Alaskan Grizzly

If Sproles became available, at a reasonale amount, then he would be a good option. What the heck is San Diego up to? Who are they gonna have at RB next year? As far as Westbrook, no thanks. Like I said earlier, he is a great guy but really can't contribute especially given his injury history. I do find it ironic that some would consider Westbrook, with his injuries and being a more "seasoned" vet but when players like Holt (older vet) and Boldin ("injury-prone") are mentioned they are both dismissed for the same reasons. Hmm....

In case you didn't hear, or know it was coming, Brian Westbrook was released (?) earlier today from the Philadelphia Eagles. Link.... http://www.philly.com/inquirer/breaking/sp..._Westbrook.html Weird thing I saw on NFL Network was something about how his release wouldn't go into effect until start of the next season(?). Don't understand. Is that so he can retire or something? And no this is not a post to advocate the Bears try and sign him. He's a great guy but not needed, just like LT.

Would the same hold true if Cutler had been injured at the beginning of the season, unable to play for the remainder of the year? In order to bomb I would think that he would have had to had the chance, as did Pace, to play the full year and not really show any contribution. The fact that he fell injured twice, I might add, doesn't really constitute utter failure as you suggest. Instead, if he were to return to the field this year and not do anything or fall injured again, then maybe I would cast the light of failure upon him. Or that he has considerably bad luck. However, based upon not only his past but his desire to do well for the Bears, I feel he has not yet "bombed".

Remember we are in the "silly season" of the NFL.... This article in relation to the Ruskell hiring and the possible acquisition of???? http://blog.seattlepi.com/football/archives/194687.asp

You forgot about Tinoisomoa. Hasn't bombed but still undetermined.... Holt would still be able to contribute in other ways, not necessarily as just a receiver. Think on the field coach. By the by, no thanks on Bulger. Good kid but the Bears don't need him. I think Hanie is suitable. He reminds me a lot of Orton.

One VERY good reason why Holt would be a good addition to the Bears roster. I don't think that it would need to be any longer than one year so that he could "help" out and nurture the youngsters. Do it.

I think it's getting close to the time to put this horse to rest. It looks as though the more we disagree, the more we actually agree. Oddly enough....and hence why I elimintated the first half of the reply. We are at an impasse with most of those points it would appear. Our agreement was to the statment you made of "developing young players" and that you were good with that. We differ in that I feel it possible to do this with some of the folks on OL, DL and Safety where you think it possible only with WR. I see and understand what it is you have written, and appreciate it all. Again, this was to start another perspective look at if we are collectively acceptable to the idea of developing talent at the WR position then why don't we afford that to the positions that most are concerned with? That being DL, OL and FS. It seems silly to overlook the possible talent in the pool and cast the line elsewhere and catching another unknown especially at 3rd round. But then again a fair number here don't think the coaching staff does all that good at judging players and properly placing them. However, that is another discussion entirely.

Your writing suggests tha I am here to just start trouble, when in fact, as I stated before all I'm doing is trying to stimulate conversation. I DO BELIEVE a lot of what I am writing and BELIEVE that many "unknown" players can become "known" as you have indicated that you believe the WR's on the staff have done. With Idonije, who signed on with the Bears in '04 I would still consider him a raw talent in that he hasn't been developed to his potential. Watching him play, especially these last few years, he appears to be steadily improving. On Brown I am not sure what your exact problem with him is. Getting "about 6 sacks" is pretty good, better than none. And then as if to prove your point of how bad he is you state "he is a solid all around DE". Again, what else do you need? Good question, if the current players (all included) that are on the roster are not the answer, what is the solution? For the most part we agree on this aspect except for "they are all SS". The only listing the team roster has them is as S not FS or SS. And, as you mentioned earlier, the Tampa 2 is designed for more a two FS system (coverage and much rotation or movement) which again, Steltz handled ok toward the end of the season and Afalava earlier in the season. the part we do agree on is having a player like Rhodes join the team. Again, we agree on something. On the Bears lineup in 2-3 years from now I could envision (from L-R); Williams, Beekman, Kreutz*, Garza, Shaffer-maybe. *With Kreutz I differ from your perspective that he is at the end or his career. Nearer than when he started, yes but not AT the end. Just for "oops and giggles" some other Centers out there: Kevin Mawae (Tenn) drafted in 1994 age 39, Jeff Saturday (Ind) drafted in 1998 age 34, Kreutz drafted 1998 age 32 and Shaun Ohara (NYG) drafted in 2000 age 32. Of the other three I listed I would be interested in your perspective on how faded they might be considering you have a player like 2,000 yard rusher Chris Johnson in Tennessee, Peyton Manning (who can stand around all day) in Indianapolis and the likes of Brandon Jacobs, Ahmad Bradshaw and Eli Manning in NY. I think Kreutz easily has another 3-4 years left in him. When was that again? Preseason? You almost contradict your own thought in that you earlier state that you have concerns with the Bears developing (or allowing to develop) 6th and 7th round picks along the OL but then are OK with a 5th rounder doing so. Again, and most of the point of this whole "debate" is why can't the same opportunity be afforded for these other young players?

