Fans have little sympathy for Briggs' unhappiness

	Lance Briggs has made no secret of his desire to make last season his final one in Chicago, a notion the team doesn't share. Brian Killian/WireImage.com
	MAILBAG Peter King will answer your questions each week in Monday Morning Quarterback: Tuesday Edition. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

Reading personal e-mails to me and e-mails to this column, I've been surprised at the vitriol in the Lance Briggs case. I agree with it, but I'm surprised by it.

To sum up: Briggs is the excellent Chicago linebacker who takes great exception at the Bears placing the franchise tag on him. Instead of hitting the open market and striking it rich with a big signing bonus from a team with lots of cap room, he is "stuck'' earning $7.2 million on a one-year contract with Chicago.

Last week, Briggs told ESPN's Len Pasquarelli he wanted out of Chicago in the worst way rather than play for the one-year deal. And Monday, he echoed that to Fox's Jay Glazer, saying, "I'll never play another down for Chicago again.'' As I wrote Monday, Briggs is directing his anger in the wrong place. He should be angry with the NFLPA for negotiating a system in 1993 that included the right for a team to make him a franchise player and not allow him to test the open market.

But that's where we'll start today.

SUCK IT UP, LANCE. From John Lees, of Wappingers Falls, N.Y.: "Lance Briggs needs to shut up and play. He is going to be paid over $7 million for one year of playing football. In my company, people who are paid over $100,000 per year are considered 'highly compensated individuals.' If I were a 'highly compensated individual' for 40 years, I would bring down $4 million. Lance is going to almost double that in one year and he is miffed. Cry me a river of crocodile tears. I know other guys are getting stupid money but I'll tell you, it is getting to be fed-up time with these guys. They need a little perspective.''

You are one of many. Speaking of Manny ...

YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME, LANCE. From Manny, of New York City: "George Halas has to be rolling over in his grave at the audacity of Lance Briggs. Why doesn't he just do what Nate Clements did in Buffalo last year? Clements told the Bills he'd play under the franchise tag for 2006 and not make a lot of noise about it -- if Buffalo would let him go free after the season. The Bills agreed, and Clements got his money, and they all lived happily ever after.''

Great idea, Manny. I hope Jerry Angelo, the Chicago GM, is reading this. You know what I like about this? Let's say the Bears are 2-4 at the trading deadline next October, and nothing is going right. Angelo could deal Briggs for a second-round pick, and some team could make him the rich man he wants to be. Just a thought.

ALL ABOUT JAKE. From John Perry, of Tampa: "I think your point about the Jake Plummer deal being better than it looks on the surface is right on. I, along with anyone who follows football around these parts, know GM Bruce Allen is quite shrewd (almost shark-like) and the whole deal could have been little more than free money from Plummer's signing bonus. Basically very little risk for a chance at moderate reward. Have you put any thought or heard any rumors that it could have also been related to another part of your 10 things, namely that taking Plummer off the menu might force Oakland to draft a quarterback (JaMarcus Russell), thereby greatly increasing Tampa's chances at the player it wants -- a little-known wide receiver out of Georgia Tech.''