Bears 12.0
Moderators: HomoSapien, coldfish, Payt10, Ice Man, dougthonus, Michael Jackson, Tommy Udo 6 , kulaz3000, DASMACKDOWN, fleet, GimmeDat, RedBulls23, AshyLarrysDiaper
Re: Bears 12.0
-
fleet
- Senior Mod - Bulls

- Posts: 70,083
- And1: 37,378
- Joined: Dec 23, 2002
-
Re: Bears 12.0
-
jnrjr79
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,772
- And1: 4,040
- Joined: May 27, 2003
- Location: Chicago
Re: Bears 12.0
That is a lot to give up for a guy who immediately becomes the highest paid non-QB in the league by a mile.
Re: Bears 12.0
-
Betta Bulleavit
- General Manager
- Posts: 7,778
- And1: 2,885
- Joined: Oct 29, 2004
-
Re: Bears 12.0
fleet wrote:
What a way to piss in the entire NFC North’s Cheerios….
Re: Bears 12.0
-
fleet
- Senior Mod - Bulls

- Posts: 70,083
- And1: 37,378
- Joined: Dec 23, 2002
-
Re: Bears 12.0
jnrjr79 wrote:That is a lot to give up for a guy who immediately becomes the highest paid non-QB in the league by a mile.
Those were gonna be lower FRP anyway.
They immediately become Super bowl/NFC title contenders on paper. If you’re gonna do it, the Packers were in the perfect situation. Cap space, paid quarterback, ready talent, and the youngest team in the NFL or damn close. Long run is possible.
Generally these kind of deals are not my cup of tea. The only exception is if you’re the proverbial one player away, and the player is like in his mid twenties. The youth of the Packers kind of puts this over the top as a considerable thing.
Re: Bears 12.0
-
1985Bear
- Junior
- Posts: 342
- And1: 270
- Joined: Jun 10, 2021
-
Re: Bears 12.0
Can’t wait to find out if Dice is really a Packer fan and loves this move…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Bears 12.0
-
fleet
- Senior Mod - Bulls

- Posts: 70,083
- And1: 37,378
- Joined: Dec 23, 2002
-
Re: Bears 12.0
Betta Bulleavit wrote:fleet wrote:
What a way to piss in the entire NFC North’s Cheerios….
I had thought the Bears could compete with them, the Bears actually could have beaten them twice last year. One player shouldn’t be so deflating, but Khalil Mack did put the Bears defense on another level..
Re: Bears 12.0
-
Betta Bulleavit
- General Manager
- Posts: 7,778
- And1: 2,885
- Joined: Oct 29, 2004
-
Re: Bears 12.0
fleet wrote:Betta Bulleavit wrote:fleet wrote:
What a way to piss in the entire NFC North’s Cheerios….
I had thought the Bears could compete with them, the Bears actually could have beaten them twice last year. One player shouldn’t be so deflating, but Khalil Mack did put the Bears defense on another level..
It’s what Parsons does relative to our weakness that worries me. If I’m being honest, I don’t know that I’d have wanted him at 47M a year plus picks. It’s just idea of him coming to our division. Ugh….
Re: Bears 12.0
-
Betta Bulleavit
- General Manager
- Posts: 7,778
- And1: 2,885
- Joined: Oct 29, 2004
-
Re: Bears 12.0
is a silver lining here. At least we don’t have to worry about seeing him in week 3. 
Re: Bears 12.0
-
fleet
- Senior Mod - Bulls

