I wouldn’t want to write twice about this subject, but frankly it’s about all that’s going on right now. Today, in his excellent Bears blog, Brad Biggs of the Chicago Sun-Times gave Bears President Ted Phillips’ exact words on the Urlacher contract situation.
And yesterday, David Haugh of the Chicago Tribune opined that the linebacker and face of the franchise is worthy of an extension.
I’m the type of person that more often than speaking his own opinion, tries to look at both sides of any story and present and analyze each case. So I’m not giving my opinion here, just presenting both sides (before anyone blasts me.)
For the record, while I was disappointed in Urlacher’s early season performances, I think he roared back late in the year and made fools of those who didn’t vote him into the Pro Bowl.
Back to the possibility of him holding out.
On one side, it is true that the salary cap has grown exponentially, and over the first years of his deal, Urlacher has given solid returns for the investment. Many other NFL veterans are demanding renegotiations, so why not Brian Urlacher?
On the other hand, I just can’t come to terms with the following. NFL players are enticed to sign long-term deals by being offered loads of money up front. Sign a long-term deal and the reward is that a signing bonus and various roster bonuses are paid, along with salary, in the first years of the deal. So how is it fair for a player to take that money up front, then demand more halfway into the deal, after all the big money has been paid. Big money that was paid to entice the player to sign for those last years that don’t include extra bonuses.
Am I missing something here?