Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Just to kill the FA OT messenger.

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

  • Just to kill the FA OT messenger.

    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.
    http://i38.tinypic.com/2aj2s7t.jpg
    For a good time call (303) 499-7111.whitspacsig by steel man

    United: "I actually went to the college I root for"

  • #2
    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.
    Pugnacity, testosterone, truculence, and belligerence.

    Comment


    • #3
      What if we don't want Starks?

      sig by VLS
      Originally posted by Smokey Joe
      I don't care...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Geo View Post
        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...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Hurricane Ditka View Post
          What if we don't want Starks?
          We want a tackle. Ergo, this affects us.
          http://i38.tinypic.com/2aj2s7t.jpg
          For a good time call (303) 499-7111.whitspacsig by steel man

          United: "I actually went to the college I root for"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by awfullyquiet View Post
            We want a tackle. Ergo, this affects us.
            We shouldn't want Starks though. Because he's not good.

            sig by VLS
            Originally posted by Smokey Joe
            I don't care...

            Comment


            • #7
              it makes the other Tackles more expensive though

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by BeerBaron View Post
                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.
                Pugnacity, testosterone, truculence, and belligerence.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Geo View Post
                  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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.
                      Pugnacity, testosterone, truculence, and belligerence.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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.


                        Nobody cares about your stupid fantasy team.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by toonsterwu View Post
                            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.


                            Nobody cares about your stupid fantasy team.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.
                              Pugnacity, testosterone, truculence, and belligerence.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X

                              Debug Information