jason

I honestly considered it, but it was more for the sake of the board's opinion than for mine. I honestly don't think the Bears really need a RB all that badly this year. There is no way to accurately rate or evaluate the RBs on the roster when the OL sucks as bad as they did last year. When Benson was given any kind of hole, or decent blocking, he blasted through and made good gains. I really believe that Benson could put up huge stats if the Bears' OL played like they did two years ago. He's got the speed/burst to get to the second level, and enough wiggle to make it hard for stationary LBs to tackle him. That means a lot of downhill running at safeties and DBs. It's all about my signature below...

The draft list is more of a wish than a prediction. As for the QBs, it's somewhat of a personal philosophy. I think the Bears should make it a practice of signing QBs with potential in draft after draft. I like the idea of having four QBs, to be quite honest. After this year, the Bears find out which of the vets they want to keep, get rid of the other, and have an open camp with two young studs, and one young vet. It's never a bad idea to have a good QB on the roster; we should all know that by now. And since we haven't had a good QB since McMahon, it's about time the investment is taken a little more seriously. Both Dixon and Brennan have serious upside and potential, and I think the Bears should be willing to carry four if the opportunity presents itself. On a side note, what is your personal experience with Brennan?

Actually, I didn't have enough time to reply. I'm on the traveling for work this week, and don't have the computer time that I normally have. We'll just agree to vehemently disagree.

Pass. I have a friend who is a diehard Seattle fan, and he's hated Alexander for several years. Alexander runs weak, seeks the sideline whenever possible, breaks no tackles, and would get destroyed behind the Bears' OL.

Otah would excite me more than Mendenhall. Actually, if the Bears pick Mendenhall with the 14th pick, I'll be disgusted...and I'm sure I'll hear yet another year of calls from friends - who are fans of other teams - making fun of the Bears' first round selection again.

I think many would argue that the RB situation is better than the QB situation for the Bears. Let's face it; Rex Grossman doesn't really scare opponents, and they sure don't get shivers thinking about NeckBeard. And, while nobody is scared of Benson either, I think others realize that Benson has more raw talent to exploit if given the right opportunity than either Rex Grossman or NeckBeard.

What's more stupid than seeing that someone voted for Ryan is the fact that Mendenhall and Thomas are even included in the poll. Either one of those two with a top four pick would be absolutely insane.

Bingo. Trading down is a good way to avoid the higher draft picks' salaries, but I also fear the trade down and ending up with what is essentially sloppy seconds. Although, I'd rather have a trade down that picking up Mendenhall or any other RB not named McFadden with the 14.

Maybe the OL can play Red Rover, Red Rover and let waves of kids bust through weak blocks.

To be quite honest, I haven't wanted to get into this entire thing. Then I said I was done. But when I saw you get all pissy with it and start calling people names, as if you were someone better, it made me want to reply. Especially considering you are in the vast minority when it comes to the "are athletes being greedy" discussion. I understand economics just fine. I understand the athletic side of it just fine. Etc., etc., etc. I'd say many here do. It's just a matter of disagreeing on whether or not the players are being greedy. I just think that the players get paid an obscene amount of money, and if they are going to ask to get their contracts restructured halfway through, then they should be equally willing to restructure and take a pay cut if they are sucking. For instance, Muhsin Muhammed would have been paid about 500K last year. But we all know that ain't gonna happen because, as you have said, they gotta get paid. It's just too bad there can't be some sort of performance-based pay system. That would end this entire debate. Of course, that won't happen either, because the players would never agree to it. It would stop them from huge contracts and then

The way I see it, the Bears QB and RB situation are nearly the same. QB: Two average starters who have done well at times, horrible at others. Nobody from other teams is scared of either Bears' QB. RB: Two average starters (and a younger guy who is outside the box), who have some good qualities, but several bad ones as well. Nobody from other teams is going to stack the box because they're afraid of the Bears' running game. So, all the talk about Mendenhall got me thinking.... What would you guys think if the Bears selected Brohm at 14? Assuming Ryan is gone, then Brohm is basically regarded as the second best QB, which is essentially what selecting Mendenhall would be. Would you be upset by this?

Good job Bearsox! The quotes are good ammo. It makes me think that we could see some Colt Brennan action late. I think it'd be a great pick as long as it's lower than the fourth.

It is nice to see pro athletes giving back, but I don't think that RMJ is the best example out there.

Three teams trading up into the top 12?

