jason

The thoughts are not mutually exclusive. I do not support the moves. But I support the Bears. They could win a Super Bowl this year and I'll still say they should have kept Urlacher, and he would have made it just that much better.

4) FA LBs are mandatory now. They weren't before the Urlacher move. Drafting one was going to happen, but it's forced to be a higher priority. 5) Fair enough, but I've read a ton of message board traffic since last night, and it seems much more on Urlacher's side. 6) Unless Urlacher is lying, which I don't believe he is, 3M would have done it. He said it in one of the interviews he gave. 7) According to spotrac there are Bush, Podlesh, Gould, Garza, Spencer, Campbell, and Idonije. 8) I admit to being just as baffled by the Ed Reed move as I am the Urlacher move. The Ravens are absolutely gutting their roster.

The score blows. It's just a collection of the most vocal, more often than not just people who want to tell others they were on the radio. Go to the message boards on ESPN, CNNSI, FOX Sports, etc. You'll find most disagree with the move. Also, several others are not up for debate. It definitely hinders the Bears in the draft and affects the team leadership-wise on the field. Several others are not even debatable.

I didn't see the Patriots, Broncos, Saints, or Packers concern themselves with the read-option that much. How in the world did they keep opposing defenses honest?

Blast the list all you want, but here's a list of reasons why the Urlacher move was bad: 1) It hurts the clubhouse. Urlacher was an undeniable leader to the team. 2) It hurts with potential free agents. Urlacher is a respected figure in the NFL and his opinion has weight with other players. 3) His leadership will be gone on the field. Now the Bears will have to transition to another play-caller who doesn't understand the calls or personnel as well. 4) The Bears are hindered in the draft. Where before they could flexibly target a LB, now they pretty much have to get one in the first two rounds. 5) A majority of the fanbase is not happy. Like it or not, but that matters. 6) It makes the Bears, a team with a reputation for being cheap, look cheap. The fact that they couldn't find an extra 1m for a guy who was the leader of the team, the face of the franchise, speaks poorly to agents who want to deal with the Bears. 7) For a team paying multiple bad or lesser players equal to or in excess of what was offered to Urlacher, it looks like poor money management. Maybe next some ocean-front property in Nebraska? 8) It makes the Bears look like a team that doesn't respect their leaders/vets. Contrast what the Ravens did with Lewis to what the Bears did with Urlacher; it's a stark difference. 9) Urlacher wasn't as bad last year as some pretend he was. The fact of the matter is, he was tied with Briggs for the team lead in tackles when he got injured. On top of that, the last 6 games Urlacher played (splitting his time in half), he had more tackles than Briggs. 10) The comment about Urlacher being a "two-down" linebacker makes the coaching staff look inept. Out of the things Urlacher did well, pass defense and coverage of the deep middle was probably one of the best. He had no TDs given up, had 5 passes defensed, and I can't remember him getting burned. His biggest issue has always been fighting off blockers who get to the second level, not pass defense. *Bonus* There have been enough bad moves by the Bears in recent history that simply saying, "The team/coach/GM thought it was a good move, who are we to say otherwise?" is just stupid. We have just as good a shot of successfully picking talent as the team does. This could very well be a bad move, and it reeks of a "new management"-move where someone values making their mark as a manager more than what is good for the organization. Urlacher was not only the clubhouse team leader and the on-field defensive leader, but he was also the statistical leader. ***EDIT*** I just read on ESPN Stats that when Urlacher was on the field, their yds/rush given up was 4.0. When off, 4.3. For passes it was 6.6/6.8. This reaffirms point #9.

Would you quit using this line of reasoning? It's dumb considering the horrible moves we've seen the Bears make for the past 30 years. Saying that the coaches align with your thoughts is just as often a negative as it is a positive.

The reality is, the Bears deserve most of the blame for not making this happen. Negotiation world-wide (trust me on this, I've been to dozens of countries) is the same: one side goes high, one side goes low, the meeting is in the middle. Both are really happy if it's exactly in the middle, but that's not always necessary. The problem is that the Bears didn't want to budge, didn't want to negotiate.

VERY well said.

