Whatever Urlacher's price, it's right

[Pixote]

I think ConnorBear was right, we needed to keep our core intact. I think the Bears have had a great off season. I think you need to reward your own players first and try and keep the core in place. We will be in great shape cap wise in the future with all of these signings. Other teams will be trying to resign their own and be unable to do so. It puts us in a great position. I see nothing wrong with that.

[Connorbear]

I thought you'd be more sensible then this since at the time we were on topic of talking about getting Housh and Garrard- I meant as in to go out and spend it on a player who wasn't with us last year, like Faneca, etc.

You stated the Bears had not done 'dick' with the 31 million in cap space. I was simply letting you know that yes they had actually been very busy and have spent most of their money. I would have loved to see them go get a Fanaca but I know the policy of Jerry and company is to reward there own which they have done.

 

Peace

[nfoligno]

The only two I have on issue w/ on that list are Alex Brown and Clark.

 

Brown signed a 5 year extension just a couple seasons ago. While he finished strong, he was also coming off the bench for most of the year. I am not questioning his being part of the core, yet at the same time, w/ a couple years remaining on his deal, I just didn't see the reason to give him another extension. It's one thing to keep your core intact, but do you have to extend players who only played a couple seasons of an extension you already gave.

 

Clark was not due to be a FA until next year, and w/ Olsen in the fold, I simply didn't see the reason to extend him. We spent a 1st round pick on Olsen, and he looked good as a rookie. To me, it seemed like a perfect situation. We still had Clark for another season while Olsen continues to work into the offense and begins to take over. Next year, Olsen fully steps into the #1 role. We may still be able to sign Clark, who may not receive great offers in FA due to age and being a part time TE, or we could simply look at add TE depth elsewhere.

 

If we used more 2 TE sets, I could better understand the move, but as much as I would like to see that, I have not seen anything from Turner to lead me to believe that is going to be a significant part of our offense.

[jackie hayes]

The Bears' business mind-set is obvious: You don't pay somebody for what they have done in the past; you pay them for what they will do for you in the future. That's a smart approach with almost any player. But Urlacher isn't any player.

 

I just couldn't disagree more with this sentiment. I believe the Bears have spent almost every penny of cap money for years, now. If that's true, the choice comes down to doing what's good for the team, in terms of actual production on the field, and rewarding a player for what he's done in the past. One always comes at the cost of the other if you are spending all your cap money.

 

I have nothing against Urlacher, nor any player who threatens to hold out or actually does so. But if I have to choose between a better Bears team without Urlacher and a worse team with him, I don't hesitate a moment in taking the better team.

 

This is a very strange article. It dismisses every argument against giving in to Urlachers demands as "MBA" reasoning, then argues for giving in using only business arguments (jersey sales, icon status, etc). Very poorly thought out.

[madlithuanian]

You make a good arguement for those 2, but I also see no overall harm. We're still somewhat waiting for Olsen to breakout...and we are still also waiting for Anderson or Bazuin or someone young to breakout.

 

Overall, I really like the philosophy. Keep your own. Once in a while you may keep a guy or 2 that maybe aren't the best, but it sends a very good message to the overall club, that the organization will take care of you.

 

We're already seen some fruits of that, I expect to see more and more...

 

The only two I have on issue w/ on that list are Alex Brown and Clark.

 

Brown signed a 5 year extension just a couple seasons ago. While he finished strong, he was also coming off the bench for most of the year. I am not questioning his being part of the core, yet at the same time, w/ a couple years remaining on his deal, I just didn't see the reason to give him another extension. It's one thing to keep your core intact, but do you have to extend players who only played a couple seasons of an extension you already gave.

 

Clark was not due to be a FA until next year, and w/ Olsen in the fold, I simply didn't see the reason to extend him. We spent a 1st round pick on Olsen, and he looked good as a rookie. To me, it seemed like a perfect situation. We still had Clark for another season while Olsen continues to work into the offense and begins to take over. Next year, Olsen fully steps into the #1 role. We may still be able to sign Clark, who may not receive great offers in FA due to age and being a part time TE, or we could simply look at add TE depth elsewhere.

