Why can't Bears top an offer for Moss?

Post #1 » by **emperorjones** » Mon Mar 3, 2008 11:17 pm

How great would it be if the Bears came out and topped the 3 year $27 million rumored Patriot's offer? Especially after losing Berrian?

I've been a Bears fan for 33 years. I can't remember them going after the guy who could be the difference maker either by trade (TO) free agency (Moss) or trading up in the draft to get the top pick. I don't say the Bears are cheap because they spend money in free agency and operate under the same cap as everyone else. But just once I'd like to trade up for the top pick or land the #1 free agent.

Howling Mad · Post #2 » by **Howling Mad** » Mon Mar 3, 2008 11:34 pm

Several teams were reported to want to to offer more, Vikes, Eagles, Packers, but in the end the only interest Randy had was NE.

He might be crazy, but not that crazy.

Plus, Sportscenter just reported the deal is done.

/thread.

Post #3 » by **dougthonus** » Mon Mar 3, 2008 11:38 pm

We don't really have that much cap space left, if we could have topped that offer then we would have had almost none left after the pool allocated to rookies.

Ruben Douglas · Post #4 » by **Ruben Douglas** » Mon Mar 3, 2008 11:43 pm

What about Bryan Cox?

WEFFPIM · Post #5 » by **WEFFPIM** » Tue Mar 4, 2008 3:12 am

Because the Bears are cheap

nitetrain8603 · Post #6 » by **nitetrain8603** » Tue Mar 4, 2008 3:14 am

dougthonus wrote:We don't really have that much cap space left, if we could have topped that offer then we would have had almost none left after the pool allocated to rookies.

Well what else do they need? Moss would be worth everything they threw at him because it's not like they're going to try to sign any other players.

NoSkyy · Post #7 » by **NoSkyy** » Tue Mar 4, 2008 3:43 am

If I was Randy Moss I wouldn't come here for all the money in the world.

Hmm, catching passes from Rex Grossman/Neckbear(I'm not quite sure why this nickname is so fitting) or catching passes from Tom Brady? I think he learned his lesson in Oakland.

SWIFTSLICK · Post #8 » by **SWIFTSLICK** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 1:35 am

The Bears are just as cheap now as they've always been. Moss was supposedly offered a better contract from the Eagles but he accepted NE's deal instead.

He just wanted to gauge his worth. He was always going to sign with the Pats. I mean, even if he wanted to go to another team...why would he pick the Bears (a team that's never had a franchise QB) over the Eagles, whom have a franchise QB in McNabb?

Post #9 » by **emperorjones** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 10:21 pm

Ruben Douglas wrote:What about Bryan Cox?

Post #10 » by **dougthonus** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 10:34 pm

Well what else do they need? Moss would be worth everything they threw at him because it's not like they're going to try to sign any other players.

Well we currently have only 3 starters on our offensive line. I'd say that might be a million times more important.

Remind me again how Randy Moss played on the Raiders when telling me he'd be worth the money with a lousy QB and wretched offensive line.

The Bears are just as cheap now as they've always been.

The Bears have been at the salary cap limit the past 4-5 years, and unlike the NBA, it's a hard cap, so you aren't allowed to go over it.

Don't let those pesky things called facts get in the way though.

Post #11 » by **emperorjones** » Wed Mar 5, 2008 11:44 pm

dougthonus wrote:The Bears have been at the salary cap limit the past 4-5 years, and unlike the NBA, it's a hard cap, so you aren't allowed to go over it.

This is the great point. The Bears have been spending money like everyone else. They are not cheap. But they don't spend it on stars. They have this "put good money at every position" strategy. But I look around the league and that doesnt seem to work. I don't count their $$ in Benson because that was a rookie contract.

I am over looking our linebackers now, but I'd just like to see them be the leaders in free agency or even take the risk like the Cowboys did on TO or the Patriots on Moss or other examples the last few years.

Post #12 » by **dougthonus** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 5:11 pm

Most teams who make a big splash don't do well.

The patriots got Moss on the cheap and he restructured his deal. If you are the Patriots you can do a lot of thins other teams can't because players expect to win a superbowl when they go there.

