Why are Chicago Bears fans so clueless?
@ColonelConclusive (316)
United States
April 8, 2007 11:37pm CST
Living in Chicago as a non-Bears fan is difficult enough to stomach, but when Bears fans talk about the game or their team and the players on it, it's not only comical, but it's painful. I haven't heard one opinion or read one editorial that was in favor of Lance Briggs. How can this possibly be? Perhaps Bears fans should acquaint themselves with his previous performances before they shoot their mouths off.
Maybe Bears fans don't know Briggs has NEVER missed a game in his career. Can the beloved Brian Urlacher say the same? Of course not. Briggs also has more interceptions returned for touchdowns than ANY other linebacker in the NFL over the past three seasons, but yet it's Urlacher that's touted as a coverage linebacker. Uh, they've both got the same amount of INT's (6) in their first four years of pro ball. And, Briggs has also been to the Pro Bowl the last two years.
While doing the things he does so well, he's never earned more than a $500,000 in any one year's time. Meanwhile the average player salary is $1.4 million/year, and yet the average player doesn't go to the Pro Bowl. Urlacher's making like $4.5 million/year, and his contract was signed 4 years ago (with a $13 million signing bonus I might add).
Briggs has performed admirably on the field, and now he wants his due, like every other big performer in football. Why are fans so hostile towards him?
He's got every right to be upset. His contract expires and what do the Bears do? They don't negotiate with him and pay him what he thinks he's worth, they just slap a franchise tag on him, so they can pay him less money than that which he'd get elsewhere, and they still get his services for the year. That's downright dirty.
'No, we offered him a six year deal for $30 million," Bears fans say. Ok, do the math...that's five million a year, quite a bit less than what they're offering to pay him for one year of service. So, the franchise tag gets him an average of the top four paid players at that position, yielding $7.2 million for one year. That's great, but what if he gets hurt? Then he's screwed. Why would anybody take that risk? And the more pertinent question is, why should anybody that's given the kind of performances he's given to his team have to be put in that position? He shouldn't! And he's saying he's not. He's right, management and Bears fans are wrong. Period.
If you think otherwise, please explain your reasoning. I have yet to hear a logical explanation from any one Bear fan. That's pretty sad, considering I live in Chicago.
2 people like this
2 responses
@fpd1955 (2074)
• United States
9 Apr 07
Lance was offered a long-term contract last spring. He turned it down, even after Bears management told him they were considering placing a franchise tag on him, which is permissible under the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. He knew the tag was, not only a possibilty, but a probability. He was also told that the Bears would begin working on deals with other players and use some of the money, earmarked for him, to close these deals. 5 million a year for 6 years seems like a good deal to me. Apparently, it wasn't what he thought he was worth.
Because players do get injured, signing a long-term contract seems like a good idea to me. Don't you think he took the risk of turning it down in favor of trying to see if he could get more money somewhere else? He made this decision, knowing the consequences. He would have been making more, per year, than Urlacher. He had every right to turn it down, but he has a contract to play for the Bears for 7.2 million this year. He should honor his contract, just like he would expect the Bears to honor it.
Do I think the Bears can afford to pay Lance what he wants? Hell yes. But can they pay every player what they think they deserve and stay within the salary cap? Probably not!
A team consists of players that have one goal. If there is someone in that mix that could care less about the team and only worry about himself, then he should not be on the team. Hopefully, they can make some kind of deal that will make both, the Bears and Lance happy.
Lance is a great player and an asset to the TEAM. However, there have been other players throughout the NFL that have thought they were bigger than the TEAM. They were traded or signed elsewhere and did not or do not have success. Making threats about not playing for the team they are under contract with to the press only makes for bad blood.
@ColonelConclusive (316)
• United States
9 Apr 07
Of course five million a year for six years sounds like a good deal to you, it sounds good to me too. Then again, I don't make $250,000/year, and I'm not in the top 10% in the nation at my particular occupation.
