Joe Staley & Rufus Alexander for the Bears in the NSBB Mock.

 

I rule.

[Magnetic Curses]

So, I have been searching for a more reputable source for the Briggs to NY trade, I couldnt find anything. So im not going to get excited. But here was a mock draft from rotoworld. It reaks of stupidity.

 

31. Chicago – California RB Marshawn Lynch

 

The Bears might package this pick and the one they got for Thomas Jones (No. 37) to move up as high as No. 14, but if the feeling is Lynch will be available, it'd be silly to make a maneuver. Though he has some baggage, Lynch would at least give Chicago a potential backfield partner for disappointing former top-five pick Cedric Benson.

 

Ignoring the two facts that Lynch wont drop this far and the Bears wouldnt draft him if he did. Benson being disappointing? Im not disapointed with Benson in the slightest(except when he opens his mouth).

 

benson really does sound like an idiot when he talks. he doesn't even regurgitate cliche well.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Joe Staley & Rufus Alexander for the Bears in the NSBB Mock.

 

I rule.

 

I think you took Rufus alittle early there chief ;)

[Jon]

Anthony Adams: “I love the cold weather. When we’d come outside for practice (in San Francisco) and it would be cold, I’d say, 'This is my kind of weather right here, this is fat man weather.' I love the weather out here.”

 

ChicagoBears.com[/url]"]The versatile Adams also lined up as a fullback in short-yardage situations on occasion with the 49ers. While he wouldn’t be the first Bears defensive tackle to shift to that position, he would embrace the opportunity to reprise that role.

 

“Like I said, whatever they need me to do, I’ll be obliged to do it,” Adams said. “If they want me to play fullback and take it back to the Refrigerator Perry days, I’m all for it.”

[CubColtPacer]

Just posting this here because while it doesn't directly involve the Briggs talks, it might involve the Redskins #6 pick, which of course would end the Briggs talks-now, the Redskins are speculated to be after Asante Samuel, and offering way too much for him:

 

http://washingtontimes.com/blogs/storyview.php?StoryID=20070405-110752-5413r&TopicsID=skins

[texascub]

Just posting this here because while it doesn't directly involve the Briggs talks, it might involve the Redskins #6 pick, which of course would end the Briggs talks-now, the Redskins are speculated to be after Asante Samuel, and offering way too much for him:

 

http://washingtontimes.com/blogs/storyview.php?StoryID=20070405-110752-5413r&TopicsID=skins

 

The Redskins really hate their draft picks, don't they?

[RynoRules]

For those haven't looked at the Pac Man Jones thread, Mortenson said on ESPN Radio that Tank shouldn't count on playing this year. If he's half right and Tank only gets 8 games, we have major problems, IMO. Our DT depth chart will include two guys coming off major injuries (Harris and Dvoracek) and Anthony Adams. This a major trouble area, IMO.

[jersey cubs fan]

For those haven't looked at the Pac Man Jones thread, Mortenson said on ESPN Radio that Tank shouldn't count on playing this year. If he's half right and Tank only gets 8 games, we have major problems, IMO. Our DT depth chart will include two guys coming off major injuries (Harris and Dvoracek) and Anthony Adams. This a major trouble area, IMO.

 

Ian Scott hasn't officially signed elsewhere has he? I'm not too concerned about Dusty's health, I'm fairly certain he would have been healthy enough to play last season if they didn't choose to IR him - which made sense given the depth. Harris is a little more bothersome.

[Banedon]

For those haven't looked at the Pac Man Jones thread, Mortenson said on ESPN Radio that Tank shouldn't count on playing this year. If he's half right and Tank only gets 8 games, we have major problems, IMO. Our DT depth chart will include two guys coming off major injuries (Harris and Dvoracek) and Anthony Adams. This a major trouble area, IMO.

 

Angelo has to look at this Pacman situation and realize that Tank is probably in some trouble and draft accordingly.

[Soul]

For those haven't looked at the Pac Man Jones thread, Mortenson said on ESPN Radio that Tank shouldn't count on playing this year. If he's half right and Tank only gets 8 games, we have major problems, IMO. Our DT depth chart will include two guys coming off major injuries (Harris and Dvoracek) and Anthony Adams. This a major trouble area, IMO.

