SpongeWorthy

lol ebanks

That should be one of the better front 7s in the league if we can stay healthy.

Cutler targeted Olsen a LOT last year. I'm sure he felt a rapport with him but it's not like he put up huge numbers ala Gates or Clark. Either way, the receivers need to step up big time because they're going to see a much bigger percentage of the balls.

If we can get two motivated years out of Peppers and Tommie simultaneously I will consider it a victory.

Done deal? http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/news/story?id=4969071

Who said far past? You people are ridiculous. I never said he was done or should be retired. I said it was a lot of money for an old backup RB. He is an old backup RB. I didn't say he's worthless. I said he's an old backup RB, and is an old backup RB. I also said he's a nice complementary back for Forte and that I like that they are going away from the one back situation. But there is a significant difference between 25 and 31 in the world of professional sports. It's not enough to make all 31 year olds obsolete, but there isn't a physically demanding sport where being 31 instead of 25 isn't meaningful. You said earlier in this thread that you would "never" spend money on running back in free agency. Perhaps we're not the ones being ridiculous with the absolutist statements. In fact, all we're saying is that you can't conflate all 30 year old running backs. It's a perfectly reasonable position. And if Forte doesn't play WAY better than he did last year, Taylor will be a backup in name only.

30 only seems old because the only running backs who even stay in the league long enough to play into their 30s have taken a lot of hits so those are the only ones you see. From a pure biological standpoint, there's no way a well conditioned athlete is far past their athletic prime at 30.

They're at a money disadvantage because the max deal to reup with your own team is bigger than it is if you leave. Or if anyone wants to sign in Texas or Miami they don't have to pay a state income tax--which is a big, big chunk of money over the life of a contract. Chicago is a great market but so are Manhattan and Brooklyn. The Bulls have a better team than the Nets and Knicks but the Knicks can sign two max guys and maybe you get to play with Wall and Lopez in NJ. Miami is a really nice market too and they no state income tax AND they can sign a max guy alongside Wade. Cleveland is clearly on the precipice of a championship. The Bulls have a leg up on Toronto which should give us some confidence. They probably have a leg up in the non-money issues over Utah and Phoenix as well but I'm not crazy about Boozer or Amare anyway. They're nice but not going to put this team over the top, IMO. I understand the Bulls sales pitch, and it is attractive but it doesn't exist in a vacuum either. If this team starts to slide badly there will be a lot of negativity surrounding the team from the front office on down. It certainly won't look good. If you don't think that sort of negative image matters just look at how the league wide disdain for Jerry Krause torpedoed our last real efforts in a loaded FA class. It won't be THAT bad for the Bulls, fortunately, but you'd like to avoid anything comparable.

It's hard to say. I'm talking about potential risk factors and you're totally ruling them out as any sort of consideration. I think my way works better if you're trying to run a team. Although I would be wary if a free agent thought the Bulls collapse was totally attributable to Joakim Noah's injury. If losing Noah, a good but by no means great player, can turn your team into a dumpster fire then maybe they're more than one missing piece away from being a championship contender. If you thought Salmons was going to opt in then you had to trade him or Kirk. I would've dealt Kirk but apparently the FO is too in love with him or the rest of the league just knows how much Kirk sucks and wouldn't deal. That's fine. The Bulls have no money advantage. At BEST, they're at a slight disadvantage when it comes to dollars. Now other things come into play like the city, the quality of the roster, and a million other little variables. All I'm saying is that you want to have as many checks in your pro column when it comes to wooing a stud free agent. On top of that, there's the intangible factor of going into an offseason with positive momentum. Just do a little thought experiment: If the Bulls come off the rails the rest of the year and miss the playoffs do you think they'd be in as good a position to get a true superstar free agent as they would've been if they had the money going into LAST summer after the Boston series? I don't think you can very reasonably argue that they would be as attractive. The atmospherics matter. How much they matter is up to interpretation. This isn't like what the Bears are going through right now where they can just outbid other teams. The Bulls can't outbid anyone unless it comes down to overpaying for the David Lee's and Anthony Morrow's of the world. My sites are set higher because that's how far the team away is.

Are you talking about the massive amounts of money that is actually substantially less than the massive amounts of money they would get by staying on their current team?

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Biggs-Busy-day-ahead-for-Bears.html Biggs seems to think the Bears will sign Taylor and Manumaleuna fairly quickly too.

Also, watch the negativity build up when the Bulls reel off a long losing streak with the tough schedule coming up and then try to say we look as attractive to FAs as we did before. Guys who are going to get paid no matter where they go will have a visceral reaction to the Bulls looking like crap and falling out of the playoff race in a weak conference.

You simply aren't watching the games if you think there hasn't been a downgrade (and a fairly sizable one at that) from Salmons/Tyrus to Flip/Warrick. Salmons is a much better player than Flip and while Warrick can give you some offense, he's a horrific positional defender and rebounder.

Getting destroyed on the glass and no passable outside shooting to speak of.

