question on bears and colvin.

[pinnacle]

the cardinals have been ripped in the media for not tagging boston or even plummer in order to trade them elsewhere and get something..and it appears the bashing is earned.. Questions:

1. according to the site below, the bears did not tag anyone. If this is true - why did the bears not tag colvin (even with the lesser transition tag)?. based on the large interest he generated..they would have probably gotten a decent draft pick. in hindsight - he could have been fairly priced at one season under the transition tag..

2. I know the eagles were considering tagging douglas..but the same could be said for him. he was about the same age as aeneas and we got a 2nd and a 4th for aeneas..and the eagles could have used him next season - especially for the amount of a transition tag..

I could add other guys to the list..peterson for the colts..the titans could have done dyson instead of their punter. in hindsight..teams would have probably given up something for these guys..

http://www.theredzone.org/2003/freeagents/tagged_players.asp

what am I missing..especially on colvin? I know the cardinals argue that that is not the intent of the franchise tag - but it is appears cincy knew what they were doing with spikes - same for the bills with peerless price...if worse came to worse the bears and eagles could have used colvin and douglas and could have probably found a way to fit them under the cap for one more season if there were no trade offers..

 

[Cardiac]

This is a question that many Cards fans seem to not be asking. Many would just prefer to blast the front office then think there may be a legitimate reason as to why the Cards didn't tag DB. Of course the press seems to give other teams a free ride in similar circumstances.

 

[green machine]

Go

People rip on the Cards because they are the Cardinals. I think Graves made his decision based on something, and until the season begins and everything unfolds, I'm going to give him the benifit of the doubt. Other teams didn't use the tag (but if you ask Mike Chamberlain, everybody does it!), yet we take the criticism. It comes with the territory of being a perennial loser, I guess. Now, if Boston turns out to be a flop in San Diego, for whatever reason, I wonder if people will be praising Graves for the gutsy move???

adam
________
******* FORCED

 

[BACH]

Originally posted by pinnacle
what am I missing..especially on colvin? I know the cardinals argue that that is not the intent of the franchise tag - but it is appears cincy knew what they were doing with spikes - same for the bills with peerless price...if worse came to worse the bears and eagles could have used colvin and douglas and could have probably found a way to fit them under the cap for one more season if there were no trade offers..

Not tagging Colvin was a cap management move. After the tenders for the restricted free agents and the rookie pool taken out of the cap, the Bears only had $8.8M to spend on free agents (including their own). They had to sign a starting QB and about 10 back-ups for that amount.

There wasn't any room to tender Colvin (Franchise - $5.6M, Trans - $4.8M) Would another team have created room to tender him? Probably... But they extended Warrick Holdman last year AND Urlacher is entering the last year of his contact. How much money can you spend on one unit? Resigning both Urlacher and Colvin means that the Bears would have about 1/5 of the cap tied up in their three starting LBs.

 

[pinnacle]

Bach:

I hear what you are saying..but I would think from a cost benefit standpoint the bears could have taken on the $4.8 mil for one more year..given the huge demand in the NFL for a pass rusher..there was pretty high odds that someone like the cardinals or lions would have given colvin a big long term deal and for the pleasure would have easily given up at least a round 2 pick.. if they had no intent of a long term deal..

As I also understand it - if no one bit on colvin after a certain period of time..they could have removed the transition tag and been in the same position as they are today..

I think the view on the cards is that we screwed up 2 guys..when jake and boston signed on the same day - it got everyones attention - and qb is a very high profile position. This probably increased media attention..

Also..given the big contracts being given out..the colts should have transition tagged peterson - the clearly would have got something for him as teams were fighting over him..