Naturally, signing a long term deal is in the best interest of any player for risk of injury, but, that shouldn't mean he should get paid significantly less than what other players of his caliber get paid. And by signing that offer, that's exactly what he would have been succumbing to. Urlacher's contract was signed three years ago. Inflation has occurred since then. If Urlacher signed a contract today he'd get well over what he's making now simply because contracts have gone up. That's just economics.
Briggs has honored his crappy contract for the past four years. The Bears are dishonoring him by not signing him to a respectable long term deal, and then trying to steal his services for one year w/o putting his best interests into consideration. Brigg's contract is about money, yes, but not money for one year.
I don't think Briggs's situation is a matter of what's in the best interest of the team vs. what's in the best interest of himself. EVERY player in the league is out for himself, otherwise these guys would play for free. Briggs has played damn good ball and been paid mere pennies for it. Regardless of what team he plays for, he's playing for a ring, but he wants to be paid what's right while doing so.
I'm well aware of how the Collective Bargaining Agreement works, and I'm sure Briggs was/is too, but that doesn't make it right. I mean a chick could cheat on her husband, get caught, and cause a divorce. Without a prenup she still get's half of her husband's worth. Is that right? Of course not, but it's the law of the land. So just because the rules of the NFL state one thing, Briggs should have to honor it? The way I see it is his only play is to refuse service. And not that this has anything to do with briggs, but as far as the analogy above is concerned, the only play for a husband would be much like Briggs, refuse a divorce.
@fpd1955 (2074)
• United States
9 Apr 07
Okay, I won't even comment on the divorce analogy!!
Lance does have the choice to refuse to play. Then,I doubt the Bears would have to pay him.
As upset as I would be to see Lance move on, perhaps that is just what he needs to do, of course, this year it would have to be via the trade.
@ColonelConclusive (316)
• United States
10 Apr 07
Sorry, divorce analogy may have been a bit overboard. I don't think the trade would be in the Bears best interest anyways. He's certainly worth a first round pick, but such a player commands a minimum of $15 million (for an unproven rookie...which I think is crazy). So pay some rookie that doesn't know the system to come in and play for twice what Briggs would earn. I just don't understand the logic.
@66jerseygirl (3877)
• United States
10 Apr 07
whos says fans are intelligent? Look at the Eagle fans. last year the Eagles had lost 4 in a row with McNabb,they bring Garcia in who takes them to the playoffs and what happens? The fans still say they wanted McNabb back!Idiots! Garcia got screwed over by the fans and the franchise just like it sounds like with briggs
@ColonelConclusive (316)
• United States
10 Apr 07
yeah, that was pretty amazing by Garcia. I was especially ticked because we (Detroit Lions) had him for a whole season, and he didn't win four games. Couple that with the fact that what I believed to be our biggest cancer in Joey Harrington, goes to the Dolphins and has more success there in one year than he had in Detroit his whole career. Unfortunately, we just suck, period. We could have Johnny Unitas at the helm and we'd finish in the cellar.
Anyways, back to McNabb vs. Garcia. As amazing as Garcia's feats were, nothing beats the fact that McNabb threw three TD's on a broken ankle. That was a few years ago, but that one performance has w/o question made quite a mark on Philly fans. Garcia is still a decent qb though. Hey, is it true that there's a jail and a judge in the basement of Philly stadium because of how crazy fans get at the games?
And thanks for the welcome back!
1 person likes this
@ColonelConclusive (316)
• United States
10 Apr 07
A buddy of mine went to a philly/dallas game in philly (he's a dallas die hard) and he wore all his dallas gear. I guess some fans were heckling him and told him if he didn't take off his gear they'd report him to the judge and throw him in the basement jail. Naturally, he laughed it off, but inquired if such a place really existed, and a couple fans told him, yes, because philly fans get more rowdy than any other city. If that's true (the judge and jail part), that's pretty wild, and just a cool little sports fact most people aren't privy to.
