Bears best move is the one they didnt make

[jason]

I am leaning in your direction Connorbear. Yeah, Url finishing a Bear would be icing on the cake. But it is a business and he's 35 with problem legs. If 2.5 mil is a "slap in the face" we really are warped.

 

Dude, you know what I mean. For me and you and the majority of people world wide, 2.5 is not a slap in the face. For pro athletes, particularly ones as recognized and accomplished as Urlacher, it's a completely different animal.

[jason]

Urlacher's performance over the last several years shows clearly what he is worth, right around 2 million a year....if he does not want to take that, give or take a bit, then send him packing. Loyalty runs both way and his play is deteriorating and he is not a good spokesman for the Bears.

 

I would love to see him go personally, he was once a good player but never a good ambassador, and the good player aspect is well behind him.

 

Is there some sort of website out there of which I'm unaware that measures a player's skill, leadership, production, knowledge, and effectiveness, and then slots in financially?

[Alaskan Grizzly]

What's funny is, he is EXACTLY what's best for the team. Part of the reason the Bears got Peppers was, no doubt, because of the atmosphere Lovie created. Like him or not as a coach, the players enjoyed playing for him. That permeated to other players around the league. It told them the Bears were an organization to play for. A family. Dropping Urlacher now, when we already know the disparity for contract is minimal, says exactly the opposite. On top of that, his play works out well for the other team needs. There are enough needs that it makes sense to hold on to him for a 2-year contract, and fix the more glaring issues on the team. You know, like multiple on the OL, Safety, TE, and OLB.

 

It'd be different if he straight up sucked last year. But he didn't, and any representation trying to prove such is just false. He was average. You pay him as an average player, chip in a few bonus possibilities, and let him retire a Bear. That's how you do business. Signing someone else and dropping Urlacher like a bad habit may be better in the next 2 years or so, but long-term I believe it has a negative effect.

 

There is a deeper issue that you pretty much nailed in this write up. What you mentioned about Lovie's appeal to players and in part Urlacher's will no doubt effect how our team moves forward. The fact that some players like Peppers coming to Chicago had to do with Lovie and Urlacher being there and their recruitment efforts. And the possibility of Urlacher leaving because he's not happy could resonate to a player like Peppers...and Tillman...and Jennings and any other experienced defensive player in the NFL. That the Bears are a new team, a team run by an "offensive minded" coach and a GM that doesn't look (or possibly care) about history, just the bottom dollar. The fact that someone like Roach leaving for a team like Oakland at around $3-4 Million per year could also send a bad message. If Roach theoretically could have been that 'heir apparent' why didn't the Bears compete more for him?

 

If Urlacher goes, not only does the team lose some of its respectability in history and tradition but also in experience and knowledge of the players already on the team. Players themsleves that may not want to stick around given the new track history.

[Stinger226]

What's funny is, he is EXACTLY what's best for the team. Part of the reason the Bears got Peppers was, no doubt, because of the atmosphere Lovie created. Like him or not as a coach, the players enjoyed playing for him. That permeated to other players around the league. It told them the Bears were an organization to play for. A family. Dropping Urlacher now, when we already know the disparity for contract is minimal, says exactly the opposite. On top of that, his play works out well for the other team needs. There are enough needs that it makes sense to hold on to him for a 2-year contract, and fix the more glaring issues on the team. You know, like multiple on the OL, Safety, TE, and OLB.

 

It'd be different if he straight up sucked last year. But he didn't, and any representation trying to prove such is just false. He was average. You pay him as an average player, chip in a few bonus possibilities, and let him retire a Bear. That's how you do business. Signing someone else and dropping Urlacher like a bad habit may be better in the next 2 years or so, but long-term I believe it has a negative effect.

 

Do you think he is worth 5 mil a year? I really understand your point. I think as a team leader, he can be used but if we have to pay 5 mil, we can get two starters for that. Its about what you place on him for valve.

[lemonej]

There is a deeper issue that you pretty much nailed in this write up. What you mentioned about Lovie's appeal to players and in part Urlacher's will no doubt effect how our team moves forward. The fact that some players like Peppers coming to Chicago had to do with Lovie and Urlacher being there and their recruitment efforts. And the possibility of Urlacher leaving because he's not happy could resonate to a player like Peppers...and Tillman...and Jennings and any other experienced defensive player in the NFL. That the Bears are a new team, a team run by an "offensive minded" coach and a GM that doesn't look (or possibly care) about history, just the bottom dollar. The fact that someone like Roach leaving for a team like Oakland at around $3-4 Million per year could also send a bad message. If Roach theoretically could have been that 'heir apparent' why didn't the Bears compete more for him?

 

If Urlacher goes, not only does the team lose some of its respectability in history and tradition but also in experience and knowledge of the players already on the team. Players themsleves that may not want to stick around given the new track history.

I understand the good points about how the players loved playing for Smith but,5 out of the last 6 years they didn't make the playoffs. Since I now would like this team to raise the bar and actually make players accountable on the field instead of factoring in past accomplishments. Since we are in full phase of speculation season I believe that Urlacher will be back as long as he lowers his demands. His health the last few seasons is why he should be a little more flexible and the Bears should stand firm on their position. When we are agonizing over an undrafted FA that turned out to be a serviceable LB (Roach), the talent at the positon needs to be upgraded.Urlacher and Briggs are aging and we are sad that a plyer of Roach's caliber left. He is not in the same category as Rosy Colvin but we act like he was. The original camp Roach was in was Oakland so he went back since the Bears took too long to give him a offer he felt comfortable with.

[Daventry]

There is a deeper issue that you pretty much nailed in this write up. What you mentioned about Lovie's appeal to players and in part Urlacher's will no doubt effect how our team moves forward. The fact that some players like Peppers coming to Chicago had to do with Lovie and Urlacher being there and their recruitment efforts. And the possibility of Urlacher leaving because he's not happy could resonate to a player like Peppers...and Tillman...and Jennings and any other experienced defensive player in the NFL. That the Bears are a new team, a team run by an "offensive minded" coach and a GM that doesn't look (or possibly care) about history, just the bottom dollar. The fact that someone like Roach leaving for a team like Oakland at around $3-4 Million per year could also send a bad message. If Roach theoretically could have been that 'heir apparent' why didn't the Bears compete more for him?

 

If Urlacher goes, not only does the team lose some of its respectability in history and tradition but also in experience and knowledge of the players already on the team. Players themsleves that may not want to stick around given the new track history.

 

 

This from the poster who wished for Lovie to remain and who called those who desired more losses to ensure his exit, which ultimately did lead to his demise, as not real fans. Important to put all of that in context.

 

Lovie's appeal is no longer relevant, and the attempt to tie Peppers coming to Chicago, and players like Tillman and Jennings to stay is laughable. Those players want to get paid and win, end of.

 

If history had been so good Lovie would be at the helm, his current status being unemployed I might add as no other team seems to feel that he offers the traits necessary to assist a franchise to move in a positive direction, and most Bears fan would be looking forward to more 10-6 years with some chance of getting in the playoffs at best but no chance of going to the Super Bowl.

 

Speculation based on this kind of logic is laughable and has nothing to do with reality.

 

Players want to get paid and go to the big dance. Lovie could not deliver that which is why he is unemployed.

 

I am happy to let what seems to be a very competent new team decide how much to offer an aging player who is clearly past his prime and has been less than a good ambassador for the city of Chicago, with my preference clearly being to let go of dead wood and get someone much better for the same price.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

This from the poster who wished for Lovie to remain and who called those who desired more losses to ensure his exit, which ultimately did lead to his demise, as not real fans. Important to put all of that in context.

 

Lovie's appeal is no longer relevant, and the attempt to tie Peppers coming to Chicago, and players like Tillman and Jennings to stay is laughable. Those players want to get paid and win, end of.

 

Mr Daventry, what YOU need to put into context is what Jason wrote earlier...to which I replied:

 

"What's funny is, he (Urlacher) is EXACTLY what's best for the team. Part of the reason the Bears got Peppers was, no doubt, because of the atmosphere Lovie created. Like him or not as a coach, the players enjoyed playing for him. That permeated to other players around the league. It told them the Bears were an organization to play for. A family. Dropping Urlacher now, when we already know the disparity for contract is minimal, says exactly the opposite."

 

Players want to get paid and go to the big dance. Lovie could not deliver that which is why he is unemployed.

 

I am happy to let what seems to be a very competent new team decide how much to offer an aging player who is clearly past his prime and has been less than a good ambassador for the city of Chicago, with my preference clearly being to let go of dead wood and get someone much better for the same price.

 

I will not argue that "players want to get paid". That is why when Dan Snyder took over in Washington we saw the Redskins win so many Super Bowls the following years. Or when Philadelpha opened up its pocket book a few years ago to construct an all star team (the same one that Vince Young declared "The Dream Team") and win back to back championships. What I prefer, as do most traditionalists (aka some Bears fans) want is for stability. Trading old for young, pricey for cheap doesn't always translate to wins. And since you brought it up, I make no qualms nor apologies for my support of Lovie. As was mentioned earlier his style (coaching or personality) is what brought our Defense to what it was known for these last few years.

[Stinger226]

Mr Daventry, what YOU need to put into context is what Jason wrote earlier...to which I replied:

 

"What's funny is, he (Urlacher) is EXACTLY what's best for the team. Part of the reason the Bears got Peppers was, no doubt, because of the atmosphere Lovie created. Like him or not as a coach, the players enjoyed playing for him. That permeated to other players around the league. It told them the Bears were an organization to play for. A family. Dropping Urlacher now, when we already know the disparity for contract is minimal, says exactly the opposite."

 

 

 

I will not argue that "players want to get paid". That is why when Dan Snyder took over in Washington we saw the Redskins win so many Super Bowls the following years. Or when Philadelpha opened up its pocket book a few years ago to construct an all star team (the same one that Vince Young declared "The Dream Team") and win back to back championships. What I prefer, as do most traditionalists (aka some Bears fans) want is for stability. Trading old for young, pricey for cheap doesn't always translate to wins. And since you brought it up, I make no qualms nor apologies for my support of Lovie. As was mentioned earlier his style (coaching or personality) is what brought our Defense to what it was known for these last few years.

Your love for Urlacher is way off base, we need a competent LB not a past hero. Because of our cap situation if you bring him back on the cheap and that will be worth someone, but first of all he wont be playing a full season, so we have to bet a backup to replace him anyways. Secondly he is a liability on the field, you get some valve from leadership quality but that is all your getting. He is a year older and his body didnt miraculously change. Look to the future and quit living in the past.

[Daventry]

Mr Daventry, what YOU need to put into context is what Jason wrote earlier...to which I replied:

 

"What's funny is, he (Urlacher) is EXACTLY what's best for the team. Part of the reason the Bears got Peppers was, no doubt, because of the atmosphere Lovie created. Like him or not as a coach, the players enjoyed playing for him. That permeated to other players around the league. It told them the Bears were an organization to play for. A family. Dropping Urlacher now, when we already know the disparity for contract is minimal, says exactly the opposite."

 

 

 

I will not argue that "players want to get paid". That is why when Dan Snyder took over in Washington we saw the Redskins win so many Super Bowls the following years. Or when Philadelpha opened up its pocket book a few years ago to construct an all star team (the same one that Vince Young declared "The Dream Team") and win back to back championships. What I prefer, as do most traditionalists (aka some Bears fans) want is for stability. Trading old for young, pricey for cheap doesn't always translate to wins. And since you brought it up, I make no qualms nor apologies for my support of Lovie. As was mentioned earlier his style (coaching or personality) is what brought our Defense to what it was known for these last few years.

 

 

What needs true context is the position you have held throughout, sorry if you don't want to acknowledge it.

 

This team has nothing to do with the Redskins, keep clutching at straws and you will be lost in Lovie land....

 

I am a Bears fan, for likely as many if not more years than you, and your claim on what "traditionalists" want is surely not consistent with what I wish for. One has to adapt to the times, remain fluid and do what is necessary to prosper.

 

Your endorsement of Lovie speaks volumes about your ability to judge the direction of a team. Thank goodness there are those in positions of authority who differ, or failure would have been what all Bears fan would have continued to endure.

 

The Bears have been top-ranked in defense for many years before Lovie and will continue to be so....Lovie had little to do with it, and judging from the lack of judgement he and his chosen staff displayed wasting the majority of high round draft picks on defensive players and ignoring offensive needs, most notably offensive line help, he did not do particularly well.

 

He is unemployed by the way.....

 

Your opinions seem to be flawed from the foundation, thus my observations. Nothing personal, just my views. Grounded in 40 years plus of being a Bears fan, by the way.

[Connorbear]

What needs true context is the position you have held throughout, sorry if you don't want to acknowledge it.

 

This team has nothing to do with the Redskins, keep clutching at straws and you will be lost in Lovie land....

 

I am a Bears fan, for likely as many if not more years than you, and your claim on what "traditionalists" want is surely not consistent with what I wish for. One has to adapt to the times, remain fluid and do what is necessary to prosper.

 

Your endorsement of Lovie speaks volumes about your ability to judge the direction of a team. Thank goodness there are those in positions of authority who differ, or failure would have been what all Bears fan would have continued to endure.

 

The Bears have been top-ranked in defense for many years before Lovie and will continue to be so....Lovie had little to do with it, and judging from the lack of judgement he and his chosen staff displayed wasting the majority of high round draft picks on defensive players and ignoring offensive needs, most notably offensive line help, he did not do particularly well.

 

He is unemployed by the way.....

 

Your opinions seem to be flawed from the foundation, thus my observations. Nothing personal, just my views. Grounded in 40 years plus of being a Bears fan, by the way.

I will disagree with you on Lovie's defensive prowess. His team led the league in creating turnovers during his time at head coach and had a lot to do with the scheme he brought in. Lovie is unemployed because he chose not to be a defensive coordinator this year. Instead, he decided to take a vacation and enjoy the 5 million paycheck.

 

He does take blame at being horrible at dealing with the offensive side of the ball but you do have to give him credit for what the team was able to do on defense.

 

Peace

 

[Daventry]

I will disagree with you on Lovie's defensive prowess. His team led the league in creating turnovers during his time at head coach and had a lot to do with the scheme he brought in. Lovie is unemployed because he chose not to be a defensive coordinator this year. Instead, he decided to take a vacation and enjoy the 5 million paycheck.

 

He does take blame at being horrible at dealing with the offensive side of the ball but you do have to give him credit for what the team was able to do on defense.

 

Peace

 

 

I would not disagree that Lovie had some ability with defensive strategy, but given the authority he had over personnel decisions I believe that his achievements could have been equalled or exceeded.

 

For Lovie to take a defensive coordinator spot would have been a demotion, he is probably waiting it out and hoping he can find a head coaching job at some point. If he needs the cash he will take a defensive coordinator job, it remains to be seen IF anyone would be interested in offering him one. We will see if he is offered one, I don't think he is special enough to have a lock on any such opportunity.

 

I have not seen him take blame for anything, but if he has that does not take away the fact that the teams he coached failed to succeed to win the big prize. It is always easy to admit failure after failure has been proven and employment is lost...

[Connorbear]

I would not disagree that Lovie had some ability with defensive strategy, but given the authority he had over personnel decisions I believe that his achievements could have been equalled or exceeded.

 

For Lovie to take a defensive coordinator spot would have been a demotion, he is probably waiting it out and hoping he can find a head coaching job at some point. If he needs the cash he will take a defensive coordinator job, it remains to be seen IF anyone would be interested in offering him one. We will see if he is offered one, I don't think he is special enough to have a lock on any such opportunity.

 

I have not seen him take blame for anything, but if he has that does not take away the fact that the teams he coached failed to succeed to win the big prize. It is always easy to admit failure after failure has been proven and employment is lost...

I don't believe Lovie has spoken publicly since being fired and I don't blame him.

 

Most of the head coaches hired in the off-season were offensive oriented (I think there was only 1 or 2 out of 9).

 

Peace

[Daventry]

I don't believe Lovie has spoken publicly since being fired and I don't blame him.

 

Most of the head coaches hired in the off-season were offensive oriented (I think there was only 1 or 2 out of 9).

 

Peace

 

 

If one watches football it does not take much time to see that the NFL is very much an offensive minded league, thus if the head coach fails to address the offence appropriately failure is sure.

 

Thank goodness Lovie is gone.

[Mongo3451]

I will disagree with you on Lovie's defensive prowess. His team led the league in creating turnovers during his time at head coach and had a lot to do with the scheme he brought in. Lovie is unemployed because he chose not to be a defensive coordinator this year. Instead, he decided to take a vacation and enjoy the 5 million paycheck.

 

He does take blame at being horrible at dealing with the offensive side of the ball but you do have to give him credit for what the team was able to do on defense.

 

Peace

 

I would argue that Lovie's defensive prowess came from an inordinate amount of draft picks and free agent aquisitions. That in and of itself kept the offense behind for his tenure. Look at the DL and safety picks alone and it becomes evident as to why the OL sucks.

 

I'll even add with what we've invested on D over the years, we should have been #1 every year...

[selection7]

What's funny is, he is EXACTLY what's best for the team. Part of the reason the Bears got Peppers was, no doubt, because of the atmosphere Lovie created. Like him or not as a coach, the players enjoyed playing for him. That permeated to other players around the league. It told them the Bears were an organization to play for. A family. Dropping Urlacher now, when we already know the disparity for contract is minimal, says exactly the opposite. On top of that, his play works out well for the other team needs. There are enough needs that it makes sense to hold on to him for a 2-year contract, and fix the more glaring issues on the team. You know, like multiple on the OL, Safety, TE, and OLB.

 

It'd be different if he straight up sucked last year. But he didn't, and any representation trying to prove such is just false. He was average. You pay him as an average player, chip in a few bonus possibilities, and let him retire a Bear. That's how you do business. Signing someone else and dropping Urlacher like a bad habit may be better in the next 2 years or so, but long-term I believe it has a negative effect.

^This exactly. Well put.

 

I would say it's about seeing the forest for the trees, but there's really no pressing details obscuring the big picture to speak of (other than Url hurting Stinger226's feelings with his media remarks last year ). What he can contribute to leading our defense, what he probably will cost, what he'll mean to the team and our fans by retiring a Bear, allowing us to put off fixing his position right away in favor of other glaring needs, and what the Bears taking care of him will say to other FA's who might be thinking of playing for Emery in future years...every single thing leads to keeping Urlacher if we can get him for a decent deal. Not to mention he's been one of the best things to happen to Bears football over these years.

[Mongo3451]

Lied about surgeries. Then so graciously took the highest contract ever. F him

I don't think he lied about the surgeries. (we may have to fact check that) ESPN just didn't know about them. Please never confuse Manning with Favre. He's about as stand up as they have ever come. He is a god in Indy.

[Daventry]

I would argue that Lovie's defensive prowess came from an inordinate amount of draft picks and free agent aquisitions. That in and of itself kept the offense behind for his tenure. Look at the DL and safety picks alone and it becomes evident as to why the OL sucks.

 

Exactly, who could have failed when all of the available resources were directed towards the defence, with a flawed system in place I might add which if a differing system had been in place much better results could have been obtained with much less resource, and so little towards the offence?

 

Are there any head coaches in place who could not construct a number one defence and a bottom of the barrel offence? If such coaches are in place, they won't be for long.

[Daventry]

^This exactly. Well put.

 

I would say it's about seeing the forest for the trees, but there's really no pressing details obscuring the big picture to speak of (other than Url hurting Stinger226's feelings with his media remarks last year ). What he can contribute to leading our defense, what he probably will cost, what he'll mean to the team and our fans by retiring a Bear, allowing us to put off fixing his position right away in favor of other glaring needs, and what the Bears taking care of him will say to other FA's who might be thinking of playing for Emery in future years...every single thing leads to keeping Urlacher if we can get him for a decent deal. Not to mention he's been one of the best things to happen to Bears football over these years.

 

Once again, lots of speculation and assumptions but no facts.

 

A leader? Where is the evidence of this trait? The fan base? I see very little interest in the guy who was the MLB for the Bears for many years at this point, I think many have had enough of him and would be happy to see him leave. He is hardly the cover of a Wheaties box.

 

The effect of Urlachers signing on other FA'? Please....that is laughable and not worth further thought.

 

Urlacher is hardly the best thing that has happened to Bears football over the years, I would say he is one of the worst overall and the lack of popularity he generates now resonates. Where do you see that fans are desperate to have him stay now? He was great during his time, which is over, he was never a particularly good citizen and was often an embarrassment.....let's bid good riddance now before more money is wasted on a clearly aging player who will never play a full year much less be an above average player.

[bradjock]

What he has been previously offered has no financial bearing on what he will be offered. And offering him 2 or 2.5m is, IMHO, a slap in the face to a guy who personifies the greatness of Chicago football down to the very position.

 

I desperately hope he resigns with the Bears and gets to prove he has plenty gas in the tank, and to prove his critics wrong.

 

By that logic, we should should bring back Dick Butkus to play for us.

 

Look, I hope he resigns, and I hope he does have have plenty of gas in the tank. Most seem to believe he is too old and too slow. I'm not saying I like it. We currently have almost no cap room and there are a ton of linebackers available. Get the best player who will help your team win.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

By that logic, we should should bring back Dick Butkus to play for us.

 

Look, I hope he resigns, and I hope he does have have plenty of gas in the tank. Most seem to believe he is too old and too slow. I'm not saying I like it. We currently have almost no cap room and there are a ton of linebackers available. Get the best player who will help your team win.

The Bears have about $8m in cap room.

[Stinger226]

^This exactly. Well put.

 

I would say it's about seeing the forest for the trees, but there's really no pressing details obscuring the big picture to speak of (other than Url hurting Stinger226's feelings with his media remarks last year ). What he can contribute to leading our defense, what he probably will cost, what he'll mean to the team and our fans by retiring a Bear, allowing us to put off fixing his position right away in favor of other glaring needs, and what the Bears taking care of him will say to other FA's who might be thinking of playing for Emery in future years...every single thing leads to keeping Urlacher if we can get him for a decent deal. Not to mention he's been one of the best things to happen to Bears football over these years.

First of all (I am sensitive) and secondly FAs will not look at letting go of a old veteran as mistreatment. Every time comes for vets, it just happens to be his time. As I said he was my favorite player for many years, but if we can get him cheap, I am all in. I guess that means I am disrespectful to such a legend. He will play average at best,and not play a full season and I dont think that helps our team be better.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Daventry, I said it once and I'll say it again: I support Lovie Smith, am disappointed he's gone but will 'hope' the new regime can do better. As MadLith and I discussd, I am juxtaposed to where he was once. When Lovie was coach I was optimistic, he not so. Now we are swapped. I have "acknowledged" it now you need to comprehend that is where I stand.

