Ten reasons why the Urlacher move was bad

[jason]

Blast the list all you want, but here's a list of reasons why the Urlacher move was bad:

 

1) It hurts the clubhouse. Urlacher was an undeniable leader to the team.

2) It hurts with potential free agents. Urlacher is a respected figure in the NFL and his opinion has weight with other players.

3) His leadership will be gone on the field. Now the Bears will have to transition to another play-caller who doesn't understand the calls or personnel as well.

4) The Bears are hindered in the draft. Where before they could flexibly target a LB, now they pretty much have to get one in the first two rounds.

5) A majority of the fanbase is not happy. Like it or not, but that matters.

6) It makes the Bears, a team with a reputation for being cheap, look cheap. The fact that they couldn't find an extra 1m for a guy who was the leader of the team, the face of the franchise, speaks poorly to agents who want to deal with the Bears.

7) For a team paying multiple bad or lesser players equal to or in excess of what was offered to Urlacher, it looks like poor money management. Maybe next some ocean-front property in Nebraska?

8) It makes the Bears look like a team that doesn't respect their leaders/vets. Contrast what the Ravens did with Lewis to what the Bears did with Urlacher; it's a stark difference.

9) Urlacher wasn't as bad last year as some pretend he was. The fact of the matter is, he was tied with Briggs for the team lead in tackles when he got injured. On top of that, the last 6 games Urlacher played (splitting his time in half), he had more tackles than Briggs.

10) The comment about Urlacher being a "two-down" linebacker makes the coaching staff look inept. Out of the things Urlacher did well, pass defense and coverage of the deep middle was probably one of the best. He had no TDs given up, had 5 passes defensed, and I can't remember him getting burned. His biggest issue has always been fighting off blockers who get to the second level, not pass defense.

*Bonus* There have been enough bad moves by the Bears in recent history that simply saying, "The team/coach/GM thought it was a good move, who are we to say otherwise?" is just stupid. We have just as good a shot of successfully picking talent as the team does. This could very well be a bad move, and it reeks of a "new management"-move where someone values making their mark as a manager more than what is good for the organization.

 

Urlacher was not only the clubhouse team leader and the on-field defensive leader, but he was also the statistical leader.

 

***EDIT***

I just read on ESPN Stats that when Urlacher was on the field, their yds/rush given up was 4.0. When off, 4.3. For passes it was 6.6/6.8. This reaffirms point #9.

[Stinger226]

Blast the list all you want, but here's a list of reasons why the Urlacher move was bad:

 

1) It hurts the clubhouse. Urlacher was an undeniable leader to the team.

2) It hurts with potential free agents. Urlacher is a respected figure in the NFL and his opinion has weight with other players.

3) His leadership will be gone on the field. Now the Bears will have to transition to another play-caller who doesn't understand the calls or personnel as well.

4) The Bears are hindered in the draft. Where before they could flexibly target a LB, now they pretty much have to get one in the first two rounds.

5) A majority of the fanbase is not happy. Like it or not, but that matters.

6) It makes the Bears, a team with a reputation for being cheap, look cheap. The fact that they couldn't find an extra 1m for a guy who was the leader of the team, the face of the franchise, speaks poorly to agents who want to deal with the Bears.

7) For a team paying multiple bad or lesser players equal to or in excess of what was offered to Urlacher, it looks like poor money management. Maybe next some ocean-front property in Nebraska?

8) It makes the Bears look like a team that doesn't respect their leaders/vets. Contrast what the Ravens did with Lewis to what the Bears did with Urlacher; it's a stark difference.

9) Urlacher wasn't as bad last year as some pretend he was. The fact of the matter is, he was tied with Briggs for the team lead in tackles when he got injured. On top of that, the last 6 games Urlacher played (splitting his time in half), he had more tackles than Briggs.

