jason

EXACTLY what I thought. I was actually kind of hoping the Bears wouldn't re-sign him because I didn't think he'd be worth the money it took. Turns out my thoughts were right, because no way he gets that $$ from the Bears to be a backup. This just means the Bears should draft a mid-round QB for Trestman to turn into a stud.

All around agreed. If the Bears were able to resign Melton (assuming he's anywhere close to his former self) and get Allen would make me pretty happy. I've always liked Allen, and after a quick bit of reading about him I like him even more. [Houston - Melton - ?? - Allen] is a pretty good front four.

Agreed. I don't think it's bad. I don't give a damn who he is. If they think he's worth the money, then he absolutely gets a shot at displacing Conte, because Conte is an Italian word that means "Count," or in his case "can't be counted on."

PREACH!

The bolded is flawed logic for two reasons. One, Lovie had a lockdown corner the entire time he was in Chicago. That player's name was Charles Tillman. It just so happens that he was also good at everything else, and potentially the best at forcing fumbles in NFL history. Two, saying that Lovie's "system" doesn't need a lockdown corner implies that his past efforts show consistent success without a lockdown corner. It simply doesn't. Regardless of whether one agrees on point one of Peanut being a lockdown corner, the simple fact is, Lovie's D was hit or miss the entire time he was in Chicago. 12 years and we got to see the following averages: -13.8 in yards -10.1 in points -6 in takeaways -13.9 in rush att -12.1 in rush yards -12.3 in rush TDs -12.3 in rush y/a -24.9 in pass att -17.4 in pass yards -11.4 in pass TDs His defensive past shows that he coaches consistently average, or slightly above average, which is the entire reason he was fired. Take Peanut away from Lovie during his tenure with Chicago, and that defense is much worse, and has significantly less takeaways.

But what if the Bears can't sign any of those guys? What if all the legit DT/DE/CB guys left say, "Thanks, but no thanks" when offered a contract? It's an odd scenario, but I could see the Bears deciding to just upgrade the offense into an unstoppable force since the D can't be fixed. If you can't fix the hole in the boat, get a bigger bucket to bail water.

Maybe Tillman will be replaced by Revis?

As long as they don't run him up the gut three times in a row like Wolfe, I think Sproles could be very productive. But if the Bears were getting offensive luxuries, I'd rather get Edelman.

NFL Network just said Tillman was gone to Tampa Bay.

Briggs, DJ, Bostic, Greene, and SMC, yet you'd take LB in round 1? That doesn't make any sense to me. The Bears need to go DT or S in the first.

Do you think it's possible Houston is better than Peppers at this point in their respective careers? Peppers was very ineffective last year. Hardly noticeable most of the time. Hard not to improve on that.

That would be horrible. Are you being serious? You want to keep Peppers at a huge, salary cap-crippling, contract even though he hasn't done much? And, you want to pick a LB in the first even though the Bears got a LB with 2 of their first 3 picks last year?

All that scares me. It says, "Guy who gets stoned at the line of scrimmage, doesn't get much real pressure, but is good at getting off the block to stop the run." I'd rather see a pass-rusher. If the Bears get him, I hope they don't break the bank.

HAHA!

Although it's sarcasm, sometimes I actually think that wouldn't be such a bad idea. Suppose the Bears ownership told Emery: "Screw it. Let's build an offensive juggernaut. Go get Brandon Albert, put him in at LT, move Bushrod to RT. Then do what it takes to move up and get Sammy Watkins." It'd be crazy, but it'd be a fun ride.

I'm just throwing this in here because it's a discussion about LBs. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10586753...es-nfl-comeback Rolando McClain, if healthy and motivated, could be a supreme talent at a severely discounted price. Might be worth kicking the tires on a try out.

Hell, even if don't give a shit about trading Briggs. I've always though he was a bit overrated, tackled poorly, and benefitted greatly from having a HOF'er next to him.

Precisely.

Dude, eat shit and die. I've listened, but those are counter/additional to what was being said about his "value." If all that was said was "need extra roster spot" or "gotta save cap room" then this is a non-issue. It makes more sense in those terms to benefit both ways by using a young burner, who also plays WR, and gets paid a lot less. But what was being said was essentially "he's not that good anymore," which simply isn't true. He is still very good, but he's not superhuman like he once was.

Pretty sure I've already said in this thread. Not a ton, but above vet minimum and after a minor negotiation, I think he'd get 1.5-2M.

Exactly. Why can't the "Hester is worth no more than get minimum"-be supported with any sort of data? I've laid out a pretty compelling case as to why he's still valuable. The only real answers for him leaving are other than ability.

I don't believe that's true. Your logic fails because in my scenario the LB and secondary are above average. The Bears last year were below average in all three levels of defense. You put last year's DL with Otis Wilson, Mike Singletary, and Wilbur Marshall and you'd have ENTIRELY different results.

That's a cop out. The article is summed up by the final sentence: "Replacing him with a two-way player will give the Bears more roster flexibility and help from a salary cap perspective." If that's your stance, then it's more understandable. But your previous statements weren't ringing that bell. You said: "Great player in his prime but he has already been paid. " "I absolutely believe Hester is not worth any more than the vet minimum. I believe it is time to move on." Saying it's a good move because of salary cap or roster flexibility is one thing, saying that Devin Hester is simply not worth more than vet minimum is completely different. And wrong based on his efforts last year.