Start the Unicorn

For all things Chicago Bears

Moderator: wab

User avatar
spudbear
MVP
Posts: 1287
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:32 pm
Has thanked: 298 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Yeah, I know it has a snowball's chance in hell actually happening. I've liked Bagent since last preseason. When he came in to start, it was a revelation to see a Bears QB throw with anticipation, know the plays and options/changes to be called and keep drives moving. In spite of Getsy dumbing down the playbook and poor play calling, Bagent made good decisions and took what the defense was giving. He had some rookie struggles and others have questioned his arm strength. He may not be top tier for throwing deep passes, but someone who threw for as much as did in college has to have some arm talent. I'd like to see how an offseason of training has improved it.

The plan: start Bagent against Tennessee. Let him play the first half and then the coaches can decide to put in Williams for the second half. I'd also sit Odunze the first half as well.

1. With a new offensive staff there will be time needed to work out the kinks on game day. The OL will also need to be evaluated and corrections made at halftime, as well as the OL being comfortable with a new Center calling assignments.

2. Williams can see how plays get called and how adjustments are made. He'll also see how defenses shift prior to the snap from a different viewpoint and not having to worry about making a quick call.

3. Help Williams to understand what it will be like to be in Bagent's shoes. How can Bagent help Williams from the sideline the rest of the season?

4. Get some current game film on Bagent. In October teams desperate for a QB may see Bagent as a potential starter. Would you ask for a 3rd round pick for him? 2nd?

5. If Williams starts the second half then you'd have game film on both QB's attacking the same defense.

6. Williams is still a rookie, it's not his team yet, have him earn the leadership role and see how he handles a little team adversity.

I had hoped Bagent could have been in competition for the starting QB job, but with a first round pick the Bears are set on their course to make Williams their franchise QB. If Bagent has a good camp and preseason then it should not be too difficult to sell the team on this plan. It would be a coach's decision and cause a few heads to spin in the media. I believe this is a good plan to get Williams ready, as the second week is a Sunday night away game against Houston.
San Francisco has always been my favorite booing city. I don't mean the people boo louder or longer, but there is a very special intimacy. Music, that's what it is to me. One time in Kezar Stadium they gave me a standing boo.

George Halas
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9015
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 1089 times
Been thanked: 1500 times

I totally identify with @spudbear .

How do you argue against Bags? You can’t.

The guy is a budding superstar and has to be getting all kinds of ass.

His dad is an arm wrestling champion.

You don’t fuck with that formula.

(Obviously I think Caleb is the starter. I just cannot bring myself to speak negativity about a player that I adore.)
Image
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6764
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 2250 times

spudbear wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 11:01 am The plan: start Bagent against Tennessee. Let him play the first half and then the coaches can decide to put in Williams for the second half. I'd also sit Odunze the first half as well.

1. With a new offensive staff there will be time needed to work out the kinks on game day. The OL will also need to be evaluated and corrections made at halftime, as well as the OL being comfortable with a new Center calling assignments.

2. Williams can see how plays get called and how adjustments are made. He'll also see how defenses shift prior to the snap from a different viewpoint and not having to worry about making a quick call.

3. Help Williams to understand what it will be like to be in Bagent's shoes. How can Bagent help Williams from the sideline the rest of the season?

4. Get some current game film on Bagent. In October teams desperate for a QB may see Bagent as a potential starter. Would you ask for a 3rd round pick for him? 2nd?

5. If Williams starts the second half then you'd have game film on both QB's attacking the same defense.

6. Williams is still a rookie, it's not his team yet, have him earn the leadership role and see how he handles a little team adversity.
Image
User avatar
Moriarty
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7188
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Do we need to call him the White Unicorn, in order to avoid confusion?





Image
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)

Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
User avatar
o-pus #40 in B major
Head Coach
Posts: 2852
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:27 pm
Location: Earth
Has thanked: 2646 times
Been thanked: 277 times

First, the starter should always start the game.

