Brian Urlacher: Where's the Outrage?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Ok, but did we hear Lav Coles on every tv and radio show? Yet, wasn't there a whole thread here about what a jerk he is?

Yeah but we really didn't know much about that situation until the end when everything came out. And even then it's a select amount of Redskins fans that seem to hold a grudge. If you asked fans of other teams they probably wouldn't even know the extent of the Coles/Snyder debacle.

[hagams]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

honestly, the Bears should have known this and reworked his deal after giving Briggs the big extension. If you looked to your right or left and saw a guy making more money than you, and you are the best LB on the team (top 5 in the NFL at your position) wouldn't you be a little pissed. I dont blame him for wanting more money. I blame the Bears for not addressing this when it should have been addressed.

I'm really suprised nobody brought that up about the Briggs deal. That's the first thing that popped in my head. If the lesser of the two can complain and get more money, why not BU? Are the a little on the gready side, Yes. Do we need either of them, NO. Would we be happy to have BU if we didn't have London, Yes.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Yeah but we really didn't know much about that situation until the end when everything came out. And even then it's a select amount of Redskins fans that seem to hold a grudge. If you asked fans of other teams they probably wouldn't even know the extent of the Coles/Snyder debacle.

Most fans knows Snyder told Coles he was going to send him a flat screen TV to watch the games from home and that he would bench him for two years then cut him.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by hagams

I'm really suprised nobody brought that up about the Briggs deal. That's the first thing that popped in my head. If the lesser of the two can complain and get more money, why not BU? Are the a little on the gready side, Yes. Do we need either of them, NO. Would we be happy to have BU if we didn't have London, Yes.

Briggs was a free agent to be when he was complaining, whereas Urlacher is under contract, is coming off a bad year, battling injuries & about to turn 30. Yet, for some reason, he thinks the team should re-up w/more $ to pay him on par to the player he was 2 years ago.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I don't have much of a problem with players who hold out, particularly when they don't play for us. I do, however, have a problem with Chad Johnson because he seems to be your stereotypical "me...me...me" wideout. It's not as though this is an isolated incident.

[lwiedy]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Briggs was a free agent to be when he was complaining, whereas Urlacher is under contract, is coming off a bad year, battling injuries & about to turn 30. Yet, for some reason, he thinks the team should re-up w/more $ to pay him on par to the player he was 2 years ago.

Correct me if I’m wrong but Briggs first started griping when they put the franchise tag on him. So, technically he was not a “free agent” in the truest sense. Perhaps he felt he was worth more but he was still bound by the agreement, no different than a contract.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by saden1

Most fans knows Snyder told Coles he was going to send him a flat screen TV to watch the games from home and that he would bench him for two years then cut him.

Personally I doubt most fans of other teams really know or care much about what went on.

The football world doesn't revolve around the Redskins.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by lwiedy

Correct me if I’m wrong but Briggs first started griping when they put the franchise tag on him. So, technically he was not a “free agent” in the truest sense. Perhaps he felt he was worth more but he was still bound by the agreement, no different than a contract.

I believe the difference is that the two sides (player/management) don't generally agree to the "franchise tag." It's simply a right the team has to exercise, it's different from two sides agreeing on a contract

Now though, Briggs shouldn't complain. He was a free agent and on the market and, for whatever reason, he agreed to a pretty crappy deal (in relative terms).

[SmootSmack]

Here's an update:

Bears' Urlacher: 'I never said that I was going to quit' -- chicagotribune.com

[SmootSmack]

Not surprising there are two conflicting reports from the two major Chicago papers

[SFREDSKIN]

Personally I like Urlacher for 3 reasons:

1- He claims to have grownup as a Redskins fan

2- He banged that whore Paris Hilton

3- He's a great LB

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

The football world doesn't revolve around the Redskins.

Blasphemy, I say! How dare you!?

[lwiedy]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I believe the difference is that the two sides (player/management) don't generally agree to the "franchise tag." It's simply a right the team has to exercise, it's different from two sides agreeing on a contract

Now though, Briggs shouldn't complain. He was a free agent and on the market and, for whatever reason, he agreed to a pretty crappy deal (in relative terms).

You are certainly right there. And it is not suprising that a guy is unhappy if he feels he's been short changed. I was just addressing the original point that his original crying was not when he was a FA, but bound to an agreement (in essense, a contract) which gave him no more real right to complain than B.U., that's all.

Was his FA deal crappy? I really don't know the particulars. Hard to imagine that after all that posturing about how the system failed him, he wouldn’t have done better for himself.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Lest we think Chad Johnson holds a monopoly on complaining...why aren't we all up in arms over this? Because he's not as "loud" as Chad Johnson?

"Urlacher feels he has outplayed his contract and is demanding more money. He's boycotting the team's voluntary offseason workout program and threatening to hold out of minicamp, organized team activities and even training camp if he doesn't get a new deal."

Brian Urlacher situation is tricky business for Bears :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Sports

The Bears have so many players who want new deals (Harris, Hester, Gould, even Briggs is allegedly complaining). They're a mess

I don't care, because there haven't been any rumors about him showing up here. I'll bet if I started a thread and posted some sort of BS link, rumoring him to be coming here, it would get the same attention and responses the CJ threads have (until folks found out it was bogus).

That being said, Urlacher needs to play under his current contract. Sound to me like his agent/s trying to get paid one last time before his injuries catch up to him. Also convenient that the Bears have $ 16M of cap space. The tactics many agents use are sickening (I know the teams are not saints either).

I have more respect for CJ, I know money is always an issue, but I don't think him wanting out of Cincy is solely about money.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN

Personally I like Urlacher for 3 reasons:

1- He claims to have grownup as a Redskins fan

2- He banged that whore Paris Hilton

3- He's a great LB

1. Cool

2. Cool, but he's on a pretty long list.

3. WAS a great LB, his best days are behind him.