10) The comment about Urlacher being a "two-down" linebacker makes the coaching staff look inept. Out of the things Urlacher did well, pass defense and coverage of the deep middle was probably one of the best. He had no TDs given up, had 5 passes defensed, and I can't remember him getting burned. His biggest issue has always been fighting off blockers who get to the second level, not pass defense.

*Bonus* There have been enough bad moves by the Bears in recent history that simply saying, "The team/coach/GM thought it was a good move, who are we to say otherwise?" is just stupid. We have just as good a shot of successfully picking talent as the team does. This could very well be a bad move, and it reeks of a "new management"-move where someone values making their mark as a manager more than what is good for the organization.

 

Urlacher was not only the clubhouse team leader and the on-field defensive leader, but he was also the statistical leader.

 

***EDIT***

I just read on ESPN Stats that when Urlacher was on the field, their yds/rush given up was 4.0. When off, 4.3. For passes it was 6.6/6.8. This reaffirms point #9.

You are right about 1, but the rest are reaching for excuses. I listen to the Score all day at work and the fact more people favor the move that bad mouth it. You have your opinion and thats ok but to think most people agree with you is wrong. DEAL WITH IT

[jason]

You are right about 1, but the rest are reaching for excuses. I listen to the Score all day at work and the fact more people favor the move that bad mouth it. You have your opinion and thats ok but to think most people agree with you is wrong. DEAL WITH IT

 

The score blows. It's just a collection of the most vocal, more often than not just people who want to tell others they were on the radio. Go to the message boards on ESPN, CNNSI, FOX Sports, etc. You'll find most disagree with the move.

 

Also, several others are not up for debate. It definitely hinders the Bears in the draft and affects the team leadership-wise on the field. Several others are not even debatable.

[dawhizz]

The thing is, nearly every reason you cite (except for possibly #4) could have been equally applied to Olin Kreutz when they let him go. And yet, I think most of us would agree that it was the right move: he ended up being pretty terrible in New Orleans, the fanbase was initially mad, but got over it, and it forced other guys to step up their leadership roles.

 

Other thoughts:

4) We still have FA to get some decent LBs. And I think they were always going to target a LB early - 1 year of Urlacher doesn't change your plans much.

5) Though you may be rights when you say "majority", I would say the fan base is fairly split.

6) Are you sure $3 million would have done it, or are you just speculating? I honestly want to know, because I heard that Urlacher's proposal was 2 years for $11 million, and if he was so insulated by a 1-year $2 million contract, I'm not sold that $3 million would have done it.

7) Who are the "multiple" equally bad or lesser players currently making more than $2 million/year on the Bears, besides the rookie contracts that are pretty much set? http://www.rotoworld.com/teams/contracts/nfl/chi/ Hester maybe, but his contract made sense at the time.

8) Yes, but contrast what the Ravens did with Ed Reed with Urlacher. Not so stark a contrast.

[Stinger226]

The score blows. It's just a collection of the most vocal, more often than not just people who want to tell others they were on the radio. Go to the message boards on ESPN, CNNSI, FOX Sports, etc. You'll find most disagree with the move.

 

Also, several others are not up for debate. It definitely hinders the Bears in the draft and affects the team leadership-wise on the field. Several others are not even debatable.

None of this matters, the moves have been made , you either support them or condemn them. It aint brain surgery, I support them, and its as simple as that. Start rooting for the Bears, Urlacher isnt here anymore.

[Stinger226]

The thing is, nearly every reason you cite (except for possibly #4) could have been equally applied to Olin Kreutz when they let him go. And yet, I think most of us would agree that it was the right move: he ended up being pretty terrible in New Orleans, the fanbase was initially mad, but got over it, and it forced other guys to step up their leadership roles.

 

Other thoughts:

4) We still have FA to get some decent LBs. And I think they were always going to target a LB early - 1 year of Urlacher doesn't change your plans much.

5) Though you may be rights when you say "majority", I would say the fan base is fairly split.

