PDA

View Full Version : Just to kill the FA OT messenger.


awfullyquiet
02-21-2008, 10:33 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3255502

"Steelers tender offer of nearly $7 million to Starks"

That being said, Steelers probably aren't gonna be dispensing of Starks if they can, and subsequently aren't looking to reach so high with a tackle.

This affects the search for FA's by tighetning the market, and loosens the draft.

Not horrible, but not great.

Geo
02-21-2008, 10:36 AM
They used a transition tag, which is sort of puzzling.

If the Bears want, they can extend an offer sheet to Starks. Should he sign it and the Steelers don't match, they get Starks without having to give up any compensation.

Hurricane Ditka
02-21-2008, 11:51 AM
What if we don't want Starks?

BeerBaron
02-21-2008, 11:55 AM
They used a transition tag, which is sort of puzzling.

If the Bears want, they can extend an offer sheet to Starks. Should he sign it and the Steelers don't match, they get Starks without having to give up any compensation.

aye but we would have to poison pill the offer. say in it that if he plays more than 5 games in teh city of pittsburgh, the whole deal would become guranteed.

the problem then is, since its a legal move, the players union could claim collusion between owners/teams if we didnt. and id rather just stay out of that situation altogether...

awfullyquiet
02-21-2008, 12:15 PM
What if we don't want Starks?

We want a tackle. Ergo, this affects us.

Hurricane Ditka
02-21-2008, 12:18 PM
We want a tackle. Ergo, this affects us.We shouldn't want Starks though. Because he's not good.

Gay Ork Wang
02-21-2008, 12:29 PM
it makes the other Tackles more expensive though

Geo
02-21-2008, 12:30 PM
aye but we would have to poison pill the offer. say in it that if he plays more than 5 games in teh city of pittsburgh, the whole deal would become guranteed.

the problem then is, since its a legal move, the players union could claim collusion between owners/teams if we didnt. and id rather just stay out of that situation altogether...
First off, I don't think we'll be seeing the posion pill anytime soon, the league office doesn't want to see it and has made that clear to every team. That's not to say it is against the rules (yet), but very frowned upon and we thusly haven't seen it since the 2006 offseason I believe.

If the Bears are willing to make an offer, maybe the Steelers are willing to match it or maybe they won't. Maybe the Bears aren't interested.

BeerBaron
02-21-2008, 12:58 PM
First off, I don't think we'll be seeing the posion pill anytime soon, the league office doesn't want to see it and has made that clear to every team. That's not to say it is against the rules (yet), but very frowned upon and we thusly haven't seen it since the 2006 offseason I believe.

If the Bears are willing to make an offer, maybe the Steelers are willing to match it or maybe they won't. Maybe the Bears aren't interested.

aye but ive read that if the players association really wanted to get a stick up their arse, they could probably go after any team that makes an offer without using it since it would be collusion on the side of the owners because it hinders player movement or something like that....

anyway, i dont think we should be too worried about starks. too many good tackles in the draft

toonsterwu
02-21-2008, 01:45 PM
For the longest time, my thought was that Otah was too risky for Angelo. That said, I'm starting to believe Otah might be the safe move, the Angelo move, in some respects. He's a guy you can definitely stick in at RT and probably know he'll be fine. His LT ability, that's still a process in development, so therein lies the risk (interesting that Mayock moved Otah to 2).

But ... if we are to assume that we are in a win now mode, as many think, then going Otah in round 1 makes sense. Just means we have to hope he develops at LT ... otherwise we have to draft a LT in a year or two. I don't see Tait staying at LT all that long and being effective. If Chris Williams is there, or Ryan Clady, I think both get prioritized.

Short of it is, I'm thinking in FA, if we target anything, it'll be OG. Just too costly to fill out a poison pill contract for a tackle like Starks, or someone else. I wouldn't be surprised if we went OT/OG in the first 2 (although there's talk Chilo Rachal may be gone by our 2nd ... absolutely stunning to me, but it could happen).

It'll be interesting what we do in FA. We have around 30 million free. Assuming 7-8 for the Berrian franchise tag that many assume is coming, that's around 23 or so free. That's enough to address RB in FA and another position, whether it be offensive line or a safety, while still leaving us plenty of space, I think, to extend Tommie Harris.

Geo
02-21-2008, 02:07 PM
I've liked Chris Williams for quite some time and personally ranked him highly. I thought he had a great senior year at Vandy, and he capped it off with a very good performance at the Senior Bowl. He's be a great pick for the Bears imo, I think the arm length concerns are overblown.