It's the kind of move people new to management make just so they can say they out their stamp on being in charge. It's just popular to rag on Urlacher right now. He was flexible, but the Bears were not. It's poor management, poor negotiation, a poor example for future vet contracts, and poor leadership. Not to mention the fact it hamstrings the Bears in the draft. Bad move.

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/a...e/p2p-74726051/ He was wiling to negotiate and play for 3m. The Bears were not. Bad move. Period. And anyone saying he sucked just wasn't watching the games. He wasn't an all pro anymore, but he was serviceable. Slap in the face, just like I said before.

The same type of thing (i.e. limited usage) could have been said, and could still be said, about McClellin, but that sure as hell didn't stop him from being drafted in the first round.

I don't think this suits Cutler well at all. He's just not a running QB in that sense of the word. But since he's been running for his life ever since he got to Chicago, it's really not that big of a change for him. Previously, he knew he probably had to take off running multiple plays a game. Now, he knows he probably has to take off running multiple plays a game. And if this is something put into the playbook as a means of getting Cutler out for a few plays, I like it even less. It's the same as when Hester used to come in. The playbook is limited, the defense knows what's coming, and the chance of success is minimized. It's the same ole Lovie Smith concept of "we don't have to trick you - we just have to execute better."

Check out their last two years.

Where did you figure on the 2 mil? Was it because that's what others have said on the board? I'm still not sure what website is being used to compare skill, play, leadership, knowledge, production, etc. and convert it into appropriate salary.

Since a 7th rounder is basically camp fodder anyway, I think it's worth the risk. If he works out, you acquired a 1st round talent for chump change. If not, easy 7th cut. It's low risk, high reward.

Natural instinct? To lower your head in such a way that you don't even see the contact being made and risk your spine? Putting oneself in a potentially life-threatening predicament is not exactly natural. To be quite honest, a natural instinct would be to curl up in the fetal position and attempt to absorb as much of the punishment as possible in as many places as possible. The distribution minimizes injury risk. If you watch the video again, you'll see he does exactly what you say you take issue with: leading with the crown.

I realize the hole to fill, just hate doing it with a 1st and 3rd rounder. This is especially true since I think LB is one of the easiest positions to draft late. Stats from websites shown on this page have confirmed that concept.

Wow, the original makes me want to kill a puppy. Atrocious to grab two LBs and a WR who is the number two option on an overrated offense. Two LBs early in such a deep OL draft, especially considering that OLhas been the number one problem for the Bears for years, would be horrible. Looks like Lovie hacked your account and made this mock.

I'm not sure I've ever said which I prefer. I'm not sure i prefer one. I just wanted OL to be addressed. Every year the avoidance of attention made me sick. At gunpoint it's probably Long; if uninjured he is still a beast.

That's basically my question. You're saying the Ravens were stupid to pay Lewis the amount they did, and they didn't win because of him. I bet the Ravens disagree.

Interesting thought: Do you guys who are opposed to giving Urlacher more than 2m a year think that the contract Ray Lewis last received was a good contract for the Ravens? It sure seemed to work out for him, their team, and all anyone could talk about was his inspiration and leadership (regardless of whether Flacco understood it all).

I'm not sure if we could have determined progression at all with Tice on staff. It's entirely possible his coaching could have hindered progression, and while a player could have actually progressed, the offense would have been retarded and no progression would have been shown.

What they say they would have thrown, and what they would have thrown, will end up being slightly different in the initial phases of this rule. Those are flags thrown with the advantage of slow-mo and perfect camera angles, most likely post-game penalty stuff. I doubt they would have actually thrown 6 in the game. Of course, the more this gets harped on, the more the officials have to throw it...or stop officiating.

Same thing I said before...

I never replied to this. IDK if he's worth 5m a year. But he's worth more than 2m a year. He's arguably better than Ray Lewis the past two years (easy argument actually), but nobody would bring that up about Ray Lewis. That's why I think it's in the team's best interest to sign him to around 3-3.5 per year for 2 years, let him have his swan song while bridging the gap with young players and hopefully leading to a championship. He'll help far more than he'll hurt.