DrunkBomber

I agree there is no way he will ever be a Bear. He might be the only person in the world that could be a positive mentor for Grossman.

I got the invite, Im in for sure. Im sure my friend will do it too.

Ive read a few times the past few years that Mike Brown is the go to guy in the locker room leadership wise. Even when hes injured.

Too old to play? He had one of his best statistical seasons last year and was in overtime in the NFL Championship.

I agree with that to a point. Harris is doing the right things and his timing is good with Urlachers contract dispute. However, I think theres more to being a leader than that. It takes a while for players as talented as NFL athletes to respect you enough to consider you a leader and Im not saying Tommie has or hasnt done it yet but we know Urlacher has.

Not at all. Last year he was handed the job and was coming off the Super Bowl. This year he is in an open competition and is running drills with undrafted free agent quarterbacks trying to improve. Im not saying it will work, but at least he knows what his weaknesses are and is trying to work on them. To be honest, Im thinking maybe Pep Hamilton might need to be fired. He has qbs with talent but cant get them to work through any of their problems.

Rick Morrissey April 20, 2008 I have been trying to come up with salient points the Bears might be making as they attempt to lower the numbers in contract-extension talks with Brian Urlacher, who, if he isn't Mr. Chicago, is near the top of the family tree. There is, of course, Urlacher's recent back and neck injuries and the fear his game might be slipping because of those health issues. There is his age, 30 next month, which, given the rigors of playing linebacker, works out to about 50 in normal human years. There is the fact they gave him a nine-year, $57 million contract in 2003 and what's the big idea about wanting more money? These are good points, nice points, perfectly sensible points. These are points that would sound great in a classroom for MBA candidates. But they're irrelevant. Who wants to be the Bears' executive who tells the public Brian Urlacher won't be playing this season because of a contract dispute? Would that be you, Jerry Angelo? Or you, Ted Phillips? The idea that Urlacher, because he has four years left on his current contract, has no leverage is one of the silliest notions on record. Whose jersey is by far the most popular in the stands at Soldier Field? That would be No. 54's. And that jersey has been among the top sellers in the NFL. Urlacher is not just the most popular player on the Bears, he is the most popular athlete in Chicago right now and easily one of the most popular in city history. If people don't already have him up there with Walter Payton, Dick Butkus, Michael Jordan and Ernie Banks, they will soon. That bullet head of his is iconic. So the issue of leverage? It's a non-issue. Tell me, if Urlacher were to retire or ask to be traded, who would take the brunt of the criticism: he or the Bears? Answer: the team that has reaped millions upon millions of dollars from its superstar. Sure, if the Bears want to deal in ill will, all they have to do is play hardball with Urlacher and, by extension, the team's fans. What we're talking about here is a package deal. The amount of enmity the franchise would create would make the Michael McCaskey years look like the Era of Good Feelings. Fans generally don't side with athletes who want more money. Greed isn't pretty. But this is one situation in which you shrug and say, "Would three more years be enough, big guy?" The Bears' business mind-set is obvious: You don't pay somebody for what they have done in the past; you pay them for what they will do for you in the future. That's a smart approach with almost any player. But Urlacher isn't any player. He's the kind of player who comes around every 20 years or so. He is, as football people like to say about the exceptionally athletic, a freak. But he's so much more than that. His popularity is indisputable. He's popular because he's a great player and, more importantly, an exciting player. When he's healthy, nobody runs sideline to sideline the way he does. Take him away from this franchise and you're left with Devin Hester to remind you why football is exciting. Left to the other guys on the current roster, you might be scratching your head over what the fuss is about. Rex Grossman? Last year, when Lance Briggs went on a one-man crusade to help one man, himself, get richer, people lined up on both sides of the argument. Depending on your outlook, he either was somebody the Bears had to keep or he was the epitome of selfishness. It's hard to picture public sentiment turning on Urlacher. It would be like turning on Mr. Cub. And that's an interesting comparison, seeing as how Banks is a vivacious people person and Urlacher is a product endorser, though one of few words. That just goes to show how intensely Chicago has connected with the way he plays football: All out, all the time. There's obviously a limit here. The Bears aren't going to give Urlacher anything he wants. These are the Bears. They're more likely to offer him a percentage of the sales at a Soldier Field hot dog stand. This really isn't a question of whether Urlacher is being disagreeable. The salary cap has gone from $75 million when he signed his contract in 2003 to a projected $116.7 million for 2008. You can bet the Bears have gotten more out of having Urlacher on the field than he has from them. He would like a little more of the "more." It's hard to see how the Bears can draw a line here without insulting one of the best players in their history. "Could I see a scenario where I wouldn't be here?" Urlacher said to the Tribune's Vaughn McClure. "It would be if they traded me. But we all know that's not going to happen." The Bears, of course, are counting on the fact Urlacher loves football so much he won't be able to stay away from the field come the regular season. And maybe they're right. But what if they're wrong?

