PDA

View Full Version : Briggs does the Clements deal


Mudflap1
07-25-2007, 05:40 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2949139

No franchise tag next year.

Jon
YardRat
07-25-2007, 06:14 PM
Where Marv Levy leads, others follow. I'd look for more of this in the future.
OpIv37
07-25-2007, 06:23 PM
It was a stupid move for Levy and it's a stupid move for the Bears. Both teams are losing great players in exchange for nothing.
X-Era
07-25-2007, 06:39 PM
It was a stupid move for Levy and it's a stupid move for the Bears. Both teams are losing great players in exchange for nothing.

So, if we had paid SF's deal to Clements you would have been happy?

I remember almost all of us, probably even you saying we should bench him in the early part of the season we have the cash, we could have spent it, but if we paid even close to what SF paid, we would be WAY overspending.
TacklingDummy
07-25-2007, 06:42 PM
I hope they go back on their word.
casdhf
07-25-2007, 06:47 PM
It's probably written into the contract. I doubt Briggs would just accept a handshake promise.
YardRat
07-25-2007, 07:06 PM
It was a stupid move for Levy and it's a stupid move for the Bears. Both teams are losing great players in exchange for nothing.

They're getting a player on the field for one more year who is going to play their ass off, for a 'market' price. A player that they couldn't afford this year anyway, and won't be able to next year barring injury.

It's a short-term bargain, but a bargain nonetheless.
MikeInRoch
07-25-2007, 07:08 PM
It's probably written into the contract. I doubt Briggs would just accept a handshake promise.

I bet he would. For one thing, he could just hold out next year. For another, having a team go back on something like that would KILL them come free agent time.
djjimkelly
07-25-2007, 07:42 PM
So, if we had paid SF's deal to Clements you would have been happy?

I remember almost all of us, probably even you saying we should bench him in the early part of the season we have the cash, we could have spent it, but if we paid even close to what SF paid, we would be WAY overspending.



well it will still be a thing to be seen if they overpaid i have a feeling this new CBA is gonna make clements deal look avg in 2-3 years.
Bulldog
07-25-2007, 07:50 PM
well it will still be a thing to be seen if they overpaid i have a feeling this new CBA is gonna make clements deal look avg in 2-3 years.

If this statement proves to be correct, then more than half of the NFL franchises will be in serious trouble. NFL=MLB A select few teams (i.e. ...Dallas, Washington, New England) will dominate, while the rest are left to pick through the scraps. And when that happens, I'm out!
OpIv37
07-25-2007, 10:09 PM
So, if we had paid SF's deal to Clements you would have been happy?

I remember almost all of us, probably even you saying we should bench him in the early part of the season we have the cash, we could have spent it, but if we paid even close to what SF paid, we would be WAY overspending.

No, I would have been happy if we had tagged Clements this year and gotten something for him- obviously the desire was there- the guy got an obscene contract.

Agreeing not to franchise Clements again was a mistake by Marv. Deal with it.
justasportsfan
07-26-2007, 06:47 AM
It was a stupid move for Levy and it's a stupid move for the Bears. Both teams are losing great players in exchange for nothing.
there's a difference. No one wanted Briggs this year when the bears tried to shop him unless MArv tried to shop Clements ast year and no one wanted him either . In that case both GM's rather than have them sit it out, did what they had to do.