Best Article on the Reasons to Re-Sign Urlacker Yet............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soulman

The guy spent the offseason dealing with that knee injury from the bonehead play Major Wright pulled off that caused it then had surgery right before the season began and you actually thought he'd be playing health even after he told people his knee was still giving him problems?

Wow just Wow, weren't you listening or did you listen and just not believe.

The author presents a whole lot of good reasons for keeping here some of which have less to do with his play than his leadership and ability to marshal the defense when he's on the field. You think he can only play at 60% even when he's healthy great just go on thinking that way but I don't agree and this has nothing to do with sentiment. That's just the bonus of letting the guy retire honorably as a Bear.

Why don't we wait and see what a year off to get healthy again does for him. If he was only at 60% and his numbers last year were as good as his number were in 2011 when he should have been 100% I think there's a good chance he'll do alright next year too even at 80%. There's no doubt that his play is declining but we don't really have better to replace him with so why not bring him back?

I think the day Brian Urlacher knows that he can't do it any longer he'll hang it up. It's no longer about the money and I think he's making that clear. The guy want to play football and if he wants to play then play him and let him help coach the guys who'll take his place. It's time to find that guy. That much I agree on but it's not quite time to put Urlacher out to pasture. He's still got some football left in him.

Given all of the other transitions taking place and the fact that we're not in a total rebuild mode why wouldn't you bring back you defensive leader if he can still play? It would be pretty foolish not to unless you had his replacement ready to go and I don't see that yet.

---

Which is why I said offer him a cap friendly incentive laden contract and see if he can play. But I'm not sure he'd be willing to do that, especially if another team is willing to offer him guaranteed big time money. Maybe his 2011 knee injury was affecting his play and that's why he looked so bad. But at this stage in his career, there is no reason to assume he will fully recover. I just wouldn't be willing to gamble on that. And retiring as a Bear and Lance Briggs' opinion on the matter mean nothing to me. If the Bear front office catered to the players' whims, Lovie would still be head coach.

BTW, the 'wow, just wow' wasn't directed at you. It was mainly in response to the author's claim that Urlacher is still one of the best coverage linebackers in the league. He was so bad they had to alter their entire defensive scheme! lol. It just seems like the author was grasping at reasons to keep him here and ignoring the facts slapping him in the face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trackguy

Which is why I said offer him a cap friendly incentive laden contract and see if he can play. But I'm not sure he'd be willing to do that, especially if another team is willing to offer him guaranteed big time money. Maybe his 2011 knee injury was affecting his play and that's why he looked so bad. But at this stage in his career, there is no reason to assume he will fully recover. I just wouldn't be willing to gamble on that. And retiring as a Bear and Lance Briggs' opinion on the matter mean nothing to me. If the Bear front office catered to the players' whims, Lovie would still be head coach.

BTW, the 'wow, just wow' wasn't directed at you. It was mainly in response to the author's claim that Urlacher is still one of the best coverage linebackers in the league. He was so bad they had to alter their entire defensive scheme! lol. It just seems like the author was grasping at reasons to keep him here and ignoring the facts slapping him in the face.

---

I really don't think they'll have a problem signing him for far less than he's been making. He's admitted as much. How cap friendly you can actually make it is another challenge unto itself. That's the tricky part TG.

If the incentives are so bizarre that he's not likely to reach them and be considered ULTBE so they don't hit the 2013 cap why bother at all? The problem with a guy like Brian is that most anything you put in there may be consider a LTBE bonus and then it counts against the 2013 cap anyway and gets credited back next year if he doesn't earn it when we don't really need it as badly.

One idea I can think of is to tie part of it to playing or staring all 16 regular season games. Since he wasn't able to do that in 2012 that would probably not count against the 2013 cap but how much can you really save that way? Maybe a $3.5 mil deal with that as a $1 mil bonus? If you tie a bonus to productivity he's reached before it may not be ULTBE and would count anyway and if you push those numbers so high that it doesn't count then why have them. That's kind of an insult to him.

I'm just gonna leave it up to Emery, Stein and Urlacher to figure out what they can afford to pay him and how they can structure it in a way that they can gain as much cap advantage as they and allow Brian to remain a Bear. Not only do I think the fans would prefer that but I believe the McCaskeys would too and although I don't see George making that decision based on how it's all worked so far I'm sure he'll be asked for his thoughts about it.

I wasn't offended by the wow, and I didn't take it personally. Sorry if I gave that impression. But I do think the author made some great points not the least of which is that no matter how much his play may have declined he's still the best MLB and defensive leader we have right now. We do need to plan for tomorrow and whether that's Roach or DeCicco or a draftee we still need to transition that guy into his spot. No one is ready to take it over just yet. I still believe 80% of Urlacher is better than 100% of the present alternatives.

I don't know how much Lovie altered the coverage for him but I wouldn't disagree that they had to to some extent but you've heard him say that he wasn't in football shape all season long so I guess that was to be expected. he still managed to return a pick for a score so it wasn't like he was useless just hampered. By next season after getting back in shape who knows. I wouldn't write him off just yet. If he can play and he knows it he'll give 110% of whatever he has to give and I'll take that. If he can't play or when he can't play at that level anymore I think he'll give it up. I think that's just the way he's built. I think we should let him make that decision and as it stands he still wants to play so I say we let him play. :drinking61:

I say pay the guy just because of who he is. Let him be a Bear on his own terms. Not like he hasn't done anything for the team.

