2014 Chicago Bears Offseason Thread

[minnesotacubsfan]

A gay black man in the nfl?

 

Not

For

Long

 

 

Lolololol

[WrigleyField 22]

If Rhodes was as good of a safety as Peyton was a QB, without question. But he isn't and even as the number four safety in one year by PFF, he doesn't have the consistent track record that suggests he might step back on the field an additional year on the wrong side of 30 and solve our safety problems. I'm not opposed to giving him a chance but I hardly see him as a guy to solve our S issues. I'd like a little more of a sure thing. I'd pay no more than the minimum to him, with little to no guaranteed money.

 

IF he was blackballed, that really does suck and it saddens me, but I don't want my NFL team to be the one to break the blackball just so I can be proud they aren't a bunch of cowards, if he isn't the best football fit. Thats the real question.

 

I am 100% certain at least some teams would not sign him due to the controversy over his alleged sexuality. I think theres several more teams who just had no safety need. And we pretty much know for a fact he priced himself out of his former team who offered $3m in March, before the April controversy, which he turned down. I am struggling to readily accept a league-wide collusion to keep him or Kluwe off the field.

[davell]

I just meant that they're very smart, just figure that they won't break NFL "code", if Rhodes is truly blackballed.

 

Smart dudes know how to toe the company line, right?

Sure, but if the NFL doesn't want you around(conspiracy obviously, that can't be proven) do you go against them?

 

The other question is how it affects your locker room. And yes, this IS stupid, but it's unfortunately the way things are in the NFL. Maybe everyone IS fine with it, but maybe I just don't have enough faith in humanity, I doubt it's the case. In fact, didn't Briggs say something silly a while back?

 

Is Rhodes good enough to take a chance on if it actually pisses off some guys already on the team? If it possibly affected the way even one future FA could potentially look at the franchise? I'm all for signing the guy, but there are plenty of meatball players out there that would need to be considered.

[jersey cubs fan]

If Rhodes was as good of a safety as Peyton was a QB, without question. But he isn't and even as the number four safety in one year by PFF, he doesn't have the consistent track record that suggests he might step back on the field an additional year on the wrong side of 30 and solve our safety problems. I'm not opposed to giving him a chance but I hardly see him as a guy to solve our S issues. I'd like a little more of a sure thing. I'd pay no more than the minimum to him, with little to no guaranteed money.

 

IF he was blackballed, that really does suck and it saddens me, but I don't want my NFL team to be the one to break the blackball just so I can be proud they aren't a bunch of cowards, if he isn't the best football fit. Thats the real question.

 

I am 100% certain at least some teams would not sign him due to the controversy over his alleged sexuality. I think theres several more teams who just had no safety need. And we pretty much know for a fact he priced himself out of his former team who offered $3m in March, before the April controversy, which he turned down. I am struggling to readily accept a league-wide collusion to keep him or Kluwe off the field.

 

The likelihood of finding a better football fit for the cost is very low.

 

 

But if it's that important to you to not be the team to break the blackball, so be it.

[jersey cubs fan]

I just meant that they're very smart, just figure that they won't break NFL "code", if Rhodes is truly blackballed.

 

Smart dudes know how to toe the company line, right?

Sure, but if the NFL doesn't want you around(conspiracy obviously, that can't be proven) do you go against them?

 

The other question is how it affects your locker room. And yes, this IS stupid, but it's unfortunately the way things are in the NFL. Maybe everyone IS fine with it, but maybe I just don't have enough faith in humanity, I doubt it's the case. In fact, didn't Briggs say something silly a while back?

 

Is Rhodes good enough to take a chance on if it actually pisses off some guys already on the team? If it possibly affected the way even one future FA could potentially look at the franchise? I'm all for signing the guy, but there are plenty of meatball players out there that would need to be considered.

 

It's not the NFL front office telling people to stay away from him. That's not how this works.

 

It's not going to affect the locker room in a meaningful way. Everybody who has every played in the NFL has played with gay teammates.

[Splendid Splinter]

so who's our Bushrod/Bennett/Slauson this offseason?

 

Michael Johnson/Aqib Talib/Kerry Rhodes?

 

Close enough.

 

Bushrod = a DE. It'll be either Michael Bennett or Johnson IMO. If Johnson is possible, then so is Hardy and I'm not sure why we aren't mentioning him? Is Hardy going to get that much more $$$ than Johnson?

 

Bennett = a CB or S. I think it'll be towards a S since we already re-sign Jennings and then draft a CB early. Not sure if Bears will take a chance on Talib, but Emery does sign guys with character/off the field issues.