I'd put him at LT from day one of training camp and move Tait to RT. I know that sounds a bit risky, but I would put Williams there immediately so that he can get every valuable snap in the preseason. I saw it first-hand with Tony Ugoh, how critical his snaps in the preseason were in getting him ready.

bearsfan_51
02-21-2008, 02:10 PM
Alan Faneca in free agency and an OT in round 1.

That would leave QB/RB/WR/S for our next 4 picks in rounds 2-4.

toonsterwu
02-21-2008, 02:21 PM
ugh ... i like Faneca, but at what it's likely to cost, and the long term impact of said cost?

That said, that does sound like priority number 1 ... as last I checked, none of the other OG's in FA are all that intriguing.

bearsfan_51
02-21-2008, 02:26 PM
ugh ... i like Faneca, but at what it's likely to cost, and the long term impact of said cost?

That said, that does sound like priority number 1 ... as last I checked, none of the other OG's in FA are all that intriguing.
I personally like Benji Olsen of the Titans, but with the PR hit they are going to take from losing Briggs and Berrian I don't think Olsen is going to cut it.

As for the finances, I'm a bit torn. On the one hand, it's not my money, and it's not like we are ever going to be pushed up against the cap with as frugal as the Bears are.

On the other hand, guard isn't the best position to throw a lot of cash. I dunnno, adding Chris Williams and Faneca would make our line a LOT better, and probably give us a better idea of what our position players look like, but Tait-Faneca-Kruetz would all need to be replaced within 3-4 years anyway. It's a preventative move, but with the market the way it is they could do a lot worse.

Geo
02-21-2008, 02:27 PM
I like the idea of Faneca to the Bears, to be honest. But as noted, if they can get him signed to a deal they're comfortable with, that is key obviously.

Faneca and a tackle with the 1st round pick, as bf51 has been stating more than once, would absolutely address the Bears offensive line. Which, along with the injuries on defense, was the biggest reason the Bears didn't get back to the playoffs in my mind.

bearsfan_51
02-21-2008, 02:31 PM
Chris Williams, Alan Faneca, Olin Kruetz, Roerto Garza, John Tait.


Gotta admit, that looks pretty good.

And I forgot that Beekman is considered the longterm replacement for Kruetz as I've heard, so that would ease the strain a bit.

dabears10
02-21-2008, 02:34 PM
Wait, I understand people are now ruling out Berrian being back. Is this based on opinion of what was said or something that has been said?

bearsfan_51
02-21-2008, 02:50 PM
Wait, I understand people are now ruling out Berrian being back. Is this based on opinion of what was said or something that has been said?
If we don't tag him I see no way he's coming back. Once he hits the free market there will so much money thrown around that the Bears won't stand a chance.

If they really wanted to keep him they'd tag him. It's only going to get more expensive.

Geo
02-21-2008, 02:54 PM
Berrian might sign with the Raiders ... yuck.

At least Bradley is finally getting his chance.

DaBear89
02-21-2008, 02:55 PM
Chris Williams, Alan Faneca, Olin Kruetz, Roerto Garza, John Tait.


Gotta admit, that looks pretty good.

And I forgot that Beekman is considered the longterm replacement for Kruetz as I've heard, so that would ease the strain a bit.

well, RT is a lot easier to replace than LT so i'm not too worried about replacing tait soon. as you said we still got Beekman for Kruetz. I'm still for drafting Kerry Brown out of App. St. in the 4th/5th round. i think he could be a really good G in this league. now as far as L or R i don't really know the difference for G, really the only position in FB i don't know that well. With that line tho i think we would be good for at least 2 yrs b4 we have to replace anyone.

bearsfan_51
02-21-2008, 03:20 PM
left guard needs to be more athletic and nimble on his feet because in most offenses he'll do the majority of the pulling.

awfullyquiet
02-21-2008, 06:17 PM
left guard needs to be more athletic and nimble on his feet because in most offenses he'll do the majority of the pulling.

assuming you're running a right hand offense (or run primarily to the right)

the bears run TONS of traps and guard pulled, so. getting one that gets a good punch too, doesn't need as much of the sheer leg drive, but enough upper punch and keep defenders occupied.

i'd take faneca. faneca, tait, kreutz, garza and williams/otah wouldn't bad. i like it.

awfullyquiet
02-21-2008, 06:31 PM
If we don't tag him I see no way he's coming back. Once he hits the free market there will so much money thrown around that the Bears won't stand a chance.

If they really wanted to keep him they'd tag him. It's only going to get more expensive.

