jason

Thanks for finally seeing my point of view. I've understood yours all along, and players naturally deteriorate, but Urlacher was a HOF talent whose diminished abilities were still better than the guys on the field, and he would have had significant impact on the field as a result. You've basically agreed with me. He would have lined up the players better than Briggs. He would have patrolled the middle better than whomever. He would have recognized the offensive audibles faster. He would have been a leader. Unfortunately for him, Urlacher wasn't picked up anywhere else. I guess it's fortunate for us, because it would have sickened me to see him in another jersey. In the end, Adam nailed this thread twice: once when he said that Urlacher was let go a year too early, and then again when he said it's better to make a move a year early than a year late. The former helped lead to the catastrophic defensive year the Bears saw last year. The latter is to be seen, but I like the way Emery is setting things up for this franchise's future.

As many have mentioned WE are not THE BEARS. I think the majority of fans would not have a problem with Briggs moving on if the Bears got a decent value, but the Bears franchise probably likes him more than most of us do.

Alex Smith better put on his track shoes. He's in trouble.

How are the 2012 stats conjecture? They aren't. And when you build a case on Urlacher's production, it's not conjecture to say he would have had a great impact on the defense. When you have that much factual information and statistics behind your argument, it's called a pattern. It's a rock-solid case. It's the basis for nearly all forms of quantitative study. As for your conjecture, if Urlacher played in one game and then got injured, statistics say the Bears would probably have been better in the game he played than in the average of the remainder of the season. Finally, if your hypothetical dreamland scenario of Urlacher having a massive issue between the 2012 season and the time he negotiated before the 2013 season existed, it would have leaked by now. Sorry, but we know about things way too quickly, with way too many media, twitter, etc., for something like that to have remained unknown or hidden.

Wrong again, dipshit. I'm in the same boat as just about every other Bears fan when saying that Briggs has never been a favorite. In fact, I've been on board with a couple trade scenarios others have mentioned on this board.

The obvious answer here is that the Bears should sign a big name FA for the secondary. I also wouldn't mind seeing the Bears nab Maurkice Pouncey to make the OL virtually indestructible. More than likely, however, they'll probably resign Briggs to pretty big money for a 2-3 year contract.

Look, dick, if someone posts something about Urlacher losing ability, I'm going to reply. F'ing deal with it. I think everyone is over the fact that Urlacher is not with the team, but that doesn't mean I'll ignore inaccuracy about his impact. It's not conjecture to say A] Urlacher was important to the team (missed four games and still 4th in tackles) & B] He was doing better as the season progressed. They're both facts. Don't you know how to click links? The stats say the team was better when he was on the field. The stats say he was doing better as the season went on. It doesn't take a genius to get his tackles during 2012 on a game-by-game basis, put them into excel, and make a chart with a trend line. As far as being a major contributor, if he had signed with the team, and remained uninjured, there is zero doubt he would have been a major contributor in 2013. The defense would have been better with him than without him, albeit slightly because of the injuries. To deny this is just ignorant, especially considering the fact that Briggs has talked about feeling uncomfortable calling the plays, and giving that job to a rookie would have been poor planning. Even in his interview he was noticeably awkward when replying to whether he was comfortable. Make no mistake, Urlacher was missed. The last part I agree with. That's basically what the Bears were doing - giving him a chance to retire a Bear and say goodbye. But given how historically shitty the Bears' defense was last year, maybe it wasn't a matter of "Urlacher overestimat[ing] his value," maybe it was the Bears underestimating?

I agree with everything except the bolded part. It has been shown before that the Bears were better with Urlacher on the field than without in 2012. He certainly lost effectiveness if compared to his peak, but statistics clearly show he was effective. What's more, he was trending up before he got injured. Dislike him all you want off the field, but his impact on the Bears defense in 2012, and the likely compounding affect of his absence in 2013 (which you noted), can't be questioned.

I'm against any formation that puts Cutler in any unnecessary risk. This lineup does that, because the DB in that situation knows his job is to murder Cutler off the line of scrimmage.

The caveat I'd require is that LT2 is in charge of all salary cap issues. That's something I don't pay attention to much at all.

Interesting! It had to have been bad, otherwise the Bears should have taken it. I'm guessing a 7th rd pick or conditional.

X3...but I wonder if they had moved us up a notch or two if we actually did draft a highly-rated FS? Never know.

Don't even get me hyped up like that about this. Now I'm going to be disappointed if he doesn't play like Fencik!

Do you think the Bears deserve to be 12th? http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings/_/yea...id=sportscenter It's almost like nobody outside of Chicago realizes half the defense was hurt last year, all the DTs were down, and that started the domino affect. There is no way the defense is not much, much better with the return of Ratliff, Paea, and DJ, the signing of Allen, Young, and Houston, and the drafting of Ferguson and Sutton.

Oh really? If a FS like HHCD or Pryor were drafted in round one, that guy is almost guaranteed to start. If an ILB like Mosley were drafted, he likely becomes the starter at MLB. If a OT like Zach Martin were drafted he would started over Mills. If a DT like Donald were to have fallen to the Bears he would likely have started. If a NT like Jernigan (or for that matter, Nix in the 3rd) were drafted, he likely supplants Paea. Help could have been obtained this year. Period. And to be quite honest, I think the Bears are very close to title contention. There are only a few weak links at the current moment. I agree with your final sentence, however, it's not the way I think the draft would have best benefited the Bears this year.

I understood the point, but countered with a different point. The fact that the Bears have a coach on staff who coached on the college teams of HHCD and Pryor, respectively, certainly means they have links to the team and could ask intimate questions. I doubt, however, that anyone at Alabama or Louisville would say anything negative about either player. Further, it's not like Groh (WR coach) had daily coaching moments with HHCD, or Hurtt (DL coach) with Pryor. So, the most likely situation is, the Bears scouted all three players, had Groh/Hurtt get back with the team and do some digging on their respective link, which undoubtedly came back positive, and then made a decision to go with Fuller based on undoubtedly less information. Your final sentence is real point. I'm sure everyone thought/thinks Pryor and HHCD are going to be good (let's say 8 out of 10), but Emery et al. must think Fuller has the potential to be a 9 or a 10. I hope they're right.

C. All day. The hard thing is finding someone to trade with.

Ha! I didn't even consider the punter. You might be right. If Fuller starts over Jennings, it will be a coup for the Bears. I just don't see how he could supplant an all-pro as a rookie.

Ditto. IDK where the opposite opinion comes from. If he were a real interior rush threat, it's likely Sutton wouldn't have Ben drafted.

By comparison to the previous year's OL, the combo of Paea and Ratliff are superb. When healthy, they are good enough that they are not a huge liability.

But do the Bears have a coach from VaTech? Sometimes it's better to choose the known evil over the unknown.

Stein rocks.

As usual, blow me. Just because it was a decent draft doesn't mean it was without flaw. I didn't like players based on others available, but I don't recall straight up saying I didn't like an individual player. Furthermore, I'm not a huge fan of ANY draft that fails to get a single starter (rotational/nickel doesn't count). I believe BPA should be balanced with need, and in doing so a team should find a day one starter somewhere. The only exception is a ridiculously loaded SB winner with minimal issues.

Sutton starting over Ratliff would shock me. BTW - Just to bust your balls, but how can we trust you on Arizona prospects when you were so wrong on Burfict?