jason

100000% disagree. Wow. I am guessing you've never been around a great leader on a team. I've seen teams overachieve by leaps and bounds because of great leadership. It goes hand in hand with coaching. A great on-team leader can do wonders. It's difficult to comprehend if you've never been around that type of personality.

For the most part, that's fair. I like neither how the team nor Urlacher went at it, but I put the onus on the team. Bargaining happens the way you laid things out. One high, one low. If the team had budged just a bit, we would have gotten to see Urlacher play one/two more season(s), and everything would have been well. I know Connor hard-balled at that time and ended up being accurate, but would it have really killed the Bears to budge or at least tell him that was all they could offer? That's what upset Urlacher. I think it would have been better, and I said so at the time, for the Bears to say, "Sure, Brian, how about 1 year for $2.5M?" I don't know how much his presence would have impacted the team last year, but it would definitely have been positive. BTW, you and I both know it's conjecture to say how many games he would have played. The previous three seasons he played 12, 16, and 16 games, respectively. And all accounts were that he was healthy during the '12 season, and his stats were actually getting better as the season progressed. This has been noted many times before on this board. Hamstring injuries are just fluky like that; one never knows when they'll happen. Other than the 2009 wrist thing that none of us believed would last the entire season, Urlacher was on the field every Sunday. Period. I think that's why it's very likely he would have been on the field for most of the games in 2013 if he had been signed.

This is fair. And this is the same approach I thought the Bears should have taken with Urlacher. Don't pay him all pro money. At the same time, don't low ball him. Urlacher would have worked with the Bears if they had just negotiated. Instead it was a low ball offer and nothing else. That shouldn't have happened, and I hope they learned from the experience and find a nice lower-middle ground for Peanut.

Yes, that's the other side of the coin. He was disadvantaged twice. Once as the leader knowing he had to make up for a garbage front line, and another as a guy who had to cover WRs for much longer than average.

I don't see how you can say Urlacher's leadership was missed and then say his play wouldn't have improved the team. Personally I think that's 100% wrong. Not only would he have put the team in better position, but he would have been starting over a rookie. You think Urlacher would have overrun the hole as many times as a rookie? C'mon man. I admit that he might not have been as good as in previous years, but it's almost unequivocal that he would have improved the defense. How much he would have helped is the question. And given how horrible the defense was last year, I'm not sure we can say they made the right call with Urlacher. I'm personally convinced they did not. It can't be proven either way, but what we do know is that the defense sucked on a historical level last year without Urlacher (other obvious issues as well). I just don't see a way he wouldn't have helped the defense last year, and because of that I don't believe it was the right move last year. Especially considering the minimal difference they had in salary requests.

Read what you wish, but it looks like the 4-3 is here to stay: http://www.chicagobears.com/news/article-1...ba-b720f5e730d8 Looks like they're giving themselves a little wiggle-room, but not much. It's a 4-3.

Did he look slower? Maybe fractionally. But it wasn't really that noticeable to me. I think if anything he, as a veteran, was probably trying to make up for the flaws up front, and it distracted him from his assignment. He probably cheated towards the line, or felt the obligation to go towards the line, because he knew they were sucking. In regards to your final statement, I don't know if there are ten other CBs I'd take over him, despite how much he may or may not have slowed down.

Hold up. So the dude has been the representation of health for several years, but last year he has a freak triceps injury and suddenly he's injury prone and not worth a good contract? No more than 2-2.5 million? He had just as many INTs last year in 8 games as he did the previous season in 16. He had 3 forced fumbles in 8 games. That's 6 for a season. Good for third in the NFL. Dude punches more balls than Jean Claude Van Damme. But he has one injury and he suddenly sucks? He hasn't missed a game since 2009, or more than a single game since 2006, and suddenly he's injury prone? Mark these words: If the Bears let him walk because they low ball him, it will hurt. They did the same thing last year to Urlacher, and there was definitely an impact. He wouldn't have been able to save a defense so ravaged by injuries, but he would have definitely helped. The loss of Peanut will have similar results. The Bears may plug the hole on the left side of the dike and stop the run, but doing this will cause another leak too far away to reach. Plain and simple, it was a bad move last year, and it'll be a bad move this year.

