What are the Bears thinking [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

CYYYFYYY

03-05-2007, 07:59 PM

They trade there best offensive player Thomas Jones to the JEts for an upgrade number 2 pick. WHAT THE HELL! They decide to keep Grossman rather than going for Car or even PLummer. I do not understand any of this. MAybe we can get another exciting number 2 pick for Briggs. Can anyone make sense of this?????

Snacks

03-05-2007, 08:09 PM

I was shocked to see that trade earlier today and pissed (miami fan) Jones has been very very good the past 3-4 years and was highly respected by his peers. The Bears seem to be making mistake after mistake this offseason. They took forever to give lovie a new and better deal, not going after another QB, Lance Briggs doesnt want to play for them ever again b/c they franchised him rather sign him to a long term deal and now this awful trade.  Not only do the Jets get Thomas they also get the Bears 2nd round pick and all they give up is their own 2nd rounder. Pathetic.

King Hippos Bandaid

03-06-2007, 09:40 AM

Dare I Say Cedric Benson, Starting Running Back    Yickkkkkkkkkk

Tenbatsuzen

03-06-2007, 09:44 AM

CYYYFYYY wrote: They trade there best offensive player Thomas Jones to the JEts for an upgrade number 2 pick. WHAT THE HELL! They decide to keep Grossman rather than going for Car or even PLummer. I do not understand any of this. MAybe we can get another exciting number 2 pick for Briggs. Can anyone make sense of this????? I was about to say that it might be salary cap related, but the bears have plenty of room.  Maybe he was a behavorial issue?  Oh wait, Tank Johnson...

Knowledged_one

03-06-2007, 09:44 AM

an early 2nd round pick is the going rate for running backs thats the facts, and they didnt want to lose Jones who would be a FA next year (Jets most likely will sign him to an extension) for nothing.  Not to mentino they already have money invested in Cedric Benson so its the ways of the NFL its not that stupide really considering the Redskins had to give up Champ Bailey and a 2nd round pick for Clinton Portis and the Chargers tendered Micheal Turner to the point that any team would have to give up a 1st and 3rd round pick for him.

TheMojoPin

03-06-2007, 10:18 AM

Jones was losing a step with each year.  He made some big plays this year, but his whole "dance and spin" style of running just isn't cutting it as he gets older, less strong and slower.  Benson isn't as fast, but he has shown he can muscle through over and over again (his injury and rare fumble in the Super Bowl nonwithstanding).  And people clamoring for the Bears to try and get a new quarterback aren't really thinking.  They need to spend their best draft pick on a safety, period.  Mike Brown is too old and too injured and they have little quality to back him up.  A quality safety is much more ssential to their team right now than dumping Rex, who they have cheap for one more year.  He's shown he can often be good to great...hope that this first full year worked out a lot of issues and see what he can do while your most potent asset, the defense, is still at its peak.  The only way they can move on from Rex is with some kind of monster trade, which would have to hurt the defense. The ideal situation would be to start shifting Benson to a more primary role and having Jones as a backup, but he's a FA after this next year and he's gonna want his payday as a starting player.  It makes no sense for the Bears to keep him.  In fact, I'd like to see them trade Briggs and Ogunleye for picks, too.  Stock up on young players that way and still keep the core.

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-6-07 @ 2:25 PM

K.C.

03-06-2007, 03:19 PM

I don't think it was a terrible idea. Thomas Jones, while good, was a product of that offensive line and system. Cedric Benson should theoretically be able to do it as good, if not better. And what Mojo said is absolutely right. As we've learned with the Eagles, you have to stock up on young players, especially after you get to a Super Bowl or string together a number of good seasons in a row, because the price on the free agents on your team starts to go WAY up after that, and rather than destroy your cap, you need to stock guys who will be ready to fill in and start so you can afford to let guys go.

cougarjake13

03-06-2007, 04:59 PM

K.C. wrote: I don't think it was a terrible idea. Thomas Jones, while good, was a product of that offensive line and system. Cedric Benson should theoretically be able to do it as good, if not better. And what Mojo said is absolutely right. As we've learned with the Eagles, you have to stock up on young players, especially after you get to a Super Bowl or string together a number of good seasons in a row, because the price on the free agents on your team starts to go WAY up after that, and rather than destroy your cap, you need to stock guys who will be ready to fill in and start so you can afford to let guys go. the idea itself wasnt badits what they gave up that was bad

TheMojoPin

03-06-2007, 05:28 PM

cougarjake13 wrote: K.C. wrote: I don't think it was a terrible idea. Thomas Jones, while good, was a product of that offensive line and system. Cedric Benson should theoretically be able to do it as good, if not better. And what Mojo said is absolutely right. As we've learned with the Eagles, you have to stock up on young players, especially after you get to a Super Bowl or string together a number of good seasons in a row, because the price on the free agents on your team starts to go WAY up after that, and rather than destroy your cap, you need to stock guys who will be ready to fill in and start so you can afford to let guys go. the idea itself wasnt badits what they gave up that was badNah, not relly.  Jones isn't that good.

