Barnett Contract Extension Update

[Merlin]

Urlacher is only in the spotlight because he plays for a team that sucked for a lot of years without any super stars. That's it. Also take into consideration that the Bears are known to have good MLB's historically. The media isn't going to slam the only guy on the team doing all the work. Hawk and Barnett both belong on the outside. Neither of them are suited "well" to play in the middle and neither is Urlacher. That being said, Barnett has the MLB experience in the NFL. Why would we want to go through more years of Hawk's learning curve when we have someone who is more then adequate at the position? The comparisons between Barnett and Hawk are numerous. I ran through those last year when everyone was bashing Barnett and loving Hawk. What I find disturbing are the fans who still see things that way. Numbers-wise Barnett = Urlacher. Performance-wise Barnett = Urlacher. He hits the whole just like Urlacher, the difference is a monster front four and up until the last few games last year, our 1 or 2 monsters up front. Urlacher is in the whole making the tackle while Barnett is busy fighting off the guard to make the tackle. When Urlacher has to fight off a guard, guess what, he is in the same league as Barnett. Urlacher is in his prime, he isn't "old" by any standard.

[Patler]

I am not nearly as impressed with Urlacher as you are, Partial.
Don't get me wrong, I agree he is very good, but I think the Bear image, folklore, history, whatever, has embellished his performance.

Bear middle linebackers are mean, tough and the best in the league.
Dallas is America's team.
Packers play better as a team, but are not among the best individuals in the league.

Etc. etc. etc.
.

[Partial]

Urlacher != Barnett. Not even close.

Urlacher is without question the best MLB in the league. Who is better?

Patler, you don't think Urlacher is going to Canton?

[Patler]

Urlacher is only in the spotlight because he plays for a team that sucked for a lot of years without any super stars. That's it. Also take into consideration that the Bears are known to have good MLB's historically. The media isn't going to slam the only guy on the team doing all the work.

See Merlin, we can agree on some things!

[Merlin]

I agree with Patler 100%. Urlacher has benefited over his career from things that have nothing to do with how he plays. He will be in the HOF but it won't be because he is the best. Go and look at his stats, then look at Barnett's. I did this in the past, there isn't much of a difference between the two other then Urlacher plays for the Bears and Barnett plays for the Packers. The camera's in a game are always on Urlacher, if gave as much attention to Barnett, you would see the same shifty eyes, the fire and all that crap that get's over hyped. The spotlight was on AJ last year and he did a great job. But, diminishing what Barnett has given this team in 4 seasons and railroading the guy because of a bad play here and there is just wrong. I don't see anyone looking at the bad plays that Hawk made and saying he has to go or he has to move. Same for Urlacher. There were more plays where Hawk got blown up than Barnett and as many for Urlacher.

[Merlin]

Urlacher is only in the spotlight because he plays for a team that sucked for a lot of years without any super stars. That's it. Also take into consideration that the Bears are known to have good MLB's historically. The media isn't going to slam the only guy on the team doing all the work.

See Merlin, we can agree on some things!

We agree more times then not. I am so sick of people hating on the guy. I thought he was one of Sherman's better picks (not like there were a ton of them). He stepped in, did the job and continued to improve. WOW, what else can we expect?

[Partial]

Now let me get this straight:

For Barnett we can ignore the stats and see what he does on the field and the accolade the people "in the know" give him to judge him as a player.

But for Urlacher, we have to compare the stats?

Barnett is a nice player and a solid starter. Every team in the league would find a way to use him, and most would gladly take on the big salary he is about to get.

Urlacher is a supreme player and every team in the league would pay him and move their MLB to a different position. The man is a beast.

I don't think its so much his massive DTs as it is he is just a whole lot bigger, stronger and longer than Barnett.

[Patler]

Urlacher != Barnett. Not even close.

Urlacher is without question the best MLB in the league. Who is better?

Patler, you don't think Urlacher is going to Canton?

I long ago gave up predicting what the HOF voters in any sport will do. Deserving players on bad teams are left out. Popular players get in.

Do I think Urlacher is a HOFer performance wise? No, I do not.
Will he be voted in? It might depend on who retires the year he does and the 5 or so years after he does.