- Posts: 70,083
- And1: 37,378
- Joined: Dec 23, 2002
-
Re: Bears 12.0
Betta Bulleavit wrote:fleet wrote:Betta Bulleavit wrote:What a way to piss in the entire NFC North’s Cheerios….
I had thought the Bears could compete with them, the Bears actually could have beaten them twice last year. One player shouldn’t be so deflating, but Khalil Mack did put the Bears defense on another level..
It’s what Parsons does relative to our weakness that worries me. If I’m being honest, I don’t know that I’d have wanted him at 47M a year plus picks. It’s just idea of him coming to our division. Ugh….
That team is always terrorizing us with the elite guys off the edge, ****.
Not a good time to have 4 left tackles.
Re: Bears 12.0
-
biggestbullsfan
- RealGM
- Posts: 12,758
- And1: 2,287
- Joined: Apr 28, 2004
-
Re: Bears 12.0
Follow me at http://twitter.com/2witterlessFred
Re: Bears 12.0
-
panthermark
- RealGM
- Posts: 21,701
- And1: 4,004
- Joined: Mar 15, 2010
- Location: Undisclosed: MJ's shadow could be lurking....
-
Re: Bears 12.0
- dougthonus
- Senior Mod - Bulls

- Posts: 58,912
- And1: 19,001
- Joined: Dec 22, 2004
- Contact:
-
Re: Bears 12.0
GinWeary wrote:dougthonus wrote:fleet wrote:Last I heard was that he was around last week working out in some capacity. It doesn’t sound like something dire like cancer in that case, more like diabetes if we are to try and extend this tea leaf process on medical possibilities. At this point, Poles wants to be mysterious, and given his track record of incomplete homework with that mysterious statement, I can’t extend confidence that the Bears were as thorough as they could have been whatever it is. We’re just gonna find out someday. Meantime, I can envision a scenario where Al Harris pounded the table, Poles said cool, fait accompli. Because Poles has earned the suspicion.
I doubt he wants to be mysterious. He likely has a legal requirement to be mysterious because of HIPAA.
I do not think this is the case, as NFL organizations are not considered a "covered entity" (e.g., health insurance plans, doctors, or clearinghouse providers dealing with health data) to which HIPAA laws apply. I don't even think HIPAA laws apply to the team-employed medical staff. Similarly, TMZ is not a covered entity and can leak details on every celebrity's health conditions or imminent demise. Additionally, every team provides injury updates frequently; if HIPAA applied, we would not even get those.
The Bears are simply the employer with no obligation to HIPAA. The fact that they, as an employer, and every other sports organization, have direct access to a player's health reports is a unique situation and blurs some lines.
I am sure they are keeping this private, as you've said earlier, because it is a serious condition, and once the season starts, it will essentially be a non-story.
Quick google search will say it is the ADA, but same outcome. An employer most definitely cannot talk about a medical condition of their employee. If I inform HR I have cancer at my company, they are obligated to say nothing other than I will be on long term disability. They can't share my medical information without my release. It is not 100% certain that this is a case covered by the law in this way, but it sounds like it based on the verbiage they are using to me.
I agree, TMZ (or any news outlet) is in a different boat because they are not an employer.
Re: Bears 12.0
- dougthonus
- Senior Mod - Bulls

