Official: Bears sign Roquan Smith

For all things Chicago Bears

Moderator: wab

Post Reply
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8411
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 909 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

UOK wrote:
Mikefive wrote:
The Marshall Plan wrote:
TheSting wrote:Compare and contrast that to Anthony Miller. Which guy was DRAFTED to be a captain of this team? Now, which guy is ACTING like he's a captain of this team?
I don't think that's fair. If Anthony Miller is a dumbass who signed whatever they put in front of him and ran off to practice, ignoring his agent's advice and screwing himself in the process, is that acting like a team captain? I'm not saying that's what Miller did because I don't know. But you don't know that it isn't what he did. And that's my point. We really don't have enough detailed information to know what the whole deal is here. And this is one of those things where what they're arguing about doesn't matter now. It can only matter later. So we all have a tendancy to think short term, when the issue at hand is a long term one.
Good post.

If Smith didn't have a finalized contract and tore his ACL in camp, would anyone expect the Bears to act in good faith to sign him to the same contract he would've had had he not torn the ACL? Doubt it.

Plus this is likely the biggest contract Roquan will ever sign. For many rookies there isn't a 2nd big contract, so while to some here who put this team spirit/chemistry/passion for the craft as the end-all/be-all, realistically this is what Smith has worked his entire life to get.

I don't blame him for holding out or for going for money. It sucks he's missing time, but this is too important on a personal level. If his agency is representing him poorly, that's between the Bears, Roquan, and CAA to work on a dialogue to expedite this process. If both sides are stubborn and entrenched, nobody makes any money, and ultimately Roquan's value goes down. This will get done.
If this is the biggest contract Roquan ever signs then he will be labeled a bust.
Image
User avatar
G08
Hall of Famer
Posts: 20560
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:34 pm
Location: Football Hell
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 758 times

The Marshall Plan wrote:
UOK wrote:
Mikefive wrote:
The Marshall Plan wrote:
TheSting wrote:Compare and contrast that to Anthony Miller. Which guy was DRAFTED to be a captain of this team? Now, which guy is ACTING like he's a captain of this team?
I don't think that's fair. If Anthony Miller is a dumbass who signed whatever they put in front of him and ran off to practice, ignoring his agent's advice and screwing himself in the process, is that acting like a team captain? I'm not saying that's what Miller did because I don't know. But you don't know that it isn't what he did. And that's my point. We really don't have enough detailed information to know what the whole deal is here. And this is one of those things where what they're arguing about doesn't matter now. It can only matter later. So we all have a tendancy to think short term, when the issue at hand is a long term one.
Good post.

If Smith didn't have a finalized contract and tore his ACL in camp, would anyone expect the Bears to act in good faith to sign him to the same contract he would've had had he not torn the ACL? Doubt it.

Plus this is likely the biggest contract Roquan will ever sign. For many rookies there isn't a 2nd big contract, so while to some here who put this team spirit/chemistry/passion for the craft as the end-all/be-all, realistically this is what Smith has worked his entire life to get.

I don't blame him for holding out or for going for money. It sucks he's missing time, but this is too important on a personal level. If his agency is representing him poorly, that's between the Bears, Roquan, and CAA to work on a dialogue to expedite this process. If both sides are stubborn and entrenched, nobody makes any money, and ultimately Roquan's value goes down. This will get done.
If this is the biggest contract Roquan ever signs then he will be labeled a bust.
This guy gets it.
9 PLAYOFF APPEARANCES IN THE PAST 35 SEASONS

User avatar
makaur
Pro Bowler
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:03 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 3 times

If he’s there for Game 1 and sacks Rodgers so hard that Danica Patrick sh*ts herself...I won’t care one bit about this holdout.
User avatar
SgtPerry
Journeyman
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:36 pm
Location: France
Been thanked: 6 times

makaur wrote:If he’s there for Game 1 and sacks Rodgers so hard that Danica Patrick sh*ts herself...I won’t care one bit about this holdout.
Sure, but with his current behaviour, he won't be physically and technically able to do it.
"Good thing you are a Bears fan. No offense to worry about."
UOK 10/26/2020
User avatar
G08
Hall of Famer
Posts: 20560
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:34 pm
Location: Football Hell
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 758 times

makaur wrote:If he’s there for Game 1 and sacks Rodgers so hard that Danica Patrick sh*ts herself...I won’t care one bit about this holdout.
.... I think Danica Patrick's hot
9 PLAYOFF APPEARANCES IN THE PAST 35 SEASONS

