Wesson44 Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 If it was me I would have taken the one year deal....got on the field and played 'lights out" and made them resign me again earning the money!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASHKUM BEAR Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 If it was me I would have taken the one year deal....got on the field and played 'lights out" and made them resign me again earning the money!!!! He didn't want to put his body through another NFL season for 2 million. He could possibly play lights out again, but who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flea Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 @seankjensen 2h #Bears offered Brian Urlacher one-year deal with $500,000 signing bonus, $500,000 workout bonus and $1 million, non-guaranteed base salary. @seankjensen 2h Brian Urlacher told me he was willing to accept those terms but wanted a chance to earn another $1.5 million via incentives. #Bears said no. This was not about money imo, a deal could have been easily reached with some imagination on those terms. Emery/Trestman/Bears did not want Lac back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 @seankjensen 2h #Bears offered Brian Urlacher one-year deal with $500,000 signing bonus, $500,000 workout bonus and $1 million, non-guaranteed base salary. @seankjensen 2h Brian Urlacher told me he was willing to accept those terms but wanted a chance to earn another $1.5 million via incentives. #Bears said no. This was not about money imo, a deal could have been easily reached with some imagination on those terms. Emery/Trestman/Bears did not want Lac back Excellent post! This was a "get Urlacher out of town because he's a Lovie-player from the beginning"-move. This was exactly as I said, a move made by new managers wishing to put their stamp on the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Excellent post! This was a "get Urlacher out of town because he's a Lovie-player from the beginning"-move. This was exactly as I said, a move made by new managers wishing to put their stamp on the team. I am sure they choose not to have Urlacher back because he played for Lovie, but didnt Melton play for Lovie last year? They must have missed that. I think the possiblity exists that they dont have an emotional tie to 54, so they looked at tape and (a wild idea) think he cant play anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 I am sure they choose not to have Urlacher back because he played for Lovie, but didnt Melton play for Lovie last year? They must have missed that. I think the possiblity exists that they dont have an emotional tie to 54, so they looked at tape and (a wild idea) think he cant play anymore. Its posssible, with as outspoken as Urlacher is, that they were concerned he wouldn't completely 'sign up' to the new regime and could have been more a liability to 'losing the locker room'. Because as you say, there are other players on the team that 'played for Lovie' to include Briggs, Tillman, Jennings, Peppers, Conte, Wright. Of those I could see Briggs being a thorn in their side, especially now that Urlacher is gone. And I could theoretically see Peppers going back to what he's been accused of doing before which was "taking plays off". Tillman won't be a problem as he's a stand up guy but I don't know how strong an influence on the rest of the group he can be. I guess time will tell. The notion that Urlacher couldn't "play anymore" is simply wrong. He could play, just not the HOF caliber he was once capable of. You need to realize that the facts show he was on course for leading the team in tackles last year until his injury in week 12(?). Bottom line, the team (to include ownership) made a risky move in simply letting Urlacher go. If the team improves and goes to a Super Bowl without him they look like heroes. If not, and do worse than 10-6, then there will be some explaining to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Mgmt look like villains no matter what. Any time a fan favorite is not kept (no matter how), it reeks. Just as no one explained why getting rid of Ditka, Wilbur, etc.. wasn't maybe the right thing...you will not get any more explanation from mgmt about Urlacher. And for the most part, generic fans don't like ownership/mgmt no matter the facts right or wrong... Our record will honestly have more to do with what the offense does than what the defense doesn't. It's 2013, and the Bears are all in. Modern football dictates a strong offense. You hope the defense isn't a liability. We still have 5 pro bowl players (Peppy, Briggs, Peanet, Jennings, Melton...or am I wrong about Jennings? )on the D at very key positions. Some youth with big upside mixed in. The D may not be as great, but it should not be a liability. Bottom line, the team (to include ownership) made a risky move in simply letting Urlacher go. If the team improves and goes to a Super Bowl without him they look like heroes. If not, and do worse than 10-6, then there will be some explaining to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 @seankjensen 2h #Bears offered Brian Urlacher one-year deal with $500,000 signing bonus, $500,000 workout bonus and $1 million, non-guaranteed base salary. @seankjensen 2h Brian Urlacher told me he was willing to accept those terms but wanted a chance to earn another $1.5 million via incentives. #Bears said no. This was not about money imo, a deal could have been easily reached with some imagination on those terms. Emery/Trestman/Bears did not want Lac back Wow that is barely above league minimum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s720 Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 @seankjensen 2h #Bears offered Brian Urlacher one-year deal with $500,000 signing bonus, $500,000 workout bonus and $1 million, non-guaranteed base salary. @seankjensen 2h Brian Urlacher told me he was willing to accept those terms but wanted a chance to earn another $1.5 million via incentives. #Bears said no. This was not about money imo, a deal could have been easily reached with some imagination on those terms. Emery/Trestman/Bears did not want Lac back A long time viewer of Soxtalk/Talkbears. How could anyone believe that the Bears management would have the heart to offer such an insulted deal to the face of the franchise for the past 10 years and the future Bears Hall of Famer. This ownership is a JOKE! $6 mil for 2 years would have been okay for both parties. Best of luck, Urlacher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Mgmt look like villains no matter what. Any time a fan favorite is not kept (no matter how), it reeks. Just as no one explained why getting rid of Ditka, Wilbur, etc.. wasn't maybe the right