I don't think the money is going to be that ridiculous for BB. I think he's hyped to the point of neglecting to realize, he doesn't have great hands, he runs okay routes. He has a knack for getting opetn AND he's got great speed. But he's not refined at all and he needs still some development time.

Sure he's gonna be pretty impressive. I don't think he's gonna get top 20 money, and that'd be enough for me to give him a deep contract. If we franchise him now, we're gonna lose him for sure next season. If we contract him now, 3-4 years, whatever the cost. like 25-5. it'd be pretty fair i think, just for comparison, CJ makes 35-6, Boldin 23.5-6, Randle-El has a 31-7 with the redskins. we need to do it. if we can't. we need to sign briggs. one or the other.

i don't think I can stress that enough. we have the money, and the FA is there to not keep them if we can. it won't cost us too much.

toonsterwu
02-21-2008, 06:50 PM
In terms of Berrian's contract, the issue is less his ability and more the market. There just aren't many WR's out there, and it's a position of relative need for many clubs. All it takes is one contract to blow things out of the water, akin to the guard market last offseason.

BUSTKUNTLAWL
02-21-2008, 08:56 PM
Alan Faneca in free agency and an OT in round 1.

That would leave QB/RB/WR/S for our next 4 picks in rounds 2-4.

This is what I have been saying.

I would love to replace Garza's weak mexican ass as well.

BeerBaron
02-21-2008, 09:52 PM
yeah, i think garzas a decent, versatile backup but i think we can do better for a starter...

bearsfan_51
02-21-2008, 09:57 PM
I don't think the money is going to be that ridiculous for BB.

Sure he's gonna be pretty impressive. I don't think he's gonna get top 20 money, and that'd be enough for me to give him a deep contract. If we franchise him now, we're gonna lose him for sure next season. If we contract him now, 3-4 years, whatever the cost. like 25-5. it'd be pretty fair i think, just for comparison, CJ makes 35-6, Boldin 23.5-6, Randle-El has a 31-7 with the redskins. we need to do it. if we can't. we need to sign briggs. one or the other..
Have you been paying attention at all the last 2-3 years? There are 10 teams with over 30 million dollars in cap space. Almost every good player has already had the franchise tag put on them.

Berrian is far and away the best guy available at his position. He's going to get a ton of money.

bearsfan_51
02-21-2008, 09:58 PM
yeah, i think garzas a decent, versatile backup but i think we can do better for a starter...

Garza is fine. He's not a great guard, but basically you just need a fat guy to push at his position anyway. I follow the NFL pretty extensively and I don't think I could even name 10 RG's off the top of my head.

49ersfan_87
02-21-2008, 10:00 PM
Have you been paying attention at all the last 2-3 years? There are 10 teams with over 30 million dollars in cap space. Almost every good player has already had the franchise tag put on them.

Berrian is far and away the best guy available at his position. He's going to get a ton of money.

I think a darkhorse to sign Berrian is the Jaguars. They have over $40 million dollars in cap space and they need a speedy WR. Northcutt is alright but he is replaceable.

BeerBaron
02-21-2008, 10:04 PM
Garza is fine. He's not a great guard, but basically you just need a fat guy to push at his position anyway. I follow the NFL pretty extensively and I don't think I could even name 10 RG's off the top of my head.

when you break it down into just RGs...idk if i could do it either, lol.

but i like how you say its just a fat guy to push people around when you criticized me a few days ago for saying any random 5th round pick could be a capable starting guard.

if we could find someone cheaper, bigger, stronger why not let him give garza a run for his money? i bet theres plenty of guys around we could get our hands on easily that could top garza's measurables at least. the only thing theyd be lacking is his experience but hell, why not give him an oppurtunity at least?

BeerBaron
02-22-2008, 08:46 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3257645

not that it was likely to be an option, but just for info's sake seattle resigned sean locklear now too.

i think the FA OT cupboard is completely bare

bearsfan_51
02-22-2008, 08:47 PM
but i like how you say its just a fat guy to push people around when you criticized me a few days ago for saying any random 5th round pick could be a capable starting guard.


Thus the difference between right guard and left guard.

BeerBaron
02-22-2008, 08:57 PM
Thus the difference between right guard and left guard.

but...garza plays RG...no?

bearsfan_51
02-22-2008, 09:06 PM
but...garza plays RG...no?

Ok, let's recap.

We need to replace our LG. I said that it's very unlikely that we will be able to do that with a very late rounder, because it's a position that requires more athleticism and raw talent.

