Akiem Hicks Presser

[G08]

I thought this was powerful... it also made me realize his career as a Chicago Bear will end with this season. 

Sad to see it, but man, this dude is and always was a ******* warrior for us!

 

 

[Uncle Buck]

I always knew he was a great player, but man, it really hurts to lose a player with this kind of conviction.  He is AWESOME!

[blkwdw13]

If he will come back at a reasonable price I don't see much of a downside to bringing him back, he is the heart and soul of the defense.

[Sugashane]

Let him go to a real franchise to end hos career. He deserves better than this rebuild. 

[Sugashane]

Dude became a favorite of mine after he slammed Bennett in the joint practices with NE. Hope he gets a ring somewhere, just hope it isn't with GB

[JAF-N72EX]

3 hours ago, G08 said:

I thought this was powerful... it also made me realize his career as a Chicago Bear will end with this season.

Yeah, he knows it's over.... you can hear it in his tone and responses. Listen to his response to the questions starting at the 3:50 mark.

Also remember last year he was given permission to seek a trade but couldn't find any buyers, so they was already planning to move ahead last season without him.

Unfortunately, it's practically a done deal that he's gone after this year. But like @Sugashane said, I hope he goes some place where he has a legit shot at a title. He hasn't had that opportunity since his NO and NE days 8 years ago.

[JAF-N72EX]

2 hours ago, blkwdw13 said:

If he will come back at a reasonable price I don't see much of a downside to bringing him back, he is the heart and soul of the defense.

I don't think he would be willing to come back, and feeling seems mutual with the brass.  Besides, this defense needs to be getting younger and we need to start having potential future replacements in the pipeline and re-signing a 33 year old vet only hinders that process.

Re-signing Nichols and further developing Tonga is the best approach for the DL IMO. 

 

[blkwdw13]

8 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

I don't think he would be willing to come back, and feeling seems mutual with the brass.  Besides, this defense needs to be getting younger and we need to start having potential future replacements in the pipeline and re-signing a 33 year old vet only hinders that process.

Re-signing Nichols and further developing Tonga is the best approach for the DL IMO. 

 

I get that. It’s just my opinion that with possibly a whole new staff things could change with his feelings. And yes the defense needs to get younger but his leadership is invaluable in showing the younger guys how to conduct themselves not only in the game but in everything. Like I said just my opinion and only if he would sign at a reasonable price(not likely).

[Madmike90]

Hicks for me is the guy I always wanted Julius Peppers to be...a quality defensive veteran who came here in free agency but felt like he was one of our originals like Urlacher, Briggs, Peanut or Brown...I never really warmed to Peppers but just feel as if Hicks gets what it means to play defence in Chicago and how important it is...

That said the injuries and diminishing play puts everyone in a difficult spot...we can't pay him for past performances and he is too proud to return here on a lesser contract...I can very easily see it from both sides...

Hope he goes to a proper contender and gets his ring...could pretty easily see him back in NE or even Buffalo given their run D issues.

[soulman]

10 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

I don't think he would be willing to come back, and feeling seems mutual with the brass.  Besides, this defense needs to be getting younger and we need to start having potential future replacements in the pipeline and re-signing a 33 year old vet only hinders that process.

Re-signing Nichols and further developing Tonga is the best approach for the DL IMO. 

 

That's is one very big powerful man whose also very intelligent and well spoken.

Unfortunately what I've bold faced is both correct and also as Hicks states "how the business works".

But I can't keep myself from asking why it has to work that way when many years ago prior to FA it didn't.  In that era players played out their careers with one team more often than not.  Trades happened but not as often as FA movement does today.  How could the business part be adjusted so that more players like Hicks could remain with the same team until retirement?  It takes two.

Player contract often reach their high point in annual salary in the final years of a deal when many have reached a point when injuries are more frequent, more severe, and take much longer to recover from.  That's all just normal human physiology and it only gets worse when you become an "old codger" like some of us here.  There are days when my "hurts" hurt more than others.

So why can't a contract be devised where at a mutually agreed upon age or number of years played the players salary begins to scale down to compensate mostly for the production lost due to games missed because of injury.  This is somewhat different than the concept of diminishing production due to a loss of skills that previously made that player more effective.

For instance.  Say your business has a key employee in sales whose performance drives both production and profit.  He's been your All Pro sales guys for the last 12 years but suddenly at age 60 his production declines not due to any reason other than the number of days he's been unable to work due to fighting ongoing illnesses or an occasional serious injury.  When he is able to work his sales figures are as good as they've ever been.  It's only his numerous absences that have caused a decline in his production.