Again, about the WR staff. I am not at all sold completely on Hester as one let alone in "up" category. Otherwise, fair assessment. Kreutz still has it and if he doesn't then Beekman is noted as both G/C if really need be. Why don't you mention any of the others on the roster? Probably because they are "unknown". Can't really appraise what you haven't seen, I understand. FS: Not true. Please refer to earlier reference. And as far as SS: same there. As I mentioned earlier, I will go with the team needing more depth only because there is a small number of safeties listed. I think someone mentioned that FS Kerry Rhodes (currently of the NYJ) could be had for the right deal. The more I look at it, the more I like it.

NFO, maybe you missed the title of my original post. And just so we are clear here is the actual definition from Dictionary.com: (n) a person who advocates an opposing or unpopular cause for the sake of argument or to expose it to a thorough examination. Although I originally posted because I wanted to go the route of "thorough examination" I am ok with the constant title of "sake of argument". Again, this is a place to debate, discuss and otherwise contemplate all that is Bears, or so I've been told. I deleted the WR "discussion" for now. As this seems to be ongoing here and elsewhere.... You forgot about Israel Idonije, Anthony Adams and Matt Toeaina (sp). How do these guys figure in? They aren't all that horrible. Adams played the full season and did pretty good. I still think he would make a pretty decent NT, if the Bears ran that form of Defense. Idonije is raw and pretty decent himself. Proven a lot on special teams. Not so sure your assessment of Alex Brown is accurate. Brown is a consistent player who makes plays on a regular basis (although not every down). Harris has always been an under performer for some reason. Not because he is a bad player, because he chooses to be. If I recollect he does better when Urlacher plays. Hmm... What do you need a Jared Allen or Dwight Freeney? Those players are few and far between and by the way, will cost a ton to retain. Those currently on the Bears staff are really not that bad. And yes, I do believe that. Actually both are listed as just Safety on the roster. And, Steltz was drafted to be the starting FS out of LSU and Afalava played FS at Oregon. So, not sure what you mean that they aren't capable. If you are referring to Chris Harris; what was wrong with Harris? He actually played pretty well and has done so since going back to the Panthers. And Payne, actually, is listed as the starting SS so I'll agree that he isn't the solution to FS. But, if you believe it's because the team is needing depth (only 5 Safeties listed) then yes it would be a good idea to draft or go FA. But you never answered my question in the first place. How do you or I know these guys aren't capable? What do you need a complete rebuild? If 4 of 5 are performing as needed then how many replacements do you need? I don't get the concept of "replacing or rebuilding the Oline". How many times did you hear analysts say last season's OL didn't have time to gel? You have to admit, there was a lot of tinkering throughout the year, especially when Pace and Omiyale disappointed early on. However, did they not look better at the end of the year? I believe that Martz has even said that given the right coaching (Tice) that the line has a lot of potential...as is. Or something of that nature. I wouldn't say I don't care who is put in the line. But what do the Bears have in those other players? Or are you suggesting you can find someone better in the 3rd? Or FA? Didn't they try that a few times last year?? And yes I believe, like you believe about the WR's, that the Bears should nurture/test/try (whatever you want to call it) what is there before going and redoing the whole group. You say you SAW these WR's perform pretty well and stepped up as hoped. I still say it was because of Cutler and not much else but, again you can't tell me that the unknowns of the other positions mentioned had much a chance to prove themselves. Especially on Offense (remember the TUrner factor). And on Defense I still stand by the original notion that those of the "2nd team" still managed to play pretty well at the end of the season. Those that do, do and those that don't...write about it.