Second, I think this kind of stuff should be over and done with by the time they get to the Tennessee game.
There is a GM named Poles
Who has a clear set of goals
He’s rebuilt his team
So Bears’ fans can dream
Of winning some more Super Bowls

- HRS
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5294
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 816 times

That plan won't work. How the hell could they justify pulling Bags at half when he has already thown 3 TDs, 0 Int and 195 yards??????
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9015
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 1089 times
Been thanked: 1500 times

Arkansasbear wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 1:25 pm That plan won't work. How the hell could they justify pulling Bags at half when he has already thown 3 TDs, 0 Int and 195 yards??????
And gotten three women in the stands pregnant.
Image
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5294
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 816 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 1:44 pm
Arkansasbear wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 1:25 pm That plan won't work. How the hell could they justify pulling Bags at half when he has already thown 3 TDs, 0 Int and 195 yards??????
And gotten three women in the stands pregnant.
I would think that would happen to all of them???
User avatar
dave99
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 760
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:14 am
Location: Plano Texas
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 247 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 1:44 pm
Arkansasbear wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 1:25 pm That plan won't work. How the hell could they justify pulling Bags at half when he has already thown 3 TDs, 0 Int and 195 yards??????
And gotten three women in the stands pregnant.
He's OK, but he's no Sexy Rexy
NSFW
https://kissingsuzykolber.wordpress.com ... downfield/
The secret is to work less as individuals and more as a team. As a coach, I play not my eleven best, but my best eleven.
~Knute Rockne
User avatar
Bearfacts
Head Coach
Posts: 2169
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 1216 times
Been thanked: 310 times

Seems to me there are very diverse opinions about Bagent depending on whether you're a Bears fan or the writer for a national publication or website. Quite a few of them are lobbying Poles to sign a vet QB from the current list of retreads and career backups as CW's #2. I don't agree with them but that's not unusual. Bagent surprised a lot of people last year when he subbed for Fields.
User avatar
Heinz D.
MVP
Posts: 1316
Joined: Fri May 06, 2022 4:29 pm
Location: Tri-State area
Has thanked: 1228 times
Been thanked: 227 times

Bearfacts wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 5:24 pm Seems to me there are very diverse opinions about Bagent depending on whether you're a Bears fan or the writer for a national publication or website. Quite a few of them are lobbying Poles to sign a vet QB from the current list of retreads and career backups as CW's #2. I don't agree with them but that's not unusual. Bagent surprised a lot of people last year when he subbed for Fields.
Bagent did great. No reason not to make him the backup...unless he actually falters in the pre-season. The sportswriters are just freaking out that the Bears have it good in many ways...so they're manufacturing clickbait.
My mother's love was inexplicably linked to kickball.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9015
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 1089 times
Been thanked: 1500 times

Heinz D. wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 5:41 pm
Bearfacts wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2024 5:24 pm Seems to me there are very diverse opinions about Bagent depending on whether you're a Bears fan or the writer for a national publication or website. Quite a few of them are lobbying Poles to sign a vet QB from the current list of retreads and career backups as CW's #2. I don't agree with them but that's not unusual. Bagent surprised a lot of people last year when he subbed for Fields.
Bagent did great. No reason not to make him the backup...unless he actually falters in the pre-season. The sportswriters are just freaking out that the Bears have it good in many ways...so they're manufacturing clickbait.
With YouTube, sports writers are now a commodity product. There are oodles of Dude Bros out there now with varying opinions. They each take turns saying shit so people click on their content.

If we went out and signed a veteran QB, we'd be paying all kinds of money for somebody with a limited ceiling. It would be boring as hell too.

With Bags, we don't know what the ceiling is. Realistically speaking I think his ceiling is an average NFL starter. At least we have that though on a cheap deal. He had a ton of success at D2 and he's the type of player that if you invest the time, training, and reps into the investment should pay off.

Then Bags is fun as hell to watch. I absolutely love that guy and I'll always have a special place in my heart for him making last season entertaining for me.

