jason

I understand the point, and there aren't many who were anti Lovie/Tice more than I, but it just sounds like another excuse for a guy who was one of the worst starting OL in all of football over the stretch of three years. Same excuse used while Martz was in Chicago. You think other teams dont run very similar offenses? Or maybe even worse protective schemes? Webb is not good, and the only way he will ever be a good blocker is in a phone booth.he is an asset as a backup and spot starter, nothing more.

HAAAAAAAHAHAHA. Louis close to Nicks?! HAAAAHAHAHA! Big difference between blocking adequately and destroying your opponent.

agreed. I just didn't feel like furthering the pointless thread which is based on proving the unprovable.

I guess it comes down to how much faith one has in: -Webb as a starter -Louis returning healthy -Scott as a starter -Carimi as a starter Of the four, I only see the last one as a reality.

Yep, only me. (And what he would have done on the Bears is still an unprovable)

While I agree about the thoughts on continuity, the point is kind of moot when the players with the continuity have so thoroughly sucked. Placing continuity over performance is a good recipe for failure. Sometimes you have to blow things up in order to allow progress.

Agreed. Which is why this thread is stupid. But even this year I think Moss would have supplanted himself as the Bears #2 WR and put up better stats than he had with the Niners. All he would have had to do was beat out a guy nearly nobody on this board wants, an injury-prone rookie, and another guy who apparently can't get open.

It was me...and the stats mean nothing. He and TO could have been picked up years ago when they produced crazy stats. I've wanted the on the Bears for years. You also can't truly know what he would have done on the Bears. This is especially true when you consider how shitty the Bears passing game was this year. I'd venture to say that either guy would have had more chance to exploit opportunities on the Bears since all but the number one WR role was up for grabs all year.

The point was made in reference to how ratings differ despite people watching the same game.

Sometimes it's hard for me to devote the time to the message board I once did. Obviously the answer to your question is no, but there is definite gray area. Everyone wants to talk about how reliable the D is (I disagree to an extent), yet talk about how far Urlacher has fallen. Wasn't he a key component? Wasn't he the captain? Wasn't he the leader? To me the two are combined. He shouldn't be max or min. And I'd rather have Urlacher, with his experience and current ability, at (someone mentioned half of last year's salary) $4m than a FA LB for more. I think $2m per year is a slap in the face to the guy who has been the franchise marquee player for a decade. He's not a bad player. I guess the question is, what does an average starting MLB get nowadays? Settle on that number and add in a small gesture of thanks for being a Bear his entire career.

For the most part I agree with the concept that there is nobody doing the statistical analysis they do, as well as they do. But since "football isn't science," there will always be a point of disagreement when evaluating plays and players happens. Was the pass catchable? Did the QB hold the ball too long? Did the DT choose the right hole? There are a billion what-ifs that go into the grading of a player, and if we had access to their data and game film, and had the time to research it ourselves, I suspect we'd disagree on many plays. There's no other explanation for how highly they rate Webb.

Search the archives for the preseason games. It was discussed at length there.

Does it? I don't think so. Chicago's offense doesn't think so. Lovie's unemployment doesn't think so. Mike Tice's firing doesn't think so. Jay Cutler's body doesn't think so. Maybe the guy had ever been given a legit shot to start and play he would have succeeded and stayed with the Bears? Chicago's recent track record with offensive success speaks volumes about the poor choices they've made. The fact he was constantly screwed over, and ultimately wanted to leave, is probably an indication of wrong-doing in Chicago moreso than wrongdoing on the part of Chris Williams.

All true, but the possibility of having the same guy as a bookend for 10 years on your franchise is almost impossible via FA.

I happen to think he still has sufficient lateral quickness to make tackles, but the problem of the past few years has been that Lovie & Co. have used Urlacher too much in that "lame float him in the middle every play"-mold. They need to let him attack the ball more often. Hell, if he weren't running backwards and defending passes 25-30 yards downfield, he would never have been hurt in that end zone play.

See, you of all people shouldn't take this route. You're forever the "locker room"-guy. You've been opposed to just about any player who is not a choir boy. You should know that someone like Urlacher, while not as good as he once was, still provides a ton of value in terms of leadership, intelligence, role modeling, etc. I'm not saying he's kept around purely for sentimental value, but that has to factor into it somewhat when signing a veteran player who has given their entire career to your franchise. This is especially true with how players talk nowadays. The players talk, and one of the things about Lovie Smith - despite how much I disliked his coaching - was that his players stuck up for him, recruited for him, loved him. Simply dumping a guy because he isn't an allpro any more may work in some regards, but it's also a quick way for you to lose potential free agents.

Yawn. How many times does it need to be said? It's infuriating for someone to post such nonsense, yet it happens year after year after year. You're just following in the long line of this topic. Sacks do not equate to how well an OLineman performs. The measure of his performance is also not just sacks+hits+pressures. As for the ratings, I'd say they are pretty well done considering the Bears are near last. But I don't see where it's broken down play-by-play, other than where they tell you they did it. I'd be willing to bet that one could easily refute or scrutinize their methodology for capturing the data. This is apparent in the fact that when I did the play-by-play breakdown during the preseason (and charted it in Excel), I came up with a rating that several others (who did not do a play-by-play breakdown) disagreed with.

It's a sad state of desperate affairs when Bears' fans are supporting a guy who is below average in his best year, and has actively participated in potentially ruining the best passing QB the Bears have ever had.

This has been gone over before. Why does nobody have a memory on this board. YES. EXACTLY LIKE THOSE GUYS. And nearly every single one of those guys looked like a fish out of water in the new uniform. Nearly every one of those guys caused their fans a bit of disgust every time they were seen in the different uniform. And you're being ridiculous with the league minimum stuff. He wasn't a dominating force this year, but he's much, much better than league minimum.

I think you just wrote what I wrote but reworded it. Trending up? Agreed. But it's hard to go down from "pretty much the worst starting offensive lineman in the NFL." He was horrible; now he's below average. That's pretty much what I said. I still dislike him as a player though because I think he's been given all the opportunities in the world when others have not. It was one of the things that bugged me about Lovie and staff. Webb never should have been starting to begin with, much less handed the LT role before training camp. Having said all that, he's trending up, but he still needs a replacement. He's a good backup, not a guy you want protecting your franchise QB.

I'm shocked at the willingness some of you have to just let him go. You don't do that to franchise players like Urlacher. He should retire a Bear.

I think the implication is that good OLs that are sustainable for multiple years are the ones that are drafted. The fact that one can be pieced together is out there, but it's one that needs constant attention at least every couple years. For the record, there has to be a cutoff point in terms of NFL draft talent evaluation that divides what used to be done from what is currently done. There were more rounds, less sophisticated everything, and much better likelihood of finding a late-round gem 20+ years ago.

I disagree with the notion that Webb was anything better than below average this year. Maybe on the verge of average, but not really. The metric they use is not explicitly broken down, but one can assume that Webb's score of -0.8 is 0.8 worse than average. And that does not "deserve" a spot on the OL. That's what Bears fans have become - ready to reward below average or average because we're so used to seeing complete garbage from the OL.

It's good to know you have all the inside knowledge on this case and are intimately involved with all parties. It's a wonder you didn't break the story first, and there's obviously no reason for Tuiasosopo to do the interview with Dr. Phil since you have it all figured out.

Agreed. Good extension.