jason

True. I was just thinking like Lovie is all. I'm not even sure he can say offense. Reporter: "So, Lovie, what are your offseason plans for the offense?" Lovie: "I'll tell ya. We're planning on drafting to fill a hole. And we'll probably go DL in the first round. Mid rounds we'll grab a small school safety. OL in the 7th. That should do it."

I'm not sure I understand your point. If the receivers had the dropsies when Clausen was in, then surely they had drops when Cutler was in.

You're not alone. I've said it for nearly a decade. The.Bears.Need.OL. You just can't fix that kind of historical deficiency in one year.

I was hoping the second part to your post was "to usher or ticket-taker". Ted Phillips should be fired...just to remove the stench of his failures.

No. But he should have been first. He should have been tarred, feathered, and chased out by south-siders wielding pitchforks.

Don't you think they were maybe doing that as a way to ensure Forte got the record?

Dude should be run out of the NFL. He should have been fired before Emery, Trestman, or anyone else.

Cut'em. Start fresh.

Yeah, but Lovie won't let him run the defense with impunity. It will be a defense that fits into the overall scheme of the Lovie Smith team (i.e. Get a 3 point lead and start running the clock).

Who can be cut without detriment to the team? I don't give a damn if it's half the team, to be quite honest. I think Jared Allen is untouchable because of the money, but who else falls into that boat? The only players on defense who I want kept are cheap, good, or financial obligations. But I don't have a real interest in any except Jennings, Peanut, Fuller, Jones, Jennings, Young, and Paea.

Thanks all. I'm not trying to hijack this thread. Let's enjoy the Emery/Trestman pink slip a lot more than my return...because if the Bears continue to suck, I could be off for another season. It's just unbearable. With the offseason there is hope.

Funny...several of us wanted Christian Jones, and had him valued as a player to draft late. The Bears were lucky to get him after the draft, and he definitely earned a starting role.

It's not ideal, but when the team has been called a dumpster fire, and the organization has been joked about for years, and the collective of this board has hated the majority of the moves made by management, maybe, just maybe, those stats are misleading. Sure, he's had some horrible games, but I'm convinced there is something going on with the offense that has caused problems the past two years. There were far too many elementary mistakes for it to be simply players screwing up. Way too many OL/TE/RB combos not knowing the blitz pickup. Way too many false starts by WR/TE/OL. Way too many pass routes where Cutler throws right and the receiver turns left. Something just isn't right. Add in the worst defense over a 2-year stretch in Chicago Bears history, and I could see why Cutler isn't putting up ideal numbers (even though he threw for more TDs this year than in any year in his career). Put another way, it was time to fire Emery and Trestman. Emery didn't build a good enough team to overcome poor coaching, and he didn't hire good enough coaches to overcome lesser talent.

The Talkbears board would have done better over the last two years than Emery.

I thought of quitting the old board when you whined like a bitch. I didn't put up a fight, and even volunteered not to be an admin because I didn't want to deal with bitches like you any more. I even talked to Pix about it. It just wasn't fun at that point. I've noticed the admins on the current board either don't have time, don't care, or have changed their opinions on what should be allowed and what should not. I loved the Bears before the board, and could certainly do so after. But I stuck around. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. And with that, I'm out.

NYC - If I'm a dick, then you're a giant crybaby. You've been that way since you bitched and whined on the last board because I took something overtly political out of your post, while leaving the remaining post and intent intact. What makes it ironic is you've since exposed your political leanings in other posts, and I actually agree with you politically. This, however, is not a board about politics - or at least it shouldn't be - and those posts should always be edited or removed (even if the current mods aren't doing it). BTW - If you go back on the board, nobody here was talking $5M for Urlacher. Most were saying just give him a little more than the low-ball, initial offer. If I recall, the majority were saying $2.5-$3 at very most. That likely would have helped Urlacher save face, the team would have done the right thing for a HOFer, and the team would have almost certainly benefitted as a result. Last but not least, to even compare Urlacher to Webb is ridiculously ignorant on various levels, and doesn't deserve to be justified in the slightest. scs - Because of PFF's support of Webb, who obviously sucked for anyone who actually watched him play football, their stats will continue to be severely flawed. Any PFF stats used to support or detract from an opinion are moderately interesting at best, throw-away at worst. Just watching film and compiling numbers doesn't guarantee a meaningful result. I give them kudos for trying, and doing what others haven't done, or would like to do, but their final product still requires significant upgrading. Ashkum - You gotta be shittin' me with that "locker room cancer" stuff. Urlacher was loved by pretty much all teammates (I haven't heard of a guy going against him, but I don't read everything so it's possible?). And as far as I know, all the coaches he played for loved him while he was in Chicago. Maybe our definitions of locker room cancer are different. He wasn't the best with the fans, but he was loved by teammates and cocahes. LT2 - Both your scenarios are possible, but Urlacher looked better at the end of his last year than at the beginning. This tends to support the "Urlacher is back and healthy" argument. I had not heard Peppers became a bad locker room guy. You're also right that it's POSSIBLE Urlacher would have caused waves, but that, just like his production last year, are unknowns. His production on the field in previous seasons and during his last season supports the concept that he would have made the team better last year, but there is no real support - that I know of - for him actually causing problems in the clubhouse amongst teammates or coaches. Alaska - Apparently you are the only one capable of actually grasping the very realistic concept that Urlacher, while diminished, was still better than anyone on the team last year, and almost certainly would have made the defense better. How much is anyone's guess. Nothing is a 100% certainty - nobody saw it coming when an "in his prime Knox" basically get retired on a single, spine-bending hit - but Urlacher's legacy, history, production, and upward trend towards the end of his last year say he would have helped the team.