User avatar
Nanky
Journeyman
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:58 am
Location: Sioux Falls, SD

G08 wrote:
makaur wrote:If he’s there for Game 1 and sacks Rodgers so hard that Danica Patrick sh*ts herself...I won’t care one bit about this holdout.
.... I think Danica Patrick's hot
Could you speak up please . . .
User avatar
Boris13c
Hall of Famer
Posts: 15958
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:30 am
Location: The Bear Nebula
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 103 times

makaur wrote:If he’s there for Game 1 and sacks Rodgers so hard that Danica Patrick sh*ts herself...I won’t care one bit about this holdout.

:thumbsup:
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things."
George Carlin
User avatar
Umbali
MVP
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 83 times

UOK wrote:
wab wrote:I just don't care I guess. At best this holdout is footnote in a long illustrious career, at worst he misses a couple games and meatball fans turn against him for a month or so.
WAB is my guy.

I definitely don't feel like this situation at all merits anger yet, but if you're set on being angry about it, I guess that's the prerogative.

This is where I am. I am concerned but if he comes in and lights it up for years...who cares. The Mack scenario obviously is tantalizing but clearly it wouldnt be a straight up trade. Its not realistic. I think we are ok because he will eventually sign.

That being said....we are The Bears...if it can go sideways...it just might lmao
Fantasy Team: Peanut Punchers
User avatar
BlueAndOrangeDog
Practice Squad
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 9:32 am

G08 wrote:
....and clearly a player that doesn't seem to give a shit about missing time.
Slowquan.
User avatar
G08
Hall of Famer
Posts: 20560
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:34 pm
Location: Football Hell
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 758 times

BlueAndOrangeDog wrote:
G08 wrote:
....and clearly a player that doesn't seem to give a shit about missing time.
Slowquan.
Laying on the low-quan.
9 PLAYOFF APPEARANCES IN THE PAST 35 SEASONS

User avatar
docc
Head Coach
Posts: 3811
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:33 pm
Location: Outpost of Reality S.E. Arizona
Has thanked: 935 times
Been thanked: 168 times

..uh..so far..
No Quan..
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8411
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 909 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

I'm frustrated as hell that a player that we drafted that high who wasn't even in my top 2 of who I wanted (Davenport, Vea) is causing all this negative energy around a franchise with the highest level of enthusiasm in a decade or more.

He was drafted to be a leader. He's not in my opinion. This isn't like some veteran player with an established history who wants to get paid. This guy hasn't played a down yet.

This wasn't an urgent need. Pass rusher was. Vea in my mind would've given us an elite d-line that opens up pass rush possibilities.

We have a linebacking corps that is good enough to get the job done. And if an elite pass rusher like Mack is potentially out there we should take that very seriously.
Image
User avatar
Otis Day
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8061
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:43 pm
Location: Armpit of IL.
Has thanked: 120 times
Been thanked: 306 times

I have not read that there is any negative energy around this team. Seems like camp has been moving along quite well and no one is really focusing on this outside of the fans.
User avatar
UOK
Site Admin
Posts: 25147
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:07 am
Location: Champaign, IL
Has thanked: 108 times
Been thanked: 926 times

@Bernstein_McK

"The Bears are very dug in. They believe the precedent (on-field, non-football related fines) is unacceptable." -Dan Bernstein on the Roquan Smith situation, adding there has been zero contact between the two parties
Image
User avatar
Boris13c
Hall of Famer
Posts: 15958
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:30 am
Location: The Bear Nebula
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 103 times

UOK wrote:@Bernstein_McK

"The Bears are very dug in. They believe the precedent (on-field, non-football related fines) is unacceptable." -Dan Bernstein on the Roquan Smith situation, adding there has been zero contact between the two parties


that is a very strange quote

so the Bears find the current system of fines unacceptable?

maybe Bernstein was drinking when he posted that
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things."
George Carlin
User avatar
Hiphopopotamos
Head Coach
Posts: 3535
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 6:56 pm

Image
Holy Shit - We got Justin Fields!

