Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 87
G
Practice Squad
OP Offline
Practice Squad
G
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 87
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2788148

Under the right circumstances, two-time Pro Bowl linebacker Lance Briggs could play his entire career with the Chicago Bears, and be a happy man.


"The Chicago Bears team? The coaches, players, city and fans? Yeah, I could stay there forever. I love it. But the Chicago Bears organization? I don't want to be there anymore. I won't play for them and I'll do everything in my power to keep from playing there."
-- Lance Briggs
Under the restrictive terms of the franchise designation with which the Bears have marked him, though, and with the defending NFC champions apparently offering him nothing more than the one-year option it entails, Briggs said Sunday evening that he doesn't want to play another day for the club that brought him into the league in 2003.

"There's a difference between the Chicago Bears team and the Chicago Bears organization," Briggs told ESPN.com, when reached Sunday evening at his home in suburban Chicago. "The Chicago Bears team? The coaches, players, city and fans? Yeah, I could stay there forever. I love it. But the Chicago Bears organization? I don't want to be there anymore. I won't play for them and I'll do everything in my power to keep from playing there."

In a 30-minute conversation by phone, Briggs -- distressed by the restrictions of the NFL franchise tag, by his inability to shop himself in the free agent market, and by the recent departure of defensive coordinator Ron Rivera -- offered his first insights into his current situation.

And he offered, Briggs said, what is the only truly viable solution to an untenable circumstance.

"They need to either [rescind] the franchise tag, and let me move on, or trade me to another team," Briggs said. "Because that's about the only way this thing can have any kind of a positive resolution."

Having failed last spring to consummate a long-term contract with Briggs -- reportedly a seven-year, $33 million deal on which both sides worked for several weeks before the negotiations collapsed -- the Bears employed the franchise tag last week to keep the four-year veteran off the open market.

It marked the first time under the stewardship of general manager Jerry Angelo, who in the past has acknowledged the potential acrimony that accompanies the franchise marker, the Bears have used the restriction.

The qualifying offer for a franchise linebacker is $7.206 million, the average of the top five highest paid players at the position. But only three days into free agency, top defenders such as cornerback Nate Clements (with San Francisco), edge rusher Adalius Thomas (New England) and middle linebacker London Fletcher-Baker (Washington) have signed lucrative contracts with new teams.

Sitting at home, watching the free agency parade pass him by, Briggs became, he acknowledged, increasingly frustrated by his lot. And not just, he emphasized, by the financial implications of the situation.

"You hate to get into that whole 'lack of respect' thing," Briggs said. "But you play four years for a team, do your best, exceed their expectations, right? And every year, it's like, 'You played great, Lance.' And they kind of dangle the carrot, like they're going to take care of you, and then it doesn't happen. I mean, I was a middle-round pick and I've played well for them. Four years and at just middle-round salaries. I haven't caused any kinds of problems. I've done everything they asked and them some. And I don't know if I ever really knew where I stood with them until they put the tag on me."

A former Arizona standout, Briggs was chosen by the Bears in the third round of the 2003 draft. He earned a starting job as a rookie, emerged by his third seasons as one of the NFL's top young weakside 'backers, and was chosen for the Pro Bowl in each of the past two seasons.

Even playing in the lengthy shadow of middle linebacker Brian Urlacher, with whom he has become close friends, Briggs is regarded leaguewide as a top defender and playmaker.

He did sit out the voluntary portion of the team's offseason workouts last spring, it should be noted, but reported for the mandatory workouts and was in training camp on time.

There is little doubt that if Briggs was in the unrestricted pool right now, he would be a coveted player. But the Bears seem inclined to force him to play for the one-year franchise offer and there have been no discussions on a long-term deal since last spring. Under the current rules, Chicago has until July 16 to sign Briggs to a longer deal or he must play 2007 for the franchise number.

Which is something, Briggs said Sunday night, he won't do.

"It's a great bunch of guys with a great future, but I can't see myself as being part of that future anymore," Briggs said. "Whatever options are available to me, I'll take advantage of them. But going back and playing for the Bears again, no, I don't see that as an option. Not one more day. Not at all."

Senior writer Len Pasquarelli covers the NFL for ESPN.com.




Should be interesting to see how this situation plays out. It obviously seems like Briggs is pretty set to never play for the Bears again. What does everyone think that Briggs will draw in a trade? He's only been in the league for four years and is a two time pro-bowler. Will a team give up a 1st or possibly more when they know that the Bears are pretty much going to have to move him, unless they decide to let him sit out the year (highly unlikely).

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864
BpG Offline
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864
LOL, tell us how you really feel Lance....

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 87
G
Practice Squad
OP Offline
Practice Squad
G
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 87
Quote:

LOL, tell us how you really feel Lance....