 

If we used more 2 TE sets, I could better understand the move, but as much as I would like to see that, I have not seen anything from Turner to lead me to believe that is going to be a significant part of our offense.

[nfoligno]

- Clark - While Olsen has not broken out yet, can it not be argued that extending Clark may hold Olsen back? W/ his extension, he isn't going to simply ride the pine, so even if Olsen is looking ready to breakout, he is still going to have to alternate w/ Clark.

 

- Brown - I realize the rest have not broken out either, but Brown still had two years left on the extension we already signed him too. I simply question the need to sign a player in Brown's situation. He was not coming off some great season. He was not due to be a FA, nor was he due to be a FA after the next season. He wasn't on his rookie contract, and thus not some way underpaid player (Hester). I simply saw no reason to provide him another extension.

 

In the grand scheme of things, we are not talking big bucks or deals that kill our cap. I know that. But in terms of strategy, I just do not get it. While their deals are not great, at the same time, they did get money that could otherwise go to Hester or Urlacher. Or it could have been money for Briggs/Harris in roster bonus so their future cap hits would be even less.

 

I do not have a problem w/ the philosophy of keeping your own, but at the same time, I think you also need to add. Spending all your cap dollars to retain your own sounds great coming off a SB season, but coming off a sub .500 season?

[Connorbear]

- Clark - While Olsen has not broken out yet, can it not be argued that extending Clark may hold Olsen back? W/ his extension, he isn't going to simply ride the pine, so even if Olsen is looking ready to breakout, he is still going to have to alternate w/ Clark.

 

My thoughts are you will see more 2 tight end sets and you will also see Olsen split out alot. I see them having 100+ catches between them this yr. I have no issues with them rewarding Clark because he has been a very consistent player since the first day he joined the team.

 

- Brown - I realize the rest have not broken out either, but Brown still had two years left on the extension we already signed him too. I simply question the need to sign a player in Brown's situation. He was not coming off some great season. He was not due to be a FA, nor was he due to be a FA after the next season. He wasn't on his rookie contract, and thus not some way underpaid player (Hester). I simply saw no reason to provide him another extension.

 

I think they were rewarding him for being a good soldier. Further, I don't think they plan on keeping "The Prince" past this yr so they wanted to lock Alex down.

 

In the grand scheme of things, we are not talking big bucks or deals that kill our cap. I know that. But in terms of strategy, I just do not get it. While their deals are not great, at the same time, they did get money that could otherwise go to Hester or Urlacher. Or it could have been money for Briggs/Harris in roster bonus so their future cap hits would be even less.

 

I do not have a problem w/ the philosophy of keeping your own, but at the same time, I think you also need to add. Spending all your cap dollars to retain your own sounds great coming off a SB season, but coming off a sub .500 season?

[madlithuanian]

No real agrument agasint your points.

 

For Clark, maybe I can dream of our inept staff actually using 2 TE sets! I actually think Clark is one of our better receivers... Or maybe he'll start playing the back-up role... Or maybe he'll take time away from Olsen. I think there's overall benefit in having him though.

 

Agred on Brown with the 2 years already on his contract. But, I think we need the depth deperately at end. Brown may not be Dent, but he's pretty consistently decent. It keep sus from over-paying for a FA veteran, and adds more credence to the "we take care of our own" philosophy. I won't disagree with your argument...but nor do I have a real issue with him being extended.

 

I like your post SB assessment...but bottom line, the money wasn't spent on guys I deem are hinderences (um...Grossman, Miller, etc..).

 

- Clark - While Olsen has not broken out yet, can it not be argued that extending Clark may hold Olsen back? W/ his extension, he isn't going to simply ride the pine, so even if Olsen is looking ready to breakout, he is still going to have to alternate w/ Clark.

 

- Brown - I realize the rest have not broken out either, but Brown still had two years left on the extension we already signed him too. I simply question the need to sign a player in Brown's situation. He was not coming off some great season. He was not due to be a FA, nor was he due to be a FA after the next season. He wasn't on his rookie contract, and thus not some way underpaid player (Hester). I simply saw no reason to provide him another extension.