6) Are you sure $3 million would have done it, or are you just speculating? I honestly want to know, because I heard that Urlacher's proposal was 2 years for $11 million, and if he was so insulated by a 1-year $2 million contract, I'm not sold that $3 million would have done it.

7) Who are the "multiple" equally bad or lesser players currently making more than $2 million/year on the Bears, besides the rookie contracts that are pretty much set? http://www.rotoworld.com/teams/contracts/nfl/chi/ Hester maybe, but his contract made sense at the time.

8) Yes, but contrast what the Ravens did with Ed Reed with Urlacher. Not so stark a contrast.

It is nice to have someone be positive about the Bears once in a while.

[scs787]

Just for Jason and shits and giggles....PFF had him rated as the worst LB on the market. But to one of your other points he did rate out good vs the pass while he was rated out last in the league vs the run.

 

You also bring up his tackle #s Roach was on pace to have 23 more tackles than Brian over his time at MLB...MLBs in the the bears defense rack up a lot of tackles no matter who is there.

 

To #3 we have a new defensive coach in here, the calls won't be the same anyway.

 

#4- I don't see how drafting a high LB is a problem...The only major needs we have are MLB and LG IMO and chances are they can address those both 1 and 2.

 

#5 Soldier field will still be sold out ever game so no it doesn't matter.

 

#6 That 1 mill could make a big difference, they could have a plan set out that paying him an extra mill would "ruin" the plan.

 

Theres a doctor over on soxtalk that said with the type of surgeries Brian has had he'll never be the same....From a sentimental standpoint is sucks yes, but from a business standpoint i have no problem with it.

[jason]

The thing is, nearly every reason you cite (except for possibly #4) could have been equally applied to Olin Kreutz when they let him go. And yet, I think most of us would agree that it was the right move: he ended up being pretty terrible in New Orleans, the fanbase was initially mad, but got over it, and it forced other guys to step up their leadership roles.

 

Other thoughts:

4) We still have FA to get some decent LBs. And I think they were always going to target a LB early - 1 year of Urlacher doesn't change your plans much.

5) Though you may be rights when you say "majority", I would say the fan base is fairly split.

6) Are you sure $3 million would have done it, or are you just speculating? I honestly want to know, because I heard that Urlacher's proposal was 2 years for $11 million, and if he was so insulated by a 1-year $2 million contract, I'm not sold that $3 million would have done it.

7) Who are the "multiple" equally bad or lesser players currently making more than $2 million/year on the Bears, besides the rookie contracts that are pretty much set? http://www.rotoworld.com/teams/contracts/nfl/chi/ Hester maybe, but his contract made sense at the time.

8) Yes, but contrast what the Ravens did with Ed Reed with Urlacher. Not so stark a contrast.

 

4) FA LBs are mandatory now. They weren't before the Urlacher move. Drafting one was going to happen, but it's forced to be a higher priority.

5) Fair enough, but I've read a ton of message board traffic since last night, and it seems much more on Urlacher's side.

6) Unless Urlacher is lying, which I don't believe he is, 3M would have done it. He said it in one of the interviews he gave.

7) According to spotrac there are Bush, Podlesh, Gould, Garza, Spencer, Campbell, and Idonije.

8) I admit to being just as baffled by the Ed Reed move as I am the Urlacher move. The Ravens are absolutely gutting their roster.

[jason]

None of this matters, the moves have been made , you either support them or condemn them. It aint brain surgery, I support them, and its as simple as that. Start rooting for the Bears, Urlacher isnt here anymore.

 

The thoughts are not mutually exclusive.

 

I do not support the moves. But I support the Bears. They could win a Super Bowl this year and I'll still say they should have kept Urlacher, and he would have made it just that much better.

[jason]

Just for Jason and shits and giggles....PFF had him rated as the worst LB on the market. But to one of your other points he did rate out good vs the pass while he was rated out last in the league vs the run.