I also said that Garza is fine at the RG spot, because it's not a position that requires a whole lot (unlike, say, left guard). I do think Garza could play left guard in a pinch as he's done before, but that's not ideal.

Therefore, left guard= harder= higher pick. Garza= right guard= not a problem.

Got it?

BeerBaron
02-22-2008, 09:10 PM
Ok, let's recap.

We need to replace our LG. I said that it's very unlikely that we will be able to do that with a very late rounder, because it's a position that requires more athleticism and raw talent.

I also said that Garza is fine at the RG spot, because it's not a position that requires a whole lot (unlike, say, left guard). I do think Garza could play left guard in a pinch as he's done before, but that's not ideal.

Therefore, left guard= harder= higher pick. Garza= right guard= not a problem.

Got it?

and i grasp that fully, but if we could get a guy in a late round who would be better at that spot than garza, why not go for it?

and i think its a little odd that garza ended up where he did at the RG spot. he came as a FA from atlanta back when they were playing around with the whole ZBS idea didnt he? i know hes a smaller guy too...would have struck me as the more athletic one while a ruben brown would have hit me as a bigger, push people around guy

bearsfan_51
02-22-2008, 09:14 PM
I don't think we're going to find someone better than Garza 5th round down, and it would make zero sense to draft someone who will never contribute as a backup (see Tyler Reed). Backup offensive lineman are worthless until someone gets injured.

BeerBaron
02-22-2008, 09:18 PM
garza's 28 and smallish....how long does his contract run? i know we resigned him just like 2 years ago or so

bearsfan_51
02-22-2008, 09:19 PM
garza's 28 and smallish....how long does his contract run? i know we resigned him just like 2 years ago or so

http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4948

BeerBaron
02-22-2008, 09:21 PM
i bet we could do better than metcalf as the backup

DaBears9654
02-23-2008, 09:41 AM
Would the last weekend in April just freaking get here already? It doesn't take long for me to get sick of the speculation.

BeerBaron
02-23-2008, 10:27 AM
Would the last weekend in April just freaking get here already? It doesn't take long for me to get sick of the speculation.

i know the feeling but i also kind of like those few days right before the draft where you hear the ridiculous crap that could be going on...

like the texans taking mario williams instead of reggie bush, that was a pretty funny rumor, haha

BeerBaron
02-23-2008, 10:43 AM
oh man, im watching the combine on nfl.com and williams and otah ran the 40.

williams ran a 5.07 and otah a 5.56

now i know that specific drill is a bit less important to o-lineman but williams ran it really well and otah ran it really badly...

i think im still going to hold off on forming my opinion

DaBears9654
02-23-2008, 12:40 PM
I doubt the Bears would take Otah given the opportunity b/c he's too big and we all know the Smith regime emphasizes speed/quickness over size. Come to think of it, Otah's roughly former Bears RT Big Cat Williams' size. Williams was a beast in his day.

dabears10
02-23-2008, 01:20 PM
oh man, im watching the combine on nfl.com and williams and otah ran the 40.

williams ran a 5.07 and otah a 5.56

now i know that specific drill is a bit less important to o-lineman but williams ran it really well and otah ran it really badly...

i think im still going to hold off on forming my opinion

The difference is, do we want a guy who is controlling of traditional Bullrush DE's or a guy who is better at defending the Speed Rush. I know they both can do these things but strengths are one or the other. I don't care as much as the bad 40 as when he was doing a drill he was really, really high and didn't really look to make an effort to get lower.

BeerBaron
02-23-2008, 01:44 PM
The difference is, do we want a guy who is controlling of traditional Bullrush DE's or a guy who is better at defending the Speed Rush. I know they both can do these things but strengths are one or the other. I don't care as much as the bad 40 as when he was doing a drill he was really, really high and didn't really look to make an effort to get lower.

aye, i agree. i think im favoring williams in general now because of his long term LT potential. not that otah couldnt do it but it seems less likely, esp. now with bad speed and not carrying himself well....

i still wouldnt be too upset with either as our first rounder, it just looks like otah might be more of a RT only now

awfullyquiet
02-25-2008, 05:29 PM
The difference is, do we want a guy who is controlling of traditional Bullrush DE's or a guy who is better at defending the Speed Rush. I know they both can do these things but strengths are one or the other. I don't care as much as the bad 40 as when he was doing a drill he was really, really high and didn't really look to make an effort to get lower.

In the NFCN?
We want the speed rush defender.
With the abundance of the tampa 2, it's worth it, especially in the NFC.