jason

It remains to be seen if the excuses no longer count. If the Bears start Garza, Louis, and Webb on the right side, every indication is that Cutler will be running a lot more than in just the read-option plays.

Chicago isn't looking for them now. I never said they were. But the pro athletes of today are not like yesteryear. They converse with one another. Network. Form friendships. Just look at the revolution of sorts taking place in the NBA. It's ignorant to think that free agents don't talk to the stars of the team with which they could potentially sign. And in that regard, I believe Urlacher's word held persuasive weight.

It's like playing the stock market though. You might think you're letting go of an investment just at the right time (i.e. one year early), because you don't want to hold onto it when it plummets (i.e. one year late), but a lot of time you let go too early and watch the value rise back up for a few years...wishing the entire time you had held on for just another year. The best I can say is that ultimately it's somewhat of a guessing game. Same in this situation. They feel like they made the right guess. I think Urlacher's injured offseason slowed him during the first half of the season, made him look worse than he was, and the second half - where he was looking better - was derailed by injury.

Not surprisingly, you confuse the concepts of which we spoke. Obviously scrubs like Scott would sign, because if he didn't there's a possibility that he doesn't sign south of the Canadian border. But it remains to be seen if Chicago can pursue and tempt the high price, high profile free agents. I believe word from respected vets like Urlacher holds value for those all-stars searching for a new team.

It's probably more a phrasing issue than anything else. A dime a dozen in NFL levels. As in, compared to other athletes in the NFL. I just really don't think they're that important in the grand scheme of things. It's the same philosophy I have on offense. A great DL and an average LB corp will yield very good results. An average DL and a great LB corp will not yield as good of results. Absolutely everything in football starts in the trenches. But I still think the collective of this board could do just as good of a job making FA and draft choice selections as the front office has done over the last 2-3 decades. Their performance wouldn't have been difficult to match. I mean, how long did we not have a QB for goodness sakes?! And that's just one problem. I doubt with someone like LT2 on board we would have missed a checkbox.

Sure, it's great to have three studs at LB (same for any position), but I honestly don't believe it's necessary. A good DL creates opportunities for a LB corp. All you essentially need at that point is speed, athleticism, and a sure tackler. It's the same as for the offense. Give me a great OL and an average RB, and the RB will perform far beyond their true worth. Reverse that and the RB, unless supremely gifted like Payton or Sanders, gets stuffed. With LBs it's similar. Remember how amazing Urlacher looked when he was behind Washington and Traylor?

You'd think...but since Urlacher is currently looking for an employer it obviously doesn't resonate as too important with Emery or Trestman. Or at least it doesn't factor in enough to outweigh the other three items.

I agree for the most part. But I think it's somewhere around: -Age/Ability - 45% -Salary - 35% -Old Regime - 20% And as far as a new leader goes, it's really easy to take that 20% (or whatever the value is) and lump it into one of the other two categories.

Yes, there is more flexibility. Yes, there is a bit of hypocrisy considering dude's injuries. Yes, the money is better, especially since Roach was overpaid as a FA. Here's to hoping this is a sign of Emery's philosophy towards LBs. I'm all for cheap free agents who have shown some success in the past. 99% of LBs are a dime a dozen, and I would hate to see a high draft pick on a LB in most years.

Thanks for the warning, Red.

Neither you nor I know the exact and complete reasoning behind Urlacher not being on the Bears. What we do know, however, is the likelihood of what would cause the Bears to not resign him. The three most likely possibilities are salary, age/ability, and connection to old regime. I don't see why it isn't some of all three. It would not be uncommon at all for a new leader to remove a very powerful supporter of previous leadership. It's a fairly universal concept; I can't believe you aren't even the least bit familiar with it.

Many were talking about a FA LB even before The Urlacher move, and S depth has also been discussed. In fact, the Zbikowski move, if I'm not mistaken, had its own "what if" thread. Eye roll indeed.

It remains to be seen whether the Urlacher move was a good one.

Are you being obtuse on purpose? Or do you honestly not understand how a new GM and HC could see Urlacher as Lovie's guy? There is no other player on the team that more closely connects to Lovie and his defensive philosophy/coaching.

Nobody said "trouble maker."

Just remember 50/50. There's just as good of a chance the moves being made are bad, as they are good. Let's hope Emery ends up as one of the league's gurus.

Are you so ignorant to realize all of the moves that have been made were discussed on this board BEFORE they were made? Yes, the collective of this board could do just as good of a job if we had to make the call on draft picks and personnel moves.

I don't think that's necessarily true. They run football teams, but you imply that they all run teams well. they do not. Connections, career path, and nepotism goes a long way. I honestly beleive we could run the bears better as a board than the actual Bears front office runs the team. There are plenty of retread scrubs running teams and doing a poor job year after year. Peter principle. It's just that the other scenario (i.e. us running a team) is not something that can be tested or proven. It's an unknown. For all we know, if you had chosen to pursue a career as a GM the Bears would have won the last three Super Bowls.

Just FYI-I completely understand and completely agree. All the other talk, aside from the comment about ST play, is nonsense. OchoCinco on crutches is better as a receiver than Weems. And a number four or five WR on the Bears is not going to get a Ron of time or snaps to develop anyway.

You don't watch the show that often if you believe that. His stubbornness when negotiating, and screwing people over, is the reason for the meme.

This stupid argument again. What if the 12 executives are for 12 of the worst teams? Their opinion is untouchable, right? Because they've been killing it for years. Right? Unless he says which executives agreed, the comment is pointless in a league with about a 50% success rate. Sometimes worse. Remember, clowns like Matt Milllen have been executives in this league, and nobody can convince me otherwise that just about anyone on this board couldn't have done as good as him...much less JA and his picks.

Fixed that for you.

Read the entire post, especially the word "beginning." Urlacher is solidly linked to Lovie and his relative defensive success in Chicago, where as Melton has only been around a few years.

I don't like it with a pass-first QB who has a great arm. If the Bears had someone like Vick or RGIII I'd be more inclined to think it was a good move.

I can't believe the overwhelming support for this guy considering how opposed most have been in the past to signing anyone who was not a Boy Scout (e.g. Moss, TO, Burfict). And before anyone says anything, I'm talking way back when they were available the first time. I don't mind the signing; it makes sense. But I've always been consistent about getting players with upside and some character issues.