 

You also bring up his tackle #s Roach was on pace to have 23 more tackles than Brian over his time at MLB...MLBs in the the bears defense rack up a lot of tackles no matter who is there.

 

To #3 we have a new defensive coach in here, the calls won't be the same anyway.

 

#4- I don't see how drafting a high LB is a problem...The only major needs we have are MLB and LG IMO and chances are they can address those both 1 and 2.

 

#5 Soldier field will still be sold out ever game so no it doesn't matter.

 

#6 That 1 mill could make a big difference, they could have a plan set out that paying him an extra mill would "ruin" the plan.

 

Theres a doctor over on soxtalk that said with the type of surgeries Brian has had he'll never be the same....From a sentimental standpoint is sucks yes, but from a business standpoint i have no problem with it.

 

3) True. But I have a hard time believing Urlacher wouldn't understand the new defense since it won't change much.

4) Drafting a LB high isn't a problem, per se (despite my belief that LBs are one of the easiest positions to fill with later picks), it's just that the Bears are now forced to do it. And everyone knows it.

5) True. But it sours many fans. This is something we've talked about many times on the board. The team doesn't give a damn about us, which is why they continue to raise the ticket prices.

6) Perhaps. But I just don't see. Shave a little here and there off of other contracts for the fringe guys not making league minimum and you have Urlacher's difference.

 

As for the doctor on soxtalk, I'm sure he said the same thing about Adrian Peterson. Different people heal differently, and there is no reason why a superbly gifted and physically talented person like Urlacher, who is now probably driven by the force of "I'll show them!", couldn't heal quickly and recover to levels a few years ago. This is especially true in the "deer antler"-era we now live in.

[dawhizz]

4) FA LBs are mandatory now. They weren't before the Urlacher move. Drafting one was going to happen, but it's forced to be a higher priority.

5) Fair enough, but I've read a ton of message board traffic since last night, and it seems much more on Urlacher's side.

6) Unless Urlacher is lying, which I don't believe he is, 3M would have done it. He said it in one of the interviews he gave.

7) According to spotrac there are Bush, Podlesh, Gould, Garza, Spencer, Campbell, and Idonije.

8) I admit to being just as baffled by the Ed Reed move as I am the Urlacher move. The Ravens are absolutely gutting their roster.

 

4) Except Urlacher was also a FA LB. We're just going to be signing a different FA LB instead of Urlacher. There's reallty no change except the potential FA LBs the Bears could have signed has decreased by one.

5) And we all know the true barometer for a fan base is in message boards. It seems to me message boards are typically more likely to be negative (just look around here . . . ).

6) OK. I just hadn't heard that.

7) Spencer, Campbell, and Idonije are FA. I would say Bush, Gould, and Garza are earning their money.

[madlithuanian]

1. Someone else will step up. Voids are usually filled. He was never a vocal leader. Maybe someone steps up and is an even better "leader".

2. Doubt it. We paid Bennett and Bushrod well.

3. Yes! This one you are right. You cannot deny his widom on the field.

5. Agreed. The regular fan who isn't die hard like most of here, just loves him and what he was. Without really knowinf much of his decline. I am sad and not happy either. But, I get it.

6. See #2. We pay. We just don't pay for again, injury prone guys.

7. Until all the $ shakes out with re-signings, more FA's and the draft, we won't really know what were good or bad investments.

8. It happens. All the time. To just about every team. You say Ray Lewis, I say Ed Reed. Wes Welker. Joe Montana. Johnny Unitas. Everyone gets over it eventually.

9. He is not bad. You are correct. He just isn't what he was. If Roach played there all year, would he have come close to those numbers? Who knows... Maybe the DL, and Briggs forced plays towards the MLB. NOt sure that is the case...but you are correct that he still has some value. The question is how much for how much?