In my former life I was known as FencikFanatic.

Oh, and if you were wondering - yes I'm real. And I'm fantastic.
User avatar
G08
Hall of Famer
Posts: 20560
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:34 pm
Location: Football Hell
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 758 times

@Bernstein_McK: "The Bears are very dug in. They believe the precedent (on-field, non-football related fines) is unacceptable." -Dan Bernstein on the Roquan Smith situation, adding there has been zero contact between the two parties
9 PLAYOFF APPEARANCES IN THE PAST 35 SEASONS

User avatar
G08
Hall of Famer
Posts: 20560
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:34 pm
Location: Football Hell
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 758 times

Hiphopopotamos wrote:Image
Nick Kwiatkoski, I'm so glad I learned how to spell your name.

I hope he kicks ass and takes names.
9 PLAYOFF APPEARANCES IN THE PAST 35 SEASONS

User avatar
Boris13c
Hall of Famer
Posts: 15958
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:30 am
Location: The Bear Nebula
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 103 times

G08 wrote:@Bernstein_McK: "The Bears are very dug in. They believe the precedent (on-field, non-football related fines) is unacceptable." -Dan Bernstein on the Roquan Smith situation, adding there has been zero contact between the two parties


second time I've seen that quote and it still puzzles me

it reads as if the Bears find the current system of fines unacceptable ... is that addressing the new fines as unacceptable? the fines before the new fines? both?

I'm unclear on what that actually means and how it applies to Smith's situation

as to Smith - I have read conflicting reports on what the Bears have or have not agreed to include or remove from his contract clauses

if they have removed the language regarding the new helmet hitting rule, then I don't see what the holdup is ... if they haven't, then I understand what the holdup is
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things."
George Carlin
User avatar
G08
Hall of Famer
Posts: 20560
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:34 pm
Location: Football Hell
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 758 times

Boris13c wrote:
G08 wrote:@Bernstein_McK: "The Bears are very dug in. They believe the precedent (on-field, non-football related fines) is unacceptable." -Dan Bernstein on the Roquan Smith situation, adding there has been zero contact between the two parties


second time I've seen that quote and it still puzzles me

it reads as if the Bears find the current system of fines unacceptable ... is that addressing the new fines as unacceptable? the fines before the new fines? both?

I'm unclear on what that actually means and how it applies to Smith's situation

as to Smith - I have read conflicting reports on what the Bears have or have not agreed to include or remove from his contract clauses

if they have removed the language regarding the new helmet hitting rule, then I don't see what the holdup is ... if they haven't, then I understand what the holdup is
Roquan and his agents think he shouldn't be penalized for fines he accrues for non-football related occurrences.

The Bears think that is fucking ridiculous.


(The Bears are right)
9 PLAYOFF APPEARANCES IN THE PAST 35 SEASONS

User avatar
UOK
Site Admin
Posts: 25147
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:07 am
Location: Champaign, IL
Has thanked: 108 times
Been thanked: 926 times

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/fo ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are Smith’s requests for such broad protections unusual or unreasonable?


That depends on whom you ask. No one disputes that guaranteed money should be subject to forfeiture if a player commits a crime (i.e. domestic abuse) or violates the league’s drug policies. But opinions differ when it comes to on-field, in-game discipline.

Seven other teams have executed contracts that include clauses protecting a first-round draft pick’s guaranteed money if he is suspended for an illegal hit. Only four of 32 teams have executed contracts with the broader behavioral protections that Smith seeks, one source said.

Smith has nothing in his background to suggest he’ll be ever be suspended for any misconduct. So why are his agents insisting upon these provisions for him specifically? And why would the Bears dig in to protect themselves against such an improbable scenario?