I don't want Bags going anywhere unless if he leaves as an FA to go start someplace.
Image
HurricaneBear
Head Coach
Posts: 2483
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:56 am
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 491 times

Bagent is the primary back up unless he commits a crime. Back up QB is one of the biggest waste of money in the NFL. You pay tons of money for a Chase Daniel which is going to give you nothing. Always are better off going with a guy on his rookie deal hoping you catch lightning in a bottle and can either have a long-term quality starter or trade him for picks
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5294
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 816 times

HurricaneBear wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2024 6:05 am Bagent is the primary back up unless he commits a crime. Back up QB is one of the biggest waste of money in the NFL. You pay tons of money for a Chase Daniel which is going to give you nothing. Always are better off going with a guy on his rookie deal hoping you catch lightning in a bottle and can either have a long-term quality starter or trade him for picks
I generally agree with that. But with a rookie having a guy with substantial NFL experience he can use as a soundboard has some value. I good rolling with Bagent but if they brought in someone like a Tanneyhill I’d understand why.
User avatar
malk
Head Coach
Posts: 3706
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:10 am
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 232 times

Arkansasbear wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2024 7:35 am
HurricaneBear wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2024 6:05 am Bagent is the primary back up unless he commits a crime. Back up QB is one of the biggest waste of money in the NFL. You pay tons of money for a Chase Daniel which is going to give you nothing. Always are better off going with a guy on his rookie deal hoping you catch lightning in a bottle and can either have a long-term quality starter or trade him for picks
I generally agree with that. But with a rookie having a guy with substantial NFL experience he can use as a soundboard has some value. I good rolling with Bagent but if they brought in someone like a Tanneyhill I’d understand why.
But then just hire someone as a coach to do this so it doesn't count against the cap!

I've come around a little bit to needing a decent backup who isn't an automatic loss if your starter goes down for a few games but we've won with Bagent so he ticks that box.
"I wouldn't take him for a conditional 7th. His next contract will pay him more than he could possibly contribute.".

Noted Brain Genius Malk, Summer 2018.

(2020 update, wait, was I right...)
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5294
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 816 times

malk wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2024 7:51 am
Arkansasbear wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2024 7:35 am

I generally agree with that. But with a rookie having a guy with substantial NFL experience he can use as a soundboard has some value. I good rolling with Bagent but if they brought in someone like a Tanneyhill I’d understand why.
But then just hire someone as a coach to do this so it doesn't count against the cap!

I've come around a little bit to needing a decent backup who isn't an automatic loss if your starter goes down for a few games but we've won with Bagent so he ticks that box.
That’s a great plan if you can find someone to fill that role. I just don’t know if anyone worth it is.
User avatar
Bearfacts
Head Coach
Posts: 2169
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 1216 times
Been thanked: 310 times

Arkansasbear wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2024 7:35 am
HurricaneBear wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2024 6:05 am Bagent is the primary back up unless he commits a crime. Back up QB is one of the biggest waste of money in the NFL. You pay tons of money for a Chase Daniel which is going to give you nothing. Always are better off going with a guy on his rookie deal hoping you catch lightning in a bottle and can either have a long-term quality starter or trade him for picks
I generally agree with that. But with a rookie having a guy with substantial NFL experience he can use as a soundboard has some value. I good rolling with Bagent but if they brought in someone like a Tanneyhill I’d understand why.
This is pretty much what those opinions are based on. It's traditional to have a vet backup with starting experience playing behind a rookie so based on that alone any writer can build a story around it. In this case I don't see the need to spend on a vet QB other than Rypien whose been rumored to be a very intelligent guy and one with enough experience to help mentor both CW and Bagent.

If CW does get injured with this offense I have no problem with Bagent being the #2. What any team needs in that role is a guy who has a shot at winning 50% of his starts. Bagent did that as a rookie and I believe we can all see further upside. Out of all things to be concerned with a vet #2 QB should be low on any priority list.
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5294
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 816 times

Bearfacts wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2024 6:18 pm
Arkansasbear wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2024 7:35 am

I generally agree with that. But with a rookie having a guy with substantial NFL experience he can use as a soundboard has some value. I good rolling with Bagent but if they brought in someone like a Tanneyhill I’d understand why.
This is pretty much what those opinions are based on. It's traditional to have a vet backup with starting experience playing behind a rookie so based on that alone any writer can build a story around it. In this case I don't see the need to spend on a vet QB other than Rypien whose been rumored to be a very intelligent guy and one with enough experience to help mentor both CW and Bagent.