10. Agreed. Maybe. Maybe they are flat out right. I tend to think the staff mentioned it in terms of pitch count. Url is old. Yes...he can play all 3 downs...but not every series for the whole game. Again, I agree he still has some value.

 

Only time will tell if this move was bad...

 

Right now, I honestly feel 50/50. I'm sad, I think he still had value...but maybe the team knows more than I about how healthy he is. Maybe they were willing for a good price to roll the dice.

 

All I know is I will miss the old #54.

 

 

 

 

Blast the list all you want, but here's a list of reasons why the Urlacher move was bad:

 

1) It hurts the clubhouse. Urlacher was an undeniable leader to the team.

2) It hurts with potential free agents. Urlacher is a respected figure in the NFL and his opinion has weight with other players.

3) His leadership will be gone on the field. Now the Bears will have to transition to another play-caller who doesn't understand the calls or personnel as well.

4) The Bears are hindered in the draft. Where before they could flexibly target a LB, now they pretty much have to get one in the first two rounds.

5) A majority of the fanbase is not happy. Like it or not, but that matters.

6) It makes the Bears, a team with a reputation for being cheap, look cheap. The fact that they couldn't find an extra 1m for a guy who was the leader of the team, the face of the franchise, speaks poorly to agents who want to deal with the Bears.

7) For a team paying multiple bad or lesser players equal to or in excess of what was offered to Urlacher, it looks like poor money management. Maybe next some ocean-front property in Nebraska?

8) It makes the Bears look like a team that doesn't respect their leaders/vets. Contrast what the Ravens did with Lewis to what the Bears did with Urlacher; it's a stark difference.

9) Urlacher wasn't as bad last year as some pretend he was. The fact of the matter is, he was tied with Briggs for the team lead in tackles when he got injured. On top of that, the last 6 games Urlacher played (splitting his time in half), he had more tackles than Briggs.

10) The comment about Urlacher being a "two-down" linebacker makes the coaching staff look inept. Out of the things Urlacher did well, pass defense and coverage of the deep middle was probably one of the best. He had no TDs given up, had 5 passes defensed, and I can't remember him getting burned. His biggest issue has always been fighting off blockers who get to the second level, not pass defense.

*Bonus* There have been enough bad moves by the Bears in recent history that simply saying, "The team/coach/GM thought it was a good move, who are we to say otherwise?" is just stupid. We have just as good a shot of successfully picking talent as the team does. This could very well be a bad move, and it reeks of a "new management"-move where someone values making their mark as a manager more than what is good for the organization.

 

Urlacher was not only the clubhouse team leader and the on-field defensive leader, but he was also the statistical leader.

 

***EDIT***

I just read on ESPN Stats that when Urlacher was on the field, their yds/rush given up was 4.0. When off, 4.3. For passes it was 6.6/6.8. This reaffirms point #9.

 

[Daventry]

Count me as one who is glad to see him go, I feel it boils down to he is not worth more than what was offered and it was time to cut the dead wood.

 

Lots of teams have to release past great players, no one is going to feel the Bears are cheap.

 

Leadership can be replaced, someone else will fill that role just fine I reckon, we have lots of high quality high character veterans.

 

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

The thing is, nearly every reason you cite (except for possibly #4) could have been equally applied to Olin Kreutz when they let him go. And yet, I think most of us would agree that it was the right move: he ended up being pretty terrible in New Orleans, the fanbase was initially mad, but got over it, and it forced other guys to step up their leadership roles.

 

Olin Kreutz didn't really have as much pull as did Urlacher. When Kreutz left, who on the offensive side "stepped up" as a leader? Cutler? He seems to still be the same as always. Garza? They are both "Captains" but not sure how they have "stepped up" in the absence of Kreutz. I'm not sure where on the defensive side you're going to see that leadership as much. Tillman? Briggs? (He's had his chance before and had difficulty in calling the defense in Urlacher's absence, hence why Roach stepped in), Peppers? (Has anyone ever heard the man speak? He seems to lead in action more than word.

