jason

What's funny is, I remember the same thing, on whichever board I was posting on, and 100% wanted him on the Bears.

BTW - Hester is getting killed in the comments to his Facebook page. He asked about Derek Rose coming back from injury, and about a fourth of the replies are asking about him leaving Chicago, or crying, or falling off the last few years.

C'mon man. That dude still has ELITE speed. He just has subpar vision (now) and decision-making abilities.

No, you agree. "pretty darn close to average" = "below average" It's just a matter of degrees. The latter part of your post is something I've said for far too long. It's the reason why the Bears OL, while sometimes solid for stretches, was worse than many other similar OLs because they'd split time sucking. They were literally worse than the sum of the parts.

Good point. There doesn't appear to be great OG talent out there in FA. WHICH IS WHY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED THIS PAST PRESEASON WHEN IT WAS POSSIBLE. Not only were Grubbs and Nicks FAs (regardless of the price tag), but the Bears passed on David DeCastro and Kevin Zeitler in the draft! I freaking hate Lovie Smith and Jerry Angelo.

Agreed completely. I've long said the Bears need help in multiple positions. And with the injury concerns you mention, it's even more pressing. There is not a single person on the OL who doesn't need an immediate replacement or a replacement in the next couple years.

Well, now you're just being silly. Even though he was not average - he was below average - a guy who sucks in the NFL is still a pretty big compliment in terms of his athletic ability. I've played flag football against some high level college guys and guys who barely missed the cut in the NFL, and it's baffling to me they didn't make the NFL. They are leaps and bounds better than everything everyone else does. But, unfortunately for Webb, the Bears' OL is not measured against how well you or I could do in the NFL.

Two quickies on this: 1) I don't believe he was the strongest link. That's one of the major contentions I have with the OL stats being used. 2) I don't want the Bears to get rid of him. I think he's a valuable sub or swing-lineman. As for the sack comment, it's not about two plays in one game and two in another. Staley isn't perfect, but I'm quite sure he had a better overall game against Matthews than Webb did. Also, I can't recall the games exactly, but I'm pretty damn sure Matthews had multiple sacks against the Bears in each of the last two games they played. Whether or not they were against Webb I can't say for sure. I mean, if you're going to compare both Staley and Webb against Matthews that is.

It's definitely a good deal if he can play like last year and improve (with current salary), but like stinger said, it's still low pay for low performance.

Exactly. He improved. But he just went from horrible to not horrible.

No.he.was.not. Stop. He was below average at best. The only reason this sudden Webb love is gaining any traction are the OL ratings where he is supposed to be the best of the bad. Like the tallest midget. We as Bears fans are just so used to seeing horrible that below average is now turning subpar into good enough. This is the same kind of revisionist history BS that has gotten the Bears in the situation they face this year. I swear, this happens every damn year.

Dude...he was BELOW AVERAGE this year! Even by the stats you keep fellating. That, for the last three years is, horrible, atrocious, then below average. Average that out and it's really bad. And there is no way in hell he would have looked like a pro bowler in any system. I don't give a damn if they ran a Middle East or Midwest system. You gotta be related to the dude to believe that.

I'm anti Ray Lewis, anti Kapernick. I hate the bird raven, and I don't like the city of San Francisco with their stupid winding and steep streets. I'm definitely anti Vernon Davis's crying ass. I'm only rooting for Jim Harbaugh because of Bear connections.

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.