OK. A good number here have gone back and forth on whether the Bears should entertain bringing in a veteran WR, like Boldin or Holt, with those opposed seemingly and in concert saying that the current staff (of WR's) is fine and not to mess with it. Further those in support of that "argument" state that bringing in a veteran player like the above mentioned would also hamper those currently on the staff from getting in the game and being noticed. One thing that a lot of folks agree with, for or against, is that Turner was unable to test the talent around him as he didn't have a creative bone in his body. So, now that Martz is in the fold and seeing another post say that they think he is the "total opposite" I pose this quandary. Using the same thought process why are so many thinking the Bears need more help in the OL, DL and FS positions? I, for one, think the current DL staff isn't all that bad especially when you consider the rotation idea that Lovie has been implementing as of late. Heck, you have two (last year) rookies that have yet to show their ability; Melton and Gilbert. A lot of people here further stated that they believed the team started to show marked improvement in the last two games, both on Offense and Defense. Particularly in the Minnesota game where it was virtually "2nd teamers" playing on the Defense. If that is the case why this sudden need for OL and FS? On FS. There are two relatively brand new players in Al Afalava (Oregon rookie in 09) and Craig Steltz (LSU rookie in 08) that actually showed some promise both early in the season and late in the season, mostly Steltz as Afalava was injured. Now if it is backup that you are concerned with, how will you go about finding that? More on that in a minute. On OL. I would be ok with the release of Pace. He is beyond his prime and didn't seem to improve at all as the season progressed. Williams was able to prove his worth and need to stay at the LT position. Kreutz, IMHO, still has a few good years left in him. He is a leader and still has the drive to play. Garza, most will agree, is still solid. Of the not-so-sures, Shaffer seemed to have something left and played admirably at the RT but more time will prove otherwise or not. Omiyale? Well, like Pace I wouldn't be so broken up if he were shown the door either. He couldn't do anything right. Which brings me to the unproven talent. Again, keep in mind the argument has been made about bringing in a veteran player and displacing the unknown talent. In that group (at OL) we have a veritable host of unknowns; Josh Beekman (Boston College rookie in 07) - who a lot of folks here and on other sites think could be the missing piece on the OL the Bears need, in place of Omiyale. Tyler Reed (Penn State rookie in 06) plays Guard. Anyone ever seen him play? James Marten (Boston College rookie in 07) plays Tackle, does he know Beekman? And lastly, Lance Louis (San Diego State rookie in 09) listed as both a Tackle and Guard so which is it? I know someone is going to tell me that most of these guys are on the Practice Roster but really how many more OLmen do the Bears need? If it's just one or two players that need replacing, on the starting line, why can't one of these four be the solution? So going back to the original question. Where is the solution to either of these positions? (Of those in the opinion that they need fixing). FA? Again, I would cite the counter argument made that bringing in another veteran could only delay or hamper some of the unproven youth already on the team. Is it in the draft? How much an impact do any of you believe can be found at 3rd round that could or should displace the current players at any of the positions mentioned above? Then there is the trade option. But that is a totally different topic of discussion altogether.

Not the only reasons. I believe there were players like T. Jones, Hester, Briggs, Mark Anderson and his breakout rookie year*, Bernard Berrian, Tank Johnson, Chris Harris (Tillman and Vasher and their respective Pro Bowl years). Some of these players were not "hand-me downs" but instead players that were drafted or traded for during Lovie's tenure. However again, all these players contributed in many ways more than just the two players you pointed out. You remember the promises that Lovie made when he was hired right? Beat Green Bay - check Win the Division - check Go to the Super Bowl - check And he is the third winning-est coach in Bears history after "Papa" Bear Halas and Ditka. Pretty good in my book. * - from Wikipedia

Or it could be simple strategy pre-draft, pre-free agency and pre-trade, fluff talk. Again, time will tell.

