Briggs Coming Back?

[Ares]

Yeah lets bring in a guy who quit on his team before a single game was even played with new coaches. Fuck. All. That.

He won't quit dis time doe cuz he likes da coaches dis time.... we should only expect players to work hard and whatnot if they agree with who the coach is....

Side note.... I heard Briggs will return as a combo Asst LB Coach/BBQ Quality Assurance Guy....

 

[shoopster]

 

[remydat]

Any person that brings up Dick Butkus in a discussion of NFL football in 2015 is the one who is dumb. For those old enough to have seen, Butkus was a shadow of his former self at the end of his career (and that was at the ages of 30-31). Regardless, that was 45 years ago and it's not relevant now.

Besides, Lance Briggs is not Dick Butkus.

I'll grant you Justin Smith, but he is the exception to the rule. Successful NFL teams simply do not field 35 year old players and win. Also, Smith plays DT and is on the field for a much smaller percentage of the snaps. It's a position that is predicated on strength, leverage, situational football and gap assignments. That's much different that playing ILB which is much more reliant on speed and the ability to cover much younger, faster tight ends and are required to be on the field for a considerably higher percentage of snaps Last time I checked, 35 year old Justin Smith isn't responsible for covering Gronk or Jimmy Graham or spying Russell Wilson.

There are very few positions in the NFL where a player can be effective after say 34. Manning and Brady are defying Father Time (although Manning not so much) at the QB position. Kickers are kickers. DT is the one position where aging guys who can play limited snaps and don't rely on speed (Smith, Wilfork) can play later into their 30s.

Lance Briggs is not a DT.

You weren't discussing Briggs and Tillman at the end of their careers. Your statement was that in their primes Briggs and Tillman were still on mediocre teams. The clear intent was to somehow blame them for that mediocrity. So I picked a player who played much of his entire career on mediocre teams to point out the stupidity of the argument. The fact the team was mediocre according to you during their primes had nothing to do with Briggs or Tillman and you know that. So it's a stupid argument.

Good teams play the best players period. The Steelers brought 36 year old James Harrison out of retirement to play for them and they made the playoffs. The year before that he was on the Bengals who also made the playoffs. No one is suggesting the team field a D full of 35 year olds but the idea that goods teams never play aging players is frankly a stupid one.

So again, your logic is flawed. The issue is not Lance Briggs' age. The issue is whether he is still good or not. Also Vince Wilfork played 765 snaps and Justin Smith 715. They were both top 15 in snaps for 3-4 DEs. I would hardly call that part time.

 

[jc456]

You weren't discussing Briggs and Tillman at the end of their careers. Your statement was that in their primes Briggs and Tillman were still on mediocre teams. The clear intent was to somehow blame them for that mediocrity. So I picked a player who played much of his entire career on mediocre teams to point out the stupidity of the argument. The fact the team was mediocre according to you during their primes had nothing to do with Briggs or Tillman and you know that. So it's a stupid argument.

Good teams play the best players period. The Steelers brought 36 year old James Harrison out of retirement to play for them and they made the playoffs. The year before that he was on the Bengals who also made the playoffs. No one is suggesting the team field a D full of 35 year olds but the idea that goods teams never play aging players is frankly a stupid one.

So again, your logic is flawed. The issue is not Lance Briggs' age. The issue is whether he is still good or not. Also Vince Wilfork played 765 snaps and Justin Smith 715. They were both top 15 in snaps for 3-4 DEs. I would hardly call that part time.

no, the question is, did he quit on his team, and the answer to that is yes. The bears don't need quitters.

 

[jc456]

Because dumbasses who have no skills in debating resort to name calling.

like calling someone a dumbass right? So you're saying you have no debating skills I see.

 

[remydat]

Sports are a different than the average job. Pro athletes are a immeasurably more driven then Curtis the janitor, to reach the level they have attained requires it, just like any other top person in any given field. Briggs is on display to the world weekly and there are accolades to be had as an individual even when the overall product sucks, so the quitter on a pro sports level is more the exception than the rule.

Briggs is just narcissistic enough to think he can whip out a, "In my opinion, I don't see any reason why you wouldn't want to (bring Briggs back to the Bears)," after his display this last year and have people agree with it.

And yet players quit on bad coaches all the time so being driven doesn't change the fact that when you have a shitty boss, your performance can and does often suffer. It happens in sports all the time dude.

