In response to DougIrwin's comment:
[QUOTE]

In response to pats-fan-2007's comment:
[QUOTE]

I like this signing. Badly needed depth.

Question, though: if he led the Bears in tackles last year, why did he only get a minimum contract from the Pats? Seems like there is something there we're not privvy to.

[/QUOTE]

My take is, the Bears are in a cap hell and had to choose who they were holding on to.  Briggs is older and not necessarily as replaceable as the Bears try to hide their very, very old D which is about to combust.

So, there is no point in blocking any younger LB in the mix to be part of a new core at the position.   Briggs has more ability to transition to a new base, so they decided to put the money to Briggs, with McLellin and Bostic being the newbies in there.

Finally, Anderson is not a good LB vs the run, so his skills are limited. I am kind of chuckling at some here giddy over this signing where it's not a lock he makes the team.

After that, he is truly a 4th LB or specialist LB, so at age 30, he can choose where he wants to go for a ring.

It's here.

 

[/QUOTE]

no one is giddy. the team is void of talent at LB after the front 3 of Mayo, Hightower and Collins, with zero depth. this defense was burned repeatedly last season due to no LB could cover. Anderson, by no means a pro bowler, is head and shoulders above what is currently on the roster with regards to coverage LB.

you mention BB being a master of roster depth, well Anderson is just what you have been ranting about. Roster depth at LB, finally. Team needs another LB that can actually get on the field other than ST's...even with the Anderson signing...preferably one that can play inside