Pompei & Pierson's "Top 100 Bears in Franchise History"

[Umbali]

Not only is it subjective due to eras, also its due to the list compilers personal feelings about different people. Obviously Cutler would be lower simply due to his personality, rather than just stats. You also get a ' feel ' for players you watched and grew to like for whatever reason. I thought it was fitting that Forte was 34 simply because 34 is the ultimate RB number

[Atkins&Rebel]

Lists like this a pretty subjective, but I don't see how Urlacher wasn't in the top 10.

I think if you do lists like this for a franchise this old you have to go by eras. You can't tell me Sid Luckman would be a HoF QB running a modern offense, likewise I imagine some modern players would be confused as hell in playing in the 40's.

Hell, even some of the guys from the '85 team would have issues dominating the game today, namely because of how many rules are in place to protect the QB and neuter physical defenses.

But you also have the argument that these guys would have access to modern training and "supplements" and could have been much better than they were. You can only look at how guys dominated the talent around them and use that as the basic metric.

There's merit to this argument I think. Butkus would've been a maniac today like he was in the '60s. But at the same time, kids are bigger these days (for debatable reasons good and bad, I suppose). Linemen back in the 1930's were like 230-240 sometimes. Maybe less. They wouldn't have a prayer playing today.

230-240 could easily get up into the 290's, and could be over 300 with today's diet and strength program. Cowboys LT Eric Williams went from 300+ down to 220ish after he quit playing. A lot of these guys have to work to stay big enough to play line. I've read that most eat around 5000 calories a day and some have to pack in up around 10,000 a day during camp and heavy training.

[crueltyabc]

Urlacher is a top 10 player at his position of all time. Where would you even rank some of these guys above him?

The Ditka positioning is fan service at best.

Also, Sid Luckman's stats are trash so if you're calling him one of the greatest of all time cUz HiS wInS aNd rInGs then I guess you're also an Eli Manning proponent and that means I never want to hear you talk about football again.

[Mikefive]

Lists like this a pretty subjective, but I don't see how Urlacher wasn't in the top 10.

I think if you do lists like this for a franchise this old you have to go by eras. You can't tell me Sid Luckman would be a HoF QB running a modern offense, likewise I imagine some modern players would be confused as hell in playing in the 40's.

Hell, even some of the guys from the '85 team would have issues dominating the game today, namely because of how many rules are in place to protect the QB and neuter physical defenses.

But you also have the argument that these guys would have access to modern training and "supplements" and could have been much better than they were. You can only look at how guys dominated the talent around them and use that as the basic metric.

There's merit to this argument I think. Butkus would've been a maniac today like he was in the '60s. But at the same time, kids are bigger these days (for debatable reasons good and bad, I suppose). Linemen back in the 1930's were like 230-240 sometimes. Maybe less. They wouldn't have a prayer playing today.

230-240 could easily get up into the 290's, and could be over 300 with today's diet and strength program. Cowboys LT Eric Williams went from 300+ down to 220ish after he quit playing. A lot of these guys have to work to stay big enough to play line. I've read that most eat around 5000 calories a day and some have to pack in up around 10,000 a day during camp and heavy training.

Point well taken. But it's hard to assume that kinda thing. Would a star back then that played at 230 be able to carry the weight and move with 70 more pounds added? Maybe. Maybe not. But I understand your point and there's a lot of reasonableness to it.

[Mikefive]

Urlacher is a top 10 player at his position of all time. Where would you even rank some of these guys above him?

The Ditka positioning is fan service at best.

Also, Sid Luckman's stats are trash so if you're calling him one of the greatest of all time cUz HiS wInS aNd rInGs then I guess you're also an Eli Manning proponent and that means I never want to hear you talk about football again.

Ditka was a bada$$ on the field. Kinda the Gronk of his time.