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-6-07 @ 9:29 PM

cougarjake13

03-06-2007, 05:39 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: cougarjake13 wrote: K.C. wrote: I don't think it was a terrible idea. Thomas Jones, while good, was a product of that offensive line and system. Cedric Benson should theoretically be able to do it as good, if not better. And what Mojo said is absolutely right. As we've learned with the Eagles, you have to stock up on young players, especially after you get to a Super Bowl or string together a number of good seasons in a row, because the price on the free agents on your team starts to go WAY up after that, and rather than destroy your cap, you need to stock guys who will be ready to fill in and start so you can afford to let guys go. the idea itself wasnt badits what they gave up that was badNah, not relly.  Jones isn't that good.This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-6-07 @ 9:29 PM his not that good but jones and their later 2nd rd pick to move up maybe 10 spots in the 3nd rd doesnt make sense to me

epo

03-06-2007, 05:57 PM

I try to use this logic in a deal.  Using the <a href="http://www.nfldraftblitz.com/pick_value_chart.htm">NFL Draft Pick Value Chart</a> you can value the trade:The Jets gave up:37th pick which is worth 530 pts.The Bears gave up:63 pick which is worth 276 pts.Meaning the Bears got the value of the 67th (524pts) pick for Thomas Jones.  For a running back with 8 years under his belt going into the final year of his deal, they did ok for themselves.

cougarjake13

03-06-2007, 06:10 PM

epo wrote: I try to use this logic in a deal.  Using the <a href="http://www.nfldraftblitz.com/pick_value_chart.htm">NFL Draft Pick Value Chart</a> you can value the trade:The Jets gave up:37th pick which is worth 530 pts.The Bears gave up:63 pick which is worth 276 pts.Meaning the Bears got the value of the 67th (524pts) pick for Thomas Jones.  For a running back with 8 years under his belt going into the final year of his deal, they did ok for themselves.   shit i didnt realize the jets had that early of a 2nd rd pick, must be from a trade since the jets made the playoffs i figured theyd be in the late 50's early 60's in terms of their 2nd rd pick

TheMojoPin

03-06-2007, 06:12 PM

cougarjake13 wrote: epo wrote: I try to use this logic in a deal.  Using the <a href="http://www.nfldraftblitz.com/pick_value_chart.htm">NFL Draft Pick Value Chart</a> you can value the trade:The Jets gave up:37th pick which is worth 530 pts.The Bears gave up:63 pick which is worth 276 pts.Meaning the Bears got the value of the 67th (524pts) pick for Thomas Jones.  For a running back with 8 years under his belt going into the final year of his deal, they did ok for themselves.   shit i didnt realize the jets had that early of a 2nd rd pick, must be from a trade since the jets made the playoffs i figured theyd be in the late 50's early 60's in terms of their 2nd rd pick No wonder you thought the deal didn't make any sense.  If what you thought was the case, I'd be punching Soldier Field as we speak.

cougarjake13

03-06-2007, 06:13 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: cougarjake13 wrote: epo wrote: I try to use this logic in a deal.  Using the <a href="http://www.nfldraftblitz.com/pick_value_chart.htm">NFL Draft Pick Value Chart</a> you can value the trade:The Jets gave up:37th pick which is worth 530 pts.The Bears gave up:63 pick which is worth 276 pts.Meaning the Bears got the value of the 67th (524pts) pick for Thomas Jones.  For a running back with 8 years under his belt going into the final year of his deal, they did ok for themselves.   shit i didnt realize the jets had that early of a 2nd rd pick, must be from a trade since the jets made the playoffs i figured theyd be in the late 50's early 60's in terms of their 2nd rd pick No wonder you thought the deal didn't make any sense.  If what you thought was the case, I'd be punching Soldier Field as we speak.yeh cause then theyd be only moving up 5-10 spots and losing jones as well37 th is a whole lot different

ralphbxny

03-07-2007, 12:01 PM

I love the trade....but I am a Jet Fan!

