Chicago Bears Offseason 2012

[Guest]

This should have been detected and taken care of weeks ago when the soreness started, are the Bears doctors taken lessons from the Bulls doctors in terms of incompetence? Then again, this is the same team that allowed him to play in a completely meaningless regular season game that brought on this injury.

 

They tried rest. He came back to practice, he didn't feel good about how it went, so they went for the surgery.

 

 

As for that part in bold, completely ridiculous.

[Banedon]

This should have been detected and taken care of weeks ago when the soreness started, are the Bears doctors taken lessons from the Bulls doctors in terms of incompetence? Then again, this is the same team that allowed him to play in a completely meaningless regular season game that brought on this injury.

 

You're all over the place here, but most doctors would much rather treat via therapy rather than surgery. Often times they have to wait for a certain amount of swelling to go down before a surgery as well. None of us are doctors here.

[Banedon]

@ZachZaidman

 

#Bears announce Brian Urlacher had arthoscopic debridement procedure on left knee Tuesday; goal to play in season opener unchanged.

[Theo]

This should have been detected and taken care of weeks ago when the soreness started, are the Bears doctors taken lessons from the Bulls doctors in terms of incompetence? Then again, this is the same team that allowed him to play in a completely meaningless regular season game that brought on this injury.

 

They tried rest. He came back to practice, he didn't feel good about how it went, so they went for the surgery.

 

 

As for that part in bold, completely ridiculous.

No its not. There was no reason for him, or any valuable starter to play in that last game against the Vikings.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'd rather he sit out the first month and try to play out the rest of the season than make the goal be showing up for the first game. If they can't beat Indy without Urlacher they aren't that good anyway.

[Guest]

This should have been detected and taken care of weeks ago when the soreness started, are the Bears doctors taken lessons from the Bulls doctors in terms of incompetence? Then again, this is the same team that allowed him to play in a completely meaningless regular season game that brought on this injury.

 

They tried rest. He came back to practice, he didn't feel good about how it went, so they went for the surgery.

 

 

As for that part in bold, completely ridiculous.

No its not. There was no reason for him, or any valuable starter to play in that last game against the Vikings.

 

Why stop there?

[Banedon]

It is accepted practice that non-surgical, conservative treatments be tried first when attempting to manage knee osteoarthritis. When non-surgical treatments fail, it may be time to look into joint surgery. Arthroscopic debridement is one surgical option -- but experts have suggested it only be performed on certain patients and for the right reasons.

[Old Style]

Oh boy. Will he be healthy at all this season or will it be a recurring problem?

[jersey cubs fan]

Oh boy. Will he be healthy at all this season or will it be a recurring problem?

 

It is definitely going to be a recurring problem.

[tfarks]

Oh boy. Will he be healthy at all this season or will it be a recurring problem?

 

Recurring without a doubt. He can make it through the season though. Especially if this scope went well.

[Tyrant]

I'd rather he sit out the first month and try to play out the rest of the season than make the goal be showing up for the first game. If they can't beat Indy without Urlacher they aren't that good anyway.

 

This. I'd even go as far as saying to sit him out the first three games of the year to really make sure he's feeling better. That should still be two easy wins against the Colts and Rams, then just take your chances with the Packers.

 

Not that they'll ever do it.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'd rather he sit out the first month and try to play out the rest of the season than make the goal be showing up for the first game. If they can't beat Indy without Urlacher they aren't that good anyway.

 

This. I'd even go as far as saying to sit him out the first three games of the year to really make sure he's feeling better. That should still be two easy wins against the Colts and Rams, then just take your chances with the Packers.

 

Not that they'll ever do it.

 

The first month of the season I referred to equals the first three games of the year.

[Tyrant]

I'd rather he sit out the first month and try to play out the rest of the season than make the goal be showing up for the first game. If they can't beat Indy without Urlacher they aren't that good anyway.

 

This. I'd even go as far as saying to sit him out the first three games of the year to really make sure he's feeling better. That should still be two easy wins against the Colts and Rams, then just take your chances with the Packers.

 

Not that they'll ever do it.

 

The first month of the season I referred to equals the first three games of the year.

 

I don't have time to read multiple sentences.

[davell]

Sitting him out is what I'd do too. But with him in a FA season, if he is technically healthy and is wanting to play, can we get by with sitting him and not looking bad because of it?

[davell]

And, by the way, is it blasphamous for me to say I hope we move on from him after this year?

[minnesotacubsfan]

Sitting him out is what I'd do too. But with him in a FA season, if he is technically healthy and is wanting to play, can we get by with sitting him and not looking bad because of it?

 

He's hurt, so yes we can

[davell]

Sitting him out is what I'd do too. But with him in a FA season, if he is technically healthy and is wanting to play, can we get by with sitting him and not looking bad because of it?

 

He's hurt, so yes we can

I understand he's hurt, but if he's healthy enough to be listed as probable, for instance? Is he going to become disenchanted and act or at least insinuate we're holding him back during a FA year? I know he's the "team leader" and all, but I could see that becoming a distraction.

[Sammy Sofa]

And, by the way, is it blasphamous for me to say I hope we move on from him after this year?

 

Why would it be?

[Banedon]

Biggs points out that the Bears first 2 games are within 5 days of one another. Might at the very least make sense to skip the Colts game. He can come back for GB and then have 10 days before the STL game.

[apete6]

And, by the way, is it blasphamous for me to say I hope we move on from him after this year?

 

No, that is a fine thing to say. He's going to be 35 years old. Not too many MLB can keep going that long. He's a HOF franchise icon, but everyone needs to move on. Without this injury, I thought he had 2-4 good years ahead of him. Now? He may be done, or at least done as we know him.

 

However, moving on from him basically means moving on from the Cover 2, which is basically only successful at this point in its existence because of #54. There are maybe 5 other people in the entire world who can do what he can do in that defense and I'm pretty sure none of them will be available to the Bears. Now, I know the Bears don't run Cover 2 on many plays, but it is their base defense and their personnel is tailored to it (smaller DT, very fast DE, ballhawking, yet not great covering DBs) and it will be hard to transition to a more effective defense in 1 offseason.

[Banedon]

And, by the way, is it blasphamous for me to say I hope we move on from him after this year?

 

Only in that we don't really have a replacement, and that if he's healthy and performing, there's no reason we shouldn't keep him.

[davell]

And, by the way, is it blasphamous for me to say I hope we move on from him after this year?

 

Why would it be?

I guess it's just the meatballs that'll be pissed as hell if he's not a lifetime Bear. I guess it's been proven many times guys don't typically get to stick in one place anyway.

[Cubswin11]

Sitting him out is what I'd do too. But with him in a FA season, if he is technically healthy and is wanting to play, can we get by with sitting him and not looking bad because of it?

 

He's hurt, so yes we can

I understand he's hurt, but if he's healthy enough to be listed as probable, for instance? Is he going to become disenchanted and act or at least insinuate we're holding him back during a FA year? I know he's the "team leader" and all, but I could see that becoming a distraction.

He's 35 and just had a procedure on his knee, I think the organization has every right to be careful with him and hold him back. Especially with the first 2 games so close together.

[rawaction]

This happens all the time. peyton's neck, Carimi's knee. Its not really a set back in the sense that he is re-injured. I imagine that he wont play week 1, but could be in for GB. I probably wouldnt re-sign him though unless its very team friendly

[jersey cubs fan]

it will be hard to transition to a more effective defense in 1 offseason.

 

I don't think it would be that hard. Teams make massive transitions all the time. On offense maybe it will take time to click, but defense is basically just about the talent and the scheme can change from play to play, game to game and very easily over the course of an offseason.