 

6) Are you sure $3 million would have done it, or are you just speculating? I honestly want to know, because I heard that Urlacher's proposal was 2 years for $11 million, and if he was so insulated by a 1-year $2 million contract, I'm not sold that $3 million would have done it.

 

Below is an article that shed some insight to the goings back and forth. There was a better article somewhere else but I was unable to find it again. Anyhow a snippet: "The Bears original offer was a firm one-year contract for $2 million, Urlacher and his agent countered a two-year deal for $11.5 million. Urlacher was under the assumption the two parties would reach a deal somewhere in the middle, turns out there wouldn't be any negotiations. Urlacher's agents responded with a proposal of one year and $3.5 million deal, though the Bears management still wouldn't budge."

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/brian-urla...offer-insulting

 

8) Yes, but contrast what the Ravens did with Ed Reed with Urlacher. Not so stark a contrast.

 

I think what is happening in Baltimore is more a result of what happened with their not renegotiating with Flacco earlier in the year. They decided to wait it out and bingo, they won the Super Bowl. Oddly enough the Bears will find themselves in a similar role this year. Hopefully they were paying attention.

[Stinger226]

Olin Kreutz didn't really have as much pull as did Urlacher. When Kreutz left, who on the offensive side "stepped up" as a leader? Cutler? He seems to still be the same as always. Garza? They are both "Captains" but not sure how they have "stepped up" in the absence of Kreutz. I'm not sure where on the defensive side you're going to see that leadership as much. Tillman? Briggs? (He's had his chance before and had difficulty in calling the defense in Urlacher's absence, hence why Roach stepped in), Peppers? (Has anyone ever heard the man speak? He seems to lead in action more than word.

 

 

 

Below is an article that shed some insight to the goings back and forth. There was a better article somewhere else but I was unable to find it again. Anyhow a snippet: "The Bears original offer was a firm one-year contract for $2 million, Urlacher and his agent countered a two-year deal for $11.5 million. Urlacher was under the assumption the two parties would reach a deal somewhere in the middle, turns out there wouldn't be any negotiations. Urlacher's agents responded with a proposal of one year and $3.5 million deal, though the Bears management still wouldn't budge."

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/brian-urla...offer-insulting

 

 

 

I think what is happening in Baltimore is more a result of what happened with their not renegotiating with Flacco earlier in the year. They decided to wait it out and bingo, they won the Super Bowl. Oddly enough the Bears will find themselves in a similar role this year. Hopefully they were paying attention.

Check your sources because what I heard out of Urlachers mouth in a interview was (He made 17 mil the last two years, so he thought he was being fair only asking for 11 for two years) They never made him an offer until yesterday. They never discussed working for 3.5 because the Bears didnt negotiate , they made of offer of 2 mil and said take it or leave it. Urlacher said he would have took 3 or 3.5 after the fact. Those were words out of his mouth, maybe your source is better.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I heard out of Urlachers mouth in a interview was (He made 17 mil the last two years, so he thought he was being fair only asking for 11 for two years) Those were words out of his mouth, maybe your source is better.

 

I would be more apt to believe it if I could see it in print. But if in fact it really did happen that way (your story that is) then why wouldn't he "think" that it was fair to start the bidding process at around $11 Million? I believe the contractual length was somewhere near the two-year span so broken down that's roughly $5.5 each year, about what he said took place to begin with. In the article I cited, Urlacher 'assumed' there would be some negotiating...there wasn't (or at least we're led to believe). In the other article I could not find he even further explained this by saying he knew that the high number wasn't probably going to stand. He explained, again, that he assumed that some form of discussions would take place.

 

Further insight to this could be that Urlacher was never present during any discussions between his agents (he had two) and Bears management. So its highly conceivable that he wasn't privvy to every detail.

 

I'm off to buy my poster. Maybe it'll have some worth on Ebay someday.