This. He was good but not great in high school, otherwise he wouldn't have gone to the OVC. He dominated in the OVC, but the OVC is a very weak football conference. He has bounced around the league, which indicates effort and potential, but little else. He's a Bear for the current time, so I hope he turns into Lawrence Taylor. But I suspect he won't. After reading his two articles, I sense something that says he is too easily mentally defeated. Sure, I get the point of the articles, but he gets down VERY quickly. For a further look into his psyche/personality, check out this article about his twitter account. BTW - The 4.58 forty time is on Wikipedia.

I am not a huge Dee Ford fan either, but given that circumstance, he might be the best option at that point. The rest of the draft more than makes up for it, in my opinion.

Let's hope a new scheme puts SMC in a favorable position and we get to see the reason he was drafted in the 1st round.

Bingo. Among other things.

I don't know. I think I could make that work with the supposed hybrid system and a situation where Peppers gets cut: 39 - - Perfect fit. Rushes at DE sometimes, moves to OLB at others. Both sets he has one job: kill the QB. Just so happens that's what he's good at. This move sets up a variety of options at DE and OLB in terms of rotation. 51 - - Lockdown corner. Either learns for a year or starts immediately based on what Peanut does. 62 - - Great 4-3 DT, so not a perfect fit, but I envision versatility to a "hold the edge" 3-4 DE at times. Depth/Rotation pick. 82 - - Great safety and wonderful value here. He probably ends up starting as a rookie. Never forget the Auburn hit. 94 - - Monster. Anchors the middle for 3-4 sets. 101 - Jared Abbrederis/WR/Wisconsin - Burner who stretches the defense and also works well in zone gaps. 113 - - Big RB, hard runner, faster/quicker than expected, obliterates arm tackles. 132 - - I don't know if this is oversight, or if they believe he'll fall, but AJ McCarron would be a huge steal at the beginning of the 5th. 144 - - I make no bones about hating the Bears' safeties. 163 - Hronis Grassu/C/Oregon - Apparently they have him listed a 2-4 rd. talent, but slipping to the third day. That's a steal for the Bears here. 167 - Jordan Zumwalt/ILB-OLB/UCLA - Battles for a starting role. 175 - Tom Hornsey/P/Memphis - Enough is enough. The Bears need a new punter. This guy won the Ray Guy award. Easy pick. I'd be happy with that. Addresses all needs and gets several studs.

We've looked at something like this in the past. And what I'm seeing is something that reinforces my belief that we should draft Safety earlier. If you look at page 19 of the study it compares the Round Points to the Appearance Score. For a quick breakdown, higher Round Points mean a higher draft pick. Similarly, higher Appearance Score means the player has had relatively more success in the NFL. Now, the AS is debatable for a variety of reasons. First, a player gets credit for games played and started. This may not be an indication of their ability; but, instead, an indication of how poor the competition is on that team at that position (i.e. Jamarcus Webb). Second, AS is heavily weighted on Pro Bowls and All Pro voting, which are both, to a large degree, popularity contests. Nonetheless, this is the most comprehensive draft analysis probably done, and ignoring the minor quibbles and flaws, what the chart on page 19 says is, Safeties are on average drafted fairly highly, behind only QB, T, DE, WR, and RB. What it also says is, Safeties as a group typically have great value. But there are two problems with the study in this regard. First, these are averages for the entirety of the position, and the sample size for safeties is much less because fewer are drafted. Just a look at the last four years shows us that an average of 16 are drafted per year (for example QBs - 12 per year, WRs 30 per year, RBs 20 per year). Partially related is the second issue, which is the fact that a smaller sample size has a greater risk of being skewed by the anomaly. Those two anomalies are named John Lynch (3rd rounder) and Rodney Harrison (5th rounder). Take whatever the total safety AS is, subtract those two guys, and then get the average. I'm sure it's statistically significant because their relative AS score has to be ridiculous in comparison to most. Ignoring all that, do something I just did. Skim each of the last 13 drafts and look just at the first round. Pick any position you want and count the great players, good players, and the busts. When it comes down to it, when a Safety is good enough to get a first round grade, he's almost a lock to be a stud. Only Reggie Nelson falls outside that grouping. Looking at other positions, however, a TON more busts. What that tells me is, draft a Safety in the first round.

