Bears News and Notes - 02/16/08
by Adam T on Feb 16, 2009 7:27 AM CST
81 comments
With the expected retirement of right tackle John Tait and the possibility that they lose John St. Clair to free agency the Bears may need to draft a tackle in this year's draft. Many on this site are high on Michael Oher. The Bears also have known interest in Phil Loadholt out of Oklahoma.
Based on a recent Fan Post, the topic of trading Brian Urlacher is a heated one. One writer thinks the Bears should consider offering him to Arizona for Anquan Boldin. If my memory serves, which is in some debate, the Cardinals are at risk of losing some players at linebacker this year, so they may bite at the addition of Urlacher to some package.
Jerry Angelo already told us that he doesn't see a way that Mike Brown would be back. Some don't see why he has to leave and others are just getting ready for it.
0 recs |
81 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Urlacher Straight up for Boldin
Doesn’t make much sense. Urlacher is way older and there is the possibility he won’t finish out the deal he signed last August. Boldin has a much bigger upside, but I suppose AZ could see the money as a wash or Urlacher as cheaper. However, he would have to be a part of some larger deal, not just a straight up deal because that is a terrible proposal.
by GallopingGhost on Feb 16, 2009 7:32 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
He may have said straight up
but I expected it to be part of a package deal.
Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!
by Adam T on Feb 16, 2009 8:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he mentioned
Urlacher plus two 3rd rounders, IIRC.
DEJESUS!!!
by tomas21 on Feb 16, 2009 10:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
we need to draft a tackle in the first, but we also need to get one in FA that can play left or right because Williams is an unknown commodity. His repaired back might not last the season. Brown’s position needs a veteran also because you can’t count on a rookie to come in and take over. It would be nice but it dosen’t usually work out that way. It takes a year to just get up to NFL speed.
by luckie815 on Feb 16, 2009 8:01 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
We trade Urlacher, who plays MLB?
Does Briggs shift over?
#34: You'll be missed!
by Chanman25 on Feb 16, 2009 8:30 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I couldn't say what we woudl do
but the article says shift Briggs over and use Jamar Williams at WLB or draft a replacement.
Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!
by Adam T on Feb 16, 2009 8:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather have Urlacher and Briggs, then...
#34: You'll be missed!
by Chanman25 on Feb 16, 2009 8:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I just read
that we have three URFA safeties Brown,McGowan and Worrell.
by luckie815 on Feb 16, 2009 8:48 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
If we lose Urlacher, which I’m not a huge fan of, then Briggs needs to take over MLB and we can draft Cushing in the first to take over the WLB spot. In that sense, we’ve gotten younger at all positions, better at WR although our LB corp took a hit but should be covered pretty decently. We need to sign a LT in FA (Gross?) and draft a guard in the 2nd round because we move Williams to RT.
I’d be excited with that plan of attack, but Gross won’t hit FA because the Panthers will franchise/resign him.
by bs1220 on Feb 16, 2009 9:07 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
If we managed to pull Boldin
and pay him his contract, I’d venture to say that we wouldn’t make any other high priced moves like Gross.
Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!
by Adam T on Feb 16, 2009 9:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd agree with that...
Last year, we couldn’t pay BOTH Briggs and Berrian, so they chose between the two. Even though our WRs suck, I think they made the right choice.
I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008
by SackMan on Feb 16, 2009 9:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Everything David Haugh has written this off-season has been GARBAGE.
You should look back and see how many times the guy flip-flopped during the post-season… it went something like this (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong):
1. The Bears need a QB like Warner or McNabb
2. QB isn’t as important as a big-time WR like Fitzgerald, and Orton is good enough.
3. The Bears need a QB like Warner or Big Ben.
4. QB isn’t as important as a big-time WR like Santonio Holmes.
I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008
by SackMan on Feb 16, 2009 9:21 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
No you hit it right on the money
"blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda and we'll go from there"
-Lovie Smith
by ifuwannacrownem on Feb 16, 2009 9:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And when he wrote his article about this year's Free Agents
All he did was highlight the top FA at the positions the Bears need. Wow. Great friggin writing. Way to offer some insight on potential Bear signings.
