It didn’t matter that Lance Briggs spoke in front of his locker for seven full minutes Wednesday or that the NFL ultimately coerced the Bears linebacker into saying anything at all.
Of all the words Briggs uttered elaborating on the acrimony of last off-season, when he vowed never to wear a Bears uniform again, only one was necessary to sum up the significance of the occasion.
“Absolutely,” Briggs answered when asked if he would be willing to come back if the Bears changed course and offered him a long-term contract.
Briggs actually made a bolder statement when he reported to the first day of training camp in July rather than hold out as he had threatened to do because the Bears applied the franchise tag to him.
But Wednesday’s public comments reaffirmed to the team and Bears fans how much Briggs understands that staying in Chicago might benefit him more than changing teams.
That belief inside Halas Hall is why nobody ever has heard general manager Jerry Angelo or anybody else in the front office rule out the possibility of Briggs negotiating a long-term contract near the end of this season or soon after his one-year, $7.2 million deal expires.
They always have interpreted the dog-and-pony show Briggs starred in last winter as something agent Drew Rosenhaus directed. As much as Briggs’ criticism of the front office might have stung, he has sought forgiveness in the best possible way for NFL players.
“You patch it up every week you play,” said Briggs, who regrets nothing and didn’t apologize. “No matter what was said in the off-season, when you go out and play, you prove to them regardless of what happens, you’re proving you want to be here.”
Neither Angelo nor any other Bears official wanted to comment publicly on the potential for future contract negotiations, but a team source insisted the door always has remained ajar to Briggs’ return. Briggs just knocked it open a little wider by breaking his silence.
“I’m not going to comment,” Rosenhaus said on the phone.
The Bears would be foolish not to find a way to re-sign Briggs given the way their nucleus has changed in five games.
Rex Grossman isn’t going to get a new contract and Bernard Berrian needs to do more in the final 11 games to justify extending his deal or he could be the next Bear getting the franchise tag.
It would be hasty to jump to any conclusions about Brian Griese being a long-term solution at quarterback after one good game.
But if he succeeds in stabilizing the position, the Bears will save a fortune by having Griese start in 2008 rather than overpaying a free agent or drafting an elite quarterback who will be costly.
Similarly, the better Cedric Benson plays the less necessary it will be for the Bears to pursue a free agent running back such as Michael Turner, who wouldn’t come cheap even if he would be coming home to Chicago.
If Griese and Benson remove doubt, the total savings in not signing Grossman and Berrian to long-term deals could approach $20 million — the likely starting point in any discussions for Briggs’ next signing bonus.
Crazy money, yes, but in the NFL marketplace most football guys agree it would be money well spent.
Brian Urlacher also might want to discuss a new deal before next season and defensive tackle Tommie Harris will command a historic contract.
But nobody on the Bears defense has played better than Briggs this season, not even Urlacher, and an organization built on defense needs to invest accordingly.
Hunter Hillenmeyer was trying to articulate Briggs’ dominance when he recalled watching the videotape of the Packers game in which Briggs made 19 tackles.
“A lot of those plays even our coaches said, you have to tip your hat to Lance,” Hillenmeyer said. “He comes all the way across the field, has a blocker assigned to him and still just makes the tackle. That’s what great players do.”
Conventional wisdom that says NFL teams cannot allocate that many resources at one position went out the window when the Bears locked up cornerbacks Nathan Vasher and Charles Tillman.
Giving Briggs what’s considered Urlacher-like money makes sense, particularly because in the next couple of years Briggs, 26, likely will be a better linebacker than Urlacher, who turns 30 in May.
“It’s not up to me,” Briggs said. “I’d love to be here. I’ve always wanted to be here, regardless of what I said. Unfortunately, that was something decided in the off-season that I was not in the long-term plans.”
But if Briggs wants everyone to forget his line-in-the-sand comments, then he cannot dwell on the Bears’ refusal to consider locking him up.
More than the Bears’ stance, Briggs seems bothered by his portrayal as a selfish player given the inherent risks of being an NFL linebacker. He referenced injured Bills tight end Kevin Everett’s serious neck injury as an example of why players seek security.
“It can end at any point and there’s nothing wrong with wanting a long-term deal,” he said.
Briggs also took issue with “some things apparently I said that didn’t come out of my mouth,” — presumably the report he wanted out of Urlacher’s shadow.
But of most substance, Briggs sounded like Michael Jordan or Scottie Pippen back in 1998, decrying the premature end of the Bulls’ dynasty thanks to front-office decisions that didn’t need to be made.
“We built this together,” Briggs said. “I’ve never understood the reason to break this up. But it’s in the past.
“If that was the route that was going to happen, there’s nothing else you can do. You do what you can.”
All Briggs can do now is continue to play better than any linebacker on the field.
Then the next choice the Bears make about his future will be no choice at all.
———-
dhaugh@tribune.com
