Smarter than GMs

[Stinger226]

Since some people think we are smarter than most GMs lets put that to practice. First question.

 

With the Urlacher controversy, WOULD WE SIGN URLACHER FOR THE 3.5 MILLION HE WOULD HAVE SIGNED FOR?

 

My vote would be a matter of valve, the Bears offer him 2 mil to come back. He turned it down. I think that was a fair valve for what he would bring to the table in 2013.

 

I dont think he would make the full season without missing games, therefore If he signed for the 2 mil, I would still draft his replacement in the first couple of rounds.

Since he wanted a 2 year contract at 11 mil and would have accepted 3.5 but still wanted two years, I would say not take him.

 

Therefore the right decision was made by the Bears.

 

So lets see what the collective opinion of the GM board for the Bears think.

[CrackerDog]

So lets see what the collective opinion of the GM board for the Bears think.

 

I hated to see Brian go but the Bears made the right call here. With the cap you can't just pay guys for their legacy, you have to manage your money effectively to stay competitive. I assume the $2 mil offer was loaded with incentives and it probably only guaranteed the vet minimum. That's unfortunately also the right way to go about things given the circumstances. In football years, #54, love him or not, is old.

 

Further, if you want to get pissed at someone, and I don't so I'm not, Urlacher is more to blame than anyone else. Or his agent oversold him on his own value. But a lot of guys in his position give a "home team discount" at this point in their careers just to finish things off with class, not have to move, etc. He didn't do that.

 

I hope his knees still do have a few years on them and he's able to get at least what the Bears offered him elsewhere. More power to him. But it was time for the Bears to do exactly what they did.

 

That doesn't make me smarter or dumber than Emery (or Jerry Angelo, etc). It's just my opinion.

[Daventry]

Since some people think we are smarter than most GMs lets put that to practice. First question.

 

With the Urlacher controversy, WOULD WE SIGN URLACHER FOR THE 3.5 MILLION HE WOULD HAVE SIGNED FOR?

 

My vote would be a matter of valve, the Bears offer him 2 mil to come back. He turned it down. I think that was a fair valve for what he would bring to the table in 2013.

 

I dont think he would make the full season without missing games, therefore If he signed for the 2 mil, I would still draft his replacement in the first couple of rounds.

Since he wanted a 2 year contract at 11 mil and would have accepted 3.5 but still wanted two years, I would say not take him.

 

Therefore the right decision was made by the Bears.

 

So lets see what the collective opinion of the GM board for the Bears think.

 

 

No way I would sign Urlacher for the 3.5, the fact that he remains unsigned is the best proof possible that he is not worth that kind of money.

 

And, given what the situation is now, I would not sign him for the 2 million either at this point, we can clearly do better with the money.

[madlithuanian]

I basically agree...

 

 

 

I hated to see Brian go but the Bears made the right call here. With the cap you can't just pay guys for their legacy, you have to manage your money effectively to stay competitive. I assume the $2 mil offer was loaded with incentives and it probably only guaranteed the vet minimum. That's unfortunately also the right way to go about things given the circumstances. In football years, #54, love him or not, is old.

 

Further, if you want to get pissed at someone, and I don't so I'm not, Urlacher is more to blame than anyone else. Or his agent oversold him on his own value. But a lot of guys in his position give a "home team discount" at this point in their careers just to finish things off with class, not have to move, etc. He didn't do that.

 

I hope his knees still do have a few years on them and he's able to get at least what the Bears offered him elsewhere. More power to him. But it was time for the Bears to do exactly what they did.

 

That doesn't make me smarter or dumber than Emery (or Jerry Angelo, etc). It's just my opinion.

 

[AZ54]

Since some people think we are smarter than most GMs lets put that to practice. First question.

 

With the Urlacher controversy, WOULD WE SIGN URLACHER FOR THE 3.5 MILLION HE WOULD HAVE SIGNED FOR?

 

My vote would be a matter of valve, the Bears offer him 2 mil to come back. He turned it down. I think that was a fair valve for what he would bring to the table in 2013.

 

I dont think he would make the full season without missing games, therefore If he signed for the 2 mil, I would still draft his replacement in the first couple of rounds.

Since he wanted a 2 year contract at 11 mil and would have accepted 3.5 but still wanted two years, I would say not take him.

 

Therefore the right decision was made by the Bears.

 

So lets see what the collective opinion of the GM board for the Bears think.

 

I agree

[jason]

Since some people think we are smarter than most GMs lets put that to practice. First question.