In no way shape or form do I think Michael Irvin was a HOF performer. For the seven years they played together, Sterling Sharp was head and shoulders above Michael Irvin in every way that you can evaluate a receiver. Irvin was good, not great. But, he had a relatively long career on a very successful team, and he was and continues to be famous (perhaps "infamous" is better). Some how that has added up to a better career in the voters' minds than his performance actually dictated, in my opinion.

[Merlin]

I didn't say ignore the stats. I am saying that for comparison between the two. You can't take the media hype and the Bears history and automatically apply it to a player and say he is the best. Only you would take the context of one thing and apply it to another....good grief. I can compare stats, plays, anything else you want to compare between the two and when it's all said and done, they are equal. With one difference, the line in front of them. Urlacher gets blown up as much as any other linebacker in the league and you aren't clamoring for the Bears to move him, replace him, cut him or trade him. Why? You have a bias and that's fine.

I think Urlacher is a great MLB, but I also think Barnett is to. You apply one set of logic to Barnett but another to Urlacher. Only when you use the same logic to compare the two can you make an unbiased decision and you won't do that because it would show that Urlacher = Barnett.

[Merlin]

Urlacher != Barnett. Not even close.

Urlacher is without question the best MLB in the league. Who is better?

Patler, you don't think Urlacher is going to Canton?

I long ago gave up predicting what the HOF voters in any sport will do. Deserving players on bad teams are left out. Popular players get in.

Do I think Urlacher is a HOFer performance wise? No, I do not.
Will he be voted in? It might depend on who retires the year he does and the 5 or so years after he does.

In no way shape or form do I think Michael Irvin was a HOF performer. For the seven years they played together, Sterling Sharp was head and shoulders above Michael Irvin in every way that you can evaluate a receiver. Irvin was good, not great. But, he had a relatively long career on a very successful team, and he was and continues to be famous (perhaps "infamous" is better). Some how that has added up to a better career in the voters' minds than his performance actually dictated, in my opinion.

The HOF is getting as bad as the Pro Bowl. A QB with 3 NFL starts could make the Pro Bowl in the popularity contest. Donald Driver made it because he deserved it, same with Kampman. The leading vote getters get the start, not the best players.

[Packnut]

Urlacher

Frankly, I'm stunned that ANYONE would believe Barnett is in the same class with Urlacher. May-be pass coverage does'nt mean anything to some but it does to me. Urlacher is head and shouldes better than Barnett in that area. He gets very deep drops and rarely do you see a TE beat him. The same can't be said for Nick.

2nd- How many times does Barnett meet the RB in the hole? Barnett plays on his side of the ball 100% of the time. Ya wanna look at stats? How many negative yd plays does Barnett have?

3rd- bone jarring hits. I've seen Urlacher just smoke a few backs. Don't ever recall Nick laying the smack down.

Now you can make a good case that Urlacher's play improved with the talent on the Bears D-line. Still, anyone who saw the Bears play Seattle would have seen Urlacher on at least 3 short yardage plays take on Alexander in the hole and stop him for little or no gain. Had Seattle been able to run on 3rd and short, they would have won that game.

I agree that here in Chicago, Urlacher is over-hyped, but to imply that he is'nt one of the top 5 MLB's in the game is just flat out wrong.

[Partial]

Packnut has it right. Urlacher also has a knack for the big play, be it laying an excellent block on special teams allowing Hester to house it, picking off a critical pass, or laying the wood and forcing a critical fumble like he did against Arizona.

[Green Bud Packer]

I'd trade Barnett for Girlacher even up anyday. Hawk will be better than Barnett. That said I still think they should sign him long term. I think the Pack can win with Barnett in the middle.

[RashanGary]

I think Urlacher is really good but I agree with those above who think he's overrated. IMO he's a fringe probowl player who it hyped as the best LB in the game.

[Partial]

to those who are saying he is good but overrated, then who is better?

I can think of one person who has a better combination of instincts and speed, but they are about 4 inches shorter and 30 pounds lighter. And if this year was any indication of future play, I'll retract that statement in a heart-beat.