I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008
by SackMan on Feb 16, 2009 9:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
it's ridiculous
to think that briggs will have the same effect in the middle as he has on the weak side. if we lose Urlacher, i say we just draft one of the coveted first round linebackers.
"blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda and we'll go from there"
-Lovie Smith
by ifuwannacrownem on Feb 16, 2009 9:29 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Loadholt
“The Bears also have known interest in Phil Loadholt out of Oklahoma.” ?? says who?
if we think/“know” loadholt will be there at #50 that would be huge. Aside from him being a beast and filling a need it would allow the bears to go best avail. in the 1st rd. (WR/S/LB??) signing a FA OG (carey? is St. Clair enuff?) then drafting Load in the 2nd would greatly improve the OLine.
Urlacher 4 Boldin is a joke. trade the face of the franchise and a top tier LB (built around LBs) for a malcontent WR who is not top tier. No Warner or Fitz it’d be Boldin who? Most importantly such a trade will not improve our O enough to balance out the loss of Urlacher to the D.
I wouldn’t mind Brown leaving if there was any indication who will replace him, but as of now there is no fitting replacement…. if there is a playmaker from the secondary (basically any position in the secondary) in the 1st rd at #18 the bears should grab him. as much as i’d like to draft OL in the 1st and watch forte run over everybody, i would enjoy seeing a Bears secondary that can shut down the pass (for the 1st time, ie teams may not have always been able to run so well against us but for as long as i can remember teams have been able to pass against us with ease) even more.
by No It All on Feb 16, 2009 10:44 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately, it seems the class of safeties in this year's draft is weak.
That doesn’t mean that one of them won’t be an all-pro though!
I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008
by SackMan on Feb 16, 2009 11:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Boldin..
caught 101 balls his rookie year without warner or Fitz. he wasn’t even the cardinals first pick at WR in the draft (Bryant Johnson). He managed to do it with the likes of Jeff Blake and Luke McNown. he’s been a top ten receiver ever since. but like you said, not a top tier receiver.
"blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda and we'll go from there"
-Lovie Smith
by ifuwannacrownem on Feb 16, 2009 11:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
eh
the worse the team, the more inflated a WRs stats will be. bad teams are down in games and pass more. The Cardinals simply accepted that and embraced it to their success. 2003 season when boldin was oroy the team was 4-12 and he was their only option. we need a wr and Boldin is a good WR, but trading Urlacher for Boldin is a joke
by No It All on Feb 16, 2009 11:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
unfortunately
in most cases things are just reported as “known to be interested”. Nobody is going to tip their hand before the draft, so you will never get a name attached.
Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!
by Adam T on Feb 16, 2009 11:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't care how bad the team
catching a 100 passes as a rookie with crappy qb is impressive. And Boldin is a stud WR, not just good.
Second, we would never be able to trade urlacher straight up for boldin, we’d have to GIVE more. Urlacher is on the downside of his career and highly paid. Boldin is entering the prime of his career and is underpaid. Nobody would argue that Urlacher is no longer a good or great player, but he isn’t what he was, and Boldin simply has a lot more market value.
Last, having faces of the franchise doesn’t win you games, and nobody lasts forever. Eventually you have to let people go, and better to do it before they bring down your franchise than after.
DEJESUS!!!
by tomas21 on Feb 16, 2009 1:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
huh?
How many bad teams have receivers with 100+ receptions? Give some examples….
Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.
visit the mindful mission
by big_lowitzki on Feb 16, 2009 2:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
the worse the team, the more inflated a WRs stats will be. bad teams are down in games and pass more.
If this were true, Davis and Booker would be pro bowlers.
"blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda and we'll go from there"
-Lovie Smith
by ifuwannacrownem on Feb 16, 2009 6:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Dear god, maybe our WRs’ stats were inflated thus.
by Spongie on Feb 16, 2009 7:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
BAD TEAM = LOSING
LOSING = PASSING
by No It All on Feb 16, 2009 10:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
again...
… give us examples of bad teams that have receivers with 100+ catches.