The only thing Fox or Fangio should base their decision on is how they think Briggs will play for them. Sure they can consider whether he quit on Trestman last year and ask him about it but ultimately if they are convinced he will perform for them then it would be stupid to essentially hold a grudge on behalf of Trestman. Trestman is gone. This is a new regime and a new slate. What happened under Trestman is largely irrelevant now as it should be.

 

[jc456]

YOu don't have enough young better LB'ers and you still won't by camp next year. You should see how he is in camp and at least field a better LB'er out there with experience. That is what I meant by nothing to lose. We have a few shit young LB'ers on this team right now and they will never make it out of camp.

why do the bears need to do that if they are rebuilding? The expectations will be lower and no need to let 36 year old washed up quitters play LB.

 

[jc456]

And yet players quit on bad coaches all the time so being driven doesn't change the fact that when you have a shitty boss, your performance can and does often suffer. It happens in sports all the time dude.

The only thing Fox or Fangio should base their decision on is how they think Briggs will play for them. Sure they can consider whether he quit on Trestman last year and ask him about it but ultimately if they are convinced he will perform for them then it would be stupid to essentially hold a grudge on behalf of Trestman. Trestman is gone. This is a new regime and a new slate. What happened under Trestman is largely irrelevant now as it should be.

who else quit on a coach, name a few.

 

[remydat]

no, the question is, did he quit on his team, and the answer to that is yes. The bears don't need quitters.

Tell me what, find me someone other than Bears fans that think Lance Briggs completely sucked last year because I have been looking around and I can't find anything to suggest he was as bad as Bears fans claim. The opinions here by Bear fans are like eye witness testimony. Completely unreliable because of the potential bias involved. Lance has just became a scapegoat for the D's failures and people remember the few boneheaded plays he made and then imagine that he played like that the whole year.

who else quit on a coach, name a few.

See above. Before I answer that you should probably prove that Lance quit in the first place by finding an independent source that agrees with your analysis that he did quit.

Any time a team performs poorly, there are always suggestions from fans that someone quit and fans then act like said player quitting is a fact rather than their opinion.

 

[DaaBears]

why do the bears need to do that if they are rebuilding? The expectations will be lower and no need to let 36 year old washed up quitters play LB.

How about the 31 year old QB that you always defend. Is he washed up, did he quit, or does he truly suck that bad as he played the last few games of last season?

 

[jc456]

Tell me what, find me someone other than Bears fans that think Lance Briggs completely sucked last year because I have been looking around and I can't find anything to suggest he was as bad as Bears fans claim. The opinions here by Bear fans are like eye witness testimony. Completely unreliable because of the potential bias involved. Lance has just became a scapegoat for the D's failures and people remember the few boneheaded plays he made and then imagine that he played like that the whole year.



See above. Before I answer that you should probably prove that Lance quit in the first place by finding an independent source that agrees with your analysis that he did quit.

Any time a team performs poorly, there are always suggestions from fans that someone quit and fans then act like said player quitting is a fact rather than their opinion.

I recall reading where he made statements to the fact. Sleeping at meetings, not being at practice because he was in his restaurant in CA. Missing games that he could have played in. Walking away from the locker room after the NE game.

 

[remydat]

PFF is for retards and is a punchline for analysts that matter (listen to Matt Bowen and his opinions of PFF).

But you are right, I'll let the experts (GM, Coaches) decide. Based on the fact that NFL defenses typically don't field oft injured, slow, disinterested, out of shape 35 year old linebackers who currently aren't under contract, I'll go with the prediction that Lance Briggs will not be on the Chicago Bears or any other NFL roster.

PFF is indepedent. Bears fans or not. Find me someone who said Briggs quite and it showed in his performance other than Bears fans and then we can discuss. Otherwise, you are passing of his quitting as a fact rather than the opinion of pissed of Bears fans.

Can you provide other examples of key players (especially seasoned 'leaders') who quit on their 'shitty bosses'?

Many coaches are fired each season. Can you share other examples of seasoned veterans like Lance Briggs who quit on those coaches as well?

And how does any of this translate into Lance Briggs being the only player to show up to camp way overweight and out of football shape?

I don't follow other teams religiously but anytime a team loses there are always accusations like this. Correy Dillion is supposdely a quiter yet he excelled under Bellichek. Same with Randy Moss and LeGarrette Blount. There are any number of guys that had issues with previous coaches that fans say quit on their team but yet they go to another team and end up playing well. You just don't notice them because they don't play for your team.