Personally, I hate mocks like that because it's virtually impossible that that will happen. The point of mocks is to predict what the teams will do. BTW - If the Bears did end up with 12 picks, I'd hope they'd do something else. With that many picks I'd like to see a mid-round RB, maybe a WR burner, and a potential backup OLineman. Four DLinemen and 3 Safeties would be overkill in my opinion.

Amen. But I'm usually saying, "I bet that piece of shit is going to miss the tackle" before it even happens.

Fundamentally I disagree with the bolded part. I believe it to be a two-way street. If you have a complete lockdown CB or an incredible FS, then it allows the LBs to cheat up and help lesser defenders. You can hide a mediocre DT if there is always a LB filling the hole behind/beside him.

I would be absolutely giddy if the Bears got the draft in bold. While I'm not completely sold on Jernigan - rather have Hageman - the rest of the draft would be ridiculous. Bucannon is a steal at that point; he might be the best SS in the class. Quarles is definitely a steal at that point. He's versatile as well. And Skov is a tackling machine. That draft would be epic.

Kiper is wrong more than he is right. Much more. It's just that he throws so much shit against the wall that some of it has to stick. This is a fair list of players at each position who could go in the first two rounds. DEs: Clowney, Ealy, Ford, Crichton, Murphy, Jeffcoat, Marcus Smith, Chris Smith DTs: Nix, Donald, Jernigan, Hageman, Tuitt, Easley, Sutton, Quarles FSs: Clinton-Dix, Pryor, Reynolds Seems pretty obvious to me.

I purposely didn't post in the other thread because of not how others posted, but because of how someone like you posts. It's the typical "if you're not with me and my line of thinking, then you're a racist, bigot, homophobe." Well, frankly sir, that's BS. I'm virtually agnostic, so it's sort of odd that a religious saying sums up how I feel: it's entirely possible to hate the sin and love the sinner. I challenge you to expand your mind and see how someone can be completely enlightened, yet still disagree with your stance on various political/social/economic/religious topics.

What's being ignored here is the difference in BPA. IF the top DT, DE, and FS are all rated equally, then you have to consider what's left. If the top guy at each position is a 90/100, and the next DE is 75, next DT is 85, and next FS is 60, it doesn't matter how deep the class is. There could be 20 FS's at 60, making the class deep, but there is no doubt the better value is the 90 FS because the next best DT and DE are better values than 60. Put another way, 90+85 and 90+75 each equal more than 90+60. In fantasy it's called value based drafting. I believe that's the case this year with HaHa Clinton Dix, because the next best FS is not early as good as the next best DT or DE. The DT/DE class is crazy deep for the first few rounds. Skip FS in the first round at your peril.

Oh....I would have cancelled my flight or changed it to his location just for the chance to bend his ear. I would have asked him at least 10 times, "Yeah, I like the D and all, but why do you keep sacrificing the OL and making the Bears a one-sided team?"

The point was that Lovie's presence would have lessened both the Bears' score and the opponent's score, but the former would be lessened much more, the his presence on D would have only accounted for a few points since the team would still have been ravaged by injuries, using rookies, and missing the previous season's leader. It's difficult to quantify how drastically better the offense was with Trestman, but the defense with Lovie would have been pretty much the same we're used to, only worse because of the aforementioned issues.

I'd say nearly a decade in Chicago told us what we needed to know about Lovie. The only reason he reached out to Tedford is because he was likely given a reality check when he got his pink slip after a 10-6 season. Speculation, yes, but it's hard to fathom him making a significant switch since he simply didn't do it while he felt safe in Chicago. He's a smart guy. He realized some of his mistakes once he got sent packing. In regards to the draft talk of what Lovie would/wouldn't have done, of course it's always speculative because he's no longer with the team. But his draft history and lack of attention to the OL the entire time in Chicago has been chronicled numerous times on this board. It's been broken down by round, by draft trade chart value, by comparison with the offense in general, and by comparison to the DL specifically. That's enough statistical, historical, and anecdotal backing for me to feel safe saying that he would not have changed, and the offense (mostly because of the OL) would have been the same old Lovie Smith offense if he weren't fired before the season. At a certain point, enough data makes something statistically significant, and not just baseless speculation.

That's true. But the inverse is also true. With a good back 4, the front 7 doesn't have to be as good.