But Luckman--along with throwing the ball all over the place--was also kind of a bada$$. QBs in the 1950s were nothing like today's with all the flag for touching the QB rules. There was a different skill set required. In order to put up the numbers he did, you had to be able to survive, because you got more abuse. That's why you couldn't be a skinny QB back then and last 2 games. The required physical body makeup didn't lend itself to being a meticulous thrower and the game didn't generally require that. Plus, you were throwing to guys who were getting mugged all over their routes. Just a different game then.

[The Marshall Plan]

Lists like this a pretty subjective, but I don't see how Urlacher wasn't in the top 10.

I think if you do lists like this for a franchise this old you have to go by eras. You can't tell me Sid Luckman would be a HoF QB running a modern offense, likewise I imagine some modern players would be confused as hell in playing in the 40's.

Hell, even some of the guys from the '85 team would have issues dominating the game today, namely because of how many rules are in place to protect the QB and neuter physical defenses.

But you also have the argument that these guys would have access to modern training and "supplements" and could have been much better than they were. You can only look at how guys dominated the talent around them and use that as the basic metric.

There's merit to this argument I think. Butkus would've been a maniac today like he was in the '60s. But at the same time, kids are bigger these days (for debatable reasons good and bad, I suppose). Linemen back in the 1930's were like 230-240 sometimes. Maybe less. They wouldn't have a prayer playing today.

230-240 could easily get up into the 290's, and could be over 300 with today's diet and strength program. Cowboys LT Eric Williams went from 300+ down to 220ish after he quit playing. A lot of these guys have to work to stay big enough to play line. I've read that most eat around 5000 calories a day and some have to pack in up around 10,000 a day during camp and heavy training.

Point well taken. But it's hard to assume that kinda thing. Would a star back then that played at 230 be able to carry the weight and move with 70 more pounds added? Maybe. Maybe not. But I understand your point and there's a lot of reasonableness to it.

There are so many angles this discussion could go. For me it is how the violence in the game has evolved. I can also see the point of how these lists should be separated by era somehow.

Players like Deacon Jones, Butkus and Wilber Marshall dominated in their day but they probably couldn't go consecutive plays in today's NFL without getting a 15 yard personnel foul for looking at the QB the wrong way. What would Lawrence Taylor be like in today's NFL? Or how good would Khalil Mack be if he played 50 years ago when you actually hit people?

Players like Rodgers and Brady probably wouldn't have had the long careers they did today back then because people like Deacon Jones and Dick Butkus were allowed to knock them into next week repeatedly.

Another one is Devin Hester. With the new rules in today's league we don't get a guy like that in the NFL anymore. But then how fun was he to watch every week all those years ago?

Does Randy Moss, and several other WRs, have the careers they have if the safeties were allowed to headhunt? No.

It's one of those things that will forever be subjective.

[Bears Whiskey Nut]

Lists like this a pretty subjective, but I don't see how Urlacher wasn't in the top 10.

I think if you do lists like this for a franchise this old you have to go by eras. You can't tell me Sid Luckman would be a HoF QB running a modern offense, likewise I imagine some modern players would be confused as hell in playing in the 40's.

Hell, even some of the guys from the '85 team would have issues dominating the game today, namely because of how many rules are in place to protect the QB and neuter physical defenses.

But you also have the argument that these guys would have access to modern training and "supplements" and could have been much better than they were. You can only look at how guys dominated the talent around them and use that as the basic metric.

There's merit to this argument I think. Butkus would've been a maniac today like he was in the '60s. But at the same time, kids are bigger these days (for debatable reasons good and bad, I suppose). Linemen back in the 1930's were like 230-240 sometimes. Maybe less. They wouldn't have a prayer playing today.

You always have to compare historical players within the context of the era they played in. You can't say, well this player WAS good, but today he would suck. It's not any different than saying, well the Aston Martin DB5 was a good car, but today a VW GTI would run laps around it, so that diminishes how good it was. Doesn't matter. It was a tremendous car for it's time. Same thing with players.

