jason

haha. Check out new Walter football mock I just posted.

Love the first three rounds... 1. HHCD, S, Alabama 2. Roberson, CB, Florida 3. Anthony Johnson, DT, Florida 4. Tom Savage, QB, Pitt (I'd rather see Shayne Skov, ILB, Stanford here) 5. Kevin Pierre-Louis, LB, Boston College

It's tough man. Especially when so many blindly support the idiots while they are serving in Chicago.

Forte seemed to do well during Wolfe's time with the Bears. The OL's issue wasn't the ability to run block; it was pass blocking they had trouble with. Nonetheless, you don't send a midget into the middle of the big boys three times in a row like our former coaches did. If the Bears get DAT, I can only hope they don't repeat former staff's history.

Agreed. I'd rather pick up a polished rookie with room to grow than a polished turd with minimal upside.

COMPLETELY agreed! I was a big fan of his when he was in college, and I just loved his ability to break tackles, gain the extra yard, while still being able to hit a homerun.

Maybe not scare, but at least Ratliff and Paea can intimidate.

If they do draft him, let's just hope the current staff is smart enough not to send him into the center of the line three times in a row. Because, remember, these coaches cannot be questioned by us mere mortals, and that means the previous staff's strategy of sending Garrett Wolfe :banghead made any sort of sense.

The fact that the Bears have zero starting safeties now should be a serious cause for concern. Sure, bodies have been added, but the starters last year were horrible. One is Major Wright, who was judged as the worst safety in the league (for what it's worth), and the other is Chris Conte, who just about everyone on this board thought was worse than Major Wright. Jennings, Mundy, McCray, and Steltz scare absolutely nobody. Safety is the Bears #1 need.

What this really means is, Roberto Garza better put up a huge year. Because he's an UFA next year, and he's going to get dumped like others Bears from the previous regime if he doesn't perform like a pro-bowler.

Similarly, if Donald is off the board, and HaHa or Jernigan are on the board, I will be upset if they take Pryor, Hageman, or Nix.

Funny exchange regarding the subject. https://twitter.com/PFF_Pete/status/452918660836122624 If DLP's PFF grade is so much higher than Garza's, and Trestman supposedly considers that source, then how is DLP a backup? Furthermore, if he's so much better than Garza, and one of the top 5, then how didn't he sign with another team as a starter? Like others, I think he's the C for the future. And depending on how Mills progresses, or how early (if) the Long switch happens, he could be the Center this year. Although, I'm not sure which I'd rather see: Bushrod - Slausson - DLP - Garza - Long --OR-- Bushrod - Slausson - Garza - Long - Mills

You are such a dumbass. It doesn't cause me to pout. I'm completely over the fact Urlacher is not on the team. What I don't like, however, is the current management's seeming indifference towards negotiating with players who not only could help the team, but also hold historical significance. As TD said, Allen is just blowing smoke. He went to the team where he got a good offer (not the best offer) and his wife grew up.

Agreed. He might be the one guy in the NFL with a worse sense of angles than Conte. Of course, he's way more physically gifted on the field, but that just makes it more frustrating.

Get this through your thick skull, dumbass, they should have still negotiated. Period. It is always beneficial to negotiate. It's how business works. It's how deals get brokered. That is how the world works. Tillman - Are you sure that's how it played out? Tillman says here, "Everyone knows how the process works. It's a business." Furthermore, there are incentives in the contract based on performance. Don't you believe that sort of thing is negotiated? According to Urlacher, the Bears said take it or leave it. That's not negotiating - it's an ultimatum. It wouldn't have killed them to just sit down and negotiate with the face of the franchise, and find a low-end middle ground. If Urlacher wanted $4M and the Bears were offering $1M, then the Bears could have bumped the offer by a very small amount, or included a performance-based incentive (like Tillman). If Urlacher then rebuffed that offer, they could say they at least tried. According to Melton, it's basically how you said...which is not a very good way to do business in any environment. That's essentially saying, "We kind of want you." In this situation, it's the obligation of the team to entice the player, not the other way around. If the Bears really wanted him, or were serious about it at all, they would have at least thrown out a realistic, low-end, starting point for negotiations. This part I completely agree with. And it this is the 100% reason for not bringing these guys in for negotiations at all (i.e. they simply didn't want them at all), then it is what it is. But it's hard to believe the Bears wouldn't want any of these players back. Urlacher is a HOFer who was the heart of the defense the year before. Hester is a HOFer who was still in the top handful of returnmen in the NFL. And Melton is an all-pro DT who fits the defense and a key need almost perfectly (unless they're scared of the injury). If that's not the reason (this article about Jared Allen indicates that the Bears are willing to creatively work contracts with players they want), however, and it's financial, then you should at least sit down at the table to see if the BMW could be had for two or three sticks of gum.