This is where the impasse goes beyond Roquan Smith and involves precedent for future contracts.

Smith’s agents aren’t just fighting to protect every dime Smith can earn. They’re also fighting for their future business. They want to be able to hold up Smith’s contract in recruiting meetings and show draft prospects how they scrap and claw for their clients. They want to negotiate with other teams and say that because the Bears agreed to these protections, they’re the new standard.

Meanwhile, the Bears aren’t worried that Smith will be a behavior problem on or off the field. To them, this is about the principle of having leeway to assess punitive damages for a rules violation outside the parameters of a football play. They’d rather not sacrifice that authority. For any player.
Image
User avatar
Boris13c
Hall of Famer
Posts: 15958
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:30 am
Location: The Bear Nebula
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 103 times

ah ... that makes things much more clear

thanks UOK

however, I also have a question I don't seem to find being addressed elsewhere

the current CBA expires in 2020 ... so until then, the players and owners are supposed to abide by the terms agreed upon in the current CBA

so why do the owners now get to change rules regarding how player infractions are addressed in 2018? shouldn't the owners also have to wait until the current CBA expires? I think they should, but that is not how it is ... the owners get to do what they want with a simple majority vote ... which seems unfair to me and creates a very uneven negotiation playing field ... so it doesn't surprise me players aren't thrilled

in this case though I think Smith's agent may be over playing his hand ... he seems to want to make this some larger issue than simply taking care of his client
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things."
George Carlin
User avatar
Mikefive
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5189
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Location: Valparaiso, IN, USA
Has thanked: 340 times
Been thanked: 278 times

What I find interesting is that this whole battle starts because of one word... GUARANTEED. I believe this is the word from the mutually agreed upon rookie salary cap calculation agreement, established some years ago. It doesn't say just salary, bonus or payment. It uses that particular descriptor. And by making certain payments "guaranteed", that means you get them no matter what. (If not, why didn't they say "conditionally guaranteed"?)

I could be wrong, but I'm getting the feeling that NFL teams are trying to skirt around something they've already agreed to in collective bargaining. Now in the court of public opinion, it's easy to argue that promises to pay can and should be rightly withheld if the player behaves badly. But from a legal standpoint, saying certain payments are "guaranteed" and then later saying they're guaranteed, unless..., then morally right or wrong, that boils down to a player and his agent conceding ground they've already bargained (conceding other things) to gain.

Am I reading this wrong?

Also, I'm very glad that the first of the 3 previously linked articles had one writer rightly place blame on the NFL, which I find to be vastly ignored in this discussion. By making rule changes vague enough to have players, agents and teams entirely unclear about how enforcement will play out, you motivate agents to protect their clients from costly outcomes which aren't always avoidable. I'm frankly surprised there haven't been more holdouts like this one.
Mikefive's theory: The only time you KNOW that a sports team player, coach or management member is being 100% honest is when they're NOT reciting "the company line".

Go back to leather helmets, NFL.
User avatar
Z Bear
MVP
Posts: 1656
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:45 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 141 times

If the Bears exempted suspensions from the helmet rule, as has been reported even though not listed in the article above, CAA needs to go pound sand. Roquan needs to step up and tell them enough is enough and get in camp. 4 other teams were stupid enough to put language in, it does not mean the Bears need to as well. Get in the boat with the 7 other teams until people see how this new rule plays out.
User avatar
Adipost
MVP
Posts: 1295
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:54 am

Read this on another board and found it thought provoking...
I have this sense that Roquan isn't worried about a ref bump or fight. I think he wants to be the first Bear to kneel for the anthem and he wants to protect his money if he were to do so. He has seen CK get cold shouldered and if he were to suck ass and then want to turn himself into a spectacle, he wants to have financial protections. Kneeling for the anthem in Soldier Field would be big news and by the way he has conducted himself as a college recruit and an unsigned rookie reeks of someone wanting to make a "bigger picture" gesture.

Whether you would love it or hate it matters not, that is would my sixth sense says this is about. He just isn't saying what non football action he wants to be protected from losing money as a result of doing.