I am especially interested in receivers who you think only got 100+ catches because they were on a bad team.
Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.
visit the mindful mission
by big_lowitzki on Feb 17, 2009 8:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Cereally?
dude when teams are losing and the clock is winding down in the 4th there simply is not enough time on the clock to run the ball so they pass. this is basic football philosophy/common sense.
BAD TEAM = LOSING
LOSING = PASSING
very basic. if u want to do research to prove me wrong (ie losing teams do not pass more) go for it, but don’t try to put the burden on me to persuade you because i do not care enough. sorry.
by No It All on Feb 17, 2009 9:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lol...
“I know someting to be true, but I refuse to provide anything to back it up”
Too funny.
But yes, teams who are losing late in the game pass on most plays. Thanks for pointing that out.
Things will get better as they improve...
by Dane Noble on Feb 17, 2009 9:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
If you’re going to state ridiculous things, back them up. It’s obvious you don’t care enough, but at least attempt to back it up.
I'M A MAN! I'M 22!
by ChiFan13 on Feb 17, 2009 10:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
or else...?
oh yea that’s what i thought.
by No It All on Feb 17, 2009 10:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Or else
you publically look like an idiot. I mean, that’s fine with me.
I'M A MAN! I'M 22!
by ChiFan13 on Feb 17, 2009 10:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You
are right that when teams are losing they pass more. You are wrong that Boldin was able to catch 100 passes as a rookie because he was on a bad team. You cannot find examples of players catching 100 passes on bad teams not because you don’t care to fins them, but because they don’t exist.
Catching 100 passes requires a pretty special talent. Last year 3 players in the entire league accomplished it—Brandon Marshall, Andre Johnson and Wes Welker. What those players have in common is that they can get open and can catch the ball, not that they are on terrible teams.
Acting immature does not help prove your point, quite the opposite.
DEJESUS!!!
by tomas21 on Feb 17, 2009 10:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
another thing they have in common...
none of the 3 made the playoffs.
by No It All on Feb 17, 2009 11:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not every team that misses the playoffs
is a bad team.
Example: Patriots, Texans, Broncos
Things will get better as they improve...
by Dane Noble on Feb 17, 2009 11:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yea...
… the Patriots were definitely a bad team.
Oh wait…
Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.
visit the mindful mission
by big_lowitzki on Feb 17, 2009 12:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
damn...
… I was going to say the exact same thing.
Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.
visit the mindful mission
by big_lowitzki on Feb 17, 2009 12:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Figured I'd save you the trouble
I'M A MAN! I'M 22!
by ChiFan13 on Feb 17, 2009 1:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
dude...
back it up with some facts. because you are so convinced that you are right, there should be plenty of support for it, right?
Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.
visit the mindful mission
by big_lowitzki on Feb 17, 2009 12:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
urlachers value
his value to the Bears is greater than his “market price”. especially if his market value is less than Anquan Boldin’s (which i do not believe for one second).
Urlacher is a known commodity and regardless of the haters he is AWESOME.
So you want to trade him and more (1st rd/2nd/3rd/rd pick? cuz we don’t have enough needs to fill in the draft) for Anquan Boldin? I like Boldin but to make that trade and expect him to be the 1st WR in Bears history to revamp the offense, at the expense of Urlacher (and maybe a brand new tackle and/or WR in the draft) would be terribly retarded.
by No It All on Feb 16, 2009 10:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
In what way
is Urlacher’s value to the Bears greater than his market value (not market price, which doesn’t apply to this situation)?
Is it because he sells jerseys? Because I don’t care about how many jerseys he sells, I want to win games.
Is it because he is a team leader? A kind of Mike Brown player who teaches everyone where to be and elevates their play? If so, it’s the first I’ve heard of this.
The trade proposed by David Haugh of the tribune was Urlacher and 2 third round picks for Boldin. I would do that deal. Boldin has more value and is a perfect fit for this offense. Middle linebackers are replaceable in this system, we’ll probably have an extra 3rd round pick since we lost Berrian last year so we can afford to lose a third this year, and it’s too hard to find pro bowl WRs in the draft. Look at the top WR prospects the past 5 or 6 years. You have like a 10-20% chance of finding one who isn’t a bust in the first or second round.