- Posts: 58,912
- And1: 19,001
- Joined: Dec 22, 2004
- Contact:
-
Re: Bears 12.0
fleet wrote:jnrjr79 wrote:That is a lot to give up for a guy who immediately becomes the highest paid non-QB in the league by a mile.
Those were gonna be lower FRP anyway.
They immediately become Super bowl/NFC title contenders on paper. If you’re gonna do it, the Packers were in the perfect situation. Cap space, paid quarterback, ready talent, and the youngest team in the NFL or damn close. Long run is possible.
Generally these kind of deals are not my cup of tea. The only exception is if you’re the proverbial one player away, and the player is like in his mid twenties. The youth of the Packers kind of puts this over the top as a considerable thing.
I don't know enough about the Packers to know if they are one player away, but I agree with this take. If you think you are, the cost doesn't matter, similar to the Rams getting Matthew Stafford and winning the superbowl. Sometimes you need to go all in.
I also agree, not the general type of deal I'd be looking for except in pretty unique circumstances, but the Packers might be in those exact circumstances now.
Re: Bears 12.0
- Susan
- RealGM
- Posts: 21,519
- And1: 7,900
- Joined: Jan 25, 2005
- Location: jackfinn & Scott May appreciation society
-
Re: Bears 12.0
Parsons is younger, better and came cheaper in his trade for the Packers than Mack was for the Packers.
Parsons is going to eat Braxton Jones alive.
Parsons is going to eat Braxton Jones alive.
Re: Bears 12.0
- nomorezorro
- RealGM
- Posts: 13,271
- And1: 10,390
- Joined: Jun 22, 2006
- Location: bfk
Re: Bears 12.0
he wasn't cheaper than mack (nor should he have been, because he is younger/better)
obviously i don't like that the packers got an incredibly good player, but there are still some pretty notable potential weak points on that roster, so i'm not really gonna sweat it until i see them actually perform at an elite level
obviously i don't like that the packers got an incredibly good player, but there are still some pretty notable potential weak points on that roster, so i'm not really gonna sweat it until i see them actually perform at an elite level
WookieOnRitalin wrote:Game 1. It's where the series is truly 0-0.
Re: Bears 12.0
-
MAQ
- RealGM
- Posts: 45,852
- And1: 3,021
- Joined: Feb 28, 2006
- Location: Dedication
-
Re: Bears 12.0
Very condescending. Cant imagine their readers enjoy being talked to in such a fashion. Definite turn off for me.
Share your opinion and stfu. Don't post like your thoughts are law.
GYBE wrote:I don't think my behaviour changes at all when I'm drunk. But when I'm wasted, my girlfriend becomes a real klutz. She starts walking into doors and falling down stairs. Weird.
Re: Bears 12.0
-
Chi town
- RealGM
- Posts: 29,608
- And1: 9,187
- Joined: Aug 10, 2004
Re: Bears 12.0
fleet wrote:Betta Bulleavit wrote:fleet wrote:
What a way to piss in the entire NFC North’s Cheerios….
I had thought the Bears could compete with them, the Bears actually could have beaten them twice last year. One player shouldn’t be so deflating, but Khalil Mack did put the Bears defense on another level..
Will be even sweeter when we beat them at home and at Lambeau.
In Ben we trust.
Re: Bears 12.0
-
CBS7
- Retired Mod

- Posts: 26,576
- And1: 4,212
- Joined: Jan 21, 2005
- Location: Dallas
Re: Bears 12.0
This undoubtedly scary in the short run, this screws their cap over in the long run. They are basically paying 2 highly paid QBs.
Re: Bears 12.0
-
dice
- RealGM
- Posts: 44,106
- And1: 13,027
- Joined: Jun 30, 2003
- Location: chicago
Re: Bears 12.0
CBS7 wrote:This undoubtedly scary in the short run, this screws their cap over in the long run. They are basically paying 2 highly paid QBs.
it's pretty much the same thing every time a team does this. immediate improvement, backloaded contract, then the bill comes due in a year or two. happened with the bears and khalil mack. packers have also backloaded love's contract, so they're obviously trying to win a super bowl in the next year or two. no reason to mortgage the future if you think your QB is the real deal in the long-term, though
bears fans, like every other fanbase that would like a(nother) great EDGE, should be happy that their team did not make this deal
jerry jones did not want to reset the EDGE market on this guy for whatever reason (possibly cap constraints in part). the pack will not only reset the market, but throw in a couple of 1sts. AND eat kenny clark's contract this season. it's stupidity. but 98% of football fans will not realize it for a couple of years. if ever
God help Ukraine
God help those fleeing misery to come here
God help the Middle East
God help the climate
God help US health care
God help those fleeing misery to come here
God help the Middle East
God help the climate
God help US health care
Re: Bears 12.0
-
dice
- RealGM
- Posts: 44,106
- And1: 13,027
- Joined: Jun 30, 2003
- Location: chicago
Re: Bears 12.0
Susan wrote:Parsons is going to eat Braxton Jones alive.
and almost every other OT in the league
God help Ukraine
God help those fleeing misery to come here
God help the Middle East
God help the climate
God help US health care
God help those fleeing misery to come here
God help the Middle East
God help the climate
God help US health care