If, as a result of these absences, his production is only 70% of his typical production when 100% available why can't his salary be scaled back to 70% of what he was earning when 100% healthy and productive.  Why let a still productive employee go when even at 70% he may still be more productive than a younger less experienced sales person who is 100% available and productive every day, every week, and all year long?  This is the part of "it's just business" in the NFL that I don't completely understand.

Furthermore, why do players who know their skills and/or availability may have declined stubbornly refuse a reduction in salary in order to remain with their current team?  Let's use Kyle Fuller as an example.  I believe his 2021 salary was in the $20 mil range and therefore unaffordable under the current cap.  The Bears asked him to take a salary cut.  He refused and was released.  While we don't know the exact amount they asked him to accept we do know that all he got from Denver was a 1 year $9 mil gtd deal.

I have to believe what the Bears were willing to pay couldn't have been a whole lot less than that.

This seems to be pretty typical when players are either released due to cap constraints or their current contracts have ended.  So given a rather obvious decline in a players "street market value" and also the lack of career security a one year deal provides why not negotiate something more equitable with the current team that reduces a players base salary but includes bonuses that if earned can add significantly to overall compensation if that player does remain 100% available and 100% productive?

Hicks current salary is $10.5 mil and his cap number is $12 mil with his amortize SB added in.  It's actually a very clean simple contract that has not been re-worked.  We can't give him that same kind of deal now at age 33 for the 2022 season but what base level salary is both fair and affordable to both parties and what bonuses could be added that might allow Hicks to earn far more if he achieves those goals?  Per game bonuses are one way.  Those are based on his availability alone.  What production bonuses?

My point is based loosely on the thinking that another team may not be willing to offer anymore in salary, guarantees, or length of time than we can.  I'm not advocating doing what we did with DT due to restructuring the deal but rather the player and the team coming to some mutually acceptable deal based both on that players most recent availability vs production projected over the length of a fairly short extension of two or at most three years.  I'm always somewhat puzzled why this is very seldom done.

 

Edited December 11, 2021 by soulman

[soulman]

28 minutes ago, soulman said:

Besides, this defense needs to be getting younger and we need to start having potential future replacements in the pipeline and re-signing a 33 year old vet only hinders that process.

Re-signing Nichols and further developing Tonga is the best approach for the DL IMO. 

I chose to deal with this in a separate post rather than add it to the previous one due to it's length.

I agree with what JAF posted that we do need to get younger but at the moment Nichols is the only one we need to be concerned with contractually.  Tonga is under contract through 2024.

I don't believe Hicks presence has cost Nichols a significant amount of snaps or at least not as a DE where he typically plays. And as for Tonga I'm not certain we know yet where he may eventually be most effective.  If he destined to be a pure NT or can he also be used as combination DE/DT as Hicks has.  He certainly could take snaps at both positions before settling into one full time.

But in the meantime sharing snaps with Hicks who career and his effectiveness may be prolonged by a reduction in his snaps could be the best of both worlds with Hicks helping to coach and develop Tonga in much the same manner that Jason Peters has been helpful both as LT and as a coach/mentor to both Borom and now Jenkins and I believe that it has helped Borom to adjust faster.

Let's say for the sake of debate that given his initial draft position and his 4 years of productivity Nichols is worth around $6-$7 mil per year on a 4 year extension.  If Hicks average annual salary is in the $5-$6 mil range then you have both for at least another two years and both the caliber and the depth of the DL is retained.  You could use the same idea at other positions as well.

If we were flush on both draft picks and cap so that we could more easily sign younger FA talent or draft highly ranked rookies to replace aging vets of course that may be a better approach but neither is truly the case.  Pace has created a bit of a dilemma for himself in terms of both a dearth of draft picks and a somewhat more limited cap situation he can't just magically unravel.

Obviously both the player and the team will need to agree on a salary reduction in that final contract but if it's truly based on what any players true and current FMV is it's tough to envision why a deal can't be worked out that benefits both.  IMHO this is where both the player and his agent need to be realistic about that players FMV to other teams and his current team but will they do it?

Edited December 11, 2021 by soulman

[Madmike90]

https://www.chicagobears.com/news/hicks-downgraded-to-out-for-packers-game

It's sad that Hicks won't get to play one final game for us against the packers.