After reading the rest of your comments on this thread, it's pretty clear that you are the one being irrational and emotional about this issue, not me. I understand that the negotiations happen the way they do, but I'm pretty confident that the constant renegotiations happen because of greedy players and agents most of the time, and players deserving more the rest of the time. Just for your own information, I work for a small company, make very good money, and I could totally dick my company if I wanted to. I could demand more money or quit like the pro athletes do (but I couldn't stay out as long, obviously). The reason I don't is because I made an agreement, I shook hands, I signed a contract, and I'm not a dick. Speaking about specific questions: 1) Have I turned down a raise? No. But that's not what is happening. Is it? They aren't offering raises unless they have entered into negotiations with the players. 2) Did the offer to take less money happen with Darwin Walker? I don't know, honestly. However, what happened to him? Cut. This is not a realistic recourse for the owners in situations dealing with Urlacher, Hester, and Harris. Not only does cutting a player like basically mean you lose your job as the GM, but it also kills you in the salary cap. And as you like to mention, the GM has to do a lot of things, one of which is salary cap management. As for the GMs, I think most would admit to the fact that we don't know as much as them. But what you don't seem to understand is the fact that the GMs surely don't like the fact that the players seem to be pulling this renegotiation demands garbage more and more nowadays. They accept it because they can't change it, but it's a stone-cold guarantee that they dislike it. Keep thinking you're smarter than everyone else. Keep thinking you know everything. Your assumptions and ad hominems just prove that your argument is weak. Keep throwing fits and calling people names because you can't get your way. Take your ball and go home. Just like the old board; you're gonna cry and whine like this stuff is somehow personal to you and crucial to your life. The sad thing is, you still don't get it.

It's clear that debating or discussing this with you is pointless because you don't even pay attention. Besides that, you clearly have a broken sarcasm meter, and your hypothetical situation gauge is just plain broken. Nobody wants to actually trade Urlacher, Harris, and Hester. For you to take it seriously shows how blind you are when it comes to these discussions. You don't actually take time to read the responses and understand them, you just toss out rebuttals because you are such a fanboy. When I made the majority of the comments, I wasn't speaking specifically about Urlacher, but instead about spoiled athetes. As for your points: 1) So, it's about the players being competitors now, and not about their secure futures? 2) We all know contracts get renegotiated. We all know each side has specific leverage. It's not grandstanding, and it sure as hell isn't ignorant. What you fail to get, still, is that while the negotiations are accepted by the league, you can bet your ass that the teams abhor the constant bitching by the players about being underpaid. And you can guarantee they hate the fact that a guy will sign a four year, front-loaded deal, and then complain halfway through when the big bucks are gone. 2b) Point me to one situation in which the team went to a player and said, "Look, if you were doing well, you'd be asking for a renegotiation for more money. However, you sucked last year, and weren't up to par with your contract the year before that; so, we'd like to renegotiate your salary so that you diminished performance is more in line with your worth to the team." DOESN'T HAPPEN 3) As for your comments about fools on this board, I think you are in the minority when it comes to thoughts on how the negotiations happen. You are in the minority about the players and their contracts. And you are being incredibly obtuse, arrogant, and ignorant to think your opinion, which is pretty clearly in the minority, is somehow superior than ours. You don't hear much complaining when the millions are thrown around like nickels, but when the players complain, that's when you hear the noise. What about that don't you get? It's not even the renegotiation that gets the complaints. It's the comments alongside the renegotiation that are basically slaps to the face of hard-working, normal fans who know greed when they see it. 4) Last but not least, comparing the renegotiations between professional athletes and normal people is just plain stupid. It's apples and oranges. Sure, people renegotiate at their jobs, but rarely will you hear someone do so while quoting the company's profit margin. And it's very rare for someone to get a raise of some absurd percentage like 30% or 40% more. And it's nearly nonexistent for a person to bad mouth their employer and STILL get that raise! It's not that we don't understand the league. It's not that we don't understand money, negotiations, contracts, or business. It's that we hate greed. And what the players seem to be doing more and more these days sure as hell looks, sounds, and smells like greed to most fans I've heard. But go ahead thinking that you are the superior intellect, one who knows more than just about everyone else who seem to agree on the opposite of your beliefs.

I agree in some respects; however, isn't that essentially what all receiving tight ends are/do? He'd be a faster version with better hands. If the Bears had Hardy, it would force the opponents hands. They wouldn't be able to play zone, because there would be too many guys who can find the spaces. So they play man on man of some kind. That works to the Bears advantage because no defense in the NFL has the bodies to match up with the Bears' two tight ends AND a physical, 6'5" WR...and that's not even mentioning Marty Booker, who is the prototype for possession WRs IMHO.

If you really believe that nonsense, then there is no reason to even discuss this with you. That's the same tired garbage we hear all the time. Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. Urlacher does not have to worry about his future, his kids' futures, or their kids' futures. He has made more during his career than everyone on this board will make in their entire lives. Furthermore, by your logic every deal should be renegotiated every year. If the percentage is different from the year before, then a new deal is needed? Well, what about when a player is good enough to be kept around, but not nearly as good as the deal he signed? The team can't renegotiate in that case, can they? I just don't think you get it. It's not the raise people get frustrated with, it's the "secure future", "insulting offer", "it's not about the money" BS. Fine. Get a raise. Just don't attempt to stronarm the team when they could easily hold you to your contract. And when you ask for your raise, take into account that the end-goal is a championship, and if you want to get double your money, or some insane deal, there is a good chance the team is not going to get a championship. I think you have to ask yourself this question: At the end of the day, who do you think is happier? Player A: Got paid multi-millions, was a relatively good player, but not great, and has a fistfull of rings Player B: Got paid multi-millions, was a superstar, considered one of the best ever, and has no rings I'd rather be Player A, and any player in professional sports who says otherwise is just a greedy asswipe who is the definition of what angers average fans about professional sports. FYI: A: Scott Williams B: Karl Malone