thing...you will not get any more explanation from mgmt about Urlacher. And for the most part, generic fans don't like ownership/mgmt no matter the facts right or wrong... Our record will honestly have more to do with what the offense does than what the defense doesn't. It's 2013, and the Bears are all in. Modern football dictates a strong offense. You hope the defense isn't a liability. We still have 5 pro bowl players (Peppy, Briggs, Peanet, Jennings, Melton...or am I wrong about Jennings? )on the D at very key positions. Some youth with big upside mixed in. The D may not be as great, but it should not be a liability. No, you're right about Jennings. He was Pro Bowl this year. You're right that the team may have made the right corrective measure of going with the trend of the stronger offense. For the sake of being a fan I just hope it was in fact the right move (you know our half glass discussion?). And you're right that the Defense is good enough still that it could literally run itself for a few years before it would need a strong defensive mind to keep it going. My hope is Mel Tucker is that guy. http://www.windycitygridiron.com/2013/1/21...ive-coordinator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Its posssible, with as outspoken as Urlacher is, that they were concerned he wouldn't completely 'sign up' to the new regime and could have been more a liability to 'losing the locker room'. Because as you say, there are other players on the team that 'played for Lovie' to include Briggs, Tillman, Jennings, Peppers, Conte, Wright. Of those I could see Briggs being a thorn in their side, especially now that Urlacher is gone. And I could theoretically see Peppers going back to what he's been accused of doing before which was "taking plays off". Tillman won't be a problem as he's a stand up guy but I don't know how strong an influence on the rest of the group he can be. I guess time will tell. The notion that Urlacher couldn't "play anymore" is simply wrong. He could play, just not the HOF caliber he was once capable of. You need to realize that the facts show he was on course for leading the team in tackles last year until his injury in week 12(?). Bottom line, the team (to include ownership) made a risky move in simply letting Urlacher go. If the team improves and goes to a Super Bowl without him they look like heroes. If not, and do worse than 10-6, then there will be some explaining to do. Its not my notion that he cant play anymore, the Bears and 31 other teams might think that, I dont see people knocking down his door to get him. I think he is still capable of playing, just not at a very high level. The notion that all the players left on the team are not going to play for Trestman, because they got rid of Urlacher, is quite hilarious.They actually will be pushing it , to prove there worth keeping around when its there turn to be shown the door. I am sure Pep at 16 mil, finds it hard to be motivated because 54 is gone. Tillman, and Briggs are both making over 7 mil this year. (Ill show the new coach, Im not going to play for you guys because they got rid of 54). Anybody thinking that kind of stuff will occur is quite simple minded. They play for a job, money, and teammates. I didnt see anybody laying down with Olin was shown the door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 A long time viewer of Soxtalk/Talkbears. How could anyone believe that the Bears management would have the heart to offer such an insulted deal to the face of the franchise for the past 10 years and the future Bears Hall of Famer. This ownership is a JOKE! $6 mil for 2 years would have been okay for both parties. Best of luck, Urlacher. Emery has been here for one year, and Trestman is new, they dont have those emotional ties to the last 13 years with Urlacher. They happen to be running the team, the family is out of it now, there are making football decisions for the betterment of the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 I really think we're on the same page. I wanted him back. But he's gone and I guess I'm trying to move on and see the logic behind it. (And/or rationalize it!) I too hope it's the right move. I think that's another reason I'm not as upset as some others. I WANT to think Emery and the rest are making the correct decisions. If they aren't, I'm going to be as bummed out as I was with JA. For now, they get the free pass! I hope Tucker runs circles around Marinelli and the lot. He probably won't...but I hope so. And if not, I hope he's good enough to compliment the other phases of the game w/o being a liability. So today, I think my cup runneth over... No, you're right about Jennings. He was Pro Bowl this year. You're right that the team may have made the right corrective measure of going with the trend of the stronger offense. For the sake of being a fan I just hope it was in fact the right move (you know our half glass discussion?). And you're right that the Defense is good enough still that it could literally run itself for a few years before it would need a strong defensive mind to keep it going. My hope is Mel Tucker is that guy. http://www.windycitygridiron.com/2013/1/21...ive-coordinator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Some of you girls kill me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Its not my notion that he cant play anymore, the Bears and 31 other teams might think that, I dont see people knocking down his door to get him. I think he is still capable of playing, just not at a very high level. The notion that all the players left on the team are not going to play for Trestman, because they got rid of Urlacher, is quite hilarious.They actually will be pushing it , to prove there worth keeping around when its there turn to be shown the door. I am sure Pep at 16 mil, finds it hard to be motivated because 54 is gone. Tillman, and Briggs are both making over 7 mil this year. (Ill show the new coach, Im not going to play for you guys because they got rid of 54). Anybody thinking that kind of stuff will occur is quite simple minded. They play for a job, money, and teammates. I didnt see anybody laying down with Olin was shown the door. Are you calling me a "moron"? (*knee slapping LOL*) As far as what will and could happen, it's simply speculation at this point. Only time will tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearFan2000 Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 It is what it is. I'm a big fan of Urlacher and have been since he got here. The fan in me wanted him to be back and wanted him to have that Walter Payton type exit as he retired a Bear. But the reality is very few players end their careers where they start or get to end them on their terms. When you have a coaching