 

Angelo has to look at this Pacman situation and realize that Tank is probably in some trouble and draft accordingly.

 

It will be a trouble area, yes. The draft won't cure it; DTs in the draft often take a year or two of seasoning before they stop getting dominated. That Adams signing is looking real good right now. I think the Bears are going to have to try to pick up a journeyman backup for depth and pray Dusty is a budding star.

[jersey cubs fan]

Does anybody else have a problem with the commish basically retroactively punishing guys under new guidelines?

 

I like the crackdown, but if this is the new policy, I'm not sure it can be justified to punish actions that took place last year. I also don't think these suspensions will hold up under appeal. The union would have a great case to cut these down significantly.

[Banedon]

Does anybody else have a problem with the commish basically retroactively punishing guys under new guidelines?

 

I like the crackdown, but if this is the new policy, I'm not sure it can be justified to punish actions that took place last year. I also don't think these suspensions will hold up under appeal. The union would have a great case to cut these down significantly.

 

Even if it doesn't hold up under appeal, it sends a big message that the commish isn't going to tolerate this stuff.

[jersey cubs fan]

Does anybody else have a problem with the commish basically retroactively punishing guys under new guidelines?

 

I like the crackdown, but if this is the new policy, I'm not sure it can be justified to punish actions that took place last year. I also don't think these suspensions will hold up under appeal. The union would have a great case to cut these down significantly.

 

Even if it doesn't hold up under appeal, it sends a big message that the commish isn't going to tolerate this stuff.

 

I'm fine with the message, I just don't really like how he's going about enforcing it. This sort of ex post facto enforcement is just a bit troublesome to me. I'm fine with year long suspensions for certain actions, I just think the lack of precedent will cause problems, and could ultimately undermine the whole movement towards stricter enforcement. You are basically forcing the union to fight you on this, as opposed to coming to a mutual agreement.

[Chocolate Milk]

Does anybody else have a problem with the commish basically retroactively punishing guys under new guidelines?

 

I like the crackdown, but if this is the new policy, I'm not sure it can be justified to punish actions that took place last year. I also don't think these suspensions will hold up under appeal. The union would have a great case to cut these down significantly.

 

Even if it doesn't hold up under appeal, it sends a big message that the commish isn't going to tolerate this stuff.

 

I'm fine with the message, I just don't really like how he's going about enforcing it. This sort of ex post facto enforcement is just a bit troublesome to me. I'm fine with year long suspensions for certain actions, I just think the lack of precedent will cause problems, and could ultimately undermine the whole movement towards stricter enforcement. You are basically forcing the union to fight you on this, as opposed to coming to a mutual agreement.

 

I was thinking about this same issue this morning. Are they going to retroactively punish a guy like Leonard Little? I think the NFL is setting themselves up for a needless battle here.

[Soriano12]

Personally I think Goodell should be more concerned with hiring full time officiating crews, and cleaning up all these garbage late hit calls that plagued the 06 season.

[CubColtPacer]

Does anybody else have a problem with the commish basically retroactively punishing guys under new guidelines?

 

I like the crackdown, but if this is the new policy, I'm not sure it can be justified to punish actions that took place last year. I also don't think these suspensions will hold up under appeal. The union would have a great case to cut these down significantly.

 

Even if it doesn't hold up under appeal, it sends a big message that the commish isn't going to tolerate this stuff.

 

I'm fine with the message, I just don't really like how he's going about enforcing it. This sort of ex post facto enforcement is just a bit troublesome to me. I'm fine with year long suspensions for certain actions, I just think the lack of precedent will cause problems, and could ultimately undermine the whole movement towards stricter enforcement. You are basically forcing the union to fight you on this, as opposed to coming to a mutual agreement.

 

I'm not sure it will force the union to fight. Goodell and Upshaw worked closely on these cases before the decision, and the 6 man player council that was just created met to discuss these cases. So the commissioner already had significant input from the players and the player's association before coming to this decision-if they had all told him that these sorts of punishments for these two were unacceptable, you'd wonder if the commissioner would have proceeded anyway or not.

 

My guess is that the player's council advised Goodell to suspend them for this long, and Upshaw probably isn't as happy about this-but the player's association has a very tight tightrope to walk now because the fans and probably many of the players support this.