[adam]

Jason, I am on the side of believing that it was a bad move to not sign him for at least one more year. On your list, #3 for me seems to be one of the biggest losses. He was the defensive QB, and his experience in the Cover-2 will be almost impossible to replace. Especially considering we lost Roach as well. Out of all the factors, the loss of Roach makes this a bad move.

 

I will answer the rest:

1) We don't really know this, definitely an assumption, could be Cutler's team now (scary I know)?

2) Pure speculation, I have seen this mentioned before on other moves, even the Kruetz non-signing. Players know this is a business and Urlacher could've accepted the offer. Franchise players leave their original teams all the time.

3) This is undeniable, his knowledge and experience in the system will be sorely missed. Maybe he can be added as an Asst. LB Coach for $2 mill?

4) Hindered? LB was a need anyway, we lost Roach and Hayes. With us addressing OT and TE, LB seemed like a non-brainer regardless of Urlacher situation.

5) Mixed reviews so far. Some will miss him and immediately call it a bad move (me included), and others were tired of his act and his declining play on the field

6) It's business, and we don't have that much cap room. $1 million would've been almost 20% of the remaining cap space. If he was such a leader, where are the other players offering to restructure to fit him in a la Brady? Not a word from a bunch of guys breaking the bank.

7) Hindsight is always 20/20, not all contracts will be perfect, and you will not always pay someone what they are worth.

8) Actually, the Lewis contract actually supports the Bears decision. He only played in 6 games during the regular season.

9) Urlacher wasn't as bad as PFF makes him out to be, but he was nowhere near where he was expected to be. I think that is the misconception. He was not his normal explosive self, but still better than a league average player.

10) I don't about this one, but I don't remember any TE's going off against the Bears in 2012 either.

[jason]

Jason, I am on the side of believing that it was a bad move to not sign him for at least one more year. On your list, #3 for me seems to be one of the biggest losses. He was the defensive QB, and his experience in the Cover-2 will be almost impossible to replace. Especially considering we lost Roach as well. Out of all the factors, the loss of Roach makes this a bad move.

 

I will answer the rest:

1) We don't really know this, definitely an assumption, could be Cutler's team now (scary I know)?

2) Pure speculation, I have seen this mentioned before on other moves, even the Kruetz non-signing. Players know this is a business and Urlacher could've accepted the offer. Franchise players leave their original teams all the time.

3) This is undeniable, his knowledge and experience in the system will be sorely missed. Maybe he can be added as an Asst. LB Coach for $2 mill?

4) Hindered? LB was a need anyway, we lost Roach and Hayes. With us addressing OT and TE, LB seemed like a non-brainer regardless of Urlacher situation.

5) Mixed reviews so far. Some will miss him and immediately call it a bad move (me included), and others were tired of his act and his declining play on the field

6) It's business, and we don't have that much cap room. $1 million would've been almost 20% of the remaining cap space. If he was such a leader, where are the other players offering to restructure to fit him in a la Brady? Not a word from a bunch of guys breaking the bank.

7) Hindsight is always 20/20, not all contracts will be perfect, and you will not always pay someone what they are worth.

8) Actually, the Lewis contract actually supports the Bears decision. He only played in 6 games during the regular season.

9) Urlacher wasn't as bad as PFF makes him out to be, but he was nowhere near where he was expected to be. I think that is the misconception. He was not his normal explosive self, but still better than a league average player.

10) I don't about this one, but I don't remember any TE's going off against the Bears in 2012 either.

 

4) Yes, hindered. The Bears' hand is now forced. Before they could have done just about anything, with most believing they'd grab a TE, OG, and LB at some point. But how they are almost obligated to grab a LB in the first or second.

5) I stand by it. I've read more message board traffic over the past few days than ever before. The Facebook page as well. It's overwhelmingly in support of Urlacher.

6) True. Nobody restructured. But they probably figured, like Urlacher did, the team was going to negotiate and there were no problems.