and/or GM change there is often roster changes that turn heads and shake things up. We've watched and enjoyed Brian's 13 year career here and are pretty attached to him and the player he's been for his time here. When you don't have those attachments you are able to look at things more objectively and evaluate who on the team do you want to keep, who you would be willing to let go if you have to. As well as who you would like to bring in to fit the schemes you want to run going forward. These kinds of moves are tough from a fans perspective because sometimes a player deemed expendable is a fan favorite, but we may well look back realize it was the hard right decision. Sometimes these moves send a message that you better perform or you could be gone. It's also easy to forget that more than once Brian and his agent threatened holdouts, other tactics to leverage more money added to past contracts. He's even admitted that at times he's acted like a baby crying for more money. Brian has been handsomely paid during his time here. It does suck to see him go, but I think he's now trying to play the victim angle and the media (local and national) are more than eager to oblige and stir up controversy. I think what Brian is going to have to realize is his injuries and diminished skill-set are a concern to anyone thinking of signing him. That any team will want an incentive laden contract and he'll need to prove that he can stay on the field and be effective. 31 other teams in the league don't have an emotional attachment to him so they are looking this objectively. The Bears chose to look at it that way as well focusing on what he can provide now rather than past performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 I feel like all of this belongs in the "Goodbye to Urlacher" thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 It is what it is. I'm a big fan of Urlacher and have been since he got here. The fan in me wanted him to be back and wanted him to have that Walter Payton type exit as he retired a Bear. But the reality is very few players end their careers where they start or get to end them on their terms. When you have a coaching and/or GM change there is often roster changes that turn heads and shake things up. We've watched and enjoyed Brian's 13 year career here and are pretty attached to him and the player he's been for his time here. When you don't have those attachments you are able to look at things more objectively and evaluate who on the team do you want to keep, who you would be willing to let go if you have to. As well as who you would like to bring in to fit the schemes you want to run going forward. These kinds of moves are tough from a fans perspective because sometimes a player deemed expendable is a fan favorite, but we may well look back realize it was the hard right decision. Sometimes these moves send a message that you better perform or you could be gone. It's also easy to forget that more than once Brian and his agent threatened holdouts, other tactics to leverage more money added to past contracts. He's even admitted that at times he's acted like a baby crying for more money. Brian has been handsomely paid during his time here. It does suck to see him go, but I think he's now trying to play the victim angle and the media (local and national) are more than eager to oblige and stir up controversy. I think what Brian is going to have to realize is his injuries and diminished skill-set are a concern to anyone thinking of signing him. That any team will want an incentive laden contract and he'll need to prove that he can stay on the field and be effective. 31 other teams in the league don't have an emotional attachment to him so they are looking this objectively. The Bears chose to look at it that way as well focusing on what he can provide now rather than past performance. Very well said. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 I am sure they choose not to have Urlacher back because he played for Lovie, but didnt Melton play for Lovie last year? They must have missed that. I think the possiblity exists that they dont have an emotional tie to 54, so they looked at tape and (a wild idea) think he cant play anymore. Read the entire post, especially the word "beginning." Urlacher is solidly linked to Lovie and his relative defensive success in Chicago, where as Melton has only been around a few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Emery has been here for one year, and Trestman is new, they dont have those emotional ties to the last 13 years with Urlacher. They happen to be running the team, the family is out of it now, there are making football decisions for what they think is the betterment of the team. Fixed that for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Agreed Very well said. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Read the entire post, especially the word "beginning." Urlacher is solidly linked to Lovie and his relative defensive success in Chicago, where as Melton has only been around a few years. So your telling me, there going down a list and picking the trouble makers on the team and there plotting to get rid of them. You are way off base. It is simply, they dont think he is good enough anymore, and chose not to have him back.I can give you a webiste on (Conspiracy theory s) I can understand that you dont like it, but all this garbage for reasons of all this happening is lame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 So your telling me, there going down a list and picking the trouble makers on the team and there plotting to get rid of them. You are way off base. It is simply, they dont think he is good enough anymore, and chose not to have him back.I can give you a webiste on (Conspiracy theory s) I can understand that you dont like it, but all this garbage for reasons of all this happening is lame. Nobody said "trouble maker." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted March 24, 2013 Report Share Posted March 24, 2013 Nobody said "trouble maker." I used those words, but having worked for Lovie has what negative effect on the football team? When the rest of the team there now also played for Lovie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted March 25, 2013 Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 I used those words, but having worked for Lovie has what negative effect on the football team? When the rest of the team there now also played for Lovie. Are you being obtuse on purpose? Or do you honestly not understand how a new GM and HC could see Urlacher as Lovie's guy? There is no other player on the team that more closely connects to Lovie and his defensive philosophy/coaching. 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.