PDA

View Full Version : San Fransisco Penalized for Briggs Tampering


KCJ58
03-24-2008, 05:25 PM
just herd per ESPN that San Fran has to give up there 5th round pick and swap third round picks with the Bears

Smooth Criminal
03-24-2008, 05:25 PM
49ers will be penalized a 5th round pick and have to swap 3rds with Chicago due to tampering with Lance Briggs. Just on sportscenter no link yet.

skinzzfan25
03-24-2008, 05:26 PM
Per ESPN Breaking news, the 49ers have been charged with tampering by talking with Briggs before the season had ended.

As result, the 49ers loose their 5th round draft pick and must swap their 3rd rounder with the Bears 3rd rounder.

Link hopefully soon to come.

EDIT:

Link per Chicago Tribune:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-080324-lance-briggs-bears-49ers,1,5185452.story

Cashmoney
03-24-2008, 05:26 PM
Wow, two threads at the exact same-time.

bearsfan_51
03-24-2008, 05:27 PM
Hahaha...thanks Niners. We get to keep Briggs and get a much better 3rd rounder.

And everyone said it was foolish for the Bears to even challenge...

That's 4 picks in the first 75 picks now. Should be a pretty good draft.

Cashmoney
03-24-2008, 05:27 PM
Wow a third thread!

BamaFalcon59
03-24-2008, 05:28 PM
That is rediculous, almost every team does it.

skinzzfan25
03-24-2008, 05:28 PM
Hahaha 3 within a minute, we needa merge :P

But yes Bama, I agree.

M.O.T.H.
03-24-2008, 05:28 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-080324-lance-briggs-bears-49ers,1,4494603.story

BaLLiN
03-24-2008, 05:30 PM
Well as far i heard he didnt really fit their scheme, but tampering is done all the time, idk if they should be taking away draft picks or switching them or whatever

Joeyjr09
03-24-2008, 05:30 PM
Yea they were found guilty of tampering charges.

Changing spots in the 3rd basically amounts to another 4th round pick as that's the value they would have to give up value wise to move up that high in the 3rd.

I know they are low picks but I think it's pretty steep for just talking to the guy when the Pats only gave up a low 1st for flat out blatant cheating.

If the price for talking to a player that isn't part of your team is a 4th and a 5th then the price for flat out getting caught cheating needs to be much higher then just a very, very low 1st.

bearsfan_51
03-24-2008, 05:31 PM
Aw nuts, I forgot that our pick was the 75th pick, not the 90th (which we got from the Chargers). Oh well, it really works out to the Niners losing a 5th and a 6th, not a big deal.

BeerBaron
03-24-2008, 05:33 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7949620/Niners-forfeit-draft-pick-over-Briggs-tampering

just a source. man this popped up a few places here.....anyway, ill take it. though i wish they gave us that 5th rounder too......

BamaFalcon59
03-24-2008, 05:35 PM
Good thing the 49ers don't have many needs.

KCJ58
03-24-2008, 05:36 PM
yea well i started the 1st thread that's all that matters

Joeyjr09
03-24-2008, 05:38 PM
Aw nuts, I forgot that our pick was the 75th pick, not the 90th (which we got from the Chargers). Oh well, it really works out to the Niners losing a 5th and a 6th, not a big deal.

Check your math. The difference between the 39 and 44 overall picks is 50 points. That amounts to a mid 4th rounder. That's a steep price.

A mid 4th and a fairly high 5th is really steep.

Basically added all together the Niners gave up a high 4th round pick (value wise) for talking to a player.

The Pats gave up a really really low 1st for getting caught cheating. Something doesn't add up in my book. Maybe it's just me but what the Pats did was so much worse then what the Niners did and I don't think the punishment is adding up. Either the Niners got hit way too hard or the Pats got hit way, way too easy.

Tampa 2 4 life
03-24-2008, 05:47 PM
Check your math. The difference between the 39 and 44 overall picks is 50 points. That amounts to a mid 4th rounder. That's a steep price.

A mid 4th and a fairly high 5th is really steep.

Basically added all together the Niners gave up a high 4th round pick (value wise) for talking to a player.

The Pats gave up a really really low 1st for getting caught cheating. Something doesn't add up in my book. Maybe it's just me but what the Pats did was so much worse then what the Niners did and I don't think the punishment is adding up. Either the Niners got hit way too hard or the Pats got hit way, way too easy.

They switched 3rds, not 2nds. The difference is 25 points.

bearsfan_51
03-24-2008, 05:56 PM
Check your math. The difference between the 39 and 44 overall picks is 50 points. That amounts to a mid 4th rounder. That's a steep price.

A mid 4th and a fairly high 5th is really steep.

Basically added all together the Niners gave up a high 4th round pick (value wise) for talking to a player.

The Pats gave up a really really low 1st for getting caught cheating. Something doesn't add up in my book. Maybe it's just me but what the Pats did was so much worse then what the Niners did and I don't think the punishment is adding up. Either the Niners got hit way too hard or the Pats got hit way, way too easy.
Check your math, we swapped the 70th and the 75th picks.