 

In the grand scheme of things, we are not talking big bucks or deals that kill our cap. I know that. But in terms of strategy, I just do not get it. While their deals are not great, at the same time, they did get money that could otherwise go to Hester or Urlacher. Or it could have been money for Briggs/Harris in roster bonus so their future cap hits would be even less.

 

I do not have a problem w/ the philosophy of keeping your own, but at the same time, I think you also need to add. Spending all your cap dollars to retain your own sounds great coming off a SB season, but coming off a sub .500 season?

[madlithuanian]

I didn't think of letting Ogun go...good point.

[nfoligno]

My thoughts are you will see more 2 tight end sets and you will also see Olsen split out alot. I see them having 100+ catches between them this yr.

 

I hope to see more 2 TE sets, but I have seen/heard nothing that leads me to this belief.

 

100 catches between them? Sorry, but that would not impress me too much. They had a combined 83 this past year, in an inept offense and w/ Olsen as a rookie. Grabbing 100 between them would not do much for me, nor would it likely mean we were using 2 TE sets. They combined for 83 with them splitting time.

 

I have no issues with them rewarding Clark because he has been a very consistent player since the first day he joined the team

 

I guess those two seasons w/ 24 catches and less than 300 yards don't count? Not saying that was all his fault, but at the same time, I simply question the very consistent comment. If Clark were so good, why did we spend a 1st on Olsen. If Clark were so good, why did pretty much everyone want/expect us to draft a TE the year before that? Clark was never more than a "nice" TE. IMHO, that is still what he is, but w/ the way the rest of our WRs look, he looks more.

 

To me, it just didn't make much sense. If Olsen steps up, Clark is nothing but a backup. Even if Olsen doesn't step up, Clark is still likely no more than what he has been. Sorry, but next off-season, he would be a 32 year old solid TE, but no more. His price would not be high, and not likely difficult to re-sign him then. However, if Olsen breaks out, there would not be much need.

 

I think they were rewarding him for being a good soldier.

 

Why? Because he lost his starting job and didn't make a huge issue of it? For that, they gave him a new deal?

 

Further, I don't think they plan on keeping "The Prince" past this yr so they wanted to lock Alex down.

 

Why? Wale is one year older than Brown, and is a better DE. In the last 4 years, Wale has 30 sacks to Brown's 23.5. Further, Brown's sacks usually come in bunches. He will get 3 sacks in a game, and go w/o a sack for 6. I would also say Wale is a better run defender.

 

Why do you think we would get rid of Wale, who has been our best and most consistent DE?

[Connorbear]

I hope to see more 2 TE sets, but I have seen/heard nothing that leads me to this belief.

 

100 catches between them? Sorry, but that would not impress me too much. They had a combined 83 this past year, in an inept offense and w/ Olsen as a rookie. Grabbing 100 between them would not do much for me, nor would it likely mean we were using 2 TE sets. They combined for 83 with them splitting time.

I said 100+ catches which is a 20% improvement. I think I remember the Bears TEs last yr were in the top 10 in the league (combined). I think a 20% improvement would be fantastic

 

I guess those two seasons w/ 24 catches and less than 300 yards don't count? Not saying that was all his fault, but at the same time, I simply question the very consistent comment. If Clark were so good, why did we spend a 1st on Olsen. If Clark were so good, why did pretty much everyone want/expect us to draft a TE the year before that? Clark was never more than a "nice" TE. IMHO, that is still what he is, but w/ the way the rest of our WRs look, he looks more.

 

Who were our Qbs those 2 yrs? Quinn, Hutch, Orton (rookie yr), etc? Our QBs sucked.

 

To me, it just didn't make much sense. If Olsen steps up, Clark is nothing but a backup. Even if Olsen doesn't step up, Clark is still likely no more than what he has been. Sorry, but next off-season, he would be a 32 year old solid TE, but no more. His price would not be high, and not likely difficult to re-sign him then. However, if Olsen breaks out, there would not be much need.

 

I really don't remember us giving up alot of money extending him so I don't see this as an issue. Further, I do see him inhibiting Olsen's growth.

 

Why? Because he lost his starting job and didn't make a huge issue of it? For that, they gave him a new deal?