 

Slauson = a DT hopefully. Bears should double up on DL in FA like they did on OL last year and still draft one early.

[WrigleyField 22]

Here's a pretty decent article that digs a little deeper than "the 4th best safety in football went all year unsigned and also had gay rumors"

http://thebiglead.com/2013/09/20/reviewing-the-case-for-kerry-rhodes-being-blacklisted-is-it-an-age-thing/

 

Again, just taking the league and applying the averages of the rest of society, we know there are going to be quite a few bigots or people who otherwise just don't want to be bothered by it all, so I'm sure some teams wouldn't consider him, and some of those teams probably even needed a safety. But I think the case for league wide blackballing is tenuous. And for whatever reason he spent the whole year not playing at age 32, I don't see a huge upside bringing him in now.

[WrigleyField 22]

If Rhodes was as good of a safety as Peyton was a QB, without question. But he isn't and even as the number four safety in one year by PFF, he doesn't have the consistent track record that suggests he might step back on the field an additional year on the wrong side of 30 and solve our safety problems. I'm not opposed to giving him a chance but I hardly see him as a guy to solve our S issues. I'd like a little more of a sure thing. I'd pay no more than the minimum to him, with little to no guaranteed money.

IF he was blackballed, that really does suck and it saddens me, but I don't want my NFL team to be the one to break the blackball just so I can be proud they aren't a bunch of cowards, if he isn't the best football fit. Thats the real question.

 

I am 100% certain at least some teams would not sign him due to the controversy over his alleged sexuality. I think theres several more teams who just had no safety need. And we pretty much know for a fact he priced himself out of his former team who offered $3m in March, before the April controversy, which he turned down. I am struggling to readily accept a league-wide collusion to keep him or Kluwe off the field.

 

The likelihood of finding a better football fit for the cost is very low.

 

 

But if it's that important to you to not be the team to break the blackball, so be it.

Are you out of your mind or suffering from poor reading comprehension?

[jersey cubs fan]

Here's a pretty decent article that digs a little deeper than "the 4th best safety in football went all year unsigned and also had gay rumors"

http://thebiglead.com/2013/09/20/reviewing-the-case-for-kerry-rhodes-being-blacklisted-is-it-an-age-thing/

 

Again, just taking the league and applying the averages of the rest of society, we know there are going to be quite a few bigots or people who otherwise just don't want to be bothered by it all, so I'm sure some teams wouldn't consider him, and some of those teams probably even needed a safety. But I think the case for league wide blackballing is tenuous. And for whatever reason he spent the whole year not playing at age 32, I don't see a huge upside bringing him in now.

 

I think you are misinterpreting the notion of "blackball", which is probably due to people misusing it. There isn't a decrease coming down from on high saying you cannot sign the guy. The point is the league is filled with people who are outright bigots, as well as cowards who hide behind the BS storyline of "distractions". That combines to mean limited to zero opportunities, which is effectively being blackballed.

[jersey cubs fan]

If Rhodes was as good of a safety as Peyton was a QB, without question. But he isn't and even as the number four safety in one year by PFF, he doesn't have the consistent track record that suggests he might step back on the field an additional year on the wrong side of 30 and solve our safety problems. I'm not opposed to giving him a chance but I hardly see him as a guy to solve our S issues. I'd like a little more of a sure thing. I'd pay no more than the minimum to him, with little to no guaranteed money.

IF he was blackballed, that really does suck and it saddens me, but I don't want my NFL team to be the one to break the blackball just so I can be proud they aren't a bunch of cowards, if he isn't the best football fit. Thats the real question.

 

I am 100% certain at least some teams would not sign him due to the controversy over his alleged sexuality. I think theres several more teams who just had no safety need. And we pretty much know for a fact he priced himself out of his former team who offered $3m in March, before the April controversy, which he turned down. I am struggling to readily accept a league-wide collusion to keep him or Kluwe off the field.

 

The likelihood of finding a better football fit for the cost is very low.

 

 

But if it's that important to you to not be the team to break the blackball, so be it.

Are you out of your mind or suffering from poor reading comprehension?

I'm being a smartass based on what appears to be you hiding behind the "it's not a true blackball situation" and "I don't want the distractions" defense.

[davell]

I just meant that they're very smart, just figure that they won't break NFL "code", if Rhodes is truly blackballed.

 

Smart dudes know how to toe the company line, right?