Splat
03-24-2008, 06:08 PM
Lost out on the player and lost a pick lame for them great for the Bears.

bigbluedefense
03-24-2008, 06:08 PM
If I was a Niners fan, Id hate Mike Nolan.

no love
03-24-2008, 06:09 PM
The penalty is not such a huge loss, although I do think it sets a precedent for teams moaning about tampering every time it happens in the hopes that they may get to switch draft positions with a team with a higher pick.

IMO the league should have just penalized the 49ers the 5th and been done with it, rather, than giving the bears the 3rd round pick it sets up a dumb precedent for something that doesn't even really help the bears all to much.

The thing that makes this such a mess is that reports say that the 49ers contacted Drew Rosenhaus... who is also the agent of Frank Gore who is already on our team. It's very easy for a team to contact an agent who they already work with and just be like "so how about (insert potential free agents name)" and that would be considered tampering.

Brent
03-24-2008, 06:27 PM
I wonder if we will get a pick for the Dolphins tampering with Smiley.

toonsterwu
03-24-2008, 06:28 PM
I'm actually quite pleased with sliding up in the 3rd. This does offer more flexibility. With the 2nd day now starting in the 3rd round, there stands a possibility that teams will revisit their boards after the first 2 rounds and target specific players at the start of day 2. Or if the Bears feel like moving up to secure someone, it makes that possibility a bit easier now.

Overall, this is big news. Very big. The picks may not be much, but it's the "Goodell Doctrine" for the NFL essentially. He's going to come down hard on things. I could see teams targeting other teams next offseason as a result to try and gain any sort of advantage.

MasterShake
03-24-2008, 06:39 PM
Well....we cheated and got caught.

Just cause everyone does it doesn't make it right. The sad part is teams will continue to tamper...just hide it better and nobody else will be penalized.

Heck...I'm sure the Bears have even tampered plenty of times. Its a d*** move by the bears, but whats done is done and the penalty isn't horrible.

fenikz
03-24-2008, 06:44 PM
good news for the nfc west i guess, but not that big of deal im sure everyone does it

TimD
03-24-2008, 06:45 PM
I know they are low picks but I think it's pretty steep for just talking to the guy when the Pats only gave up a low 1st for flat out blatant cheating.


They should have forced them to forfeit their number 7 pick instead of the 32. I know it was SF's pick but still.

Paranoidmoonduck
03-24-2008, 07:40 PM
I'm not sure how I feel about the decision to award the Bears something in this. By all rights, tampering is not a rare event, and if teams think they can score for reporting all events of it to the league, things could get ridiculous for a few years.

I don't mind penalizing San Francisco, I just don't like the precedent that awarding the Bears brings.

BeerBaron
03-24-2008, 07:43 PM
I'm not sure how I feel about the decision to award the Bears something in this. By all rights, tampering is not a rare event, and if teams think they can score for reporting all events of it to the league, things could get ridiculous for a few years.

I don't mind penalizing San Francisco, I just don't like the precedent that awarding the Bears brings.

i kind of like it, and not just as a bears fan. this means that more teams will be willing to step up and say something when they thing one of thier players is being tampered with and it might lead to tampering coming to a stop.

probably not though, everyone will just get smarter about it. but what do i care? the bears moved up a few spots in the third round, ill take it, lol

bearsfan_51
03-24-2008, 08:12 PM
I'm not sure how I feel about the decision to award the Bears something in this. By all rights, tampering is not a rare event, and if teams think they can score for reporting all events of it to the league, things could get ridiculous for a few years.

I don't mind penalizing San Francisco, I just don't like the precedent that awarding the Bears brings.
The Bears could have been adversely affected by the Niners tampering with their player. It may have hurt their ability to resign him, and certainly didn't do our team any favors chemistry-wise. Not to mention that it's the value of a 6th rounder, big whoop.

BamaFalcon59
03-24-2008, 08:49 PM
I think they should have just removed a draft pick, no rewarding the other team.

bigbluedefense
03-24-2008, 08:51 PM
The 49ers need to just start over again, and build their team with Patrick Willis as the focal point.

Id love to see a 4-3 defense put back in SF. Hire Ron Rivera and start over.

JK17
03-24-2008, 08:58 PM
The Bears could have been adversely affected by the Niners tampering with their player. It may have hurt their ability to resign him, and certainly didn't do our team any favors chemistry-wise. Not to mention that it's the value of a 6th rounder, big whoop.

I don't really have a problem with the Bears getting something, but the only problem I'd have is that its hard to keep that penalty on par if it should happen again. For ex. what happens if its between two teams with draft picks very far apart, it won't be as easy to balance it out, so that it amounts to just a 6th rounder.

BeerBaron
03-24-2008, 09:03 PM
I don't really have a problem with the Bears getting something, but the only problem I'd have is that its hard to keep that penalty on par if it should happen again. For ex. what happens if its between two teams with draft picks very far apart, it won't be as easy to balance it out, so that it amounts to just a 6th rounder.

if theyre real far apart maybe you just switch the rounds they pick in.

maybe if the niners picked late in the 2nd round and the bears early in the 3rd, you swap them or something.