What I know is this: -He doesn't appear to be fast, or get clocked fast, but he sure as hell runs away from and around people when returning punts. He's football fast. -He doesn't appear to be the biggest hitter, but he sure does jar the ball loose a lot. -He may not be the best in coverage, but he seems to be in an opportune spot a lot of the time. In all honesty, he reminds me of how I would describe Mike Brown. Not overly impressive in any way, just knows how to play football. The one obvious difference, however, is that Z seems to have problems with angles. He gets caught out of position at times, and it looks bad when he does. But the thing is, he always seems to be around the ball when it's important on fumbles and INTs. I would still love to see him in a Bears uniform. Many will say he dropped off, but I would say that his team just plain stunk. When you can't rely on your teammates to be in the right place, then your play is going to suffer, and you'll be put in odd situations.

The addition of Allen would make them virtually a lock for top 5 honors in defense. With the Williams brothers in the middle, nobody runs on them. And with Allen on the edge, the passing game would have to set up quickly and get rid of it quickly. At that point, all they need to have is warm bodies that can tackle. Scary. And, while their offense may have glaring holes at QB, WR, and TE...what do you really need with a defense like that? The Bears proved in 2001 that with a dominating offense with two buddhas in the middle supporting a strong defense, even a retard can be the offensive coordinator and the team can still get double-digit wins.

A bit over the top, but I smiled and laughed out loud while reading it. That would kick ass. I don't care who the Bears put in at RB with that type of OL. Actually, the first thing I thought of was Emmitt Smith. With that line, the Bears could have a average/good player who would, with any luck and health, turn into a 2,000 yd. per year player for several years. I honestly believe that. It would look like a 1990's Nebraska game as the Bears racked up 200+ yds. rushing every game, ate the clock up, and generally made it ugly. The fourth quarter would be completely ours. I'll have to think about this one...about what I would do with a blown up draft like that. But I have to admit, it wouldn't be too far off what you have. With that OL, and Hester as a FB, and two stud TEs, there would be GAPING holes to run through. A five yard gain would be a disappointment.

I happen to think your view of things is incredibly warped. The majority of fans want these guys to play for what they signed for, within reason. Keep in mind that they are getting paid MILLIONS, and that even one season on the field is enough to support their family for the rest of their lives (let alone future generations). The teams don't hesitate to cut them?! Are you serious? If anything, they constantly hesitate. Why...you may ask? Well, for one, the salary cap is a tool that not only players' ability to "get paid" - as you put it - but it also hinders the ability of the owners to make moves (because of the stupid cap hits). And where do these cap hits come from? Why is there such confusion of it all? Oh, that's right, because these guys get MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR GUARANTEES AT THE FRONT END OF THEIR CONTRACTS!!! Calling nearly every other fan who doesn't agree with you a selfish jerk is preposterous. I don't give a shit if they have ascended to the highest level of anything. The point is, they already get paid MILLIONS, and it pisses of regular guys like me who don't make anywhere near millions. The truth is, most fans would play for a small percentage of what these guys get paid, and they have gone beyond the point at which they take it for granted. Most probably don't disagree with raises or renegotiations. What we get pissed off about is the whining about being disrespected, the complaints of being underpaid, and the over-all callous nature with which these guys handle their financial affairs. What is the point of the contract if the reason the employer signs it is to get a player locked up long-term by giving a player big money up front, and then after the front-loaded money is gone the player starts bitching?

Without that pesky salary cap, and the RICOCKULOUS contracts first rounders get, this is a great idea. I'd hate to see the stars go, but it would be interesting to see what could be done with that kind of first round firepower. On the other hand... SCREW THAT! If the Bears had the 9th and the 10th, then they might as well trade Tait away for something, and pick up Otah AND Clady! And we STILL pickup Rachal in the third!!! Hell, Benson could turn into the league MVP with an OL like that!!! NFO FOR BEARS GENERAL MANAGER!!!

That's what I thought. I hate reporters. I hate reporters (aka columnists, aka WTF ever) almost as much as I hate greedy athletes. The way I figure it, it goes something like this: Pro Athlete > Snake > Reporter > Greedy Pro Athlete > Keanu Reeves

Easy for me. I like Z. He's tough, and could fit in well. I think his measurables are not the same as his football measurables. I don't know much about Barrett. But for a guy to have that much going for him, and still be considered a mid to late rounder, that makes me think of the old saying: Look like Tarzan, play like Jane.