The Bears have a mediocre QB, and might have the worst offensive line in the NFL if the season started today. Spending what limited money we have on WRs seems like a train wreck waiting to happen give that a mediocre QB with no protection has a real, real low percentage chance of ending that situation well.

I'd rather pursue Max Starks (if the Steelers match then so be it, no skin off our back) and Jake Scott and go into the draft only needing to fill one hole on the offensive line and then still having some depth.

Chewie · Post #13 » by **Chewie** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 6:49 pm

dougthonus wrote:The Bears have a mediocre QB, and might have the worst offensive line in the NFL if the season started today.

This is besides the main gist of your post but this line got me thinking. IF the season started today....I'm wondering which teams would have a worse offensive line (3 starter quality guys under contract), starting QB (Rex the Hex or Neckbeard), RB (Benson, coming off ankle surgery no less), and WRs (Booker/Hester/Bradley).

The answer may very well be ZERO on all counts without exaggeration. ZERO. :banghead:

Post #14 » by **dougthonus** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:33 pm

I agree, and except for the offensive line (whom we could have had hope for last year) you could have said teh same thing about the team going into last year.

Chewie · Post #15 » by **Chewie** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:35 pm

dougthonus wrote:I agree, and except for the offensive line (whom we could have had hope for last year) you could have said teh same thing about the team going into last year.

Thus the awesome record, eh? This is all too depressing. Let's get some FA o-linemen in here for visits already!

Post #16 » by **dougthonus** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:41 pm

Touche! Though you could have said the same thing looking at our offensive talent in the superbowl year. Berrian wasn't even proven then, but he kind of busted out. Grossman had never had a solid year yet in his career or even looked mediocre.

So you never know entirely, but I agree it looks pretty hopeless on offense right now. I'm hoping we use our first 2 picks on offensive linemen (as long as we don't reach) and that Hester/Bradley can step up similarly to how Berrian did (when he was an unknown) and that Benson runs tougher with a real line.

IT's a lot to hope for, but I've got nothing else.

Chewie · Post #17 » by **Chewie** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 7:51 pm

Well, it looks like a lot of relying on defense and special teams again this coming year. It's funny how people say that's what "Bears football" is all about - 'defense/ball control/4 yards and a cloud of dust' and all that but this town would eat a Manning-type offense up. We've just never seen a pass happy team before.

Soooo....I'm still going on the assumption that Benson is the stiff I think he is and we get a starting-quality offensive linemen thru free agency. I will then hope we go RB, OL, WR in Rds 1 thru 3. I'm guessing, though, it'll go more like OL, WR, QB as going RB early would make Angelo look bad given Benson and Woolfe are his mistakes.

If there was a QB I could trust in Round 1, I'd say do what you can to get him even if it involves trading up but I'm not sure you can hang your hat on any of those guys this year. Great timing for us, right ?

My thoughts in a nutshell...

Post #18 » by **dougthonus** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 8:17 pm

I'm hoping we go offensive line with 2 of our first 3 picks, though I'm probably dreaming. A WR isn't likely to make an immediate impact, and I feel a RB isn't going to do much behind our current offensive line.

Somewhere we need to get a new QB, and the odds of ever landing a great one in FA are pretty low, but the draft is such a crap shoot with QBs and the amount of time you have to spend developing them to get them where you need makes me want to hold off on that too.

Maybe OL, RB, OL or RB, OL, OL. However, I don't want to get too hung up on positions, the key thing is getting the best players. Better to take a stud LB than to get a bust at any other position even if LB isn't a need.

Chewie · Post #19 » by **Chewie** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 8:24 pm

Interesting.... This is the first I've seen you on record as listing RB as a need. You're with me that Benson is not the answer ?

Post #20 » by **emperorjones** » Thu Mar 6, 2008 8:59 pm

dougthonus wrote:Most teams who make a big splash don't do well.

I agree with your whole post. But I pull this out to stress my point. I've been following this team for 33 years. I'd like for them to try the BIG splash and have it go wrong at least once every 10 or 12 years. (and yes I guess at the time Bryan Cox was a big splash but with Wanny behind the wheel, we could have signed God and and come up short).