I was pretty happy that we were 2. But, please, keep thinking you have a F'ing clue about absolutely anything.

Thanks for finally seeing my point of view. I've understood yours all along, and players naturally deteriorate, but Urlacher was a HOF talent whose diminished abilities were still better than the guys on the field, and he would have had significant impact on the field as a result. You've basically agreed with me. He would have lined up the players better than Briggs. He would have patrolled the middle better than whomever. He would have recognized the offensive audibles faster. He would have been a leader. Unfortunately for him, Urlacher wasn't picked up anywhere else. I guess it's fortunate for us, because it would have sickened me to see him in another jersey. In the end, Adam nailed this thread twice: once when he said that Urlacher was let go a year too early, and then again when he said it's better to make a move a year early than a year late. The former helped lead to the catastrophic defensive year the Bears saw last year. The latter is to be seen, but I like the way Emery is setting things up for this franchise's future.

As many have mentioned WE are not THE BEARS. I think the majority of fans would not have a problem with Briggs moving on if the Bears got a decent value, but the Bears franchise probably likes him more than most of us do.

Alex Smith better put on his track shoes. He's in trouble.

How are the 2012 stats conjecture? They aren't. And when you build a case on Urlacher's production, it's not conjecture to say he would have had a great impact on the defense. When you have that much factual information and statistics behind your argument, it's called a pattern. It's a rock-solid case. It's the basis for nearly all forms of quantitative study. As for your conjecture, if Urlacher played in one game and then got injured, statistics say the Bears would probably have been better in the game he played than in the average of the remainder of the season. Finally, if your hypothetical dreamland scenario of Urlacher having a massive issue between the 2012 season and the time he negotiated before the 2013 season existed, it would have leaked by now. Sorry, but we know about things way too quickly, with way too many media, twitter, etc., for something like that to have remained unknown or hidden.

Wrong again, dipshit. I'm in the same boat as just about every other Bears fan when saying that Briggs has never been a favorite. In fact, I've been on board with a couple trade scenarios others have mentioned on this board.

The obvious answer here is that the Bears should sign a big name FA for the secondary. I also wouldn't mind seeing the Bears nab Maurkice Pouncey to make the OL virtually indestructible. More than likely, however, they'll probably resign Briggs to pretty big money for a 2-3 year contract.

Look, dick, if someone posts something about Urlacher losing ability, I'm going to reply. F'ing deal with it. I think everyone is over the fact that Urlacher is not with the team, but that doesn't mean I'll ignore inaccuracy about his impact. It's not conjecture to say A] Urlacher was important to the team (missed four games and still 4th in tackles) & B] He was doing better as the season progressed. They're both facts. Don't you know how to click links? The stats say the team was better when he was on the field. The stats say he was doing better as the season went on. It doesn't take a genius to get his tackles during 2012 on a game-by-game basis, put them into excel, and make a chart with a trend line. As far as being a major contributor, if he had signed with the team, and remained uninjured, there is zero doubt he would have been a major contributor in 2013. The defense would have been better with him than without him, albeit slightly because of the injuries. To deny this is just ignorant, especially considering the fact that Briggs has talked about feeling uncomfortable calling the plays, and giving that job to a rookie would have been poor planning. Even in his interview he was noticeably awkward when replying to whether he was comfortable. Make no mistake, Urlacher was missed. The last part I agree with. That's basically what the Bears were doing - giving him a chance to retire a Bear and say goodbye. But given how historically shitty the Bears' defense was last year, maybe it wasn't a matter of "Urlacher overestimat[ing] his value," maybe it was the Bears underestimating?

I agree with everything except the bolded part. It has been shown before that the Bears were better with Urlacher on the field than without in 2012. He certainly lost effectiveness if compared to his peak, but statistics clearly show he was effective. What's more, he was trending up before he got injured. Dislike him all you want off the field, but his impact on the Bears defense in 2012, and the likely compounding affect of his absence in 2013 (which you noted), can't be questioned.