Staying after practice and working alongside long-shot rookies is part of Rex Grossman's resurrection plan

How much it went to his head? What exactly has he done that makes him seem like anything went to his head? Since he put the star on his door? Where are you getting this stuff from? Living a different life than hes lived his whole life...Also, as far as his "hateful" custody battle. He was trying to get full custody of his daughter, Im not sure how that makes someone a bad guy for wanting custody of their children and I also ont see how his marriage, children or who he dates affects anything on the field. You may think he isnt a good leader but I can give you about 52 guys that do.

I cant see how any Bears fan wouldnt want this. As long as its not some idiot like Pacman Jones or some guy who has been busted for juicing or anything like that I would take any player that makes the team better. If teams all of a sudden had to respect our passing game our running game would flourish. If you want to see a good example of that, mark my words. Ryan Grants production this year is going to fall way off. I dont think some people realize how much having a QB like Favre changes a defense. At any time he could throw a bomb so its almost impossible for teams to stack the box. I can argue we had the same effect in the beginning of 06 when Grossman was throwing bombs to Berrian all the time. Look what Jones was able to do because teams were worried that Grossman had the cannon to throw a fly to Berrian at any time. With Favre on our team we would become instant title contenders. However, there isnt a chance in hell this would happen. If Favre were to play, which he wont, it would be for the Packers. He is a god there and he isnt going to spur the fans of Green Bay by demanding a trade or asking for his spot back so they are forced to release him. Even if he did he wouldnt sign here and for a few reasons. A) he wouldnt want to piss off Green Bay fans like that and in his eyes IF he were to leave he would want to go to a team that is ready to win now and only needs a QB which I doubt he would think is us. Lastly, if they traded him, they wouldnt trade him to their bitter divisional rivals.

I wonder what the terms were. Good news!

Packers: Favre has "itch" to play GREEN BAY — Brett Favre has the itch to play football again, but the Green Bay Packers apparently prefer for the legendary quarterback to scratch it elsewhere. An NFL source told the State Journal on Wednesday afternoon that Favre — or agent James "Bus" Cook on his behalf — contacted the Packers "within the past few weeks" about returning, and the conversation ended in him asking the club for his release. The Packers refused. Favre has communicated his potential desire to coach Mike McCarthy, but talks have not advanced to a substantive stage, a Packers source told Mortensen. The league source, who spoke to the State Journal on the condition of anonymity, wouldn't say why Favre would've asked to be released, but the logical reason he'd have made such a request would be because the team had told him it had moved on with new starter Aaron Rodgers and did not want him back. The Packers also could've been gauging Favre's resolve to see how serious he really is about playing again. When Mortensen's report broke, Packers cornerback Al Harris was participating in one of several ESPN appearances he was making throughout the day. Asked on "NFL Live" what he knew of Favre's intentions, Harris replied: "I've talked to Brett and I know he has the itch to come back and play. If he will or not, I don't know. But I know he's feeling he wants to play." Reached later Wednesday by the State Journal, Harris said his last conversation with Favre had been "a while ago." "Everybody, retired or not, has the itch to play at this time of year," Harris said. "I'm not sure what he's going to do. It's totally up to Brett. If he wants to play, he should play." Asked if he could picture Favre playing for another team, Harris replied, "I can't (picture that). I don't think he could either. But it could happen." The Packers placed Favre on the reserve/retired list on April 25 — termed a "procedural" move by general manager Ted Thompson at the time — and continue to hold his rights, which they could trade to another team if Favre wants to come back and is willing to do so with another club. If Favre is serious about reporting to training camp — the first practice is July 28 — and the Packers are committed to moving on, it would set up a potentially awkward parting of the ways between the franchise and its preeminent star. Favre could demand to be activated from the reserve/retired list, and that would give the Packers three options: Re-activate him, release him or trade him. The Packers are set to retire Favre's No. 4 at a ceremony at Lambeau Field during the Sept. 8 regular-season opener against the Minnesota Vikings on "Monday Night Football." A team source told Mortensen that the Packers "value Brett's legacy, we think he values it, and we'd want to protect that. Brett's a high-quality person and he's not going to push it that far. He'll do the right thing (and stay retired). This was almost predictable, the idea that Brett would get the itch to play as we get closer to the season." Indeed, Favre did tell David Letterman on CBS-TV's "The Late Show" on April 24 that, as the start of training camp approached, "Something's bound to happen." Asked by Letterman what he meant, Favre smiled before adding, "Butterflies, or I don't know. I don't know. Something's bound to happen." Packers spokesman Jeff Blumb said McCarthy and Thompson were both on vacation and unavailable for comment. "The Packers have no reaction," Blumb said when asked for the club's official statement on the report of Favre's desire to play again. Asked whether Favre contacted the team about returning and then asked for his release, Blumb would neither confirm nor deny it, saying simply, "I don't have any information on that." Favre's brother, Scott, told WISN-TV in Milwaukee that Favre has been "throwing and running" with the local high school football team in Hattiesburg, Miss., as he has during past offseasons, which would also indicate he's serious about coming back. "I don't know what he's going to do," Scott Favre said. "It's getting closer to camp time. Who knows? He may be getting that itch." Scott Favre said he had dinner with his brother on Tuesday night and disputed ESPN's assertion that Favre's family has been "tugging" on him to play. "I don't know how true that is. Sure, I'd like to see him play again. (But) I haven't told him anything," Scott Favre said. "He knows that we'd like to see him play. But that's up to him. I don't want him to play if he's not happy." Scott Favre also spoke with WTMJ-TV in Milwaukee, and when asked if his brother would play for another team if the Packers wanted to go in another direction, Scott Favre replied, "I don't see why not. I'm sure plenty of other teams would want him. If the Packers decide it's time to move on, it's time for Brett to move on, if that's the case." Cook downplayed Favre's desire to return to Mortensen, saying, "As far as I know, right now, Brett Favre is retired and until he tells me something different, that's what it is." Favre has two years remaining on his contract, with a $12 million base salary in 2008 and a $13 million base salary in 2009. He tearfully said at a March 6 news conference that the burden after playing 17 NFL seasons had become too great. "I expect a lot out of myself and certain things are expected of me within this organization and I tried to live up to those all the time," Favre said that day. "And Brett Favre got hard to live up to. "There were numerous Saturdays (before) home games where I was here (at Lambeau Field) at 8:30 at night watching film. I had never done that before. It was never enough for me. (My wife) Deanna knows this: After numerous games I would come home and after a couple of hours I had the computer out and I was watching film of the upcoming opponent instead of enjoying the win we just had. At some point, you've got to relax and enjoy and I found myself not enjoying it as much." At age 38, Favre had a renaissance season in 2007, completing a career-best 66.5 percent of his regular-season passes for 4,155 yards, 28 touchdowns and 15 interceptions for a 95.7 passer rating (his best since 1995) while leading the team with the youngest opening-day roster in the NFL to the NFC Championship Game, where the Packers lost in overtime to eventual the Super Bowl XLII-champion New York Giants. But he wasn't as effective down the stretch — after registering a passer rating of 100 or better in eight of the first 11 games and throwing 22 TD passes versus eight INTS, he had 11 TDs and nine INTs over the final seven games, including two playoff games — and his final NFL pass was intercepted by the Giants cornerback Corey Webster in overtime of the NFC Championship Game, preventing the Packers from reaching their third Super Bowl of the Favre era. Afterward, there were concerns within the organization about whether Favre, once invincible in cold weather, could still win in adverse conditions. He played poorly in a windy loss at Chicago late in the regular season, and Giants quarterback Eli Manning handled the frigid NFC title game weather much better than his older counterpart. Following his retirement announcement, Favre publicly mused about a possible comeback on several separate occasions this spring, and in April, the Los Angeles Times reported — and the State Journal confirmed — that Cook had been quietly talking to other NFL teams to gauge their interest if Favre were to return. Cook denied it, and Favre told Sports Illustrated's Peter King later that week that a comeback was "the last thing I'm thinking about. I have no idea where that came from, but it certainly didn't come from me. I'm happy about my decision and I haven't once said, 'I wonder if I made the wrong decision.' I know it's the right one." But Favre later backtracked on that, admitting in late April in an ESPN interview that he second-guessed his decision to retire "every day."

