Thread: Mailbag Q and A

Originally Posted by short faced bear

I would think being proactive is solving or addressing a problem before it becomes intractable. Less in panic mode as opposed to reactive or over-reacting where you commit too many resources or energy to solve a problem.

Who knows? It's one of those deep philosophical issues that we could start an entire thread somewhere about and discuss it at length. I certainly don't have all the answers, though I wish I did because then I'd be RICH!!!

Originally Posted by short faced bear

I would think being proactive is solving or addressing a problem before it becomes intractable. Less in panic mode as opposed to reactive or over-reacting where you commit too many resources or energy to solve a problem.

This is my thinking, and I try to live my own life by trying to not live in crisis mode all the time. I try to be plan-full and look ahead. Try to anticipate difficulties (when possible) and plan a strategy so that they do not end up being major catastrophes. An example might be having your home insured, so that if you have a fire you don't lose everything and have financial ruin. You plan ahead. This is especially true in business. If you are not plan-full you probably won't BE in business very long. You'll bumble along for awhile, but eventually you stand the risk of ruin.

A sports team is no different. If you know you're going to have to replace a key player, sooner rather than later, like Urlacher, then be pro-active and not wait until the very season he's gone. Teams that fly by the seat of their pants all the time - are losers. Plain and simple. Classy organizations (you know who they are) are ALWAYS planning ahead. They lose a key player and they always have one ready to reload with. They are winners.

Emery strikes me as a smart GM who will have Urlacher's eventual replacement here next year.

No comments yea or nay on the future possibilities of McClellin at MLB huh? Curious.

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way but we passed on a couple of guys who may have been better DE prospects right off the bat in order to take a guy with better overall football skills. If there's one young prospect on the team who has the combination of size and speed of Brian Urlacher it's McClellin.

Maybe or maybe not but that possibility is there.

Whether "Big Mac" will be given a shot at MLB has been well debated in other threads. This will happen if/when Lovie decides to allow it. IMO, this is the impasse that this line of reasoning has already reached.

Personally, I think we (by which I mean the Bears, like I'm a part owner) should consider it.

Originally Posted by XaosGorilla

Whether "Big Mac" will be given a shot at MLB has been well debated in other threads. This will happen if/when Lovie decides to allow it. IMO, this is the impasse that this line of reasoning has already reached.

Personally, I think we (by which I mean the Bears, like I'm a part owner) should consider it.

I'm just adding up the numbers Xaos. I don't believe the Bears were strictly in the dark regarding Urlacher's knee earlier this year which is why the delay in a contract extension happened to begin with. There's no other logical reason that I can come up with.

Now you don't push that "face of the franchise" out of the door until the guy says it's time to go so you have to be smooth as to just how you prepare for that day knowing full well it could come sooner than expected. These days when you draft a player in the first round you'd better have plans for him to play immediately.

So with Chandler Jones and Nick Perry still on the board both of whom are more traditional 4-3 DE types the Bears take the guy who many see as more a 3-4 LB type. I think that surprised both the Packers and the Pats since we showed interest in both Jones and Perry prior to the draft but little interest in McClellin.

So he's a first round pick and we need to play him somewhere and with his speed DE is better than SLB because we don't blitz our LBs very often and almost never the SLB. So for now his highest and best use is as a pass rusher but strangely enough the Bears don't ask him to add bulk so that he can play as an every down player. They prefer him to stay around 250-255lbs.

I'm just thinking out loud that we may have hedged our bets already.

<--- This homer was trying to keep his mouth shut on Shane.

Soul, I just don't know if McClellin could step into that role. I want to say yes, 'cause I'd love to see it but coverage skills have to be a big bold question mark.

Shane has impressive closing speed... but elite speed (ie. Patrick Willis, Von Miller, or even Urlacher?)? I can see him being a great linebacker but without seeing him standing up behind the line it is hard to say. McClellin still reminds me of the Farm boy that he his, not a physical freak of nature, with an off season program, shedding some lbs for the position, perhaps he can be. He obviously does have ability. I know people will be pissed when I say it, but even if the improvements that are needed in the DE role isn't made, I won't immediately call him bust. He is gifted as a football player.

I don't doubt your theory on why the pick might have been made where it was. They might be grooming another Bears linebacker as we speak. Did a secret squirrel follow him to Chicago? I can't say either way because the doors are locked.

His combine 40 time was almost identical to Urlacher's but he doesn't have that same combination of freakish speed, strength and leaping ability that Urlacher has. But who does? A guy like Urlacher comes along once in a decade if your lucky and they don't all play MLB.

Can anyone honestly say the first time they saw Mike Singletary all of 6' tall and 230lb soaking wet that he would be the next Bears HOF MLB? All I'm thinking is if push came to shove he might be able to make that transition. Time will tell.