Paranoidmoonduck
03-24-2008, 09:03 PM
The Bears could have been adversely affected by the Niners tampering with their player. It may have hurt their ability to resign him, and certainly didn't do our team any favors chemistry-wise. Not to mention that it's the value of a 6th rounder, big whoop.

My objection is that the NFL has now turned tampering into a good thing for one of the parties involved. Maybe the Bears had more troubles from the Niner's tampering, and maybe the NFL felt that compensation was neccesary, but in a time where the NFL is trying to make sure that no party benefits from this sort of behavior, they have suddenly made tampering good for the team that reports it.

I think that eradication by penalty and not reward is a much better course of action than what it appears the NFL has in mind.

Borat
03-24-2008, 09:24 PM
Mike Nolan can't even tamper correctly. This guy is clueless.

neko4
03-24-2008, 09:26 PM
wait, shouldnt lance briggs be in trouble too for not reporting it immediatly or something?

bearsfan_51
03-24-2008, 09:27 PM
My objection is that the NFL has now turned tampering into a good thing for one of the parties involved. Maybe the Bears had more troubles from the Niner's tampering, and maybe the NFL felt that compensation was neccesary, but in a time where the NFL is trying to make sure that no party benefits from this sort of behavior, they have suddenly made tampering good for the team that reports it.

I think that eradication by penalty and not reward is a much better course of action than what it appears the NFL has in mind.
But they are trying to discourage tampering. So by rewarding the team that reports it, and punishing the team that tampers, would that not serve to limit its occurance?

Shouldn't a team that reports it be compensated? You sound as if you think the Bears did something wrong in this situation.

bearsfan_51
03-24-2008, 09:28 PM
wait, shouldnt lance briggs be in trouble too for not reporting it immediatly or something?

If Lance Briggs was a GM, yes. His agent could be in trouble, but it's unclear what role Rosenhaus had in this, and if they could prove it.

neko4
03-24-2008, 09:29 PM
i just figured that Briggs/Rosenhaus should have to pay some sort of fine if they didnt tell what happened immediatly after the niners contacted briggs. but they might have reported it

Paranoidmoonduck
03-24-2008, 09:32 PM
But they are trying to discourage tampering. So by rewarding the team that reports it, and punishing the team that does not, would that not serve to limit its occurance?

More so than a situation that would punish the team that tampered and the player who allowed them to tamper? What's keeping teams from silently encouraging tampering now that they know it'll help them upgrade their draft position?

I've admired the NFL's effort to clean up so far because it didn't try to create a environment where teams were tattling on each other, it encouraged them to take responsibility for their players. I can totally get behind punishing the 49ers, but rewarding the Bears sends a message that is counter-intuitive to the sort of message the NFL has been sending until now.

There could be some extenuating circumstance where Briggs' involvement with San Francisco cost the Bears something, but on the surface I can't possibly see how this hurt them, and certainly not in a way that should involve them receiving draft picks.

bearsfan_51
03-24-2008, 09:33 PM
But again, it's not hard at all to make the case that in most cases, a team whose players are tampered with is hurt by that. I would prefer that teams not try to negotiate contracts with our players and they can keep the 5 spots we move up in the 3rd round.

The Bears should "tattle" because what the Niners were doing was affecting their ability to negotiate with their own players without another team's interferance. That's the whole point of the rule. It worked out for us this time, but there are plenty of times where a player will not re-up with a team simply because he already knows that he's going to get x amount of dollars from another team.

The difference this time was that the Niners blatantly got caught and pulled back their interest in Briggs to try and save face.

Paranoidmoonduck
03-24-2008, 09:39 PM
But again, it's not hard at all to make the case that in most cases, a team whose players are tampered with is hurt by that. I would prefer that teams not try to negotiate contracts with our players and they can keep the 5 spots we move up in the 3rd round.

I'd say it would be very hard to establish that most cases of tampering hurt the team that the player currently belongs to, if only because most cases of tampering never amount to anything (just like it didn't amount to anything here). The worst case scenario with the Bears is that maybe Briggs got an idea of what his market value was before the market opened, but he must have fielded quite a few offers once that happened regardless.

I fail to see how San Francisco hurt Chicago in a way that would require repayment.

The Bears should "tattle" because what the Niners were doing was affecting their ability to negotiate with their own players without another team's interferance. That's the whole point of the rule. It worked out for us this time, but there are plenty of times where a player will not re-up with a team simply because he already knows that he's going to get x amount of dollars from another team.

The difference this time was that the Niners blatantly got caught and pulled back their interest in Briggs to try and save face.

So the Bears tattle, the Niners retract their interest to save face, and the Bears get compensated beyond retaining Briggs how exactly? Unless the Niners made it especially difficult for Chicago to talk contract numbers with Briggs (possible, but total speculation), giving them additional assets sends a different message than the NFL has previously put out.

I'll be honest. The idea of all these teams trying to out each other to Roger Goodell in return for draft picks sounds like a terrible way to do business.