Move to the outside might benefit Urlacher

You would have had a hard time finding anyone last summer who believed Brian Urlacher needed a contract extension, except, of course, for Urlacher himself.

And you'd have an even more difficult time today unearthing anyone who thinks that money was well spent.

You knew the guy was not the same after all the injuries, hits and brutality of the last decade, during which he played some tremendous football and earned some considerable cash.

But watching the Bears last weekend, albeit against a CFL team in St. Louis, an idea came to mind that might make Urlacher look more like Urlacher.

Why not switch Urlacher and Lance Briggs?

One thing Urlacher can still do is run. He can't cover much, but he can run, and in open space when a lineman or a fullback isn't hammering him, he can still make plays.

Inside, he can't shed a block, but outside he'll have more room to freelance when the opportunity presents, and maybe even - forgive me - blitz.

As it stands, the Bears are forced to bring Mike Brown up to help against the run. The offense reads that and adjusts. If Brown drifts back, then the offense knows where to go.

But as much as you have to love Brown, there doesn't seem to be much chance he'll return in 2009, and this would be the time to move Kevin Payne to the correct safety spot.

And then move Briggs inside, where he's better suited at this point in their careers to handle the job.

Meanwhile, Urlacher with a chance to move around would be able to make plays using his legs, and maybe even crush a quarterback every now and then.

Look, we take nothing away from his great career, and you have to believe with the way that he's playing that Urlacher's nowhere near healthy.

And there's no point any longer in debating the contract, because it's over and done with, but as long as you've got to pay him, why not try to get more out of him?

Urlacher's got nothing to apologize for since he earned every penny of the last deal he signed, and he didn't hold a gun to anyone's head when the Bears gave him a new contract.

He bluffed and the Bears folded.

But there would be no shame in moving back outside after all the great years of productivity inside. If he stays inside, next year is going to be worse, and the punishment will take a greater toll.

There's also no guarantee that a move would bring a huge change for Urlacher, but it would add some years to his career, and it would give the Bears better play in the middle.

Urlacher has led the Bears in tackles every season of his career, excluding 2004, when he missed several games due to injury.

But he's not going to finish first this year, and is currently third behind Briggs and Payne.

This is likely to become the norm as Urlacher gets older.

Again, there is no shame in aging, and Urlacher's phenomenal resume speaks for itself.

There's also no disgrace in moving to a position where he can start making plays again and maybe even resuscitate a terrific career that appears to be on the downside.

Radical idea? Perhaps. Absurd? Maybe.

But at this point, what have they got to lose?

brozner@dailyherald.com