We’ve continued over the past couple of days to try to find out what precisely went down between the San Francisco 49ers and the Chicago Bears regarding the whole Lance Briggs thing, which culminated this week in a finding that the Niners must forfeit a fifth-round pick and flip-flop third-round selections with the Bears.
It generally has been difficult to track down information, and much of what we’ve obtained has been on “background” (a term that we still don’t fully understand because we aren’t, you know, actual journalists). But we’ve picked up one interesting nugget from multiple sources regarding the changes that would have been made if Briggs had been shipped to the 49ers.
Specifically, we’re told that middle linebacker Brian Urlacher had been told that he’d be moving to Briggs’ position of weakside linebacker.
The disclosure apparently was made to Urlacher while the trade was still a possibility, before the Bears and the 49ers realized that the failure of Briggs to sign his one-year franchise tender prior to July 15 prevented the 49ers from signing Briggs to a long-term deal.
We’ve also heard from multiple sources that the Bears proceeded with tampering charges not because they hoped to scare the Niners away from pursuing Briggs in free agency, but because the Bears believed that, once Briggs learned of the failed trade, his performance decreased dramatically.
It’s still unclear how Briggs found out about the failed trade. Some presume that his agent, Drew Rosenhaus, told him about it. Others believe that, once coach Lovie Smith told Urlacher that he’d be changing positions, word of the looming transaction inevitably got around the locker room.
Though we’ve accepted the fact that it will be impossible to determine the precise evidence that supported a finding of tampering, we’re still troubled by the fact that the Niners apparently got in trouble for attempting to work out a new contract with Rosenhaus in conjunction with a trade that would have sent a first-round pick to the Bears in exchange for Briggs’ services.
Surely, the Bears didn’t think that the 49ers would give up a first-round draft pick for the ability to rent Briggs for the balance of the 2007 season, with no guarantee that they’d retain his services for 2008. So even is the Bears didn’t formally grant the Niners permission to talk to Rosenhaus, it was at least implied that an effort would be made to get Briggs’ agreement on a new contract, especially if the trade talks were unfolding not long before the deadline for doing a deal.
_2.gif)





March 26th, 2008 at 11:47 am
If the 49ers already sent their 2008 1st Round pick to the Patriots, was the deal for a 2009 1st Round pick?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 26th, 2008 at 11:53 am
They should still switch.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 26th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
With Urlacher’s degenerative back/neck, the pounding he takes in the middle taking on blockers seems to be taking an increasing toll on him. A move to the weak side, where he could utilize his speed and avoid the traffic in the middle could be a good thing for him and the Bears. Question is could Briggs handle the middle? I don’t particularly trust Lovie to make these types of decisions, but in my humble opinion, Urlacher at this point (and possibly always) could be better on the outside at this point.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 26th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Wait a minute — the deal fell through for whatever reason, Briggs throws a temper tantrum about it and the 49ers are the ones punished? Unless they told Briggs to misbehave, how is that their fault?
Sounds like the Bears were just looking to blame someone and got lucky that Goodell was in the mood to hang someone for tampering.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
March 26th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Insomniac, the Niners have the Colts first rounder that could’ve been used.
As for Urlacher, the idea of him playing on the weakside has been suggested, as lasher noted, to lessen the wear and tear. Briggs can probably play the middle in the tampa 2 as well (believe he subbed there a couple years back, although my memory is iffy on that), but my guess is that we’ll keep the two at the same spot for now.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
March 27th, 2008 at 11:00 am
So, if I am reading between the lines correctly - the league is saying you can’t negotiate a new contract as part of trade negotiations without the express consent of the team you are trying to work out a deal with?
In this case, the deal falls through and the Bears decide that a failed trade isn’t enough, they’re going to torch the bridge completely and go for tampering charges?
If I’m an NFL GM, I wouldn’t even talk to Gerry D’Angelo if I saw him on the street, let alone take his phone call when he wants to make a deal.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated