Urlacher

[AZ54]

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.

 

 

I'll support that line of reasoning. When Bruce Arians took over he fired the DC, who had done a very good job. Said he didn't want anyone from the old regime on hand to undermine the positions of the new staff. There is no way he is the only person in the NFL thinking that way. Overall I think the Urlacher position comes down to the fact they wanted to pay him solely for what he could do on the field but there was no added value in their minds for his leadership. That's simply because the potential positives were outweighed or at least offset by the potential negatives of him not liking the "new system".

[Stinger226]

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.

The point is this is not the reason they didnt resign him. They based there decisions on what they thought he could do on the football field. If they thought he could play they would have offered more money made it important. You keep throwing reasons out there for why they didnt bring him back. Just accept the fact, he may never play in the NFL again and maybe its because of his age, performance, injury history.(not good enough) It is quite simple.

[Mongo3451]

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.

Obtuse? Careful bro, that'll get you a month or two in solitary...

[jason]

The point is this is not the reason they didnt resign him. They based there decisions on what they thought he could do on the football field. If they thought he could play they would have offered more money made it important. You keep throwing reasons out there for why they didnt bring him back. Just accept the fact, he may never play in the NFL again and maybe its because of his age, performance, injury history.(not good enough) It is quite simple.

 

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.

 

 

[jason]

Obtuse? Careful bro, that'll get you a month or two in solitary...

 

Thanks for the warning, Red.

[madlithuanian]

I believe it is all 3. The question, is how each factor is weighed? I'm certain the heaviest weight is on age/ability, then on salary, then least on regime connection. But, that's just my speculation. Only Emery really knows...and he won't tell a soul.

 

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.

 

[jason]

I believe it is all 3. The question, is how each factor is weighed? I'm certain the heaviest weight is on age/ability, then on salary, then least on regime connection. But, that's just my speculation. Only Emery really knows...and he won't tell a soul.

 

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.

[madlithuanian]

I see that as resonable...

 

 

 

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.

 

[adam]

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.

 

I would think something like leadership/locker room/System Knowledge has to play a part in there somewhere.

[jason]

I would think something like leadership/locker room/System Knowledge has to play a part in there somewhere.

 

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.

[adam]

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.

It has to be Emery, since he had a year with Urlacher to decide if he wanted to extend him or re-sign him.

[balta1701-A]

It has to be Emery, since he had a year with Urlacher to decide if he wanted to extend him or re-sign him.

During that year though, his performance on the field was poor and he finished the season hurt.

 

If he was waiting for a reason to keep Urlacher on the field, he didn't get it.

[adam]

During that year though, his performance on the field was poor and he finished the season hurt.

 

If he was waiting for a reason to keep Urlacher on the field, he didn't get it.

Exactly, the one year Emery got to see Urlacher on the field didn't really leave him with many good memories.

[Stinger226]

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.

Your right there are a lot of reasons that figure into a reason to not resign a player, but the most obvious is they dont think he can play at a level well enough to pay him the money he wanted. The new regime doesnt have the emotional ties to a player that we had, and want to upgrade the position. So they choose not to have him here anymore. The fact is hes not here and time to move on.

[Stinger226]

Your right there are a lot of reasons that figure into a reason to not resign a player, but the most obvious is they dont think he can play at a level well enough to pay him the money he wanted. The new regime doesnt have the emotional ties to a player that we had, and want to upgrade the position. So they choose not to have him here anymore. The fact is hes not here and time to move on.

Like one GM stated(it is better to let a player go one year early than one year to late.)

[adam]

Like one GM stated(it is better to let a player go one year early than one year to late.)

That is what Ozzie Newsome says, very true.

[jason]

Like one GM stated(it is better to let a player go one year early than one year to late.)

 

It's like playing the stock market though. You might think you're letting go of an investment just at the right time (i.e. one year early), because you don't want to hold onto it when it plummets (i.e. one year late), but a lot of time you let go too early and watch the value rise back up for a few years...wishing the entire time you had held on for just another year.

 

The best I can say is that ultimately it's somewhat of a guessing game. Same in this situation. They feel like they made the right guess. I think Urlacher's injured offseason slowed him during the first half of the season, made him look worse than he was, and the second half - where he was looking better - was derailed by injury.

[Stinger226]

It's like playing the stock market though. You might think you're letting go of an investment just at the right time (i.e. one year early), because you don't want to hold onto it when it plummets (i.e. one year late), but a lot of time you let go too early and watch the value rise back up for a few years...wishing the entire time you had held on for just another year.

 

The best I can say is that ultimately it's somewhat of a guessing game. Same in this situation. They feel like they made the right guess. I think Urlacher's injured offseason slowed him during the first half of the season, made him look worse than he was, and the second half - where he was looking better - was derailed by injury.

I guess the best way to look at it is he isnt here anymore, and good luck to him because he doesnt seem to be in high demand. Its probably a conspiracy but I will leave that up to Jason to figure that out.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

He's gone and we've signed multiple players since the decision. We couldve kept him and he could play at a probowl level, but we may not have been able to afford Anderson, Hayden, Zibikowski and others. I think the choice was tough, but long term it will turn out right. His signing could be the difference of being able to keep Cutler/Peppers next season, who knows. Lets trust Emery has a vision layed out and it turns into Championships year after year.

 

[Stinger226]

He's gone and we've signed multiple players since the decision. We couldve kept him and he could play at a probowl level, but we may not have been able to afford Anderson, Hayden, Zibikowski and others. I think the choice was tough, but long term it will turn out right. His signing could be the difference of being able to keep Cutler/Peppers next season, who knows. Lets trust Emery has a vision layed out and it turns into Championships year after year.

We wont know how all of his moves work out for a year or two, but I like the fact he has a plan and I hope it works out.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

We wont know how all of his moves work out for a year or two, but I like the fact he has a plan and I hope it works out.

 

True, and most of his contracts are one year deals. I think I've seen right now 39 out of 65 Bear contracts expire next season. He has his work cut out for him. We still need a vet back up QB and a Guard would be nice, but he has nearly a complete team set and we haven't drafted.

 

 

[jason]

I guess the best way to look at it is he isnt here anymore, and good luck to him because he doesnt seem to be in high demand. Its probably a conspiracy but I will leave that up to Jason to figure that out.

 

You're the one talking conspiracy. I'm talking about the fact that it's not all monetary, and there is inherent value to a leader, a teammate, a respected member of the clubhouse, and a vocal member of an organization that could speak on the team's behalf when pursuing big name free agents. Is it that difficult for you to comprehend more than one possibility?

 

I won't trust Emery's moves until they bear fruit. Until then, we should all be skeptical since his track record is minimal and the success hasn't followed. If the Bears turn into the Patriots? Sure, he slowly but surely becomes untouchable. His decisions are not questioned. Until then, however, every move he makes should be met with uncertainty. Unless you're just simply into the idea of blindly trusting someone in charge...in which case you might want to avoid koolaid at the next random picnic.

[Bears4Ever_34]

The Bears got over the loss of Olin Kreutz's supposed leadership just fine while there were still people bitching about the Bears not re-signing him. It will be no different with Urlacher gone. Can he play or can't he?

[Stinger226]

You're the one talking conspiracy. I'm talking about the fact that it's not all monetary, and there is inherent value to a leader, a teammate, a respected member of the clubhouse, and a vocal member of an organization that could speak on the team's behalf when pursuing big name free agents. Is it that difficult for you to comprehend more than one possibility?

 

I won't trust Emery's moves until they bear fruit. Until then, we should all be skeptical since his track record is minimal and the success hasn't followed. If the Bears turn into the Patriots? Sure, he slowly but surely becomes untouchable. His decisions are not questioned. Until then, however, every move he makes should be met with uncertainty. Unless you're just simply into the idea of blindly trusting someone in charge...in which case you might want to avoid koolaid at the next random picnic.

One year with Lovie in his year isnt much of a resume to hang your hat on. I think I will wait until a few years have passed and see what we got. I would like him to succeed so why not support him. I am a Bears fan, so why not act like one. Last years draft is still a question mark but honestly it takes 3 years to judge a draft. I like what he has did so far,and we will see how that translates on the field. I get everything you have talked about but you have failed to accept my view point that he is to injury prone, to old, and to expensive to make worth having. The sad part of everything is I will not win the bet because he will probably never play another down in the NFL and you wont we able to see he is not good enough anymore and will miss games because of a broke body.

[jason]

One year with Lovie in his year isnt much of a resume to hang your hat on. I think I will wait until a few years have passed and see what we got. I would like him to succeed so why not support him. I am a Bears fan, so why not act like one. Last years draft is still a question mark but honestly it takes 3 years to judge a draft. I like what he has did so far,and we will see how that translates on the field. I get everything you have talked about but you have failed to accept my view point that he is to injury prone, to old, and to expensive to make worth having. The sad part of everything is I will not win the bet because he will probably never play another down in the NFL and you wont we able to see he is not good enough anymore and will miss games because of a broke body.

 

It's possible to support while being skeptical and pessimistic.

 

BTW - I haven't failed to accept he's injury prone. He's older, it's gonna happen. But I also think his skill level and extra attributes make him a worthwhile veteran who makes the team much better (something the stats from last year have proven).