Or do we not give a shit?

I love what lach has meant to the team but I'm not re-signing him if it prevents us from getting a more important piece for the money. This is kind of like the kreutz situation where if we don't bring him back it might end up better for us. I want him back but price is everything. Also if brought back I want him here cause he can still make a difference to the team not just bring him back cause its lach. Just look at the kreutz fiasco it's looking very similar and remember that it was a blessing he left at that point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motownbear

I love what lach has meant to the team but I'm not re-signing him if it prevents us from getting a more important piece for the money. This is kind of like the kreutz situation where if we don't bring him back it might end up better for us. I want him back but price is everything. Also if brought back I want him here cause he can still make a difference to the team not just bring him back cause its lach. Just look at the kreutz fiasco it's looking very similar and remember that it was a blessing he left at that point

---

Ya' know I see the Kreutz thing much differently. The level of play we've gotten from Garza hasn't made any real difference, it's been marginally better at best if at all, and we lost important leadership on that line that I don't feel has ever been replaced. IMHO one of Garza's biggest weaknesses has been his lack of leadership and not making the right line calls. That's why I think we need a change there.

I don't disagree with you about Urlacher's contributions mo but just like Kreutz some of that is the intangibles he brings to the table. Despite the injury and the lack of his old mobility this past year the defense still plays better with him out there than without him. When it's time for him to go I think he'll know it and he'll hang it up. I just don't think we've reached that point yet.

As for the money I really don't think it will be that big an issue. If both sides are willing they can find a common ground and a structure that will benefit both. Urlacher is no fool and he's more than aware of the other factors involved and they need to be able to sign other players. I don't think this is gonna be a Briggs kind of thing at all but I do wish we'd start to hear something about some signings so we can get a feel for what the new regime has in mind.

I'm sure they're mapping it out but FA is less than a month away and it would be nice to find out where all of our holes are gonna be.

maybe they will just let the market decide his pay scale

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motownbear

maybe they will just let the market decide his pay scale

---

You can read what Dan Pompei just posted in his mailbag column and from that I'd say there's a 50/50 chance they may do just that. Nothing's been done so far and we've heard nothing about it so there is the possibility that they're still undecided about how to go about making a reasonable offer.

With a guy like Brian whose been making $8 mil per year that may be a tough call. When he says a hometown discount what exactly does that mean to him vs what it means to the Bears. Is he thinking $4.5-$5.0 mil and they're more like $2.5-$3.0??? We don't know a whole hell of a lot for sure right now do we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motownbear

I love what lach has meant to the team but I'm not re-signing him if it prevents us from getting a more important piece for the money. This is kind of like the kreutz situation where if we don't bring him back it might end up better for us. I want him back but price is everything. Also if brought back I want him here cause he can still make a difference to the team not just bring him back cause its lach. Just look at the kreutz fiasco it's looking very similar and remember that it was a blessing he left at that point

---

Yeah, I was gonna snark something like "Oh yeah, that O Line improved tremendously after he left." But Soulman covered that.

So yeah... I snarked it, anyway. Sorry.

*Edit. And as far as Kreutz 'career' with The Saints. Don't read just his ability into that. His heart wasn't in it either, after being cut. He was The Bear while he was on the roster, despite the presence of Urlacher or anyone else. And what I mean by that is, he may not have been 'the face' of the franchise, but he was the Alpha dog in the locker room and everyone else on that team knew he owned it. Kreutz has repeatedly stated his love of the team.

There are players that need to go when they've reached the wall. Some go out quietly, some go in a huff. Some can't accept the fact and linger or feign ignorance (Faaarrrvvvvee) and some go, only to regret leaving.

Then there are players who should be kept for one last season, so they can bow out gracefully and with class.

Not sure which one Kreutz is, but I know he wasn't offered the chance at the second. He was lowballed and that was wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matsellah

Yeah, I was gonna snark something like "Oh yeah, that O Line improved tremendously after he left." But Soulman covered that.

So yeah... I snarked it, anyway. Sorry.

*Edit. And as far as Kreutz 'career' with The Saints. Don't read just his ability into that. His heart wasn't in it either, after being cut. He was The Bear while he was on the roster, despite the presence of Urlacher or anyone else. And what I mean by that is, he may not have been 'the face' of the franchise, but he was the Alpha dog in the locker room and everyone else on that team knew he owned it. Kreutz has repeatedly stated his love of the team.

There are players that need to go when they've reached the wall. Some go out quietly, some go in a huff. Some can't accept the fact and linger or feign ignorance (Faaarrrvvvvee) and some go, only to regret leaving.

Then there are players who should be kept for one last season, so they can bow out gracefully and with class.

Not sure which one Kreutz is, but I know he wasn't offered the chance at the second. He was lowballed and that was wrong.

---

I do think that was the case with Kruetz and without a doubt I think that was wrong as well. It's not like we had a young guy waiting in the wings all prepped to go. Spencer was a useless signing in that regard and Garza is not even close to Kreutz when it's come to leadership.

This should be the case with Urlacher as well. When guys like him and Kruetz have spent their entire careers bleeding navy and orange I think they deserve to go out in navy and orange. I can't see anyway that bringing Urlacher back is a waste of money as long as he can play and lead that defense. Just like with Kruetz we have no one ready to take his place and if we let him go all we'd be doing is repeating that same mistake. JMHO

This is Urlacher, not Kreutz. Kreutz was a great Bear, but Urlacher is a future HOF.