Jump to content
southsider2k5

2016-2017 NFL Thread

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 12, 2016 -> 03:57 PM)
This is what the common sense interpretation of what we just saw today would be. A respectful farewell to one of the best players in recent franchise history.

 

Nope. They should have low balled him and pissed him off enough so that he is publicly bitter until the next regime comes in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 12, 2016 -> 03:18 PM)
I bet you were saying that the Bears should get rid of Thomas Jones and keep Cedric Benson.

 

Cause you know, RBs over 30 are always worse than younger rbs.

 

LOL

 

 

HAHAHA HAHAHAHA Paying 30 year old RB's rarely works out. The Bears agree with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (shipps @ Feb 12, 2016 -> 03:59 PM)
Nope. They should have low balled him and pissed him off enough so that he is publicly bitter until the next regime comes in.

 

Why wouldnt the best option be:

 

"Hey Matt we think you are an amazing player and we appreciate everything you have done. Unfortunately there is a salary cap in the NFL and while we would love to have you back we think that you are going to get a multi-year offer that is far in excess of what we can afford at this time. If that doesn't materialize or if you want to try and work out something that is extremely favorable to us, please contact us to discuss."

 

Different strokes for different folks, but to me that is the best option.

 

And I dont think its really comparable to Urlacher wasnt likely to be signed to a big contract where the Bears could go "The money didnt make sense."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 12, 2016 -> 04:04 PM)
HAHAHA HAHAHAHA Paying 30 year old RB's rarely works out. The Bears agree with me.

 

You act like the Bears are a successful franchise that deserves being given the benefit of the doubt.

 

(edit)

 

And the part I love is that people are acting like Id suggest bringing Forte back. I doubt that he will make sense given what his likely contract will be. That being said, I think the Bears handled it wrong. Those are 2 different arguments.

Edited by Soxbadger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 12, 2016 -> 04:10 PM)
You act like the Bears are a successful franchise that deserves being given the benefit of the doubt.

 

(edit)

 

And the part I love is that people are acting like Id suggest bringing Forte back. I doubt that he will make sense given what his likely contract will be. That being said, I think the Bears handled it wrong. Those are 2 different arguments.

 

 

Okay. I disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 12, 2016 -> 04:04 PM)
Why wouldnt the best option be:

 

"Hey Matt we think you are an amazing player and we appreciate everything you have done. Unfortunately there is a salary cap in the NFL and while we would love to have you back we think that you are going to get a multi-year offer that is far in excess of what we can afford at this time. If that doesn't materialize or if you want to try and work out something that is extremely favorable to us, please contact us to discuss."

 

Different strokes for different folks, but to me that is the best option.

 

And I dont think its really comparable to Urlacher wasnt likely to be signed to a big contract where the Bears could go "The money didnt make sense."

 

There is a big difference between what is said in public, and what is said in private. We only know what was said in public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 12, 2016 -> 04:29 PM)
There is a big difference between what is said in public, and what is said in private. We only know what was said in public.

 

And I have no idea what was said in private, which is why my first post was merely wondering why theyd take such a stance.

 

For all I know both parties agreed that this is what they would publicly say (which would answer my own question.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 12, 2016 -> 04:33 PM)
And I have no idea what was said in private, which is why my first post was merely wondering why theyd take such a stance.

 

For all I know both parties agreed that this is what they would publicly say (which would answer my own question.)

 

Besides, if fans can't figure out what a simple statement like the one they released today actually means, why would the Bears release something that contains an element of unknown and really confuse them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 12, 2016 -> 04:34 PM)
Besides, if fans can't figure out what a simple statement like the one they released today actually means, why would the Bears release something that contains an element of unknown and really confuse them?

 

Well I always suggest that you remain silent. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 12, 2016 -> 04:04 PM)
Why wouldnt the best option be:

 

"Hey Matt we think you are an amazing player and we appreciate everything you have done. Unfortunately there is a salary cap in the NFL and while we would love to have you back we think that you are going to get a multi-year offer that is far in excess of what we can afford at this time. If that doesn't materialize or if you want to try and work out something that is extremely favorable to us, please contact us to discuss."

 

Different strokes for different folks, but to me that is the best option.

 

And I dont think its really comparable to Urlacher wasnt likely to be signed to a big contract where the Bears could go "The money didnt make sense."

Nothing about Forte money makes sense. Not signing him is safe. The Bears aren't that close.

Edited by AustinIllini

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved Langford since he was drafted, so I'm down with this.

 

Gonna miss Forte though. Great career as a Bear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2016 -> 01:41 PM)
?

Shaun King posted a one sided hit piece on him in the NY Daily News about his sexual harassment lawsuit from when he was in college.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...I've always said I hated Manning and I had heard stories about the Mannings from some pretty keyed in people, but wow is all I can say. They are football's version of the Kennedy's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (AustinIllini @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 08:26 AM)
While I'm not sure how I feel about the Manning stuff, it's amazing how little airplay it is getting on ESPN.

 

Just more proof ESPN is an arm of the NFL.

ESPN has and will coverup articles to protect certain elements and they will likely continue to. Of course the one item I know about them keeping quiet (covering up might be the wrong word, rather decide not to cover), isn't near to the extent of what is happening here. You'd think Sports Illustrated or a competitor would be all over something like this though (if there were serious legs to it). The article was pretty damning (presuming all the information contained within it is true).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 10:48 AM)
It's funny in sports media when people accomplish things (not that Peyton did anything in SB50) you have the social justice warriors come out of the woodwork and bring up some old story and rewrite some story that's already been out for years. When crooked politicians get elected there's nothing but blow job pieces. Where is the medium here?

 

It has been tied into the larger lawsuit brought against UT about covering up rapes, not really out of the woodwork as much as bad timing for Peyton.

 

He made some bad decisions about this entire thing though, he should have shut up about it a few times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 11:07 AM)
It has been tied into the larger lawsuit brought against UT about covering up rapes, not really out of the woodwork as much as bad timing for Peyton.

 

He made some bad decisions about this entire thing though, he should have shut up about it a few times

 

Hasnt he already paid the girl in civil suit money...twice? To me its over and has been settled. Does it show Manning is probably a pretty bad guy? Yeah, but it should've have been his story line years ago.

 

I really don't care for Manning but this just seems like the media controlling the public opinion of a guy as they collectively deem to fit for the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (shipps @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 11:48 AM)
Hasnt he already paid the girl in civil suit money...twice? To me its over and has been settled. Does it show Manning is probably a pretty bad guy? Yeah, but it should've have been his story line years ago.

 

I really don't care for Manning but this just seems like the media controlling the public opinion of a guy as they collectively deem to fit for the moment.

 

 

Yea there is a gag order on it for both of them now. His book comments were the last comments he made about her.

 

 

Its strange, on one hand i agree that this is over and done with, it was public record (although rarely spoken of) and nobody said anything until he won the superbowl this season. One the other hand, he and UT destroyed this womans reputation. You cant get that back, i feel bad for her

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I'm not sure how I feel about the Manning stuff, it's amazing how little airplay it is getting on ESPN.

 

Just more proof ESPN is an arm of the NFL.

 

It got pretty extensive discussion on Mike&Mike this morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×