 

With the Urlacher controversy, WOULD WE SIGN URLACHER FOR THE 3.5 MILLION HE WOULD HAVE SIGNED FOR?

 

My vote would be a matter of valve, the Bears offer him 2 mil to come back. He turned it down. I think that was a fair valve for what he would bring to the table in 2013.

 

I dont think he would make the full season without missing games, therefore If he signed for the 2 mil, I would still draft his replacement in the first couple of rounds.

Since he wanted a 2 year contract at 11 mil and would have accepted 3.5 but still wanted two years, I would say not take him.

 

Therefore the right decision was made by the Bears.

 

So lets see what the collective opinion of the GM board for the Bears think.

 

First, "smarter" for an unknown is difficult to prove. It's why I've always said you can't know for sure what player A on team X would have done if drafted by team Y.

 

Having said that, the word "right" is still subjective. It's an unknown what he would have done on the Bears next year. What we do know, however, is that he has been statistically significant for the success of the defense. When he was out, they did worse. That is irrefutable and has been discussed ad nauseum.

 

Was it right financially? Perhaps. The Bears appear to have gotten pretty good value for their FA acquisition money. Unless the FA LBs turn out to have kick ass seasons, it's ultimately an unknown. If they dominate, we pretty much know Urlacher wasn't going to dominate, and therefore it was the right decision. IF they don't dominate, we are left wondering if Urlacher would have done better. We are left wondering if Urlacher would have had better defensive adjustments and calls. We are left wondering if Urlacher's leadership and knowledge would have benefited the team more than his lessened speed would have hindered the team. We do know he was injured last year, got healthier as the season progressed, and his statistics showed improvement as health improved. Who's to say Urlacher finally cleared his injury hump from the previous offseason (his workouts appear to indicate that he's in great shape), and wouldn't have put up a better season than last year?

 

In the end, it's all an unknown and you can't prove right or wrong. It's all what-if work.

[Stinger226]

First, "smarter" for an unknown is difficult to prove. It's why I've always said you can't know for sure what player A on team X would have done if drafted by team Y.

 

Having said that, the word "right" is still subjective. It's an unknown what he would have done on the Bears next year. What we do know, however, is that he has been statistically significant for the success of the defense. When he was out, they did worse. That is irrefutable and has been discussed ad nauseum.

 

Was it right financially? Perhaps. The Bears appear to have gotten pretty good value for their FA acquisition money. Unless the FA LBs turn out to have kick ass seasons, it's ultimately an unknown. If they dominate, we pretty much know Urlacher wasn't going to dominate, and therefore it was the right decision. IF they don't dominate, we are left wondering if Urlacher would have done better. We are left wondering if Urlacher would have had better defensive adjustments and calls. We are left wondering if Urlacher's leadership and knowledge would have benefited the team more than his lessened speed would have hindered the team. We do know he was injured last year, got healthier as the season progressed, and his statistics showed improvement as health improved. Who's to say Urlacher finally cleared his injury hump from the previous offseason (his workouts appear to indicate that he's in great shape), and wouldn't have put up a better season than last year?

 

In the end, it's all an unknown and you can't prove right or wrong. It's all what-if work.

Your right, but if he retires because nobody wanted him I would have to say the right decision on not wanting him holds true. Or if someone signs him and he ends up being hurt same difference. The reasons why people didnt want him hold true. To make the statement( he will play well this year is a mute point) if he doesnt play, but it wil still go back to if it was the right decision to not sign him, which SO FAR looks like the right choice for anybody to make. So Im not sure IF HE PLAYED, I would have been right even matters.

[Stinger226]

First, "smarter" for an unknown is difficult to prove. It's why I've always said you can't know for sure what player A on team X would have done if drafted by team Y.

 

Having said that, the word "right" is still subjective. It's an unknown what he would have done on the Bears next year. What we do know, however, is that he has been statistically significant for the success of the defense. When he was out, they did worse. That is irrefutable and has been discussed ad nauseum.

 

Was it right financially? Perhaps. The Bears appear to have gotten pretty good value for their FA acquisition money. Unless the FA LBs turn out to have kick ass seasons, it's ultimately an unknown. If they dominate, we pretty much know Urlacher wasn't going to dominate, and therefore it was the right decision. IF they don't dominate, we are left wondering if Urlacher would have done better. We are left wondering if Urlacher would have had better defensive adjustments and calls. We are left wondering if Urlacher's leadership and knowledge would have benefited the team more than his lessened speed would have hindered the team. We do know he was injured last year, got healthier as the season progressed, and his statistics showed improvement as health improved. Who's to say Urlacher finally cleared his injury hump from the previous offseason (his workouts appear to indicate that he's in great shape), and wouldn't have put up a better season than last year?