Lance Briggs was the only player to show up overweight and out of shape? Link please. And if so then I would find it embarassing for those other players that despite this Lance was one of the highest rated defenders on the team per an independent rating agency. What does that see about the talent of the rest of the team that a supposedly fat and out of shape Lance played better than them?

 

[Thomas31]

I am sure that all of us have had a moment when our pride gets hurt by something a company did to us. I understand that emotion and anger when it happens. And I also understand that all of us get pissed when it happens and throw stuff out that we wished we could take back. I think, though, that there is a big time difference between what Hester did and what Briggs has done. HESTER never quit on his teammates. BRIGGS did.

Hey genius. THE WHOLE TEAM QUIT. Might as well get rid of the whole team...

Or maybe, the coaching staff and management was just that bad, which turned out to be the case...

BEARS

 

[jc456]

How about the 31 year old QB that you always defend. Is he washed up, did he quit, or does he truly suck that bad as he played the last few games of last season?

I felt he needed benching, I was in complete agreement with it. he shouldn't have played the last game. Cutler is also under contract. four years younger than Briggs. Is under contract. oops, already stated that.

 

[DaaBears]

I felt he needed benching, I was in complete agreement with it. he shouldn't have played the last game. Cutler is also under contract. four years younger than Briggs. Is under contract. oops, already stated that.

Ok, so you felt that he needed benching. Why, was he washed up, did he quit, or does he just suck, which is it?

 

[Ares]

Ok, so you felt that he needed benching. Why, was he washed up, did he quit, or does he just suck, which is it?

I think he sucked the back half of the season mostly but then he quit on it all just like all his teammates.... they knew Trestman was done.

 

[jc456]

Hey genius. THE WHOLE TEAM QUIT. Might as well get rid of the whole team...

Or maybe, the coaching staff and management was just that bad, which turned out to be the case...

BEARS

Well, any that have no contract will most likely be gone. it's called accountability.

 

[remydat]

I recall reading where he made statements to the fact. Sleeping at meetings, not being at practice because he was in his restaurant in CA. Missing games that he could have played in. Walking away from the locker room after the NE game.

And yet on Sundays, his performance suggested to an independent rating agency that he played well. The above doesn't mean he quit on the field. The above could simply mean there was nothing for him to fucking learn from Trestman or Tucker which given how much people bash Tucker is entirely possible.

And Lance walked away from people bitching and moaning which I don't have a problem yet. If you are asking me if I think Lance is a leader then the answer is no. Lance was never an alpha dog leader. He was a lieutenant. However, if teams got rid of everyone who was not alpha dog or leader material, there wouldn't be enough players to field a team.

It's not Lance's fault if fans or even the Bears wanted him to be something that he isn't. Again, the only consideration for Fox and Fangio should be how he fits on THEIR team going forward. They should not give a shit about how he fit on Tucker and Trestman's team last year. Irrelevant.

 

[jc456]

Ok, so you felt that he needed benching. Why, was he washed up, did he quit, or does he just suck, which is it?

No, the team wasn't working well with him. It was obvious. I can at least admit that. I also saw a QB that had had enough with all the misques and dropped passes. He was drained and needed to sit. And he's still under contract.

edit: also, I don't believe he liked the plays called by Trestman, knew they'd fail, got frustrated, it showed.

 

[jc456]

And yet on Sundays, his performance suggested to an independent rating agency that he played well. The above doesn't mean he quit on the field. The above could simply mean there was nothing for him to fucking learn from Trestman or Tucker which given how much people bash Tucker is entirely possible.

And Lance walked away from people bitching and moaning which I don't have a problem yet. If you are asking me if I think Lance is a leader then the answer is no. Lance was never an alpha dog leader. He was a lieutenant. However, if teams got rid of everyone who was not alpha dog or leader material, there wouldn't be enough players to field a team.

It's not Lance's fault if fans or even the Bears wanted him to be something that he isn't. Again, the only consideration for Fox and Fangio should be how he fits on THEIR team going forward. They should not give a shit about how he fit on Tucker and Trestman's team last year. Irrelevant.

well I disagree. his play on the field was bad, so bad he was taking himself out of plays. Again, very obvious. As well, he was slow and he wasn't providing the needed leadership on the field and why there was confusion on the field. I can go on. Not sure the point. He's a quitter and he is a FA, and he can go play somewhere else.

Edit: and the team is moving on and rebuilding, a team doesn't bring in slow 36 year old LBs who quit on the previous coaching staff. Think young!!!

And as far as Fox, Brigg's isn't under contract, so he won't be practicing with Fox.