Sure, but if the NFL doesn't want you around(conspiracy obviously, that can't be proven) do you go against them?

 

The other question is how it affects your locker room. And yes, this IS stupid, but it's unfortunately the way things are in the NFL. Maybe everyone IS fine with it, but maybe I just don't have enough faith in humanity, I doubt it's the case. In fact, didn't Briggs say something silly a while back?

 

Is Rhodes good enough to take a chance on if it actually pisses off some guys already on the team? If it possibly affected the way even one future FA could potentially look at the franchise? I'm all for signing the guy, but there are plenty of meatball players out there that would need to be considered.

 

It's not the NFL front office telling people to stay away from him. That's not how this works.

 

It's not going to affect the locker room in a meaningful way. Everybody who has every played in the NFL has played with gay teammates.

I agree with the second point, but I doubt we can say everyone knew it. I'm not much into team chemistry, but if making a move like this affects the chances of even one meaningful FA consider coming here, is Kerry Rhodes a good enough player to do that for?

[jersey cubs fan]

I agree with the second point, but I doubt we can say everyone knew it. I'm not much into team chemistry, but if making a move like this affects the chances of even one meaningful FA consider coming here, is Kerry Rhodes a good enough player to do that for?

 

In a word, yes. He'll be here for a couple years at the most, and of all the free agents out there in the first place the vast majority won't be signing with the Bears anyway.

[WrigleyField 22]

Here's a pretty decent article that digs a little deeper than "the 4th best safety in football went all year unsigned and also had gay rumors"

http://thebiglead.com/2013/09/20/reviewing-the-case-for-kerry-rhodes-being-blacklisted-is-it-an-age-thing/

 

Again, just taking the league and applying the averages of the rest of society, we know there are going to be quite a few bigots or people who otherwise just don't want to be bothered by it all, so I'm sure some teams wouldn't consider him, and some of those teams probably even needed a safety. But I think the case for league wide blackballing is tenuous. And for whatever reason he spent the whole year not playing at age 32, I don't see a huge upside bringing him in now.

 

I think you are misinterpreting the notion of "blackball", which is probably due to people misusing it. There isn't a decrease coming down from on high saying you cannot sign the guy. The point is the league is filled with people who are outright bigots, as well as cowards who hide behind the BS storyline of "distractions". That combines to mean limited to zero opportunities, which is effectively being blackballed.

Well whatever the reasons for him being out of the league the whole year, I think you understate the reality that has on his likelihood of stepping in and being a contributor at age 32 or 33. I want my team to make the best football decision and not try and correct some past league injustice. Would it be really cool if those aligned? Yea, but at the end of the day, I'm not convinced at his ability to contribute beyond what we can get elsewhere.

[davell]

so who's our Bushrod/Bennett/Slauson this offseason?

 

Michael Johnson/Aqib Talib/Kerry Rhodes?

 

Close enough.

 

Bushrod = a DE. It'll be either Michael Bennett or Johnson IMO. If Johnson is possible, then so is Hardy and I'm not sure why we aren't mentioning him? Is Hardy going to get that much more $$$ than Johnson?

 

Bennett = a CB or S. I think it'll be towards a S since we already re-sign Jennings and then draft a CB early. Not sure if Bears will take a chance on Talib, but Emery does sign guys with character/off the field issues.

 

Slauson = a DT hopefully. Bears should double up on DL in FA like they did on OL last year and still draft one early.

Hardy will get franchised if they can't lock him up longterm. No way he's going anywhere.

[jersey cubs fan]

I want my team to make the best football decision .

 

That is not a meaningful statement.

[WrigleyField 22]

If Rhodes was as good of a safety as Peyton was a QB, without question. But he isn't and even as the number four safety in one year by PFF, he doesn't have the consistent track record that suggests he might step back on the field an additional year on the wrong side of 30 and solve our safety problems. I'm not opposed to giving him a chance but I hardly see him as a guy to solve our S issues. I'd like a little more of a sure thing. I'd pay no more than the minimum to him, with little to no guaranteed money.

IF he was blackballed, that really does suck and it saddens me, but I don't want my NFL team to be the one to break the blackball just so I can be proud they aren't a bunch of cowards, if he isn't the best football fit. Thats the real question.

 

I am 100% certain at least some teams would not sign him due to the controversy over his alleged sexuality. I think theres several more teams who just had no safety need. And we pretty much know for a fact he priced himself out of his former team who offered $3m in March, before the April controversy, which he turned down. I am struggling to readily accept a league-wide collusion to keep him or Kluwe off the field.

