jason

Would you quit using this line of reasoning? It's dumb considering the horrible moves we've seen the Bears make for the past 30 years. Saying that the coaches align with your thoughts is just as often a negative as it is a positive.

The reality is, the Bears deserve most of the blame for not making this happen. Negotiation world-wide (trust me on this, I've been to dozens of countries) is the same: one side goes high, one side goes low, the meeting is in the middle. Both are really happy if it's exactly in the middle, but that's not always necessary. The problem is that the Bears didn't want to budge, didn't want to negotiate.

VERY well said.

It's the kind of move people new to management make just so they can say they out their stamp on being in charge. It's just popular to rag on Urlacher right now. He was flexible, but the Bears were not. It's poor management, poor negotiation, a poor example for future vet contracts, and poor leadership. Not to mention the fact it hamstrings the Bears in the draft. Bad move.

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/a...e/p2p-74726051/ He was wiling to negotiate and play for 3m. The Bears were not. Bad move. Period. And anyone saying he sucked just wasn't watching the games. He wasn't an all pro anymore, but he was serviceable. Slap in the face, just like I said before.

The same type of thing (i.e. limited usage) could have been said, and could still be said, about McClellin, but that sure as hell didn't stop him from being drafted in the first round.

I don't think this suits Cutler well at all. He's just not a running QB in that sense of the word. But since he's been running for his life ever since he got to Chicago, it's really not that big of a change for him. Previously, he knew he probably had to take off running multiple plays a game. Now, he knows he probably has to take off running multiple plays a game. And if this is something put into the playbook as a means of getting Cutler out for a few plays, I like it even less. It's the same as when Hester used to come in. The playbook is limited, the defense knows what's coming, and the chance of success is minimized. It's the same ole Lovie Smith concept of "we don't have to trick you - we just have to execute better."

Check out their last two years.

Where did you figure on the 2 mil? Was it because that's what others have said on the board? I'm still not sure what website is being used to compare skill, play, leadership, knowledge, production, etc. and convert it into appropriate salary.

Since a 7th rounder is basically camp fodder anyway, I think it's worth the risk. If he works out, you acquired a 1st round talent for chump change. If not, easy 7th cut. It's low risk, high reward.

Natural instinct? To lower your head in such a way that you don't even see the contact being made and risk your spine? Putting oneself in a potentially life-threatening predicament is not exactly natural. To be quite honest, a natural instinct would be to curl up in the fetal position and attempt to absorb as much of the punishment as possible in as many places as possible. The distribution minimizes injury risk. If you watch the video again, you'll see he does exactly what you say you take issue with: leading with the crown.

I realize the hole to fill, just hate doing it with a 1st and 3rd rounder. This is especially true since I think LB is one of the easiest positions to draft late. Stats from websites shown on this page have confirmed that concept.

Wow, the original makes me want to kill a puppy. Atrocious to grab two LBs and a WR who is the number two option on an overrated offense. Two LBs early in such a deep OL draft, especially considering that OLhas been the number one problem for the Bears for years, would be horrible. Looks like Lovie hacked your account and made this mock.

I'm not sure I've ever said which I prefer. I'm not sure i prefer one. I just wanted OL to be addressed. Every year the avoidance of attention made me sick. At gunpoint it's probably Long; if uninjured he is still a beast.

That's basically my question. You're saying the Ravens were stupid to pay Lewis the amount they did, and they didn't win because of him. I bet the Ravens disagree.

Interesting thought: Do you guys who are opposed to giving Urlacher more than 2m a year think that the contract Ray Lewis last received was a good contract for the Ravens? It sure seemed to work out for him, their team, and all anyone could talk about was his inspiration and leadership (regardless of whether Flacco understood it all).

I'm not sure if we could have determined progression at all with Tice on staff. It's entirely possible his coaching could have hindered progression, and while a player could have actually progressed, the offense would have been retarded and no progression would have been shown.

What they say they would have thrown, and what they would have thrown, will end up being slightly different in the initial phases of this rule. Those are flags thrown with the advantage of slow-mo and perfect camera angles, most likely post-game penalty stuff. I doubt they would have actually thrown 6 in the game. Of course, the more this gets harped on, the more the officials have to throw it...or stop officiating.

Same thing I said before...

I never replied to this. IDK if he's worth 5m a year. But he's worth more than 2m a year. He's arguably better than Ray Lewis the past two years (easy argument actually), but nobody would bring that up about Ray Lewis. That's why I think it's in the team's best interest to sign him to around 3-3.5 per year for 2 years, let him have his swan song while bridging the gap with young players and hopefully leading to a championship. He'll help far more than he'll hurt.

FYI - I've heard this same topic come from the mouths of college coordinators and NFL officials, and it's being somewhat misconstrued. The competition committee isn't talking about a runner "lowering his head." They're talking about a runner "leading with the crown of his helmet," which has a subtle difference. I will provide one caveat, however, and that is the phrase "taking the head out of football." I've also heard that phrase used. They want to seriously eliminate any and all feasible possibility of helmet contact - we all know it stems from the legit concussion problem but also the fear of lawsuit over brain trauma - without affecting the game too much. For what it's worth, a similar rule (12-2-8-g) has been in place for quite some time, and I don't think I've ever seen it called on a runner (even when the runner deserved the penalty):If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily. I believe the famous Payton run below is the type of action they are talking about removing. Note that he just lowers the head multiple times with the intent of leading with the crown of his helmet. He's not even looking at the defender prior to, or during contact.

That would be cool. Fluker and Te'o would be perfect for team needs.

This

And he's still probably going to be about the 20th ranked RB if you're doing a fantasy draft. It just doesn't concern me much.

Is there some sort of website out there of which I'm unaware that measures a player's skill, leadership, production, knowledge, and effectiveness, and then slots in financially?