TheMojoPin

03-07-2007, 12:39 PM

ralphbxny wrote: I love the trade....but I am a Jet Fan! Thanks for the pick!This isn't really one of those "hey, one side got screwed!" trades.  The Bears got a much better pick, which they need, and the Jets get what they need in Jones, plus they'll re-sign him.  The Bears weren't going to re-sign him with Benson.  Works out for both sides.

Snacks

03-07-2007, 04:08 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: ralphbxny wrote: I love the trade....but I am a Jet Fan! Thanks for the pick!This isn't really one of those "hey, one side got screwed!" trades.  The Bears got a much better pick, which they need, and the Jets get what they need in Jones, plus they'll re-sign him.  The Bears weren't going to re-sign him with Benson.  Works out for both sides.Why do you say that? I think they need a reliable, quality RB just as much especially with their QB and style of offensive play. Cedric Benson is ureliable, unproven etc. and the 2nd round pick will not help now. Jones has been the Bears workhorse for 3 seasons now and the team loves him.

TheMojoPin

03-07-2007, 04:32 PM

Snacks wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: ralphbxny wrote: I love the trade....but I am a Jet Fan! Thanks for the pick!This isn't really one of those "hey, one side got screwed!" trades.  The Bears got a much better pick, which they need, and the Jets get what they need in Jones, plus they'll re-sign him.  The Bears weren't going to re-sign him with Benson.  Works out for both sides.Why do you say that? I think they need a reliable, quality RB just as much especially with their QB and style of offensive play. Cedric Benson is ureliable, unproven etc.No, he's not even close to being either of those things.and the 2nd round pick will not help now.Why are you assuming they'll use this pick for a RB? Jones has been the Bears workhorse for 3 seasons now and the team loves him.And Benson has been groomed to replace him and has shown that he can.  Jones was coming up on his last year and he wants a long contract.  It would be stupid for the Bears to do that when they have Benson ready to go.

TheMojoPin

03-07-2007, 04:45 PM

Snacks wrote: Lance Briggs doesnt want to play for them ever again b/c they franchised him rather sign him to a long term deal Actually, the Bears had two generous long term deals on the table to him that he publically turned down.  Briggs has handled this horribly and has put himself into the corner.  I have my issues with how the Bears treat their personel, but they were actually trying to do right by Briggs.  He just thinks he's bigger than he is.  Like I said, I'd have no problem if they traded him for some good picks at this point.  He's very good, but he's not essential.

Snacks

03-07-2007, 07:13 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: Snacks wrote: Lance Briggs doesnt want to play for them ever again b/c they franchised him rather sign him to a long term deal Actually, the Bears had two generous long term deals on the table to him that he publically turned down.  Briggs has handled this horribly and has put himself into the corner.  I have my issues with how the Bears treat their personel, but they were actually trying to do right by Briggs.  He just thinks he's bigger than he is.  Like I said, I'd have no problem if they traded him for some good picks at this point.  He's very good, but he's not essential.I love Briggs. If Miami didnt sign porter to a 5 or 6 year deal I would love to trade for him. The Bears could have one of our shitty QB's.

TheMojoPin

03-08-2007, 05:14 AM

Snacks wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Snacks wrote: Lance Briggs doesnt want to play for them ever again b/c they franchised him rather sign him to a long term deal Actually, the Bears had two generous long term deals on the table to him that he publically turned down.  Briggs has handled this horribly and has put himself into the corner.  I have my issues with how the Bears treat their personel, but they were actually trying to do right by Briggs.  He just thinks he's bigger than he is.  Like I said, I'd have no problem if they traded him for some good picks at this point.  He's very good, but he's not essential.I love Briggs. If Miami didnt sign porter to a 5 or 6 year deal I would love to trade for him. The Bears could have one of our shitty QB's.They're not trading Briggs for a QB unless it's part of a deal for a superstar.

ralphbxny

03-08-2007, 11:22 AM

I am not a bears fan but why are they keeping Grossman?

Knowledged_one

03-08-2007, 11:24 AM

ralphbxny wrote: I am not a bears fan but why are they keeping Grossman? who would you like to see them get?  The bottom line is because of injuries this guy has only started maybe 20 games in his careerwhat did grossman do that many other young qb's didnt do?  At this point he is much further along then Eli Manning

TheMojoPin

03-08-2007, 12:44 PM

ralphbxny wrote: I am not a bears fan but why are they keeping Grossman? Because at this point there's no reason to try and get a new QB unless a superstar somehow stumbles into their lap in a steal trade.  They have Grossman cheap for one more year.  He's only played one full year.  Yes, he had some disaster games.  He had more outstanding games, though.  He also had more average to good games, too.  Dumping him and going with Griese or Orton doesn't solve anything and, contrary to the hacks, a worse team.