That's precisely my point. What's so difficult to understand? It makes no sense to completely shut off negotiations before hearing what the other side could potentially offer. It's not like he's crippled or bad. He was still one of the best kick returners in the NFL last year. What would it have hurt to simply sit down with him and see what he's asking for? If he says, "I want $4M." If the Bears ask whether he's willing to negotiate, and he says, "No," then it was worth the cordial sit-down. However, if Hester says, "I'm willing to sign for X," and it's a dollar value feasible to the Bears, then it was also worth the visit. Either way, it serves no purpose to completely stonewall on potential negotiations. As for Urlacher, it's easy for you to say that, and somewhat ironic. So you expect Urlacher to be a "mature adult" and sit down to talk, when that's all he apparently wanted to begin with?

My point was that it's not just Urlacher saying the Bears failed to negotiate. It's also Hester and Melton. The fact that they negotiated with Peanut only proves they are willing to negotiate with players they unequivocally want. Players they are questionable on appear to get a "take it or leave it" approach. Most people don't like being treated like that in any situation. There is no doubt Urlacher is mad about the money, but that's three different players basically saying the Bears didn't even really approach it in an open manner. That's the problem I have. We don't know for sure what discount they could have been had for, or if at all, but at least one (Urlacher) has publicly stated that he was willing to play for less than he originally asked. In that situation, it would behoove the Bears to simply let the situation play out. Offer, counter-offer, etc. If it ends up being too much, then so be it.

Is it revisionist history if just about everyone on the board didn't like the Shea pick? I can't find the draft thread, but here's Bears4Ever_34 calling the Shae move back to LB.

Listen dumbass...NOBODY KNOWS. However, there is Urlacher's side of it, and the team's side. Urlacher's side is supported by at least two other players: Melton and Hester. Both big enough stars to speak out and not worry about getting black-balled. All three spoke the same story, and that story was that the team simply didn't negotiate. One person and sour grapes? Sure. But THREE people? That's a trend. And it's likely the truth. EDIT: Having said that, the comment I made earlier about Brian's distorted definition of loyalty stands.

I think it's kind of a mixed bag. Sure, the money Hester and Urlacher were asking for was more than the Bears wanted to pay. That's understandable. But at the same time, there appears to have been no attempt at signing either player, or even making an effort at negotiation. Who's to say the loyalty Urlacher speaks of wouldn't have been returned if the Bears simply made a lower-middle ground offer? Same goes for Hester. What if Hester would have signed for less than $2M to remain a Bear? We'll never know because the team never even got to that point with him. Having said all that, loyalty is DEFINITELY not "pay equal to or more than another team is offering just because a player has been with his team his whole career." That's just stupid. At a certain point the value of the player has to be considered.

Suppose the Bears used the rest of their available cap, not including the portion allotted for rookies, to sign Desean Jackson. How would you feel about this move?

Yeah, pretty much echoing this. A first round safety will absolutely start over Conte.

I hope he's telling the truth and not just blowing smoke. If so, it's exactly as I've said for a long time. All it takes is a few like-minded athletes to bind together and say, "We don't need the max deal. Let's sacrifice a little to build a franchise together." It has sort of happened in the NBA with the players recruiting each other. I'd love to see an NFL trend start in Chicago.

I honestly have NEVER heard anyone use that phrase to mean simply slightly deteriorated. Whenever that was the intention it was simply said as such. I've lived all over the U.S., from coast to coast and even in Chicago, and whenever I've heard an American person say that idiom, it has always had the double meaning as in the definition below: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/past+one's+prime Synonym: "Over the hill" It ain't like I edited the definition on their website. Like I said before, it was a big misunderstanding.

No twisting at all. Past his prime/peak is a common idiom.