 

In the end, it's all an unknown and you can't prove right or wrong. It's all what-if work.

Your right, but if he retires because nobody wanted him I would have to say the right decision on not wanting him holds true. Or if someone signs him and he ends up being hurt same difference. The reasons why people didnt want him hold true. To make the statement( he will play well this year is a mute point) if he doesnt play, but it wil still go back to if it was the right decision to not sign him, which SO FAR looks like the right choice for anybody to make. So Im not sure IF HE PLAYED, you would have been right even matters.

[Mongo3451]

Your right, but if he retires because nobody wanted him I would have to say the right decision on not wanting him holds true. Or if someone signs him and he ends up being hurt same difference. The reasons why people didnt want him hold true. To make the statement( he will play well this year is a mute point) if he doesnt play, but it wil still go back to if it was the right decision to not sign him, which SO FAR looks like the right choice for anybody to make. So Im not sure IF HE PLAYED, you would have been right even matters.

Moot point...

[scs787]

Moot point...

 

This...All this. It already happened so its pointless to discuss.

[Wesson44]

My point is....Urlacher looked around the NFL and didn't get what he wanted......even the sorry Vikings didn't want him...so he should have signed with the only team that wanted him, the only team he has played for these last 13 years, the only team where he knew he would be a starter....but he said no....so we said no to him at his price done deal. Was a smart choice

[Stinger226]

This...All this. It already happened so its pointless to discuss.

The point I was trying to make is, since our boards members are smarter than GMs I wanted to get a consensus of what that actually decision would have been, since Urlacher story resurfaces this week. If you dont wish to participate, just dont answer. Since a lot of things were said, I just wanted to get a actually total on what we as a board would have did.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I'll double down on what Jason said. And add, had I been in the position and known truly what was going on behind closed doors, I would have attempted to negotiate more. Probably not his 'final' asking price but somewhere in the middle...but closer to the $2 million. From my understanding there wasn't much negotiating and that can send a bad message. Part of the reason I feel it would have behooved the team to negotiate further was due to the additional loss of Roach. Granted a new twist to the scheme with Tucker so scheme familiarity is a moot point but a significant loss (if you count the current hold out in Idonijie) in player familiarity.

 

All that considered, what's done is in fact done. Urlacher is gone and it "appears" the team made some value pickups instead. But all of these moves, to include the decision to not keep Urlacher, are subjective. In other words opinions, not facts, that it will work. All that remains to be seen.

[Stinger226]

I'll double down on what Jason said. And add, had I been in the position and known truly what was going on behind closed doors, I would have attempted to negotiate more. Probably not his 'final' asking price but somewhere in the middle...but closer to the $2 million. From my understanding there wasn't much negotiating and that can send a bad message. Part of the reason I feel it would have behooved the team to negotiate further was due to the additional loss of Roach. Granted a new twist to the scheme with Tucker so scheme familiarity is a moot point but a significant loss (if you count the current hold out in Idonijie) in player familiarity.

 

All that considered, what's done is in fact done. Urlacher is gone and it "appears" the team made some value pickups instead. But all of these moves, to include the decision to not keep Urlacher, are subjective. In other words opinions, not facts, that it will work. All that remains to be seen.

So I would have to say 2 votes would have been to bring Urlacher back and 5 would not. I am just trying to show Jason that if we we smarter than GMs, that the same decision that the NFL is making right now, is the same one that we would have made.. Not sign him is what we would have chosen to do. Since the Bears made the choice, and no other team is chasing him, that bringing him back was not a good idea.

[Stinger226]

I'll double down on what Jason said. And add, had I been in the position and known truly what was going on behind closed doors, I would have attempted to negotiate more. Probably not his 'final' asking price but somewhere in the middle...but closer to the $2 million. From my understanding there wasn't much negotiating and that can send a bad message. Part of the reason I feel it would have behooved the team to negotiate further was due to the additional loss of Roach. Granted a new twist to the scheme with Tucker so scheme familiarity is a moot point but a significant loss (if you count the current hold out in Idonijie) in player familiarity.

 

All that considered, what's done is in fact done. Urlacher is gone and it "appears" the team made some value pickups instead. But all of these moves, to include the decision to not keep Urlacher, are subjective. In other words opinions, not facts, that it will work. All that remains to be seen.