[Umbali]

Lists like this a pretty subjective, but I don't see how Urlacher wasn't in the top 10.

I think if you do lists like this for a franchise this old you have to go by eras. You can't tell me Sid Luckman would be a HoF QB running a modern offense, likewise I imagine some modern players would be confused as hell in playing in the 40's.

Hell, even some of the guys from the '85 team would have issues dominating the game today, namely because of how many rules are in place to protect the QB and neuter physical defenses.

But you also have the argument that these guys would have access to modern training and "supplements" and could have been much better than they were. You can only look at how guys dominated the talent around them and use that as the basic metric.

There's merit to this argument I think. Butkus would've been a maniac today like he was in the '60s. But at the same time, kids are bigger these days (for debatable reasons good and bad, I suppose). Linemen back in the 1930's were like 230-240 sometimes. Maybe less. They wouldn't have a prayer playing today.

You always have to compare historical players within the context of the era they played in. You can't say, well this player WAS good, but today he would suck. It's not any different than saying, well the Aston Martin DB5 was a good car, but today a VW GTI would run laps around it, so that diminishes how good it was. Doesn't matter. It was a tremendous car for it's time. Same thing with players.

good analogy

[UOK]

There’s a fascinating book that’s called “Midway Monsters” I believe. Primarily about Nagurski, the biography also recounts the years playing with/for Halas, Red Grange, Beattie Feathers, and many of the names on this list, including Luckman. Well worth reading, especially to get some ideas of how uninvolved the passing game was then. One of the most clutch plays of the era was a partial primitive flea flicker, only where the running back throws the ball forward in the act of carrying.

Almost more like a basketball play we see to TEs in the endzone today, Nagurski would clean up catching touchdowns like this as nearly every play beforehand was a minor variation of running it straight up their ass. Defenses were caught with their pants down time and time again, and the Bears offensive innovations at the time raked championships up, even if they were elementary to Xs & Os fans today, were revelations in the 40’s.

[Richie]

Urlacher and Singletary lower than I thought. Especially Singletary.

[Richie]

Urlacher is a top 10 player at his position of all time. Where would you even rank some of these guys above him?

The Ditka positioning is fan service at best.

Also, Sid Luckman's stats are trash so if you're calling him one of the greatest of all time cUz HiS wInS aNd rInGs then I guess you're also an Eli Manning proponent and that means I never want to hear you talk about football again.

Sid Luckman's stats are phenomenal. What are you talking about?

He had more TD's than INT's over the course of a long career. That was next to unheard of in that era and even through the 70's that was a struggle to achieve for some truly great QB's. Most HOF QB's who played the majority of their career in the 70's or prior had either more INT's than TD's... or close to an even ratio.

Luckman wasn't a 5x All-Pro QB, NFL MVP and the 1940's All-Decade team's QB for no reason. lol

You don't compare a QB's stats across eras. Each era has gradually become more generous to QB numbers. When looking at stats - you compare QB's numbers to that of their contemporary counterparts. Well, all positions you should do this really...

His MVP season: 28-12 TD/INT with a 107 rating in 1943 is utterly god-like... let's start with that. His 28 touchdown passes in this season (in only 10 games) was a record that lasted until 1959, a 12-game season.

He played 10 years as a starter in the NFL. He led the league in yardage 3 times. Led the league in passing TD's 3 times. He never finished outside of the top 10 in those departments and finished top five in TD's 7 different times. Top 5 in yardage 8 different times.

Luckman led the league in yards per attempt an astounding SEVEN times. That is the most in NFL history to this day.

His career yards per attempt is still 2nd of all-time. Behind only Otto Graham.

He also led the league adjusted yards per attempt, yards per completion, touchdown percentage and QB rating... ALL multiple times with numerous top 5 finishes in each department to boot. He also led the league in CMP% and INT% once each.

The man's post-season numbers were also fantastic.

To suggest that there is a single flaw in Sid Luckman's resume is utterly and completely absurd.

