Biggs: It appears Brown's days with Bears are over

[Xee]

Angelo on a Mike Brown return: "I don't see that right now"

By Brad Biggs
on January 19, 2009 9:07 AM

Jerry Angelo has all but counted out Mike Brown before and the popular veteran safety returned to the Bears anyway.

Well, the general manager sounds like he's counting out Brown again. The difference this time is that Brown is no longer under contract to the club and will be an unrestricted free agent beginning Feb. 27. It was in his end-of-season address a year ago that Angelo said the Bears couldn't count on the often-injured leader. Yet he returned for a ninth season with the franchise. Getting to a 10th year will be more challenging.

"I don't see that right now,'' Angelo told the Tribune's Dan Pompei. "Given how it affects Danieal [Manning]. Allocation of money comes into play, too, in what we want to do at other positions. There could be a case where we want Mike back, but we can't afford to do it given what we want to do in other areas.''

Most expect Brown played his final game as a Bear on Dec. 22 against Green Bay when his recurring calf muscle injury forced him out and landed him on injured reserve for the fourth time in five years. Brown finished fourth on the team with 101 tackles and was more productive when he was moved to strong safety in the middle of the season. What turned things around ultimately for Brown last offseason was a contract restructuring. He earned all $2.44 million he was schedule to receive but only by hitting play-time incentives. Safety has been an issue for the Bears for several years. It was breakdowns at safety that ultimately cost the team in Super Bowl XLI. Brown missed the final 10 games of that season and the postseason run.

But if the Bears bring back Brown, they set themselves up for the same kind of issues they've been trying to defeat in recent years. When you count on Brown and he cannot deliver, there's a void that cannot be filled. There are some young players in the mix but none of them have been outstanding. Kevin Payne and Craig Steltz are viewed strictly as strong safeties even though Payne played at free. Danieal Manning has the physical tools to play safety but has been moved so much that you can't help but wonder what you'll get. He blew an assignment in the season-ending loss at Houston. He played best as a nickel back last year.

"When we brought Mike Brown back, I felt that hurt Danieal,'' Angelo told Pompei. "We had Mike at free. We liked what we saw in Payne in OTA's at strong safety, having a bigger body. We felt our best package was with Mike and Kevin. Saying that, we wanted to create a spot for Danieal. That's where the nickel came in. He had all the traits to do it. Our thinking was let's get our best [players] on the field. He started to impact us in the latter part of the season with his athleticism and because he is a tough guy. We certainly have to define what his role is going to be. We're a better team with him on the field.

Looks like Angelo believes the Bears will ultimately be better off moving forward without Brown. A final determination will probably be made in the organizational meetings which should begin after the Senior Bowl this week. With or without Brown, you can slide safety in the need list for the Bears' offseason.

[UOK]

Using Danieal Manning as an excuse not to bring Brown back is bullcrap. Danieal Manning is a nickel back and a return man, that's what he is and should be if he wants to have a lucrative NFL career. But by parading this shit that he's some kind of potential great safety and that Mike Brown hindered his development is bullcrap. Manning sucks at safety, and Brown is the heart and soul of the defense.

They're not bringing him back because he's constantly hurt. Every single year, he's hurt, you can count on it. You can't invest in that, despite his popularity among fans and the players. He's an injury liability. D. Manning shouldn't be our starting safety next season, and if he is I think everybody knows what's going to happen: he's going to be benched by the end of the preseason because he sucks at safety. He blows coverages and can't tackle well enough to be considered accountable for making the multitude of plays against both the pass and run that are required in the cover 2 style of defense.

For as much as I like Angelo sometimes, it's times like this that make me want to kick him in the crotch. Everybody knows why Brown is being let go here, don't smokescreen it with this "hurt Manning's development" bullshit.

[Otis Day]

he has got to build up Manning to hide the fact he was drafted way too early. This was another WTF pick IMO and he has got to sugar coat it. I don't think the coaching staff has helped manning either by placing him at safety, corner, nickel, back to safety. He is affective at nickel, LEAVE HIM THERE!.

The Bears have got to move on and not resigning Brown doesn't bother me in the least.

[Halas85]

Tell me how not resigning Brown is going to help the Bears "move on"? Move on from what? From Brown? From effective play? From veteran leadership?

The Bears don't need to just "move on." They need to move forward. And turning your back on your team's No. 3 tackler despite playing him out of position half the season -- a guy who's hardly going to put a dent in your salary cap -- isn't moving forward. Even with a past riddled with injuries, it still addresses a problem that appears very low on the board of issues the Bears should be addressing this offseason.

Getting rid of Brown does not make Orton a better quarterback, nor does it give him a better wide receiver to throw to. It won't open any holes for Forte. On defense, it's not going to allow the front four to apply more pressure on the quarterback. It won't make Tommie's knee feel any better or force him to participate in more practices during the season. Letting Brown go won't help Tillman's shoulders feel any better or make Vasher "the Intercepter" the spark he once played with. It won't make the other safeties play intelligently or tackle soundly, despite what Angelo might imply. Urlacher won't suddenly contend for Defensive Player of the Year should Brown leave the team. And letting him go absolutely, positively won't change any of the draft-day flops Angelo has made throughout the last three or four years, nor will it make the defensive unit play with more fire and on-the-field intelligence than it showed during the tail end of '08.