My reasoning is that as a gifted athlete he is supremely confident in his skills and has little fear the Bears would strip money away from him as has never been done before as a result of a football fight. That fear would be a completely illogical reason to hold out this long and he knows it.
However, there is no barometer of how Ginny or George would react to a knelling Bear or what clause they may use to punish him to dissuade him from that action. That is what I think he wants his freedom to do.

I know that comes out there from left field, but holding out for the "fighting" issue is like picketing city hall for the right to jaywalk without fear of prosecution, sure technically it could happen, but is the non-issue worth the effort. I think he has other, possibly more divisive actions he wants protection to perform. I doubt he even knows what those may be, but I think, as he has proven, he likes to be on the leading edge of change and that may mean he wants to act in a provocative way in a Bears uniform.
User avatar
G08
Hall of Famer
Posts: 20560
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:34 pm
Location: Football Hell
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 758 times

Adipost wrote:Read this on another board and found it thought provoking...
I have this sense that Roquan isn't worried about a ref bump or fight. I think he wants to be the first Bear to kneel for the anthem and he wants to protect his money if he were to do so. He has seen CK get cold shouldered and if he were to suck ass and then want to turn himself into a spectacle, he wants to have financial protections. Kneeling for the anthem in Soldier Field would be big news and by the way he has conducted himself as a college recruit and an unsigned rookie reeks of someone wanting to make a "bigger picture" gesture.

Whether you would love it or hate it matters not, that is would my sixth sense says this is about. He just isn't saying what non football action he wants to be protected from losing money as a result of doing.

My reasoning is that as a gifted athlete he is supremely confident in his skills and has little fear the Bears would strip money away from him as has never been done before as a result of a football fight. That fear would be a completely illogical reason to hold out this long and he knows it.
However, there is no barometer of how Ginny or George would react to a knelling Bear or what clause they may use to punish him to dissuade him from that action. That is what I think he wants his freedom to do.

I know that comes out there from left field, but holding out for the "fighting" issue is like picketing city hall for the right to jaywalk without fear of prosecution, sure technically it could happen, but is the non-issue worth the effort. I think he has other, possibly more divisive actions he wants protection to perform. I doubt he even knows what those may be, but I think, as he has proven, he likes to be on the leading edge of change and that may mean he wants to act in a provocative way in a Bears uniform.
Thought crossed my mind but I don't believe George McCaskey would fine a player for kneeling during the anthem. I also don't believe the NFL has a strict mandate (currently, anyway) that states a fine would occur for doing so.
9 PLAYOFF APPEARANCES IN THE PAST 35 SEASONS

BR0D1E86
MVP
Posts: 1833
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:50 am

Boris13c wrote:
UOK wrote:@Bernstein_McK

"The Bears are very dug in. They believe the precedent (on-field, non-football related fines) is unacceptable." -Dan Bernstein on the Roquan Smith situation, adding there has been zero contact between the two parties


that is a very strange quote

so the Bears find the current system of fines unacceptable?

maybe Bernstein was drinking when he posted that
The precedent for giving in regarding the off field discipline stuff would be unacceptable. Pretty sure that’s how that should read.
User avatar
Otis Day
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8061
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:43 pm
Location: Armpit of IL.
Has thanked: 120 times
Been thanked: 306 times

"on field, non-football related fines." On field, key two words. This is not about behavior OFF the football field. "On Field." Like the quote above states, maybe kneeling during the anthem, maybe getting kicked out of a game for a retaliatory punch, criticizing refs..........
User avatar
docc
Head Coach
Posts: 3811
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:33 pm
Location: Outpost of Reality S.E. Arizona
Has thanked: 935 times
Been thanked: 168 times

..ass raping an official..dropping Trousers and mooning the Pope ?
skamanfrank
Journeyman
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:11 am
Location: Royal Leamington Spa, England

**Hypothetical question and not what I think is going to happen**
What happens if he just doesn't sign? Does he have to go back into the draft? Does he become a free agent and anyone can pick him up? Do the bears get any compensation if he never signs?
Post Reply