8) The end result was pretty good though, eh?

9) Kind of my main point. He was better than league average, or maybe even average if someone wanted to downgrade him somewhat. What is league average worth? I don't feel like crunching the numbers, but I'm guessing $3m fits well into the range.

[madlithuanian]

Seems to me, the message boards and comments sections are divided...much like ours.

 

Here's some on Yahoo...

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown...23392--nfl.html

 

Overall, I get a vibe that people are sad, would have preferred him to stay, but understand the need to move on. I am pretty much of that mindset. Others are obviously angry at the team or how it appears they handled it. Since only Url is talking, we assume his side of the story is correct.

[AZ54]

Riddle me this:

 

Why did Roach have multiple team visits right off the bat in FA and then sign for more than $3mil/yr when Urlacher can't find work?

[adam]

4) Yes, hindered. The Bears' hand is now forced. Before they could have done just about anything, with most believing they'd grab a TE, OG, and LB at some point. But how they are almost obligated to grab a LB in the first or second.

5) I stand by it. I've read more message board traffic over the past few days than ever before. The Facebook page as well. It's overwhelmingly in support of Urlacher.

6) True. Nobody restructured. But they probably figured, like Urlacher did, the team was going to negotiate and there were no problems.

8) The end result was pretty good though, eh?

9) Kind of my main point. He was better than league average, or maybe even average if someone wanted to downgrade him somewhat. What is league average worth? I don't feel like crunching the numbers, but I'm guessing $3m fits well into the range.

Jason, Denver's blown coverage had more to do with their run than Lewis. They allowed 30 pts in 2 playoff games, including the SB. Not really a defensive performance to be proud of.

[flea]

Riddle me this:

 

Why did Roach have multiple team visits right off the bat in FA and then sign for more than $3mil/yr when Urlacher can't find work?

 

 

Youth & potential as much as anything else

[jason]

Riddle me this:

 

Why did Roach have multiple team visits right off the bat in FA and then sign for more than $3mil/yr when Urlacher can't find work?

 

The same reason the NFL draft provides NFL-unknowns with millions of dollars even when it's a 50/50 crapshoot. The same reason the NFL managed to put in a rookie pay-scale system because the salaries were getting out of hand with unknown quantities. The NFL Owners have their hands firmly in a bucket of "what if," and a known quantity with some upside and years left in the league is about a sure a bet as they can expect to see.

[Stinger226]

I would be more apt to believe it if I could see it in print. But if in fact it really did happen that way (your story that is) then why wouldn't he "think" that it was fair to start the bidding process at around $11 Million? I believe the contractual length was somewhere near the two-year span so broken down that's roughly $5.5 each year, about what he said took place to begin with. In the article I cited, Urlacher 'assumed' there would be some negotiating...there wasn't (or at least we're led to believe). In the other article I could not find he even further explained this by saying he knew that the high number wasn't probably going to stand. He explained, again, that he assumed that some form of discussions would take place.

 

Further insight to this could be that Urlacher was never present during any discussions between his agents (he had two) and Bears management. So its highly conceivable that he wasn't privvy to every detail.

 

I'm off to buy my poster. Maybe it'll have some worth on Ebay someday.

He talked to Dan Patrick today and said his agent were doing all the negotiating and called him with details. He was cool in the interview, didnt sound angry or be grudging, just said he thinks they didnt want him anymore. He has never been in this place before in his career and didnt know what to expect.

[Mongo3451]

The same reason the NFL draft provides NFL-unknowns with millions of dollars even when it's a 50/50 crapshoot. The same reason the NFL managed to put in a rookie pay-scale system because the salaries were getting out of hand with unknown quantities. The NFL Owners have their hands firmly in a bucket of "what if," and a known quantity with some upside and years left in the league is about a sure a bet as they can expect to see.

I'm convinced you will say anything to win an argument...