If CW does get injured with this offense I have no problem with Bagent being the #2. What any team needs in that role is a guy who has a shot at winning 50% of his starts. Bagent did that as a rookie and I believe we can all see further upside. Out of all things to be concerned with a vet #2 QB should be low on any priority list.
I also thin like Bagent has the potential to grow into a solid NFL QB. I’d rather him get as many reps as possible. Have to hope he gets enough reps over the next few years that we can flip him for a draft pick or when he leaves as a Fa He gets enough to factor into the comp formula. Any vet we sign doesn’t bring that potential
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

Helluva thread
User avatar
malk
Head Coach
Posts: 3706
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:10 am
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 232 times

Arkansasbear wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2024 11:20 am
malk wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2024 7:51 am

But then just hire someone as a coach to do this so it doesn't count against the cap!

I've come around a little bit to needing a decent backup who isn't an automatic loss if your starter goes down for a few games but we've won with Bagent so he ticks that box.
That’s a great plan if you can find someone to fill that role. I just don’t know if anyone worth it is.
Maybe I'm underestimating the qualities of someone like Chase Daniel as a pseudo coach but my gut feel is there would be loads? Or at least, if the relevant comparison here is Tannehill then maybe not but if you wanted someone like Mark Sanchez (I'm just guessing names here) then that's more doable, assuming you can give them a light enough workload for the money...
"I wouldn't take him for a conditional 7th. His next contract will pay him more than he could possibly contribute.".

Noted Brain Genius Malk, Summer 2018.

(2020 update, wait, was I right...)
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12742
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1390 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

I've never understood the Chase Daniel hate. He was a better player than Mitch Trubisky. I get that he's earned an insane amount of money over his career for being a backup player, but he was a good backup so lucky him, I don't begrudge him for it. If folks like Bagent, Daniel is a decent comp for that guy. Not a big arm, but his strengths are his ability to read defenses and get the ball out quickly and accurately to his playmakers. Those are Bagent's strengths as well, Bagent is a better athlete but that doesn't come into play a whole bunch with the quick throw style of play.

I hope Bagent has a long 10+ career as a backup and makes millions of dollars doing it. He's a good kid and easy to root for.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9015
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 1089 times
Been thanked: 1500 times

dplank wrote: Wed Jul 03, 2024 8:22 am I've never understood the Chase Daniel hate. He was a better player than Mitch Trubisky. I get that he's earned an insane amount of money over his career for being a backup player, but he was a good backup so lucky him, I don't begrudge him for it. If folks like Bagent, Daniel is a decent comp for that guy. Not a big arm, but his strengths are his ability to read defenses and get the ball out quickly and accurately to his playmakers. Those are Bagent's strengths as well, Bagent is a better athlete but that doesn't come into play a whole bunch with the quick throw style of play.

I hope Bagent has a long 10+ career as a backup and makes millions of dollars doing it. He's a good kid and easy to root for.
Isn’t Chase Daniel a McNagy Disciple? Like the Teacher’s Pet.

That and he just sucks.
Image
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6764
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 2250 times

dplank wrote: Wed Jul 03, 2024 8:22 am I've never understood the Chase Daniel hate. He was a better player than Mitch Trubisky.
That's overegging it. The guy only started 5 games and threw 273 passes in his whole career. Trubisky's done a lot more in his.

I don't think anyone hates Daniel. They might regret the Bears paying him so much as a backup, although it wasn't widely out of keeping for a veteran in that role. I expect he would be better regarded if Trubisky had panned out given he was brought in as a mentor for his experience in the offense Nagy ran (or tried to run might be more accurate).

Personally I prefer the Bears having a younger guy like Bagent who might just amount to something rather than a journeyman backup whose ceiling is well-established.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12742
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1390 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Wed Jul 03, 2024 9:21 am
dplank wrote: Wed Jul 03, 2024 8:22 am I've never understood the Chase Daniel hate. He was a better player than Mitch Trubisky.
That's overegging it. The guy only started 5 games and threw 273 passes in his whole career. Trubisky's done a lot more in his.