DEJESUS!!!
by tomas21 on Feb 17, 2009 10:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
As Subotai says below, it would suck to lose the face of the franchise. At the same time, Mike Brown and Urlacher were considered to be the “old-school Bears.” Mike Brown isn’t getting a new contract from the Bears.
I’d love to see Urlacher retire a Bear, but I realize it might not happen. If we can get another piece to win more games, he’s gotta go.
I'M A MAN! I'M 22!
by ChiFan13 on Feb 17, 2009 11:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm afraid...
That Urlacher’s stock may not be very high if we try to trade him before the season starts. If we keep him for 1 more season, and he is able to play at a very high level (which I’m hoping he can with Marinelli being on board), then maybe next year we could get good value for him.
But honestly though… how many more seasons does he have left? If we do trade him next year, how many teams will be willing to give up a player of significant value if they know Urlacher only has a couple of seasons left in him?
I say, let Urlacher play in a Bears uniform until he has nothing left in the tank. I have a feeling he will know when to hang up the cleats… and to do so in a Bears uniform would be good for him and the Bears (IMHO)
Things will get better as they improve...
by Dane Noble on Feb 17, 2009 11:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Right on
If marinelli can revamp the defensive line, Brian will be back to his old form. A good pass rush makes linebackers better. look at what it did for Ray lewis
"blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda and we'll go from there"
-Lovie Smith
by ifuwannacrownem on Feb 17, 2009 12:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I’m really worried about Urlacher’s back problems though. Marinelli could create the best line in the NFL, and I still think Urlacher would struggle a little bit.
I'M A MAN! I'M 22!
by ChiFan13 on Feb 17, 2009 12:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
“Marinelli could create the best line in the NFL, and I still think Urlacher would struggle a little bit.”
could not disagree more. granted “would struggle a little bit” is vague enough to give you a little wiggle room… but your premise is retarded.
IF Marinelli creates the best line in the NFL, then Urlacher (and the Bears) will dominate (even if he “struggles” a little bit along the way)
by No It All on Feb 17, 2009 1:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My premise is spot on
He’s getting older and his back is fully in question.
I'M A MAN! I'M 22!
by ChiFan13 on Feb 17, 2009 2:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
even if he continues to age (got me there, he will age) and even if his back hurts (which it probably will) he will/would be amazing behind “the best line in the NFL”. This is no longer even up for discussion.
by No It All on Feb 17, 2009 2:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
btw...
Does anyone actually think that the Bears will have “the best line in the NFL?”
Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.
visit the mindful mission
by big_lowitzki on Feb 17, 2009 2:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nope
I used it as an exaggeration to prove my point.
I'M A MAN! I'M 22!
by ChiFan13 on Feb 17, 2009 2:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yea...
… I got that.
But any conversation centered around Urlacher being good IF the Bears have “the best line in the NFL” is pretty much dead on arrival.
Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.
visit the mindful mission
by big_lowitzki on Feb 17, 2009 2:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
that makes sense
no need for rational logical thought based on umm reality to prove your points… exaggerate away.
by No It All on Feb 17, 2009 2:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
lol
Pot calling the kettle black.
Do you have any other gems you want to give us? Maybe how Tim Tebow will revolutionize the game? Don’t worry about backing it up, because you couldn’t do that.
I'M A MAN! I'M 22!
by ChiFan13 on Feb 17, 2009 2:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Tebow in 2010!!!!!!!
Things will get better as they improve...
by Dane Noble on Feb 17, 2009 2:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i love how...
… he is going to dominate and struggle at the same time. that is awesome.
Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.
visit the mindful mission
by big_lowitzki on Feb 17, 2009 2:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
lmao
I didn’t see that at first. Nice work.
I'M A MAN! I'M 22!
by ChiFan13 on Feb 17, 2009 2:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
awww...
Look at you and biglow getting along…
that makes my heart soft…
Things will get better as they improve...
by Dane Noble on Feb 17, 2009 2:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
remember that one player in the NFL
who was like this NFL thing is a cakewalk and did not “struggle” at all?
me neither
by No It All on Feb 17, 2009 2:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Boldin doesn't struggle
Even when his face is shattered, he still makes the catch.