[The Marshall Plan]

The following Bears that either I'm not 100% familiar with or don't think should be ranked higher were rated higher than Jay Cutler:

85: QB Jay Cutler- Owns Bears records for yards, TDs (Not INTs which surprised me. Luckman has that. Luckman has the INT record with only a little over half the attempts of Cutler.), completions and passer rating amongst QBs with a lot of attempts. I'm probably leaving some records out by accident.

82: QB George Blanda - How is he ahead of the team record holder in multiple categories?
81: WR Brandon Marshall - I know my screen name is based off this guy but Cutler was the guy throwing him the ball.
80: WR Alshon Jeffery - Really? Alshon? Not only is Alshon ahead of Cutler but he's ahead in front of Marshall?
79: WR Dennis McKinnon
78: CB Donnell Woolford - A good corner during the Wannstedt period that I wish I could forget. But he wasn't a better corner than Cutler was a QB.
70: FB Matt Suhey - A fullback?
60: LB Khalil Mack - I love Mack, but he's been with the team one year and he's 23 spots ahead of Cutler?
58: DT Wally Chambers
57: DT Jim Osborne
53: QB Jim McMahon - No way he should be ahead of Cutler.
33: C George Trafton
29: FB Rick Casares - That's two fullbacks ahead of Cutler.
26: OT Ed Healey
25: END Ed Sprinkle
24: LB Joe Fortunato
23: HB/DB George McAfee
22: OT/LB George Connor
21: OT Joe Stydahar
10: OG Danny Fortmann

Even though he has a ton of franchise passing records there are six QBs rated higher than Cutler:

82: QB George Blanda
69: QB Bill Wade
55: QB Johnny Lujack
54: P/QB Ed Brown
53: QB Jim McMahon
4: QB/P/DB Sid Luckman


Cutler, who owns most if not all of the meaningful franchise passing records, couldn't budge out a guard at #10? They must really believe that Jay Cutler is the seventh best QB in Bears history?

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... assing.htm

[Richie]

Even though he has a ton of franchise passing records there are six QBs rated higher than Cutler:

82: QB George Blanda
69: QB Bill Wade
55: QB Johnny Lujack
54: P/QB Ed Brown
53: QB Jim McMahon
4: QB/P/DB Sid Luckman


Cutler, who owns most if not all of the meaningful franchise passing records, couldn't budge out a guard at #10? They must really believe that Jay Cutler is the seventh best QB in Bears history?

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... assing.htm

I'm a big Cutler fan man and believe him to be underappreciated. However, his passing records only exist on a technical basis. Cutler's case for being a Bears great because he "holds a lot of the teams passing records" is a house of cards. It crumbles down upon even the slightest of investigations.

If you were to weigh those stats out properly and put them into the right context given the different eras each QB played in? Cutler's numbers become dramatically less impressive.

For instance, Wade's numbers are actually a bit better than Cutler's on a relative basis to Wade's contemporary counterparts. Cutler never had better than a roughly average finish in most every major passing category.

Wade had seasons where he led the league in CMP% TD% Completions and QB rating. While also spending his entire career, year in and year out in the top ten (mostly in or around the top 5) of every major category. Cutler never sniffed this type of quality.

Then you add in his pro bowl 63 season where he also took home an NFL title? Yeah man... I don't see much of an argument for Cutler there. As much as I really do have affection for him.

[Richie]

Just to further play some devil's advocate here. Ya know... since I'm alone on a Sunday of a holiday weekend. lol

[quote="The Marshall Plan"]82: QB George Blanda - How is he ahead of the team record holder in multiple categories? ---- I won't bore people to death again here. However, comparing a QB by surface numbers who played 60 years apart is very wrong.