High screen and roll from the same spot on the floor ad nauseum.

This is kind of an important game if we want to avoid a 6 or 7 game losing streak.

Is it? Maybe for a running back with a lot of carries on the odometer. 30 should still be right in the prime of many guys careers. For other sports. Football prime is 26-30 for 80% of the league. Maybe even younger than that. I'm really not so sure that's true for non-running backs without significant injury histories. I'm not saying most players are at the absolute apex of their careers at 30 but most guys that are perennial pro bowlers or on a Hall of Fame trajectory have dominant years after 30. Reggie White and Bruce Smith, for example, were dominant until their mid 30s. Strahan too. But those type of guys make up a pretty small majority of players. No telling if you'll get a guy past his prime, or the small percentage that stays dominant. Well the percentage of players who dominate at any point in their careers is small. In the NFL it's very easy to get a younger/cheaper alternative because most of the money isn't guaranteed. If a guy is great at 30 I wouldn't be deathly afraid that you couldn't get 3 or 4 good to great years out of him.

Not a bad half except the horrible last few minutes of the quarter. Pro tip Vinny: When the offense goes to [expletive] because Kirk can't bury an open mid range jumper to save his life then let Rose isolate. Good things happen.

Well I'm no expert on the Cardinals but it seems like their pass D was awfully sieve like considering everyone says Rolle and Wilson are two of the best safeties in the game.

Is it? Maybe for a running back with a lot of carries on the odometer. 30 should still be right in the prime of many guys careers. For other sports. Football prime is 26-30 for 80% of the league. Maybe even younger than that. I'm really not so sure that's true for non-running backs without significant injury histories. I'm not saying most players are at the absolute apex of their careers at 30 but most guys that are perennial pro bowlers or on a Hall of Fame trajectory have dominant years after 30. Reggie White and Bruce Smith, for example, were dominant until their mid 30s. Strahan too.

Is it? Maybe for a running back with a lot of carries on the odometer. 30 should still be right in the prime of many guys careers.

I don't know anything about him. When we signed Pisa T. from the Rams last year I was excited by what I saw in preseason and then he lasted maybe one series into the Packers game.

That is very rarely the case with RBs. It is a young man's position and a horrible one to pay big money in free agency. I'm not sure what you mean by big money. Taylor will get a good contract, not a huge one. The estimates I've seen put him in the 4 years/17 million with 6 guaranteed range. Thomas Jones (for two different teams), Michael Turner, and Ricky Williams were some good FA signings that have panned out. Jones and Williams were no spring chickens either and had more tread on their tires than Taylor does now. The rest of the good running backs are mainly an assortment of guys still with the teams that drafted them--usually in the top 2 or 3 rounds. Somehow I think most of you would be annoyed if we went running back with our 3rd or 4th round pick. If you're going to ignore running back in the offseason you better be comfortable with Forte bouncing back and Kahlil Bell. I'm not that optimistic. So if my options were down to staying pat, spending some money in free agency, or drafting a guy I would probably lean towards free agency.

Well Sproles is a lot more explosive and younger than Taylor but the Chargers just put a high tender on him. So if you want to upgrade the Bears running game you've gotta go with Taylor, a draftee, or Tomlinson/Westbrook. Taylor is still explosive, IMO, which is why I like him. The Bears have money to spend and they're going to spend it regardless because the management is throwing a hail mary. What would you have them do? The running backs and offense in general aren't so good (in fact, they're horrible) that they should just hold the money and wait for the stud linemen who simply aren't on the market. The Bears need upgrades everywhere. RBs emerge from the depths every year, I would simply never spend money on the position. It's a waste, unless you have your own stud. I'd solidify both lines, offense via draft and defense via free agency, and spend money on the secondary. This defense has barely held on over the years and is in desperate need of an influx of talent. I don't know what RBs you're talking about when you say they emerge from the depths. Can you give me an example? Most of the guys I think you might have in mind were lower round draftees ala Rice, Charles, etc. But I don't see why drafting a running back with one of our very few picks would be acceptable while signing one in free agency wouldn't be. And I'm not saying don't spend money on the defense. Get a pass rusher and a ball hawk in the secondary and with Urlacher coming back you MIGHT be looking at a top 10ish unit if the breaks go right. On the other hand, the offense has never been good and desperately needs an influx of talent as well. I think the stance on this board that the skill players are even approaching adequacy is pretty much way off. The Bears skill group is one of the very worst in the NFL. You can get a good return on your investment with the right FA signings there.

Well Sproles is a lot more explosive and younger than Taylor but the Chargers just put a high tender on him. So if you want to upgrade the Bears running game you've gotta go with Taylor, a draftee, or Tomlinson/Westbrook. Taylor is still explosive, IMO, which is why I like him. The Bears have money to spend and they're going to spend it regardless because the management is throwing a hail mary. What would you have them do? The running backs and offense in general aren't so good (in fact, they're horrible) that they should just hold the money and wait for the stud linemen who simply aren't on the market. The Bears need upgrades everywhere.