 

The likelihood of finding a better football fit for the cost is very low.

 

 

But if it's that important to you to not be the team to break the blackball, so be it.

Are you out of your mind or suffering from poor reading comprehension?

I'm being a smartass based on what appears to be you hiding behind the "it's not a true blackball situation" and "I don't want the distractions" defense.

I could give a [expletive] about "distractions" and haven't once mentioned them. If anything I've ever posted anywhere on this site gives you the impression I would try to hide behind an issue like gay rights (using some lame excuse no less) I'm not sure what it would be. Its 100% football related.

[WrigleyField 22]

I want my team to make the best football decision .

 

That is not a meaningful statement.

Believe what you will I suppose. Theres a pretty decent chance he won't even be the 62nd or 32nd PFF ranked safety he was in 2010 and 2011. Safety is littered with mid-round picks and young guys who can be passable. What's so special about Rhodes at age 32 a year removed from any football activity?

[Guest]

I want my team to make the best football decision .

 

That is not a meaningful statement.

Believe what you will I suppose. Theres a pretty decent chance he won't even be the 62nd or 32nd PFF ranked safety he was in 2010 and 2011. Safety is littered with mid-round picks and young guys who can be passable. What's so special about Rhodes at age 32 a year removed from any football activity?

 

I'd put good money on him being a substantial upgrade over any of the safeties we played in 2013.

[WrigleyField 22]

I want my team to make the best football decision .

 

That is not a meaningful statement.

Believe what you will I suppose. Theres a pretty decent chance he won't even be the 62nd or 32nd PFF ranked safety he was in 2010 and 2011. Safety is littered with mid-round picks and young guys who can be passable. What's so special about Rhodes at age 32 a year removed from any football activity?

 

I'd put good money on him being a substantial upgrade over any of the safeties we played in 2013.

Well if you're gonna compare him to our safeties, I might stretch it out to guys who have been out of football for 2 or 3 years (particularly Wright) in order to find a chance of an upgrade, but that kind of ignores the whole pool of FAs and draft picks who have a chance to be better than both with more upside. You're not setting the bar very high in support of Rhodes though if thats the level of satisfaction.

[Guest]

All I'm saying is I'm not ruling out a guy who was very good in 2012 just because he didn't play in 2013.

[WrigleyField 22]

All I'm saying is I'm not ruling out a guy who was very good in 2012 just because he didn't play in 2013.

Well my original post said "I'm not sure" and subsequent posts talked about league minimum and giving a chance, so I do believe we both do fall somewhere between ruling him out and signing him to a guaranteed deal.

[rawaction]

so who's our Bushrod/Bennett/Slauson this offseason?

 

Michael Johnson/Aqib Talib/Kerry Rhodes?

 

Close enough.

 

Bushrod = a DE. It'll be either Michael Bennett or Johnson IMO. If Johnson is possible, then so is Hardy and I'm not sure why we aren't mentioning him? Is Hardy going to get that much more $$$ than Johnson?

 

Bennett = a CB or S. I think it'll be towards a S since we already re-sign Jennings and then draft a CB early. Not sure if Bears will take a chance on Talib, but Emery does sign guys with character/off the field issues.

 

Slauson = a DT hopefully. Bears should double up on DL in FA like they did on OL last year and still draft one early.

 

I'm going to go:

 

Bushrod $$$- Used on S. TJ Ward.

Bennett $$$- Used on DL. Robert Ayers

Slauson $$$- Used on LB depth or to resign some of the guys already on the roster.

[KaiserCesar]

How commonly are veteran minimum deals given out to quality players? Despite Emery's 'getting younger on defense' comments, I wouldn't mind adding veteran depth on defense to fill out the roster in lieu of all UDFA's/late draft picks. You could add 3-4 for about 1.5 million of cap space given the favorable treatment.

[davell]

How do we feel about Briggs moving forward? It seems as if he's unhappy to begin with. He's also older and showed signs of breaking down somewhat. Is he tradeable? If so, I can't see us getting more than a 5th or 6th back. But you'd also get the full use of his 6.5 mill salary to use elsewhere. If you cut him, he'd have a mill cap hit, but you'd save 5.5 by doing that.

 

How integral is he now? Emery spoke of adding leadership, so getting rid of Lance certainly is the opposite of that. But that extra money could go towards helping the D obviously. Too much turnover in one year for the D or feasible?

[davell]

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-78799102/

 

Cliff Stein FTW

 

This is great, to say the least.