81: WR Brandon Marshall - I know my screen name is based off this guy but Cutler was the guy throwing him the ball. -------- While Stafford, Kitna... etc... were throwing Calvin Johnson the ball. Does that endear you to them over him? Marshall was a world class, elite WR. If not for Calvin Johnson being in his prime simultaneously as Marshall. We would have likely been putting him in the debate of being the league's best WR during that 8 year time frame of his prime. 6 pro bowls and an all-pro? If you include the sporting news as opposed to only the AP, he was voted all-pro in 4 seasons. This is a borderline HOF resume and he had two of his best 3 seasons right here.

80: WR Alshon Jeffery - Really? Alshon? Not only is Alshon ahead of Cutler but he's ahead in front of Marshall? -------------------------- Yeah, I don't know. Close. Alshon had a couple of elite seasons, though. His best month stretch actually came from a McCown led team. Takes a bit away from the "Cutler was throwing to him" argument. Cutler was here longer, though and reached the NFC Title game without much WR help. Like this list suggests... it can go either way.

79: WR Dennis McKinnon------------ Yeah, I don't know about this one. I think McKinnon belongs on the back end of this list. But again... inflation of passing/receiving numbers is big from the 80's to late 00's and 10's. Still, I agree.

70: FB Matt Suhey - A fullback?------------- I think we all realize that the FB role becomes more and more prominent the further you go back in NFL history

60: LB Khalil Mack - I love Mack, but he's been with the team one year and he's 23 spots ahead of Cutler? ----------------------------------- Eh... Mack had a hall of fame caliber season and impacted this team in a way that no one has in years. I think he's earned it. Cutler never sniffed a year like his in 2018. Just my personal take.

29: FB Rick Casares - That's two fullbacks ahead of Cutler. --------------- Come on man... Caseras was the team's feature back for years. He was Larry Czonka before they televised the games. 5x pro bowler and a 1x all-pro. He won the rushing title in 1956 when ran for nearly 1200 yards and 12 TD's in a 12 game season. Led the league in YPC as a rookie in 1955 with 5.4 YPC. Caseras was also a good receiver in an era where backs did not contribute much in that era. He rushed for 5700 yards and had 1500 receiving yards. Totaling 7,000 career yards and scoring 60 TD's in an era dominated by low scoring and defense. That's not "just a FB"

24: LB Joe Fortunato
23: HB/DB George McAfee

I know McAfee was an all-pro and one of the dominant Bears defenders during the 40's dynasty. While Fortunato was a monster and a leader of the 63 Bears D along with an older Bill George... 5 pro bowls and 3x all-pro.

10: OG Danny Fortmann ------- Danny Fortmann played 8 seasons, earned 8 all-pro nods, was widely considered the best lineman of his time and was voted to the NFL hall of fame. That I do know... now the rest of these lineman on here from waaaaay back when? I do not feel like looking them all up, but you can be damn sure if they're ranked 21st, 22nd or 33rd in the franchises history that they have some very impressive resumes as well.[quote]


I'll do the McMahon portion separately, like the Wade one.

53: QB Jim McMahon - No way he should be ahead of Cutler.

I don't know...

McMahon as a Bear (82-88): 61 starts 46-15 record 1513 attempts 58% CMP 67 TD's 56 INT's 4.4 TD% 3.7 INT% 7.4 Y/A 80.4 Rating

Made a pro bowl and won a Super Bowl as a Bears QB. Something Cutler obviously never did. (yes... yes... we all realize the defense was special, but Cutler had a couple of really, really good ones too)

McMahon and Cutler also have roughly the same amount of top 10 finishes in passing categories and zero #1 finishes. Outside of Cutler and his 26 INT's in 2009.

Cutler as a Bear (09-16): 102 starts 51-51 record 3271 attempts 62% CMP 154 TD's 109 INT's 4.7 TD% 3.3 INT% 7.2 Y/A 85.2 QB Rating

I think it's about even so far as the numbers go. Then McMahon wins the tiebreaker, given the pro bowl and the Super Bowl.