Brown is a guy the Bears CAN afford to hang onto, both financially and strategically. This belief that Brown's mere existence on the team somehow holds it back is ridiculous, as is the notion that letting him go is a sign the team is in the process of moving forward. This team with Mike Brown is still better than this team without Mike Brown.

[Chifaninca]

I love Brown as much as the nxt guy. But I understand that if Brown can be brought back, it's gonna be a late decision. I gotta believe they will handle it with class, cause we know Brown will.

[Fumblebuck]

"I don't see that right now,'' Angelo told the Tribune's Dan Pompei. "Given how it affects Danieal [Manning]. Allocation of money comes into play, too, in what we want to do at other positions. There could be a case where we want Mike back, but we can't afford to do it given what we want to do in other areas.''

Can someone explain how Brown playing strong safety affects Manning's ability to play free safety?

[Halas85]

Can someone explain how Brown playing strong safety affects Manning's ability to play free safety?

I believe this logic emerged squarely from the man's ass. Manning found a spot on defense where he could excel, despite the roster spot held by Mike Brown, and it's not at safety. If Angelo doesn't like how Manning's been moved around so much, he should be pointing the finger at Lovie, not Brown.

[wab]

I guess I took it as Brown being injured off and on and not being sure exactly when he is going to be on the field has neccesitated all of Manning's moving around...hence hampering his development.

Maybe...hell I don't know....but that's how I took it initially.

[Pagan]

I say resign M. Brown cheap on a two year contract and let him retire as a back up. I'd like to see the Bears get him started as a low level assitant coach.

pagan

[gaba]

There's gonna have to be some tough sacrifices in order to make this team competitive, but I'm not sure this is a wise one. If Brown were making big money I could see it. If he's asking for big money, it might still be an issue. But as things stand right now, no one is going to give him a huge paycheck. There's not a player in the league that can replace him for the money he's making. Not even trying to resign him is just stupid... but what more can we expect from the 3... make that 7, maybe 17... stooges that are in charge of the Bears.

That being said... if there really were a way that letting Mike Brown go would improve this team, I'd be all for it. There will be (and should be) more moves that we're not going to like, but "as is" just isn't gonna cut it anymore.

[makaur]

Brown's salary isn't an issue. The fact that everytime someone farts in his general direction, he gets injured and goes on IR.

Rex Tucker was like that a few years ago. The only difference was someone didn't have to fart in his direction. All they had to do was act like they were going to rip one, and he'd fall to the ground like a little vagina.

[G08]

I just can't understand why the leader of your defense wouldn't want to be resigned. It's not like the guy is asking for $3-5 million a season. Hell, he negotiated down to 1/2 his salary for this season if he didn't meet playing incentives. Why can't we just do the same thing again?

And if they want Danieal Manning at FS so badly, why not pair him up with Mike Brown manning the SS spot? Oh, I know... because we like Kevin Payne's size and Craig Steltz's intangibles . If ANYTHING, #30 can help line Manning up.

I'm confused. Letting him go if he wanted to return on the cheap is the stupidest thing this organization could do this side of giving Brian Urlacher $18 million to stop whining.

[Fumblebuck]

If Brown wants to keep playing, I could see him landing with the Vikings. Word is that Darren Sharper is on the outs there.

[IE]

The irony is that Mike Brown has more positive intangibles in his beat-up self than the entire rest of the safety crew combined... maybe the entire D.

JERRY! ... Draft a high-round safety and re-sign Mike Brown on the cheap to coach him up for a few years! If any oft-injured safety needs to be dumped, it's McGowan.

Oh - and DManning is a nickel/returner like UOK said ... let's face that reality, shall we?

[gaba]

The irony is that Mike Brown has more positive intangibles in his beat-up self than the entire rest of the safety crew combined... maybe the entire D.

That alone makes him worth a roster spot for as long as he wants one. I don't know that you can coach that, but it'd be worth it to keep him around and let the young'uns learn from him.

[Otis Day]

I am not sure the young'uns are smart enough to learn from anyone. manning hasn't learned anything, McGowan is not healthy long enough to learn and Payne hasn't learned a damn thing either, notice his tackling or lack thereof.

[G08]

I think Manning's a bit over-hyped at Nickel. Yeah, he's blitzed and broken up a few passes, but how many times was he torched in coverage?

[Halas85]

If Brown wants to keep playing, I could see him landing with the Vikings. Word is that Darren Sharper is on the outs there.

Do we need a better reason to resign him than this?

I think Manning's a bit over-hyped at Nickel. Yeah, he's blitzed and broken up a few passes, but how many times was he torched in coverage?

