Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Briggs close to backing down

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • bearsfan_51
    started a topic Briggs close to backing down

    Briggs close to backing down

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2948213

    Sounds like the same deal Nate Clements agreed to last year.

    I'm actually suprised that Briggs might agree to do this before training camp, rather than waiting it out and signing by the 3rd week of preseason and collecting the same amount of dough. Don't mess with Jerry Angelo.

  • Bearsfan123
    replied
    Originally posted by TitleTown088 View Post
    When he's not getting arrested? He's been arrested once and hasn't even been convicted yet .I don't think Barnett is a guy whom people associate with character concerns. It was just a minor run in.
    oh relax i was just taking a shot at him since hes a packer. I wasnt seriously stating anything. Plus look at it this way, I DID put two packers on the list. ^_^

    Leave a comment:


  • iowatreat54
    replied
    Right, I understand that Urlacher's contract is ancient...but simply the fact that he wants to be paid more than the best player on the team just strikes me as ridiculous...but I understand it's not his fault Urlacher is greatly underpaid, but still

    Leave a comment:


  • P-L
    replied
    Briggs deserves more money than Urlacher is making simply because the market has changed. Urlacher's contract is four years old. Urlacher makes only $6.2 million per year because his contract is so old. If Jerry Angelo offered Briggs less than $6.2 per year he probably would be laughed off the face of the Earth. You just can't compare what a contract [potentially] signed this year to one signed four years ago. The market has changed a ton in those four years.

    Leave a comment:


  • iowatreat54
    replied
    I don't understand how Briggs was demanding more money essentially than what the Bears are paying Urlacher...granted Urlacher's contract is way under what he deserves and I understand Briggs wanted to go onto the market to get the most $$ from any team...but did he honestly think that by trying to scare the Bears by "holding out" that they would pay him more than they are paying Urlacher? Personally, for that logic alone I wouldn't try it...

    Leave a comment:


  • sweetness34
    replied
    Per www.chicagosports.com the deal is done, and www.espn.com.

    Leave a comment:


  • SFbear
    replied
    Well good riddance to that whole circus. Now onto Rex Grossman...

    Leave a comment:


  • neko4
    replied
    Dont do it Briggsy!

    Leave a comment:


  • Vince Lombardi
    replied
    An interesting little wrinkle in the deal:

    More important, the Bears have agreed that they will not use a franchise marker in 2008 on Briggs, to again limit his mobility, provided that he participates in 75 percent of the defensive snaps this season.
    If Briggs gets hurt, or misses a significant amount of playing time for some other reason, he could find himself right back where he just was; tagged by the Bears.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheChampIsHere
    replied
    Originally posted by The Dynasty View Post
    Did see it posted anywhere so i thought i post it.

    source: Pft.com

    POSTED 4:13 p.m. EDT, July 25, 2007

    BRIGGS DEAL NOT AS CLOSE AS ADVERTISED

    A league source tells us that, despite a report in the Chicago Tribune suggesting that the Bears and linebacker Lance Briggs could soon be getting together on a one-year deal, an end to the offseason-long impasse between the two sides isn't as close as suggested.

    Briggs, the Bears' franchise player under the CBA, has been tendered a one-year contract that is worth $7.2 million in guaranteed money, if/when he signs it. July 16 was the deadline for working out a long-term deal, but the Tribune reported that Briggs could be signing a one-year deal soon, which would give him a big chunk of the salary as a signing bonus and a promise that the Bears would not hang the franchise tag on him in 2008.

    A reader has asked whether the Bears could remove the franchise tag and then sign Briggs to a long-term deal. We suppose that it's possible, but we're not so sure that the Bears would be willing to take the risk that an unrestricted Briggs would make a beeline for the Redskins.
    yet again proving why I never visit PFT or take any of the rumors I hear from there with any merit...The deal is made official pretty much immediately after they report this.

    Leave a comment:


  • NGSeiler
    replied
    http://www.chicagobears.com/news/New...?story_id=3614

    So I guess this means no holdout into the season...

    Leave a comment:


  • The Dynasty
    replied
    According to NFLN he signed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shiver
    replied
    It's hard to evaluate Seahawks players when they play on the other side of the world.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moses
    replied
    Originally posted by Shiver View Post
    Julian Peterson says hello from Seattle.
    They play a hybrid 4-3/3-4 I thought?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Dynasty
    replied
    Did see it posted anywhere so i thought i post it.

    source: Pft.com

    POSTED 4:13 p.m. EDT, July 25, 2007

    BRIGGS DEAL NOT AS CLOSE AS ADVERTISED

    A league source tells us that, despite a report in the Chicago Tribune suggesting that the Bears and linebacker Lance Briggs could soon be getting together on a one-year deal, an end to the offseason-long impasse between the two sides isn't as close as suggested.

    Briggs, the Bears' franchise player under the CBA, has been tendered a one-year contract that is worth $7.2 million in guaranteed money, if/when he signs it. July 16 was the deadline for working out a long-term deal, but the Tribune reported that Briggs could be signing a one-year deal soon, which would give him a big chunk of the salary as a signing bonus and a promise that the Bears would not hang the franchise tag on him in 2008.

    A reader has asked whether the Bears could remove the franchise tag and then sign Briggs to a long-term deal. We suppose that it's possible, but we're not so sure that the Bears would be willing to take the risk that an unrestricted Briggs would make a beeline for the Redskins.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X

Debug Information