Sorry, I misunderstood your quoting him with agreeing with him. My bad. Knox was a rookie. How much more consistency do you not need? Not sure what you mean exactly. As far as him being "limited", I don't see it as his fault but Turner's play calling, or lack thereof. But that problem has been resolved. Bennett, I believe, is a solid clutch receiver. He doesn't necessarily need to have big play capability if he is sure to catch the pass thrown his way. Neither of the points you made necessarily make Hester better than either one, or give him the "nod". I hope that you are right about this one. I just hope he doesn't turn out to be another (former fellow Sooner) Mark Bradley. And having egg on one's face is not flattering. Again, Iglesais could have very easily been held back because of Turner's lack of ingenuity. Or was it because Hester was holding the spot??? Hmmm.... I go with Turner's lack of creativity or adaptability.

I'll give you this one, I misunderstood a remark you made. Unfortunately we don't agree on his potential. (You as a receiver, I as trade material). I disagree with your "final point" but only time will tell on who is closer to right on that one. Speaking of testing time and waiting for results....you forgot one more "simply put"....neither of us is Jerry Angelo, Lovie Smith or Mike Martz.

Simply put, you don't have complete faith in Hester's ability to become a better WR. Instead of potential you say the "learning curve" is lacking. And Holt didn't have Cutler throwing to him. Give him a one year deal, see how it works out if not...away he goes.

I will concede that he is the "Bears #1 receiver" in the sense that he was in that position. His stats are really not all that better than the rest of the receivers on the team so.... I still cannot agree that he is the "best WR".

And that player should be Hester....

"1. When it comes to numbers, I think one of the key numbers talked about is percentage of passes thrown his way which were caught. That does in fact imply an ability to get open. Look at Holt as an example to the opposite, just as he has been recently talked about elsewhere. Holt has lost more than just a step, and in Jax, he really struggled to get separation. That is really shown in how many of the passes thrown his way fell incomplete. Sure, some were simply bad passes, but many were also defended as he just couldn't get enough sep from the DB. Hester however was able to get open, and thus a very high percentage of passes thrown his way were caught. When Hester's numbers have been thrown out there, I think that is one of the biggest, or most important, ones to look at." Yes there are differences but other than TD's, their stats are almost identical. HESTER: (09) 57 / 757 yards with 58.2 avg/game and 3 TD. HOLT - (09) 51 / 722 yards with 48.1 avg / game and no TD's. You can skew this however you want but those numbers are not all that different. Again, unless you count the TD's. And even then Olsen still has a significant lead for the team with 8. "2. You say he has a year of experience on the other young WRs. That is true on one level, but not entirely true IMHO. I would argue other receivers on our team, while less experienced on the NFL level, are actually more experienced WRs. That is something that just doesn't get enough consideration. Hester was not a WR in college. He played some WR, but played so many other position, including even defense, that he never really developed at WR that way other WRs on our team had. Bennett entered the NFL a far more polished WR than Hester. Heck, even Knox as a rookie was a more polished WR than Hester. Hester may have been more adapted to the speed of the NFL and the playbook, but at the same time,he was also still in the process of learning to play the WR position, thus I am not sure it truly accurate to state he was more experienced than the other, younger WRs on the roster. Remember, the first year he was a Bear, he was actually considered a DB, and the 2nd year, he really only was considered a gimick WR. It was not until his 3rd season he was actually tudored to be a WR. The key for me is he has continued to develop. He is still not a polished WR, but again, he is continuing to to develop, which to me shows he has not hit his ceiling yet." I couldn't agree with you more. My point should have been taken with a bit cynicism. The fact that he is learning should bother you, as it does me. The fact that these other WR's on the roster are ACTUALLY WR's coming out of college gives me a lot of hope for coming years. As you mentioned, they need experience to the speed of the NFL and things will start to gel. "IMHO, if Hester had the trade value he had a few years ago, I think many more fans would be on board w/ the idea of trading him today, but that value is gone down considerably. His value as a WR, as you said, is very minimal. He has proven he can play WR, but has not proven yet he can play at a level that would attract a ton of trade value. As a returner, he once looked like the best returner EVER, but for the last two years has looked average or below average. His trade value is simply so low that you have to really ask whether it is even worth it. Hester still has potential, both as a WR and returner, and I would argue his value to the team is greater than his trade value. That is why I think most fans are not on board w/ the idea of trading him. It isn't that he is considered an untradable player, but that is value in a trade just isn't there." I totally agree, as I have posted before. The rest is speculative. Especially with Hester, as was discussed earlier. "I just don't see the trade bait. Hester just doesn't have the trade value. If you believed half the arguments you use to give the impression of his having trade value, why then even trade him. No, I think the rest of the league right now see's him in the same light as you, which is why you want to get rid of him, but also why other teams would not be willing to give up anything of substance for him.". Because my belief in ANY of his trade value is for his returning abilities. I don't think the Bears need three players that can blow a game open with their return game (Knox and Manning being the other two). Pair that with his "potential" Now with recent news that a) Boldin could be had for a third rounder then I say do it and package Hester in it and b ) Hester might be a decent slot receiver with occasional return duties, according to Martz, I say give it a shot but not without trying option A first.