They wanted him back only for there price, why would they negotiate against themselves? No one else wanted him, so why pay him what he thinks he is worth.The market tells you what his valve is, not him or the Bears. Come to find out, they made him a fair offer for what the league valves him as. He wanted 5.5, and would have settled for 3.5, well if he plays that will be for the league minimum. THATS HIS VALVE

[Alaskan Grizzly]

So I would have to say 2 votes would have been to bring Urlacher back and 5 would not. I am just trying to show Jason that if we we smarter than GMs, that the same decision that the NFL is making right now, is the same one that we would have made.. Not sign him is what we would have chosen to do. Since the Bears made the choice, and no other team is chasing him, that bringing him back was not a good idea.

 

I didn't really say that I would have "brought him back", just negotiated. The part of what went on behind closed doors none of us know. In fact you agreed that Urlacher probably wasnt aware every minute what was going on in negotiations. Sure I personally would have preferred having Urlacher back, so would Mike McCaskey, but I don't know all the intricacies of the money game.

 

As far as saying "5 against and 2 for" that is based more on what is done. What if he had been picked up by another team (still an option). And plays all 16 games, and is on a team that goes to the Super Bowl, and is chosen for another Pro Bowl? All this in his swan song? Then the choice COULD prove the wrong one. Understand the word "subjective". At this point thats all this is. The 5-2 mark doesn't prove one side right and the other wrong....not yet.

 

And do you mean 'valve' or 'value'?

[jason]

Your right, but if he retires because nobody wanted him I would have to say the right decision on not wanting him holds true. Or if someone signs him and he ends up being hurt same difference. The reasons why people didnt want him hold true. To make the statement( he will play well this year is a mute point) if he doesnt play, but it wil still go back to if it was the right decision to not sign him, which SO FAR looks like the right choice for anybody to make. So Im not sure IF HE PLAYED, I would have been right even matters.

 

I readily admit to being absolutely shocked nobody has picked him up. That, in and of itself, may indicate it was the right decision. There may be something else that the NFLers have whispered about that we all don't aren't privy to.

[jason]

So I would have to say 2 votes would have been to bring Urlacher back and 5 would not. I am just trying to show Jason that if we we smarter than GMs, that the same decision that the NFL is making right now, is the same one that we would have made.. Not sign him is what we would have chosen to do. Since the Bears made the choice, and no other team is chasing him, that bringing him back was not a good idea.

 

You're showing nothing. We are collectively not the same as we are individually. Furthermore, 20/20 hindsight (i.e. the actual release and the subsequent lack of interest from other teams) makes the decision tainted.

 

But, if we were to go back in time, and if this board were the clandestine deciding body for Chicago Bears personnel decisions, and if this board collectively voted in the majority to release Urlacher, I would have voiced my opinion vehemently, lost the battle, and have been relatively content with the decision, because I still think we could do just as good of a job as the "professionals" do considering the appalling lack of success and number of ridiculous personnel/management decisions made over the past 20 years.

[CrackerDog]

I would have attempted to negotiate more.

 

Understood. From an outsider's perspective, it was a blazingly fast decision that came down from Halas Hall on this. And there's something good to say about that too, I guess. It means we didn't mess around with the Urlacher deal for so long that we lost any ability to get anyone else... Thereby putting all the negotiating power in his hands. That was one issue I had with JA.

 

Still, with a player like #54 you'd hope they could play it out some so it appeared they were giving him his due. 13 years of HOF caliber ball deserved better than what it appears he got. I think they came to right conclusion and did so very diligently, I'm just not in love with how Brian is leaving the team with this bad taste in his mouth. Even though, obviously, he had a lot to do with how it all went down.

[Stinger226]

You're showing nothing. We are collectively not the same as we are individually. Furthermore, 20/20 hindsight (i.e. the actual release and the subsequent lack of interest from other teams) makes the decision tainted.

 

But, if we were to go back in time, and if this board were the clandestine deciding body for Chicago Bears personnel decisions, and if this board collectively voted in the majority to release Urlacher, I would have voiced my opinion vehemently, lost the battle, and have been relatively content with the decision, because I still think we could do just as good of a job as the "professionals" do considering the appalling lack of success and number of ridiculous personnel/management decisions made over the past 20 years.

If we look back at the origin thread, everybody was sad to seem him go but kinda didnt get behind the bring him back scenario that you and Alaska pushed., but its all subjective. I guess the decision of not bringing him back, is backed up by everything that has happened since that day. Nothing. done deal