 

Further, I don't think they plan on keeping "The Prince" past this yr so they wanted to lock Alex down.

 

Why? Wale is one year older than Brown, and is a better DE. In the last 4 years, Wale has 30 sacks to Brown's 23.5. Further, Brown's sacks usually come in bunches. He will get 3 sacks in a game, and go w/o a sack for 6. I would also say Wale is a better run defender.

I believe Wale's contract expires this yr or next. Wale has had 2 good yrs and 2 crappy yrs. Further, I think you also need to look at turnovers. Alex has forced 14 turnovers during that time to Wale's 9.

 

Why do you think we would get rid of Wale, who has been our best and most consistent DE?

[nfoligno]

I said 100+ catches which is a 20% improvement. I think I remember the Bears TEs last yr were in the top 10 in the league (combined). I think a 20% improvement would be fantastic

 

What are your expectations for Olsen? I look at Olsen and see a TE who can be among the league leaders.

 

Gonzalez (99), Witten (96), Winslow (82), Gates (75).

 

But w/ Clark on the roster, I do not see how he hits this level. And if he does, and they combine for 100, then Clark is sitting on a minimal number of catches.

 

That is my thing. I fear Clark will hold Olsen back. Not intentionally, but I fear that having to rotate between the two TEs will not allow Olsen to come into his own.

 

Who were our Qbs those 2 yrs? Quinn, Hutch, Orton (rookie yr), etc? Our QBs sucked.

 

Yea, the QBs sucked, but other TEs have done well w/ weak QBs. See Miami for an example. We were weak at WR, thus the stage was set for a TE to step up. I said before I don't shoulder Clark with all the blame for his lower stat seasons, but at the same time, I go back to this. You say Clark has been consistently good since we added him. I counter by asking why, for the last several years, everyone had felt TE was among our top needs if that was true. And if that is true, why did we spend a 1st on Olsen is we were set at TE?

 

I really don't remember us giving up alot of money extending him so I don't see this as an issue. Further, I do see him inhibiting Olsen's growth.

 

The money wasn't huge. I believe he got $2m in new bonus money, and around $3m added to his base salary. Not sure about that exactly, but I think I remember $5m in new money, including $2m up front bonus. I am not saying it was a bad deal, money wise. I never said that. I just didn't see the point. If Olsen steps up, Clark simply isn't necessary. If Olsen doesn't step up, I believe we could have signed Clark just as easily (if we wanted him) when he hit FA.

 

And though it wasn't a lot of money, it did create a bigger cap hit for him, and that is money I would have rather ear-marked for other players.

 

I believe Wale's contract expires this yr or next. Wale has had 2 good yrs and 2 crappy yrs. Further, I think you also need to look at turnovers. Alex has forced 14 turnovers during that time to Wale's 9.

 

He is signed through 2009. You say two crappy seasons? His weaker two seasons saw 5 and 6.5 sacks, which is .5 less than Brown's best sack total. As for turnovers, I would argue RDEs usually have more turnovers, as they hit the QB from the blindside, which simply creates more opportunity for turnovers, compared to the LDE, where the QB usually sees him coming and has more time to secure the ball.

 

Wale never lived up to the expectations from when we traded for him, yet at the same time, I still think he is our best DE. IMHO, it would be a mistake to cut him.

[Connorbear]

I said 100+ catches which is a 20% improvement. I think I remember the Bears TEs last yr were in the top 10 in the league (combined). I think a 20% improvement would be fantastic

 

What are your expectations for Olsen? I look at Olsen and see a TE who can be among the league leaders.

 

Gonzalez (99), Witten (96), Winslow (82), Gates (75).

 

But w/ Clark on the roster, I do not see how he hits this level. And if he does, and they combine for 100, then Clark is sitting on a minimal number of catches.

 

That is my thing. I fear Clark will hold Olsen back. Not intentionally, but I fear that having to rotate between the two TEs will not allow Olsen to come into his own.

 

Who were our Qbs those 2 yrs? Quinn, Hutch, Orton (rookie yr), etc? Our QBs sucked.

