jason

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.

What I hope happens: LT - Bushrod LG - Rookie/Brown C - Garza/Rookie RG - Louis/Brown RT - Carimi/Webb The rookie starting at LG is obviously Warmack or Cooper. I prefer Warmack. The center could be Schwenke, Jones, or Cave. I prefer Jones.

The same reason the NFL draft provides NFL-unknowns with millions of dollars even when it's a 50/50 crapshoot. The same reason the NFL managed to put in a rookie pay-scale system because the salaries were getting out of hand with unknown quantities. The NFL Owners have their hands firmly in a bucket of "what if," and a known quantity with some upside and years left in the league is about a sure a bet as they can expect to see.

Kind of what I said up-thread. We already had the read-option. Read - Did Webb and co. block their opponents? Option - Oh shit! Better run!

Excellent post! This was a "get Urlacher out of town because he's a Lovie-player from the beginning"-move. This was exactly as I said, a move made by new managers wishing to put their stamp on the team.

Precisely.

Very well said. The move didn't make a lot of sense for a variety of reasons. It would have been better to keep him as a stop-gap since he was a lot better than people are trying to pretend, let him train the pups, and end his glorious career as a Bear.