[Moriarty]

You always have to compare historical players within the context of the era they played in. You can't say, well this player WAS good, but today he would suck. It's not any different than saying, well the Aston Martin DB5 was a good car, but today a VW GTI would run laps around it, so that diminishes how good it was. Doesn't matter. It was a tremendous car for it's time. Same thing with players.

Exactly

Even though he has a ton of franchise passing records there are six QBs rated higher than Cutler:

82: QB George Blanda
69: QB Bill Wade
55: QB Johnny Lujack
54: P/QB Ed Brown
53: QB Jim McMahon
4: QB/P/DB Sid Luckman


Cutler, who owns most if not all of the meaningful franchise passing records, couldn't budge out a guard at #10? They must really believe that Jay Cutler is the seventh best QB in Bears history?

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... assing.htm

I'm a big Cutler fan man and believe him to be underappreciated. However, his passing records only exist on a technical basis. Cutler's case for being a Bears great because he "holds a lot of the teams passing records" is a house of cards. It crumbles down upon even the slightest of investigations.

If you were to weigh those stats out properly and put them into the right context given the different eras each QB played in? Cutler's numbers become dramatically less impressive.

For instance, Wade's numbers are actually a bit better than Cutler's on a relative basis to Wade's contemporary counterparts. Cutler never had better than a roughly average finish in most every major passing category.

Wade had seasons where he led the league in CMP% TD% Completions and QB rating. While also spending his entire career, year in and year out in the top ten (mostly in or around the top 5) of every major category. Cutler never sniffed this type of quality.

Then you add in his pro bowl 63 season where he also took home an NFL title? Yeah man... I don't see much of an argument for Cutler there. As much as I really do have affection for him.

Yep.
Even having Cutler on the list at all is silly.
I think he ranked 16-25th in the league every single season here (or almost all). How the hell does being below average at your position make you an all-time great? Name me 1 other player out of the remaining 99 that was below average at their position for most of their career.

[Bad Flanders]

Sid Luckman's stats are phenomenal. What are you talking about?

He had more TD's than INT's over the course of a long career. That was next to unheard of in that era and even through the 70's that was a struggle to achieve for some truly great QB's. Most HOF QB's who played the majority of their career in the 70's or prior had either more INT's than TD's... or close to an even ratio.

Luckman wasn't a 5x All-Pro QB, NFL MVP and the 1940's All-Decade team's QB for no reason. lol

You don't compare a QB's stats across eras. Each era has gradually become more generous to QB numbers. When looking at stats - you compare QB's numbers to that of their contemporary counterparts. Well, all positions you should do this really...

His MVP season: 28-12 TD/INT with a 107 rating in 1943 is utterly god-like... let's start with that. His 28 touchdown passes in this season (in only 10 games) was a record that lasted until 1959, a 12-game season.

He played 10 years as a starter in the NFL. He led the league in yardage 3 times. Led the league in passing TD's 3 times. He never finished outside of the top 10 in those departments and finished top five in TD's 7 different times. Top 5 in yardage 8 different times.

Luckman led the league in yards per attempt an astounding SEVEN times. That is the most in NFL history to this day.

His career yards per attempt is still 2nd of all-time. Behind only Otto Graham.

He also led the league adjusted yards per attempt, yards per completion, touchdown percentage and QB rating... ALL multiple times with numerous top 5 finishes in each department to boot. He also led the league in CMP% and INT% once each.

The man's post-season numbers were also fantastic.

To suggest that there is a single flaw in Sid Luckman's resume is utterly and completely absurd.

Really great post and perspective. I honestly didn't know how much he stood out in his own time. Well done.

[thunderspirit]

Even though he has a ton of franchise passing records there are six QBs rated higher than Cutler:

82: QB George Blanda
69: QB Bill Wade
55: QB Johnny Lujack
54: P/QB Ed Brown
53: QB Jim McMahon
4: QB/P/DB Sid Luckman


Cutler, who owns most if not all of the meaningful franchise passing records, couldn't budge out a guard at #10? They must really believe that Jay Cutler is the seventh best QB in Bears history?