I don't think anyone hates Daniel. They might regret the Bears paying him so much as a backup, although it wasn't widely out of keeping for a veteran in that role. I expect he would be better regarded if Trubisky had panned out given he was brought in as a mentor for his experience in the offense Nagy ran (or tried to run might be more accurate).

Personally I prefer the Bears having a younger guy like Bagent who might just amount to something rather than a journeyman backup whose ceiling is well-established.
All I know is when Daniel stepped in for an injured Trubisky, our offense immediately got better. It looked a lot like when Bagent stepped in for Fields, all of the sudden the ball started coming out and we started stacking 1st downs and having better control of the game. No big plays, just consistently getting the ball where it belonged. Justin seemed to learn from that and when he came back he emulated that style much more than he had pre-injury. Guys like Daniel/Bagent are ideal backups IMO, they can hold down the fort and run your offense efficiently for a short stretch.
User avatar
Moriarty
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7188
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Daniels definitely made great money, taking very little punishment to his body, serving as an insurance policy that rarely got called on. That everyone can agree on.

Some people hate/underrate him oddly.
When the Bears signed him, I hated it because they were giving a low upside, untested (2 career starts), unexciting physical tools guy robust backup money.
But, in the rare instances that he was needed by the Bears (3 starts), he delivered. 91 rating and 24ppg. What more could you ask from a backup who's not there to grow into a starter?
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)

Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12742
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1390 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

Moriarty wrote: Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:44 am Daniels definitely made great money, taking very little punishment to his body, serving as an insurance policy that rarely got called on. That everyone can agree on.

Some people hate/underrate him oddly.
When the Bears signed him, I hated it because they were giving a low upside, untested (2 career starts), unexciting physical tools guy robust backup money.
But, in the rare instances that he was needed by the Bears (3 starts), he delivered. 91 rating and 24ppg. What more could you ask from a backup who's not there to grow into a starter?
Yep, agree completely. He also completed 70% of his passes. Dude was efficient. And I firmly believe he was a better player than Mitch, that's not hyperbole.
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5294
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 816 times

dplank wrote: Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:04 am
Moriarty wrote: Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:44 am Daniels definitely made great money, taking very little punishment to his body, serving as an insurance policy that rarely got called on. That everyone can agree on.

Some people hate/underrate him oddly.
When the Bears signed him, I hated it because they were giving a low upside, untested (2 career starts), unexciting physical tools guy robust backup money.
But, in the rare instances that he was needed by the Bears (3 starts), he delivered. 91 rating and 24ppg. What more could you ask from a backup who's not there to grow into a starter?
Yep, agree completely. He also completed 70% of his passes. Dude was efficient. And I firmly believe he was a better player than Mitch, that's not hyperbole.
This from the guy who thinks Lewis was better than Urlacher. :evilgrin: :frustrated: :flick: :welcome:

I don't get the hate for the guy. He had a great run, made a ton of money and his quality of life if going to be a lot higher later in life than guys who got beat up all the time.

TMP posted about we haven't have many guys that seem like they would be good dudes to drink beer with and eat pizza. I think he would be on that list.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12742
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1390 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

If you poll 100 NFL "experts" on Lewis vs Urlacher, I bet that 98 of them would say Lewis (and really, it might be 100 unless some of them are Bears fans).
User avatar
BreadNCircuses
Assistant Coach
Posts: 534
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:34 pm
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 88 times

I'm sure he'll start a few preseason games...
2023 Preseason Downside prediction:
5-6 wins, never really healthy all season, a constant shuffling.
We're potentially in a position to draft in the Top 5 again, depending on the Carolina team, and probably have a low-teens (or better) pick ourselves.
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5294
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 816 times

dplank wrote: Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:54 am If you poll 100 NFL "experts" on Lewis vs Urlacher, I bet that 98 of them would say Lewis (and really, it might be 100 unless some of them are Bears fans).
I AM A BEARS FAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know I kid you. Like I've said before, I think the difference in their stats is more a reflection of what they were asked to do a a player due to the system they were in. Lewis was an athletic freak but Urlacher was a super freak. I think Urlacher would have been just as good as Lewis if he played for the Ravens, but I don't know if Lewis would have been as productive as Urlacher if he was playing for Lovie. Lewis did play 4 more years and that should mean something.
Post Reply