 

Yea, the QBs sucked, but other TEs have done well w/ weak QBs. See Miami for an example. We were weak at WR, thus the stage was set for a TE to step up. I said before I don't shoulder Clark with all the blame for his lower stat seasons, but at the same time, I go back to this. You say Clark has been consistently good since we added him. I counter by asking why, for the last several years, everyone had felt TE was among our top needs if that was true. And if that is true, why did we spend a 1st on Olsen is we were set at TE?

 

I really don't remember us giving up alot of money extending him so I don't see this as an issue. Further, I do see him inhibiting Olsen's growth.

 

The money wasn't huge. I believe he got $2m in new bonus money, and around $3m added to his base salary. Not sure about that exactly, but I think I remember $5m in new money, including $2m up front bonus. I am not saying it was a bad deal, money wise. I never said that. I just didn't see the point. If Olsen steps up, Clark simply isn't necessary. If Olsen doesn't step up, I believe we could have signed Clark just as easily (if we wanted him) when he hit FA.

 

And though it wasn't a lot of money, it did create a bigger cap hit for him, and that is money I would have rather ear-marked for other players.

 

I believe Wale's contract expires this yr or next. Wale has had 2 good yrs and 2 crappy yrs. Further, I think you also need to look at turnovers. Alex has forced 14 turnovers during that time to Wale's 9.

 

He is signed through 2009. You say two crappy seasons? His weaker two seasons saw 5 and 6.5 sacks, which is .5 less than Brown's best sack total. As for turnovers, I would argue RDEs usually have more turnovers, as they hit the QB from the blindside, which simply creates more opportunity for turnovers, compared to the LDE, where the QB usually sees him coming and has more time to secure the ball.

 

Wale never lived up to the expectations from when we traded for him, yet at the same time, I still think he is our best DE. IMHO, it would be a mistake to cut him.

Turnovers breakdown as follows: Brown has 11 FF and 3 int. Wale has 9 FF.

 

I am wondering if Wale's contract shoots up big time next yr and the Bears are thinking of letting him go at the end of the yr.

 

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree as I don't have an issue with either extension.

 

Peace

[AZ54]

We're not even close to thinking about getting rid of Ogun. Last year we benched Brown so Anderson could and we were all excited about it (myself included) and then he shot a blank. Remember that crappy run D we had on the right side of our D? I haven't seen anything at all about Anderson becoming more than a situational pass rusher this year. He might step up but he might be the same guy.

 

Then we have Bazuin who has never taken a snap for us. We have no clue what he can do. In this light I think the extension for Brown was JA's way of hedging his bets. It wasn't so much money that it hurt us capwise yet it made Brown happy enough that if he stays our starter for 2 or 3 more years he's set contractually. If JA waits a year knowing Brown wasn't happy with his contract last year then the demands could go way up. On the other side if Anderson puts up another 10+ sacks this year we'll be talking about his new contract next offseason.

[DrunkBomber]

- Clark - While Olsen has not broken out yet, can it not be argued that extending Clark may hold Olsen back? W/ his extension, he isn't going to simply ride the pine, so even if Olsen is looking ready to breakout, he is still going to have to alternate w/ Clark.

 

- Brown - I realize the rest have not broken out either, but Brown still had two years left on the extension we already signed him too. I simply question the need to sign a player in Brown's situation. He was not coming off some great season. He was not due to be a FA, nor was he due to be a FA after the next season. He wasn't on his rookie contract, and thus not some way underpaid player (Hester). I simply saw no reason to provide him another extension.

 

In the grand scheme of things, we are not talking big bucks or deals that kill our cap. I know that. But in terms of strategy, I just do not get it. While their deals are not great, at the same time, they did get money that could otherwise go to Hester or Urlacher. Or it could have been money for Briggs/Harris in roster bonus so their future cap hits would be even less.

 

I do not have a problem w/ the philosophy of keeping your own, but at the same time, I think you also need to add. Spending all your cap dollars to retain your own sounds great coming off a SB season, but coming off a sub .500 season?

Clark has been the most consistent and productive player on our offense for years. Its nothing against Olsen, both will get the reps, but it doesnt hurt having extra talent at certain positions.