jason

If that's how it pans out, I want the Bears to get AJ McCarron in the 4th. He'd be a steal at that point, but won't last much longer. I really think he's going to be an all-pro in the NFL.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/i...trade-14th-pick Fact Fact Fact Fiction What say you?

Classic move by Emery, and the type of thing that's about two levels beyond ol' Jerry Angelo. The most creative move Angelo ever made that wasn't directly financial was his Tait signing.

You draft now for two reasons: 1) The possibility of a pick outshining a current player 2) The concept of insurance The former is obvious. If you draft a guy in the 7th, and he turns out to be Jay Hilgenberg, then Garza ends up being a good backup. The latter is also obvious, but maybe more important. Starters go down. Get hurt. You don't want your team taking a nose-dive because a key player goes out.

Yeah, that was the major issue. Most here, me included, thought he was not properly suited to being a DE. We ended up being right. He was suited to being a 3-4 OLB, which is a glorified DE who doesn't have to deal with the rigors of being a DE in many systems. But MLB? That woulda been crazy talk.

Really? I don't remember that at all. That would have been crazy talk considering he was a DE at best and an OLB at worst coming out of college. I remember that Green Bay wanted him as well, for those two positions. **EDIT** I just did some google-fu, and found a few instances of such talk. It was crazy then. Not so crazy now because it's just an attempt to salvage a potential first round bust with athletic talent/ability.

DING! DING! DING!

How far would you be willing to trade up for the right talent? Suppose the top of the draft goes QB crazy. Four of the top five teams need a QB. The Rams like their QB, their coach has a relationship with a stud player’s Dad (Bruce/Jake Matthews), and they need playmakers. Atlanta sits at pick 6, and one of their team needs is DL. 1. HOU – Bridgewater 2. STL – Matthews 3. JAX – Manziel 4. CLE – Bortles 5. OAK On the Value Chart, the #5 pick is 1,700 points and the #14 is 1,100 points. The Bears’ second rounder is worth 390. Given that Oakland has notoriously bad front office decisions, let’s say they’re willing to trade their first rounder for the Bears’ first and second. Do you make the move if Clowney is sitting there at #5?

In my eyes, production in the WAC is not worth as much as similar production in the SEC.

If Dee Ford slips out of the first round, the Bears should immediately rally their resources and try to trade up into the top of the second to get him. Imagine a draft that starts out: 1) Donald 2) Ford Holy hell.

Interesting addition to this topic: http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/i...ad-money-totals Looks like those short-term contracts worked out for the Bears and aided in them being in a good salary cap position.

Regarding Donald... http://sports.yahoo.com/video/pittsburgh-d...-161011754.html Absolutely smokes the "competition"

Bostic

If jake Matthews drops that far, you hope for a trade. Otherwise, I wouldn't mind seeing him drafted. Pure BPA, he's way better than anyone else at 14. That gives the bears a nearly impenetrable OL of Bushrod, Slausson, Garza, Long, Matthews, and it's nasty for years to come.

If that worked financially and with the cap - I don't care to research - I don't think that's a horrible idea. Peppers is going to get cut anyway, and Briggs is on the backside of his career. There are no guarantees, but Clowney is a ridiculous athlete.

Yeah, a band of brothers works in ways, but when you have that true leader, that inspiring figure, it's amazing what can be done.

My feeling from that article is that he's not coming back.

First and foremost, he does not believe in the "home town discount." That's not terrible, but it means he's going to be looking for a huge contract. Is he worth it? The Seahawks have the best secondary in the NFL, and it's probably not even close. Richard Sherman is arguably the best lockdown CB in the league, and their pair of safeties (Chancellor and Thomas) are both among the best in the league. It just makes me wonder whether his results should be better? This article makes a good case for him and supports it with some stats that scs will break out the Jergens for, but for the talent on that defense, I wonder if he's as good as the money he'll be expecting?

100000% disagree. Wow. I am guessing you've never been around a great leader on a team. I've seen teams overachieve by leaps and bounds because of great leadership. It goes hand in hand with coaching. A great on-team leader can do wonders. It's difficult to comprehend if you've never been around that type of personality.

For the most part, that's fair. I like neither how the team nor Urlacher went at it, but I put the onus on the team. Bargaining happens the way you laid things out. One high, one low. If the team had budged just a bit, we would have gotten to see Urlacher play one/two more season(s), and everything would have been well. I know Connor hard-balled at that time and ended up being accurate, but would it have really killed the Bears to budge or at least tell him that was all they could offer? That's what upset Urlacher. I think it would have been better, and I said so at the time, for the Bears to say, "Sure, Brian, how about 1 year for $2.5M?" I don't know how much his presence would have impacted the team last year, but it would definitely have been positive. BTW, you and I both know it's conjecture to say how many games he would have played. The previous three seasons he played 12, 16, and 16 games, respectively. And all accounts were that he was healthy during the '12 season, and his stats were actually getting better as the season progressed. This has been noted many times before on this board. Hamstring injuries are just fluky like that; one never knows when they'll happen. Other than the 2009 wrist thing that none of us believed would last the entire season, Urlacher was on the field every Sunday. Period. I think that's why it's very likely he would have been on the field for most of the games in 2013 if he had been signed.

This is fair. And this is the same approach I thought the Bears should have taken with Urlacher. Don't pay him all pro money. At the same time, don't low ball him. Urlacher would have worked with the Bears if they had just negotiated. Instead it was a low ball offer and nothing else. That shouldn't have happened, and I hope they learned from the experience and find a nice lower-middle ground for Peanut.

Yes, that's the other side of the coin. He was disadvantaged twice. Once as the leader knowing he had to make up for a garbage front line, and another as a guy who had to cover WRs for much longer than average.

I don't see how you can say Urlacher's leadership was missed and then say his play wouldn't have improved the team. Personally I think that's 100% wrong. Not only would he have put the team in better position, but he would have been starting over a rookie. You think Urlacher would have overrun the hole as many times as a rookie? C'mon man. I admit that he might not have been as good as in previous years, but it's almost unequivocal that he would have improved the defense. How much he would have helped is the question. And given how horrible the defense was last year, I'm not sure we can say they made the right call with Urlacher. I'm personally convinced they did not. It can't be proven either way, but what we do know is that the defense sucked on a historical level last year without Urlacher (other obvious issues as well). I just don't see a way he wouldn't have helped the defense last year, and because of that I don't believe it was the right move last year. Especially considering the minimal difference they had in salary requests.

Read what you wish, but it looks like the 4-3 is here to stay: http://www.chicagobears.com/news/article-1...ba-b720f5e730d8 Looks like they're giving themselves a little wiggle-room, but not much. It's a 4-3.

Did he look slower? Maybe fractionally. But it wasn't really that noticeable to me. I think if anything he, as a veteran, was probably trying to make up for the flaws up front, and it distracted him from his assignment. He probably cheated towards the line, or felt the obligation to go towards the line, because he knew they were sucking. In regards to your final statement, I don't know if there are ten other CBs I'd take over him, despite how much he may or may not have slowed down.