Uhm, I be willing to give a third round and Hester. That should seal the deal.

I saw your earlier reply post to my own and am now just getting caught up. To address that point first. As I told another poster earlier on, your interpretation of numbers are different than mine own. I too wrote down Hester's numbers and compared them to the other "main" recievers on the roster and he proved nothing extraordinary compared to them. Something else I didn't point out was that not only was he the "#1" receiver but he also had at least one year on the other youngsters and still was not able to seperate, or define himself as the primary receiver. Again my point is his trade, or should I say tradeable, value. Hester has the possibility of being partially decent WR but he does have those other intangiables that other teams might want or need. That primarily being as a return man. Unfortunately he is about a year removed from it and hasn't had the chance to show his skills so his trade value is diminishing daily. As far as the WR value, it is a non-factor to other teams. I actually did address the Randy Moss, Wes Welker and Tom Brady relationship and who you or I might think is the #1 versus how Brady looks at it. Moss produces more in the way of TD's but Welker is "looked at" a larger percentage of the time. So, who would be the #1 in that situation? I say, like another poster earlier stated, the #1 WR idea is a misnomer (he actually said "stupid"). And if you read the first half to this post you will see that I don't believe that the Bears are without "trade bait".

Perhaps an explanation to my way of thinking. First off, we all agree that Hester is not (nor will he be) a #1 receiver. Waiting in the wings, and true WR's I might add, are Aromashadu, Knox, Bennett, Iglesias and even Olsen. Someone like Holt could only solidify that core as an experienced (and true) WR. Hester is more just a "maybe" than a "will be". Next, if he (Hester) stays in Chicago for just returns or gimmicky play then again the Bears have Knox and Manning more than capable to handle that. What says that some team out there doesn't think that Hester could prove a missing dimension for them and not be willing to part with a 3rd or even 2nd round pick or even a player of similar value, but in another position? After all most here think the Bears are in need of an OL, FS or DL and fromwhat I hear, this years draft is chock full of pretty good FS. So why not use Hester to help buildthe future in other positions rather than follow the Lions plan of overstocking the WR position?

The numbers that Holt had last year in Jacksonville; 51 for 757, will make Hester even that more "normal" thus, expendable. Trade him (Hester) while the iron is hot.

Well said sir. Further it was said that Lovie destroyed a Super Bowl team. Tell me again how the team got there in the first place? Was that team handed to him on a "silver platter"?

Yep. Not much more to say. Millen undoubtedly was the constant force behind a consistently unimpressive team. The Bears are no Lions. And Cowher won't need bother apply after the Bears make the playoffs next season.