Runs with Scissors Posted March 30, 2002 Share Posted March 30, 2002 Got this for the SNs..<br />"Don't look for the Bears to be in any rush to deal Shane Matthews to the Redskins. The Bears were not appreciative of Washington coach Steve Spurrier's public coveting of Matthews, a winning quarterback for Spurrier at Florida. <br /><br />The thinking is that it was tantamount to tampering by creating an unhappy player who sees another place to go with the chance to be a starter. A deal is still likely, but Matthews has no leverage. And until the Bears sign another No. 2 to Jim Miller, they're in no hurry to accommodate Spurrier." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted March 30, 2002 Share Posted March 30, 2002 The Bears should be worried about toughening up their team for the playoffs rather than worrying about some other coach complimenting their players.<br /><br />After they sign a back-up I'd say knock that draft pick offer down a round just to stick it to them. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddha Posted March 30, 2002 Share Posted March 30, 2002 If I remember correctly, Shane Matthews was the one who started all of this by saying he wouldn't mind playing for his old coach. I doubt you can make a case for tampering-- unless you charge Matthews with tampering with himself.<br /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="tongue.gif" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyskinsfan Posted March 30, 2002 Share Posted March 30, 2002 I find the business equation of this hard to believe. I also don't believe the Bears are even shaking in their boots on the deal. Simply put, when Dan and co, feel it's comfortable to do so and sign WHO THEY WANT, then they'll THINK about maybe, just maybe upping the pick to a notch higher. It's not like Blake and Matthews were taking the world by storm and I swear, nothing would give me better joy on this, than to find out, all three we currently have elevate to much better heights of their game.<br /><br />Then Matthews can stay there, we keep our pick and save money <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /><br /> <br /> <small>[ March 30, 2002, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: indyskinsfan ]</small> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted March 30, 2002 Share Posted March 30, 2002 what makes the entire issue so ridiculous is that if Spurrier and Matthews had not said anything Matthews would have been released by the Bears in the offseason and we would have gotten him for nothing.<br /><br />Certainly, the Bears were not going to keep Matthews as a #1 or #2 based on what Angelo has said and done to this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCinOz Posted March 30, 2002 Share Posted March 30, 2002 Whether we end up giving up a 5th, 6th or 7th rounder for Matthews (if we even do the deal) - it matters not.<br /><br />I reckon that Steve and his coaching staff (as well as the input from the front office guys) know so many of these players in the draft that we will find more gems from the undrafted rookies than from picks 5, 6 and 7. They probably know more about these guys than any college scout on an NFL team.<br /><br />I think those who are fretting over giving up low picks are just being overly sensitive about giving something away. Spurrier would'nt trade for Matthews if he didn't think he could contibute in a very positive way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. D Posted March 31, 2002 Share Posted March 31, 2002 I really wish the Bears would quit posturing and hiding behind the skirts of the Press.<br /><br />come to the table and deal like men.....er BEARS..<br /><br />what a laugh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TennesseeCarl Posted March 31, 2002 Share Posted March 31, 2002 If some other team commented about how much they were interested in, say, Todd Husak last year, we'd have been screaming for management to hold out for a 2nd rounder. <br /><br /> The Bears aren't doing anything wrong - they're just trying to take advantage of another team that makes the amateurish mistake of coveting a player they hold the rights to. We really need to stop showing our hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted March 31, 2002 Share Posted March 31, 2002 It's one of the few mistakes which we've made so far, and I'm quite pleased that we haven't made more with a rookie coach at the helm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted March 31, 2002 Share Posted March 31, 2002 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by bulldog:<br /><strong>what makes the entire issue so ridiculous is that if Spurrier and Matthews had not said anything Matthews would have been released by the Bears in the offseason and we would have gotten him for nothing.<br /><br />Certainly, the Bears were not going to keep Matthews as a #1 or #2 based on what Angelo has said and done to this point.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This got me thinking, because I didn't remember this situation playing out like this. So I went and checked.<br /><br />This <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A20552-2002Feb28" target="_blank">3/1/2002 Wash. Post article</a> leads with the anticipated Redskins efforts to sign QB's - focusing on Dilfer, Craig and Wuerffel, and doesn't even mention Matthews. The article mentions that the Bears were also in the running to sign Dilfer, as they only had Matthews under contract and because they had yet to re-sign Jim Miller.<br /><br />Then, this <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A29386-2002Mar2" target="_blank">3/3/2002 article</a> mentions that Dilfer was re-signed by Seattle, but that the Redskins had been attempting to trade a low-round pick for Matthews for weeks but that the Bears were balking:<br /><br /> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Redskins hope to trade a low-round draft choice to the Bears for Matthews, who, like Wuerffel, played for Spurrier at the University of Florida. The Redskins have been pursuing Matthews for weeks, but the Bears had been reluctant to part with him because that would have left them with no quarterbacks on their roster. They lost Wuerffel, their third-string quarterback last season, to the Houston Texans in the expansion draft, and starter Jim Miller was eligible for unrestricted free agency."<br /></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then this <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A36736-2002Mar4" target="_blank">3/5/2002 Wash. Post article</a> elaborates further on the proposed Matthews trade, indicating again that the Bears' uncertainty is holding up the process, and including for the first time quotes from Spurrier on how he's use Matthews in his lineup:<br /><br /> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"If Shane comes and we have Danny and a young guy and Sage is here, with those four we'd be as close to well-off as anyone around here," Spurrier said. "Who's Baltimore got coming in? Chicago re-signed Jim Miller, and Jim Miller was behind Shane going into last year. . . . Hopefully they'll make Shane available. Maybe not. I don't know how it's going to work out."</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not seeing here where anybody blew this. The Bears did not indicate to anybody that they'd simply cut Matthews. They've only resigned Miller relatively recently, and even after that signing the only other QB they have on the roster is Matthews. It's reasonable to expect that they'd wait until they get a backup with at least a little experience before trading Matthews as Miller has had his share of injuries in his career. <br /><br />They've had trade discussions, and the Bears just haven't reached a point where they're comfortable enough to deal. And what's the rush? We have almost four months before training camp opens.<br /> <br /> <small>[ March 31, 2002, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: redman ]</small> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted March 31, 2002 Share Posted March 31, 2002 I was doing the same thing Redman. Add to it this. It was reported last December, that Mathews was actually considering retirement. The moving around thing. Tampering? My but they are a little pissy in Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSkins Posted March 31, 2002 Share Posted March 31, 2002 If it hasn't happened yet, it WON'T happen. I still think Blake is the man, or possible Gus. Matthews would be fine for this team, but I doubt that a deal will ever be reached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted April 1, 2002 Share Posted April 1, 2002 Good research Redman, I was wondering were the "Spurrier is hot for Mathews" idea came from since I did not remember any evidence but I was to lazy to do the research. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.