Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 David Haugh thinks we should give it a whirl. What do you guys think? If it was Urlacher and one 3rd, I might consider it. Sure, Urlacher is still the face of the franchise and captain of the defense, but he has maybe 4 good years left in him while Boldin is right in his prime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 If this was madden, yeah... but other wise the mere thought of this is ludicrous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Agreed. If this was madden, yeah... but other wise the mere thought of this is ludicrous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dasox24 Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 I'd do it and draft Laurinaitis or Maualuga in the 1st round to replace Urlacher... but it's not happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Its going to take at minimum one first rounder plus some other picks to get Boldin. Not 2 thirds and a MLB with a big contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesson44 Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 It sounds nice but really we might not be able in the draft to get either Laurinaitis or Maualuga so we would get a second tier player to fill the middle....no thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixote Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 David Haugh thinks we should give it a whirl. What do you guys think? If it was Urlacher and one 3rd, I might consider it. Sure, Urlacher is still the face of the franchise and captain of the defense, but he has maybe 4 good years left in him while Boldin is right in his prime. 1st, I do not see Boldin going anywhere. 2nd, Until our O schemes change, a top Tier WR FA or Trade, IMO, very unlikely. I think we will see mid level WR FAs brought in and a 1st day WR draftee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 David Haugh thinks we should give it a whirl. What do you guys think? If it was Urlacher and one 3rd, I might consider it. Sure, Urlacher is still the face of the franchise and captain of the defense, but he has maybe 4 good years left in him while Boldin is right in his prime. Are you kidding me? This would be the biggest no brainer in the history of no-brainers. Urlacher is past his prime and Boldin is in his prime and fills a much bigger need. I'd make the trade in a heart-beat. I doubt the Cards would and I have no idea what the cap rammifications of the deal wouldf be but in terms of actual compensation there is no way the difference between 1 3rd or 2 3rd's would prevent me from making this deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 If this was madden, yeah... but other wise the mere thought of this is ludicrous. Agreed. Agreed x 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Are you kidding me? This would be the biggest no brainer in the history of no-brainers. Urlacher is past his prime and Boldin is in his prime and fills a much bigger need. I'd make the trade in a heart-beat. I doubt the Cards would and I have no idea what the cap rammifications of the deal wouldf be but in terms of actual compensation there is no way the difference between 1 3rd or 2 3rd's would prevent me from making this deal. I don't know about you, but I view loyalty as one of the things I cherish. I hear over and over on this board about how they don't want player X or player Y because they are bad guys, or are in the media. That's an aspect exterior to the actual playing field. If you want to uphold that image, then keeping your career, face of the franchise guys is part of it. You don't send Montana to KC. You don't send Favre to NY. And you don't send Urlacher to Arizona. To do so would be a horrible PR move for the team and the majority of Bears' fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted February 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 I don't know about you, but I view loyalty as one of the things I cherish. I hear over and over on this board about how they don't want player X or player Y because they are bad guys, or are in the media. That's an aspect exterior to the actual playing field. If you want to uphold that image, then keeping your career, face of the franchise guys is part of it. You don't send Montana to KC. You don't send Favre to NY. And you don't send Urlacher to Arizona. To do so would be a horrible PR move for the team and the majority of Bears' fans. I'm sure they'll get it over it with a Super Bowl win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 I'm sure they'll get it over it with a Super Bowl win. Yes, because a pissed off Anquan Boldin on a Bears team that has a highly inefficent passing game behind a below average OL and an average QB is really going to take this team to the championships. If you're really in favor of this move, then surely you were in favor of getting Moss and/or TO in FA a few years ago. Afterall, if all that matters is winning, then why should it matter who the Bears sign or throw under the bus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted February 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Yes, because a pissed off Anquan Boldin on a Bears team that has a highly inefficent passing game behind a below average OL and an average QB is really going to take this team to the championships. If you're really in favor of this move, then surely you were in favor of getting Moss and/or TO in FA a few years ago. Afterall, if all that matters is winning, then why should it matter who the Bears sign or throw under the bus. If the Bears pay him Fitzgerald money, then he won't be arguing with anyone. Plus, Orton isn't average- he was playing well until an injury. Now, that's not to say he's about to come back next year and be Dan Marino, but he was a top 10 QB before his ankle injury, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Loyalty? What's that? Seriously. You can show loyalty, but at the same time, it is a business. Just for the record, how do you know Urlacher would not welcome the move? As the article says, Urlacher has never liked Lovie's system, and a chance of scenery/system could once again return him to a higher level of play. If he is not going to get that in Chicago, why not. Look, I know this move is not going to happen, but I am not really sure why you would be against it. Are you that dead set against our doing anything to upgrade at the WR position? If the rumor were Urlacher for Gross, would you be talking about loyalty? I don't know about you, but I view loyalty as one of the things I cherish. I hear over and over on this board about how they don't want player X or player Y because they are bad guys, or are in the media. That's an aspect exterior to the actual playing field. If you want to uphold that image, then keeping your