DEJESUS!!!
by tomas21 on Feb 17, 2009 4:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
why?
Why would it suck to lose the face of the franchise? Why do we care?
I know that I would rather win than keep around an aging “face of the franchise.”
Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.
visit the mindful mission
by big_lowitzki on Feb 17, 2009 12:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well yeah
I would rather win too. I would be sad if Urlacher didn’t retire a Bear, but that’s secondary to us winning games. That’s why I said if we could get a bigger piece to win more games, Urlacher’s gotta go.
I'M A MAN! I'M 22!
by ChiFan13 on Feb 17, 2009 1:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
After all,
This is a business, and sometimes, business decisions are tough to make…
Things will get better as they improve...
by Dane Noble on Feb 17, 2009 1:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
for the most part trading Urlacher does not/will not = more wins
get this through you thick skull(s) so it can enter your pee brain(s)
while there may be a few elite players that would = more Boldin is not that guy. sorry the truth hurts and all (not really, that is a lie).
btw Urlacher is more than the “face of the franchise” hes like pretty good at linebacker and stuff.
by No It All on Feb 17, 2009 2:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That is borderline insulting.
It is awesome that you feel so strongly about your opinion… but other people are entitled to their’s as well.
Please do not insult other members.
Things will get better as they improve...
by Dane Noble on Feb 17, 2009 2:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't be an idiot
You’re treadin on thin ice.
I'M A MAN! I'M 22!
by ChiFan13 on Feb 17, 2009 2:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
hmm...
First, most people who have little grasp on the basics of the English language should avoid talking about “thick skull(s) and pee [sic] brain(s).”
Second, so you are basically saying that there are only a “few elite players” that are better than Brian Urlacher, right? Do you really believe that?
Urlacher has lost some speed, which is a huge issue for a guy who has long struggled to shed blocks and in recent years has developed an affinity for missed tackles. If you can’t see that Urlacher is on the downside of his career, I am not quite sure what to tell you.
Bringing moderation to a place I don't moderate.
visit the mindful mission
by big_lowitzki on Feb 17, 2009 2:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
better? no
more valuable to the Chicago Bears? yes
by No It All on Feb 17, 2009 2:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Losing the face of the team
in Urlacher would suck, but trading him for Boldin may be the best thing. We can can trade him for boldin, then draft the best LB available. even a middle LB to replace Urlacher if Briggs won’t be effective at middle. I think it’s clear that Urlacher will only be occasionally great. he’s not young enough or healthy enough to take on lineman. With no massive tackles to protect him he’s just not as effective as he used to be.
I don’t think Urlacher is top tier anymore. That’s just wishful thinking. Boldin is a top end WR hands down. he crushed before Fitz was there and had no running game. The dude is good. He’s by far a better WR than Urlacher is LB.
The talk of Williams being an unknown comodity so we need to draft or trade for a LT is moot. Barring injury Williams is going to start at LT no matter what. They spent a ton of money to have him play LT, so that’s what he is going to do. at least for 1 year.
by Subotai on Feb 16, 2009 10:48 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Luckie
It nice to see that some people have the same names no matter where they post, makes me feel good that I can recognize someone who’s opinion I respect on other sites!
Oh yeah, WCG since no one else has nitpicked your grammar yet it’s thinks not things.
by scespy12 on Feb 16, 2009 10:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If they pick up Jordan Gross, Williams will play RT...
Simple reason is Gross was a pro-bowler last season at LT, plus LT is the most important and hardest OL position to play, so it would be smart to get Williams accustomed to NFL speed on the right side, because it is a little easier to play and if he does get beat the QB will be able to see it.
by chase17 on Feb 16, 2009 4:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How about this?
Trade Urlacher for Boldin
Sign Mark Tauscher (OT) and Jahri Evans (OG)
Draft Cushing, Hakeem Nicks
by bs1220 on Feb 16, 2009 10:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on Windy City Gridiron
Related FanShots on Windy City Gridiron
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