 

The reference to the Eagles and Redskins dripped of sarcasm. If you were unable to comprehend that, my bad.

 

Since opinions are like therory, they can be flawed until scientifically (or statistically) proven otherwise. You say mine "seem flawed" then Ill surmise that you mean to say that I could be right. I suppose the fact remains to be played out.

 

It sounds like we are about the same age but whether either of us was a fan most of our 40ish years it doesn't take away from one being more right than the other. My youngest is a fan and has been most of her 9 years. Does that make her any less?

 

You can deride me further if you feel I necessary but I'll stay pat on my original thought. That being Urlacher deserves another shot as a Bear. Ill leave the expertise of contract negotiating to the experts.

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Your love for Urlacher is way off base, we need a competent LB not a past hero. Because of our cap situation if you bring him back on the cheap and that will be worth someone, but first of all he wont be playing a full season, so we have to bet a backup to replace him anyways. Secondly he is a liability on the field, you get some valve from leadership quality but that is all your getting. He is a year older and his body didnt miraculously change. Look to the future and quit living in the past.

 

Don't know that "love" describes it, more like respect. Respect for wha the team is right now in no small part to his contribution. I beg to differ that he is not "competent" but maybe not as capable as he once was. Does that mean we just give up? As far as whether he makes the whole season, I wouldnt take the bet that Jason made you as normally I'm not a betting man. But if I were I'd be more likely to think hes going to play more than 12 games. As others have pointed out, he's had a full offseason to heal and will be focused to see it through.

 

Looking too far into the future can cause you to lose focus on the present. Roach is gone and in your opinion so too should Urlacher. I'm not so sure that it's a wise choice to be so hasty. Having two starting LBs gone at once sounds more like rebuilding than 'building on'.

[bradjock]

The Bears have about $8m in cap room.

 

Is it as high as 8 million? Even if it is, key positions we still need to sign include LG, RG, MLB, OLB, nickel, and back-up quarterback. Not to mention adding depth at every position on defense which is threadbare. We'd love to add a speed WR to take the top off the defense. We can address some of this in the draft, but we only have 5 picks and you don't want to count on drafting a player to start.

 

Not to mention guys we need to resign for next year like Cutler and Tillman.

 

You pay Urlacher what we project his value to the team will be for next year, not his past performance.

 

 

[adam]

Here are the only ILB's that had over 500 snaps last year and are younger than Urlacher (with PFF ratings, stats, and age):

 

Brad Jones +9.0, 687 snaps, 56 tackles, 0 INT, 4 PD, 2 Sacks, Age: 27

Karlos Dansby +6.0, 1123 snaps, 101 tackles, 0 INT, 9 PD, 1 Sack, Age: 31

Bart Scott +1.1, 582 snaps, 36 tackles, 1 INT, 1 PD, 2.5 sacks, Age: 32

Chase Blackburn -10.9, 798 snaps, 64 tackles, 1 INT, 6 PD, 3 Sacks, Age: 29

Brian Urlacher -11.2, 726 snaps, 53 tackles, 1 INT, 7 PD, 0 Sacks, Age: 34

Rey Maualuga -26.2, 1047 snaps, 62 tackles, 0 INT, 4 PD, 1 Sack, Age: 26

 

Of these, who would come at the same price or cheaper and be better than Urlacher in the Bears' scheme in 2013? Jones or Dansby maybe, but would they come in at the same price or lower than Urlacher? Also, these are ILB's, not necessarily all MLB's. Slim pickings.

 

To me, unless you could get Jones or Dansby, then it would seem better to bring back Urlacher and groom someone like Ogletree or a 2nd Round pick for a year or two while he plays alongside Urlacher and then can move inside in 2014 or 2015.