Our whole DB corps was torched in coverage. I don't know how much of this was scheme and how much was Manning blowing assignments, but the only time I recall him blatantly being burned in coverage was at safety. The dude's just not smart enough to be the defense's safety net in Cover 2, so I think nickel's a good spot for him. Of course, assuming no major changes in the secondary next season, he'll have to beat out Graham/Vasher and possibly even Bowman.

[Pagan]

Lets not forget that our D-Line had little to no pressure last year- which is going to make all of the DB's look worse. Thats got to be taken into account.

pagan

[gaba]

Lets not forget that our D-Line had little to no pressure last year- which is going to make all of the DB's look worse. Thats got to be taken into account.

pagan

I think it goes both ways, and although I have absolutely nothing solid to base it on, I get the feeling it's more of the latter... that being that the lack of decent coverage makes it harder to get to the quarterback. Sure, the other way seems more logical, but it's just not that hard to avoid pressure when you KNOW exactly where the open man is going to be.

[Pagan]

While thats true, and I dont want to sound like I'm defending our DB's- because I'm not,- but what is the ultimate deciding factor on how much time a QB has to throw? Pressure by the D-Line.

Watching the games last year QB's had all the time they needed. This is a result of the defense not getting to the QB fast enough. NFL D backs can only cover so long with the hands off rules.

I think it's both. Too many blown assignments, but certainly not enough pressure.


pagan

[wab]

Personally I think Graham and Peanut are the only two worth keeping. I have made it known that I would like to see them try Graham at FS...but they are two guys you can build a secondary around.

[gaba]

While thats true, and I dont want to sound like I'm defending our DB's- because I'm not,- but what is the ultimate deciding factor on how much time a QB has to throw? Pressure by the D-Line.

Watching the games last year QB's had all the time they needed. This is a result of the defense not getting to the QB fast enough. NFL D backs can only cover so long with the hands off rules.

I think it's both. Too many blown assignments, but certainly not enough pressure.


pagan

Not trying to put all the blame on one or the other but... if the coverage is as poor as it has been, the QB doesn't need as much time to throw.

[Pagan]

Not trying to put all the blame on one or the other but... if the coverage is as poor as it has been, the QB doesn't need as much time to throw.

I agree with you gaba- and thank you for proving my point. There were many games where the QB had all the time in the world to throw- crazy amounts of time. Which means the secondary didnt blow coverages right away. The QB's may or may not have "needed" as much time to throw- but they certainly had it. = Lack of pressure.

pagan

[G08]

On both sides of the ball, it all starts up front.

Pressure bursts pipes boys. Stop that pressure and it's amazing how much more open those WRs become.

[gaba]

Don't get me wrong here guys. I'm not saying the line is without fault, just that I think the safety is a far greater need than DE. We've got 2 pretty good ones and a couple decent back-ups. If the Bears don't re-sign Mike Brown, we don't have ONE decent safety.

[Halas85]

I have to agree with Grossman on this one. A great defensive line is more likely to positively affect pass coverage, not so much vice versa. How often have you ever heard of a DB making lineman great? But a defensive line that can put pressure on the quarterback can make a whole corps of DBs look like Pro Bowlers, with INT stats to match. Pressure on the quarterback can make everything else fall apart. Hell, look at what the Giants D-Line did to Tom Brady in last year's Super Bowl.

[gaba]

I don't think any defensive line in the history of defensive lines could make this pack of nobodies look good.

[Halas85]

I don't think any defensive line in the history of defensive lines could make this pack of nobodies look good.

I disagree. Recall all the times this season you could seemingly count five-Mississippi before the opposing quarterback completed a big third-down conversion. I don't think the guy was standing back there trying to decide which open guy to throw to, or waiting to see if an open guy could get more open. The DBs, I believe, were holding their own most of the time. It seemed the big or easy passes they were giving up were because of two things: no pressure on the quarterback or playing too far off the line (coaching). Sure, you can point to the Tillman error in Minnesota or Manning's blown coverage in Texas as examples of sheer suckiness, and you would be correct in that assessment. But while these stand ominously tall in our memories, they were still isolated incidents. What wasn't an isolated incident in '08 was seeing an opposing quarterback stand like a statue in the pocket while our D-line played pattycake with O-linemen.

[wab]

Our DB's are getting an unfair rap because of the poor play of our OL? Tillman IMO is still one of the more underrated CB's in the NFL. Graham is a young hard hitting, fly-to-the-ball corner who has all kinds of potential. If they would leave him alone, D Manning could becaome the kind of nickle this defense needs to succeed. I don't know what Vasher's deal is, but he's good as gone anyway. At safety, Payne has talent, and you have to remember that he played mostly RB in college, so he's still learning the position, although I think he's a SS.

We don't have a true FS on this team...we have some nickle backs and a shit ton of strong safeties...

We need to either buy a pass rusher somwhere, or draft one, because Ogun has not lived up to his billing. Brown is solid, but is never going to put up double digit sacks. Izzy is playing out of position at DT, and we know Anderson has talent, Hot Rod just has to find it.

IMO, our top 2 offseason priorities should be DE ans FS. This is not to say we ignore the age at RT, the need to add another QB and bring in a decent FA WR.