Thats definitely not gonna help his case at all.

Didnt the Bears say publically that they arent looking to bring in any other backs yet? At least at this point.

Well theres the issue we have though. The Bears wont admit those guys arent capable of carrying the load so they dont feel they need to bring someone else in. I think parting ways with Wolfe would be huge because it opens a lot of doors for us to bring in other guys.

I think this opt out by the owners is the kiss of death for Upshaw. He was rumored to be on the way out before this and if this goes poorly people will want changes.

Thats not a concern, thats a fact. I think they might wait to see what happens in the preseason before bringing someone else in. We all know our coaching staff overrates AP but most of us realize his role. Hes an excellent third string back and special teams player. I know a few of you guys like Wolfe but hes a joke. He will be out of the NFL in a few years. I would be a big fan of bringing in Jones, but him only really out of the bunch. We dont need another mediocre back but Jones hasd a much bigger upside and is capable of being a good change of pace back to split carries because of the varied styles of him and Forte.

This headline is deceiving when viewed from the home page.

I hope so, rookie salaries are ridiculous. Matt Ryan should not be making more than Tom Brady.

A few gambles in there. I dont think Mendenhall is gonna do anything fantasy wise. Willie is gonna get the bulk of the carries and if they bring him in on the goal line they still normally pass a lot down there. I also think the Packers offense is gonna take a big step back. Grant and Jennings will drop off.

If we need another QB I would much rather have it be one of our undrafted guys or someone younger who was never given a shot. If Orton and Grossman either get hurt or dont produce there is nothing Leftwich will be able to do to help us. We would be better off letting some younger guys take a stab at it to see if they can compete in the league.

What a bullshit article. Tommies comments are a tribute to what kind of guy he is and has nothing to do with other players. He handles his business one way, and thats the way the fans like it to be done, but theres no way he is going to intentionally call out his teammates, especially Urlacher and Briggs.

It feels good to not only have one of the best defensive players in the league locked up long term but for him to be saying things like this. Sometimes when guys sign a new deal you think their play might drop off a little but in Tommies case I think he will work harder to earn it. If we can do anything with our offense in the next year or two our defense has the pieces in place to compete for our division for years to come.