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... assing.htm

I'm a big Cutler fan man and believe him to be underappreciated. However, his passing records only exist on a technical basis. Cutler's case for being a Bears great because he "holds a lot of the teams passing records" is a house of cards. It crumbles down upon even the slightest of investigations.

If you were to weigh those stats out properly and put them into the right context given the different eras each QB played in? Cutler's numbers become dramatically less impressive.

For instance, Wade's numbers are actually a bit better than Cutler's on a relative basis to Wade's contemporary counterparts. Cutler never had better than a roughly average finish in most every major passing category.

Wade had seasons where he led the league in CMP% TD% Completions and QB rating. While also spending his entire career, year in and year out in the top ten (mostly in or around the top 5) of every major category. Cutler never sniffed this type of quality.

Then you add in his pro bowl 63 season where he also took home an NFL title? Yeah man... I don't see much of an argument for Cutler there. As much as I really do have affection for him.

Agreed, both on Cutler and on the need to compare any player to his peers rather than stats out of context.

Cutler compared to other QBs who played in the same time frame is slightly above average.
Luckman compared to other QBs who played in the same time frame is top 3.

[Moriarty]

These type of lists are all about getting discussion going. I really don't like them as for reasons mentioned prior (different eras, rules, ways to play the game).

McMichael #19? WTF? Not seeing him anywhere close to top 50.

Disagree.

He's my easy vote for Most Underrated Bear of All Time.

#2 all time in sacks for a Bear, #1* NFL all-time leader in sacks by a true DT.
Carried the defense in the early 90s when he was old and virtually all the 85 front 7 was gone.



* Technically, Sapp is credited with 1.5 more, but McMichael has 2 yrs where sacks weren't an official statistic, so I'm confident he actually wins.

[Moriarty]

How much did Lance Briggs pay to get that high on the list? He's a quality player, but the 28th best player ever? Just going by stats on this one? Otis and Wilbur were better IMO. I would also have Tillman ranked ahead of him by talent.

By anything and everything.

Briggs' position is a whole pile of


There's only one other guy I'd even mention in a conversation about Most Overrated Bear of All Time and Briggs wins with ease.

[wab]

Briggs is probably one of my least favorite Bears of the modern era because he gets so much credit for being good when he was good because he had a generational talent next to him. The stats prove out that without Urlacher, Briggs was decidedly average.

[AZ_Bearfan]

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/lance-briggs-named-best-bears-player-of-past-decade-by-pff/

I don't know if Briggs was great, or if he had nude pictures of high ranking NFL officials.... but his stats are not bad. 16 picks and 5 of those for TD's is unheard of from a linebacker.

[malk]

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/lance-briggs-named-best-bears-player-of-past-decade-by-pff/

I don't know if Briggs was great, or if he had nude pictures of high ranking NFL officials.... but his stats are not bad. 16 picks and 5 of those for TD's is unheard of from a linebacker.

Eh, just more confirmation that PFF jumped the shark a while back. Yes, I'm doubling down.

[AZ_Bearfan]

I'll admit, I'm a UofA fan and was there when Desert Swarm was in action. That said, you can't say he wasn't good just because he played by Urlacher. He didn't get to choose the roster. You have to go by his stats and what offensive players during his time say about him.

[Atkins&Rebel]

I'll reiterate that Briggs was a good LB. Rarely missed tackles, could close in on coverage on the strong side zone, was generally not a weakness on the defense. But he was only asked to work a small portion of the field in Lovie's defense and rarely made a difference if Urlacher was out of the lineup.

[tjs]

I may have been exposed to Briggs more because of my age, but I love Briggs. Think he was underrated and think it's awesome that he was Bear for his whole career.

Just a contrarian opinion. Definitely higher on him than most, and most likely due to the time I got into the Bears