<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Chicagoist: Briggs Burning Bridges</title>
<link>http://chicagoist.com/2007/03/13/briggs_burning_bridges.php</link>
<description>All comments for Briggs Burning Bridges</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>2009 Marcus Gilmer</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
<managingEditor>marcusisabadass@gmail.com</managingEditor>
<webMaster>marcusisabadass@gmail.com</webMaster>
<ttl>60</ttl>
<item>
<title>completely useless by september </title>
<link>http://chicagoist.com/2007/03/13/briggs_burning_bridges.php#comment-1037963</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://chicagoist.com/2007/03/13/briggs_burning_bridges.php#comment-1037963</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:23:01 -0600</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;I think the other reason he&apos;s throwing his hissy fit is that this offseason has been WACKY in terms of the stupid money everyone&apos;s been throwing around. ($3 million a year for a fullback?!?! Do offenses even use fullbacks anymore?) 

So I really think Lance wanted to see what would happen on the open market (witness Adalius Thomas&apos; fat contract with the Patriots) thinking someone (i.e.- Dan Snyder and the Redskins) would just shovel money at him for name recognition alone.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>Mike</title>
<link>http://chicagoist.com/2007/03/13/briggs_burning_bridges.php#comment-1037817</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://chicagoist.com/2007/03/13/briggs_burning_bridges.php#comment-1037817</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:07:02 -0600</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;TO is batshit crazy, but Drew Rosenhaus is a grade-A douchebag.  Imagine the Jay Mohr character in Jerry Maguire, only much much worse.  &lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>geekgrrl</title>
<link>http://chicagoist.com/2007/03/13/briggs_burning_bridges.php#comment-1037713</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://chicagoist.com/2007/03/13/briggs_burning_bridges.php#comment-1037713</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:52:26 -0600</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;okay, thank y&apos;all for the explanation.  i did see him on espn last night saying something about T.O. but i didn&apos;t know what it was about.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>Wood-Tang</title>
<link>http://chicagoist.com/2007/03/13/briggs_burning_bridges.php#comment-1037702</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://chicagoist.com/2007/03/13/briggs_burning_bridges.php#comment-1037702</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:37:25 -0600</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Chuck, T.O.&apos;s antics have less to do with Rosenhaus than the fact that he is batshit crazy.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>jerry</title>
<link>http://chicagoist.com/2007/03/13/briggs_burning_bridges.php#comment-1037699</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://chicagoist.com/2007/03/13/briggs_burning_bridges.php#comment-1037699</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:23:38 -0600</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Pay the man.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>Chuck</title>
<link>http://chicagoist.com/2007/03/13/briggs_burning_bridges.php#comment-1037688</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://chicagoist.com/2007/03/13/briggs_burning_bridges.php#comment-1037688</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:08:37 -0600</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;The franchise tag allows an NFL team the privilege to designate a player who is an unrestricted free agent (one who has the ability to sign with the highest bidder) as a player that they can&apos;t afford to lose, and effectively sign him to a one-year contract equal to the average salaries of the top five players at that player&apos;s position. In this case, $7.2 million

Many teams do this in order to keep players they deem valuable to the team, while re-stocking at that player&apos;s position through other means.  The implication with the franchise tag in this instance is that the Bears believe that they have no chance of re-signing Briggs, but prefer to keep him under contract long enough to find a replacement.  

Long-term NFL contracts, however, can and are voided at any minute.  The big money in the long-term contracts is in the guaranteed signing bonuses, which is what Briggs is really angling for here.  He won&apos;t get that signing bonus as a franchise player, under NFL rules.  And, since he&apos;s apparently stretched thin financially, that&apos;s the prize he has his eyes locked on.

One final bit Benjy forgot to mention is that Briggs&apos; agent is Drew Rosenhaus, who, among other NFL players, represents Terrell Owens, and was instrumental in Owens&apos; disrupting the Philadelphia Eagles two years ago.  A lot of what Briggs is doing right now has Rosenhaus&apos; fingerprints all over them.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>John</title>
<link>http://chicagoist.com/2007/03/13/briggs_burning_bridges.php#comment-1037684</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://chicagoist.com/2007/03/13/briggs_burning_bridges.php#comment-1037684</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:05:36 -0600</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Geek,

Each team has the right to &quot;franchise&quot; one player per season. This year the Bears chose to franchise Briggs. What that means is, he is paid the &quot;franchise amount&quot; (in Briggs&apos; case, 7.2 mm which is the average of the 5 highest paid players in the league at his position) for one year. If other teams better that offer, the Bears have the right to either match it or receive two first-round draft picks in exchange (very good, relatively inexpensive compensation). Now, 7.2 mm is a lot of money for one year, which is why only good players are franchised. But Briggs is upset because it&apos;s just a one year contract and he wants a multi-year deal. If he goes and gets a career-hampering injury this season, he&apos;ll feel like he lost out on a lot of money. From the Bears&apos; point of view, they want to keep him without committing a lot of money over a longer period of time. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>geekgrrl</title>
<link>http://chicagoist.com/2007/03/13/briggs_burning_bridges.php#comment-1037679</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://chicagoist.com/2007/03/13/briggs_burning_bridges.php#comment-1037679</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 06:41:01 -0600</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;humor a football know-nothing.  what&apos;s the &quot;franchise&quot; tag thing all about?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>surtin</title>
<link>http://chicagoist.com/2007/03/13/briggs_burning_bridges.php#comment-1037639</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://chicagoist.com/2007/03/13/briggs_burning_bridges.php#comment-1037639</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:22:17 -0600</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;The way the Bears defense is setup, Cover 2, it&apos;s made so the weak side LB can penetrate and make plays. 

Sure Lance is a great athlete and all that, but honestly he plays next to one of the few great MLB&apos;s in the league. No one&apos;s stupid enough to run up the middle anymore, so they take it to the left or right (Briggs or Hillenmeyer).

I guess what I&apos;m trying to say is, the deal that the Bears were willing to give him last year was fine. Could they have bumped it up a little bit this year? Sure why not. But we&apos;ve got more important things to worry about, namely our secondary and O-line. LOLB are a dime a dozen, so if he goes, he goes.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