Haha, yea...he certainly didn't pull any punches. The Bears have shown over the past few years that they have been pretty cheap and havn't wanted to do big deals until it was absolutely necessary. They finally got Lovie Smith a new deal, however it took much longer than it should have and seemed to come only after the national media put quite a bit of pressure on them. It just seems like a strange way to do business to me.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864
BpG Offline
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864
It seems like smart business to me. Pay them as little as possible, for as long as possible...companies do it everyday

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
F
Legend
Offline
Legend
F
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015

In business and in the NFL it seems smart but it has consequences.

Workers who are paid below market value tend to have less loyalty which equates to less interest in doing their jobs to the best of their ability.

This kinda goes with the whole minimum wage aspect. Sure there's companies that want to pay minimum and get away with it, but if you look at their employee turnover, you will see a trend.

When companies pay average or better than average wages, they get better production out of their average worker, which pays off in the long run.

Consider the cost of training someone, and figure if you turn over a position every 2 years, and it take 6-9 months to train a new person.. Is the company really profiting from the employee.

now the NFL is a little different, these guys make more in 1 year than the average person makes in a lifetime. Yes in relation to the industry, you either pay competitive rates, or players will move on. If that player moves on you need to replace them, and to do so with equal talent is not possible unless you pay for it. So you put someone new, and it takes 1-2 years fro them to develop.

Now that newly developed player wants his fair market value, or you lose him, and you start the cycle all over.

I'm not advocating breaking the bank for every player, but you have to be willing to pay or be willing to start over. For some teams they can plug someone new in and carry on, but it doesn't last forever.


We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 246
D
Practice Squad
Offline
Practice Squad
D
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 246
How does a trade work on a player under the franchise tag? Would he still be under the tag with the new team or would it be more like he was traded with 1 year left on his contract?


Go Browns !!!!
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 87
G
Practice Squad
OP Offline
Practice Squad
G
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 87
Quote:


In business and in the NFL it seems smart but it has consequences.

Workers who are paid below market value tend to have less loyalty which equates to less interest in doing their jobs to the best of their ability.

This kinda goes with the whole minimum wage aspect. Sure there's companies that want to pay minimum and get away with it, but if you look at their employee turnover, you will see a trend.

When companies pay average or better than average wages, they get better production out of their average worker, which pays off in the long run.

Consider the cost of training someone, and figure if you turn over a position every 2 years, and it take 6-9 months to train a new person.. Is the company really profiting from the employee.

now the NFL is a little different, these guys make more in 1 year than the average person makes in a lifetime. Yes in relation to the industry, you either pay competitive rates, or players will move on. If that player moves on you need to replace them, and to do so with equal talent is not possible unless you pay for it. So you put someone new, and it takes 1-2 years fro them to develop.

Now that newly developed player wants his fair market value, or you lose him, and you start the cycle all over.

I'm not advocating breaking the bank for every player, but you have to be willing to pay or be willing to start over. For some teams they can plug someone new in and carry on, but it doesn't last forever.




Very well put FloridaFan. I was thinking about how to word what I was going to say but you said it perfectly. Obviously if we could get away with paying every player the minimum, we would. However, if you continue to let your good players and personel walk away, eventually it will catch up to you. The Bears also let Ron Rivera walk earlier in the offseason. They very well could have two people waiting in the wings to take over for these guys, but that remains to be seen.

Although I really hate it when a player decides to hold out, I don't think I can blame Briggs in this situation. The team has basically told him that they have no interest in signing him beyond this upcoming season. If you take a look at the past three seasons, he has performed as well if not better than Urlacher while getting paid significantly less.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?statsId=5038
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?playerId=4526

Of course some will say that Briggs puts up numbers becasue of playing next to Urlacher, but who's to say that it's not the other way around? Of course the Bears could already have someone to replace him, at which point I would proceed to insert foot in mouth, but to me this kid seems like an up-and-coming defensive star. I know that I would not be too happy as a Browns fan if this type of situation was currently playing out like this in Cleveland.

Quote:

How does a trade work on a player under the franchise tag? Would he still be under the tag with the new team or would it be more like he was traded with 1 year left on his contract?




Not exactly sure, but I would have to think that any team that wanted to trade for Briggs would want to work out some sort of long-term deal beforehand. I'm sure that someone else has much more knowledge of how this works. I know that these type of discussions took place for a few offseasons in regards to Orlando Pace so somebody can enlighten us.

Last edited by GreenDawg95; 03/05/07 05:18 PM.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803
I read this on the other board and thought I would run it past you guys.

Lets trade our No. 1 pick to Chicago for Briggs and their No. 1 pick(31). WE could really use Briggs and at No. 3 Chicago can get either Russell or Quinn. At 31 we could be looking at Staly OT from Central Michigan. Whata ya think?



#gmstrong
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
how bout nooooooooooo.

Briggs wants big bucks. No desire to pay it. Our number 3 is worth way more than that dude. AP or Joe Thomas or one of the QBs would be much better for the team IMO


UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Briggs to Bears: Rescind the tag or trade me

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5