career, face of the franchise guys is part of it. You don't send Montana to KC. You don't send Favre to NY. And you don't send Urlacher to Arizona. To do so would be a horrible PR move for the team and the majority of Bears' fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 What loyalty did Urlacher offer the club that gave him a record setting contract years ago? He came in bitching and moaning about needing more money last offseason. The Bears gave it to him and what did they get in return? About 50% of what they paid for. Translation...make the deal if it's on the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 I'm sure they'll get it over it with a Super Bowl win. Wow, thats a big assumption there. Our biggest need is OL. If we make this trade but don't upgrade this Oline it won't matter who is throwing the ball. We also can't assume that Boldin would bring us a super bowl win, much less even get us into the playoffs. This day and age in the NFL nothing is guaranteed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Hey! I hate Lovie's system too! Man, do I hate his system. Really. Truly. Unapologetically... As the article says, Urlacher has never liked Lovie's system, and a chance of scenery/system could once again return him to a higher level of play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selection7 Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Who's gonna play MLB if Urlacher is gone? Definitely not anyone with experience or who is proven at the positon or being captain of the defense. What's especially silly about it is that Boldin is only 2 years younger than Url...not exactly a spring chicken. I'm also of the mind that you don't trade away the face of your franchise for short term goals. The negative effect that would have on Chicago would last for many years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Who's gonna play MLB if Urlacher is gone? Definitely not anyone with experience or who is proven at the positon or being captain of the defense. What's especially silly about it is that Boldin is only 2 years younger than Url...not exactly a spring chicken. I'm also of the mind that you don't trade away the face of your franchise for short term goals. The negative effect that would have on Chicago would last for many years. Let me check my notes...Urlacher chronic back problem that will never get better - yes. Anquan Boldin chronic back problem that will never get better - no. I like Urlacher (wear his jersey every Sunday) but as a Captain he's not all that good IMO. Do you see him bringing the level of others performance up to a higher level? I don't and calling plays and alignments isn't the same as being an emotional leader. He's a quiet, lead-by-example player. That's not all bad but on the flip side I don't know that from a leadership standpoint we'd be losing that much. Now as far as performance on the field. He's a good MLB, sometimes very good, but I haven't seen anything great out of him in two years. Do I want him on the team, sure but is the team better off with Boldin and without Urlacher? At this point in their careers I say yes. Our defense with Urlacher isn't consistently stopping teams. There are serious concerns at safety, CB, and Dline right now that likely won't change the situation quickly this year. Will the D be better with Urlacher, yes but not that much versus an average MLB. Yet it's not all on Urlacher's shoulders--we need other players to step up back to their former level of play (Harris, Ogun, Vasher, Tillman). If those guys play improves then it mitigates the loss of Urlacher, if they don't then keeping him around won't matter much. Before you switch that thought around on me, I don't feel Urlacher is going to significantly improve his play from here on out. I think his back injury has him on a downhill slide one that he can only slow down but not stop. The offense on the other hand has legit pieces moving forward if Kyle Orton can return to his performance in the first half of the season. We have the RB Forte, TE Olsen/Clark, Hester emerging as a WR threat. We need to add a WR (Boldin) and upgrade Oline which is very possible in FA and draft. Orton is the big IF here. If he's not our starter then for sure we are wasting our time giving up picks. But if OTOH the team believes he can progress with an improved Oline and WR corps At this point I'd make this trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 I'm also of the mind that you don't trade away the face of your franchise for short term goals. The negative effect that would have on Chicago would last for many years. I don't know about that. Its one thing when you are talking about sending away the face of your franchise when he is still in his prime, but when he appears on the decline, I am not sure the effect is the same. Seriously, take a look around the NFL. How many players, considered the face of their team, end up elsewhere? Seems like the examples are just too numerous. I still can not believe Emmitt Smith didn't finish as a Cowboy, or Eddie George as a Titan. Farve as a Packer? Hell, I have even heard Tony Gonzalez wants a trade. I think a team losing the face of the organization is just not as big as it once was. Further, I question whether Urlacher is really the face of the organization anymore. Heck, most do not even believe the is the best LB on the team anymore. I am a Sox fan. I remember a time when it was blasphamy to consider trading Frank Thomas. Then I recall when the comments began such as, "I can deal w/ Frank being gone, but not Konerko". And more recently, fans were asking, "so what will the Angels give us for Konerko?" Point is, you say face of the organization, but we are talking short term. We are not talking Mount Rushmore faces (Michael Jordan, Walter Payton, etc). They may be the most recent faces, but they are not the ones etched in stone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Loyalty? What's that? Seriously. You can show loyalty, but at the same time, it is a business. Just for the record, how do you know Urlacher would not welcome the move? As the article says, Urlacher has never liked Lovie's system, and a chance of scenery/system could once again return him to a higher level of play. If he is not going to get that in Chicago, why not. Look, I know this move is not going to happen, but I am not really sure why you would be against it. Are you that dead set against our doing anything to upgrade at the WR position? If the rumor were Urlacher for Gross, would you be talking about loyalty? The answer to your Urlacher for Gross question is simply, yes. I hate the idea of getting rid of franchise guys. If Urlacher were in favor of it, I'd be disappointed. If it happened, I'd be even more disappointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.