Alaskan Grizzly

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.

You say Tomato, I say TomAHto. I plugged in the percentage of the actual catches to targets. I interpret that Hester did "pedestrian" compared to the other three that you showed as an example. Especially given that he didn't blow the doors off the other three in the percentages and theoretically being the #1. By the way you left out Olsen in your figures. What was his ratio? Another thing to notice was the TD production. Hester paled in that regard to two of the three you mentioned. And to Olsen, who made 8 trips to the endzone by the way. And one last thing to mention is that Aromashadu made his stats in 9 games not the 12 that Hester played in. There is almost no question in my mind that Aromashadu will (should) be #1 next year and Bennett will be the "clutch" receiver. Whatever ends up happening, I am pretty excited about the potential given that all the receivers you mentioned were either in their rookie year or first year playing full time. Olsen is the most experienced of the group and he has only been on the team for 4 years.

I know there was a post somewhere where I actually disproved that Hester was the #1 receiver. I think the only stat he led was YPG. And it was 4 not 3 games that he missed. And being "on pace" versus actually making a 1,000 yards are two different things. Ironically I find it funny that you compare Boldin - who you say is injury prone to Hester who was...injured for those 4 games. But, as I proved in my earlier post, Boldin still outproduced Hester, and he's a #2. Aromashadu did more overall with less time (9 games) and PROBABLY would have been even more meaningful to the team had Cutler been able to get him in the rotation sooner. Thusly, having someone like Aromashodu get more "looks" or catches as opposed to Hester would indeed improve the overall receiving game. I even believe that Knox and Bennett getting more looks will improve the game, especially with one full year under their belts.

There is a lot of speculative thinking in this post. A lot of "I think" and "Tice amd Martz seem..." say you not only don't know exactly how things are going to go you HOPE they do. Two things you said; "He took an ultra-talented team...and turned it into a steaming pile" which year are you referencing? The year they went to the Super Bowl or ??? That year would contradict you statemen. The second; "He (Martz) single handedly cost the Rams a SuperBowl..." Which Super Bowl was it? He did make it to two while coaching with the Rams after all. And his overall record as an HC is 56-36 (per Wikipedia) which in myh book is not a losing trend. As far as the Defensive side. Most here would agree that the Defense improved in the last two games of the season. Especially in that game against Minnesota. The Defense played inspired and seemed pretty happy when they sacked Favre, or caused Peterson to fumble. And this was despite 4-5 of their starters not being in the game. What was that again about "undeveloped talent"?. Now if the trend continues and someone like Marinelli is running the "D" with his "sis boom bah" type of coaching, who knows? They could end up being pretty darn good. I believe that Pix was being speculative too about how things are going to be in the coming year. But at least it's positive speculation. I have to agree that if your are so dissatisfied with the direction of this team and want to follow another team until the Bears rise to prominence once again, then please enjoy watching your new team. My money's on the Bears making it back to the playoffs in the next season. See you then.

Nicely done MadLith. This is the most optimistic I've seen you in awhile. What's this world coming to? I also agreed twice in one week with Terra Tor. Holy Cow. And DaBearzSox... you do know that that McCaskey's are direct decendants of #6 that MadLith referenced above right? To not have them in the mix would be like taking the apple out of the pie.

Ding, ding, ding. Now we're talkin'!!!! "Trade for Boldin or Marshall". Sounds like a great idea. And I'm not so sure that taking Hester out of the WR rotation makes things "worse". He really isn't that integral.

For what its worth: 4850-4900 yards passing. (He will scare a lot with closing in on 5,000) 35-38 TD's 19 INT's 20 +/- Sacks (which could nullify most other stats) And 10 Rushing TD's. I envision Martz doing a lot of his "greatest show on turf" but a fair amount of rollouts for Cutler. Additionally, Forte will resemble Faulk a lot. I see him doing more outside running and a lot of screens and catches out of the backfield.

The fact that I continue to agree with Terra is starting to unnerve me. In fact, I couldn't agree more. I would go as far as to say and suggest that Hester is done (or should be) as a WR, slot or otherwise. In fact, the Bears should showcase his return abilities maybe in training camp, and that he still has "it" , and trade him before the season. The Bears missed their opportunity a few years back but there is still hope on his value.

Although I don't agree wholeheartedly with TerraTor about the "useless" tag for Hester, I agree (scary in its own right) that Hester is out of place and as you agree, definitely not a #1. I did a comparison, using Rotoworld, to stats with all the other receivers for the Bears (in 09); Aromashodu, Bennett, Knox, Olsen and Hester. Hester actually rated 2nd in total yards to Bennett (682 - 690), 2nd in catches to Olsen (54 - 55) and 3rd in TD's (3 - Knox 5 - Olsen 7). He did get #1 in average yards a game (56.8 - Bennett 46). Aromashodu made his stats in only 9 games and not all the players, save Olsen, played more than 15 games. So the idea of "ASSUMING" that Hester would make the "80+ catches, over 1000 yards and 6-8 TD's" is not only an anti-sure bet but possibly would still not make him a number 1. In fact the fact that he missed those 4 games doesn't bode well for his durability. I took the numbers from Eddie Royal who is/was Denver's #2 and through 15 games in 08 he got 91 catches for 980 yards and 5 TD's whereas in '09 with 14 games he caught 37 passes for 345 yards with 0 TD's. Something you will notice is the dropoff from 08 to 09 and possibly the coincidence of Cutler not being their QB. Whereas Cutler being the QB in Chicago in 09 did not dramatically bring Hester up to loftier numbers('08- 51/665 yds for 3 TD and '09 54/682 for 3 TD). This despite his (Hester's) alleged rise to the #1 WR spot. Lastly, Boldin I believe is the more #1 the Bears need to consider. Not only is he adequate in size but that is his "natural" position. His stats for 09 and in 14 games 81/986 yards and 4 TD's. So, Hester is not really "useless" as a WR but instead he is more misplaced and missing out on his true talent at KR and PR. I fear he has passed his other value in trade value.

Right, if the Bears stayed with the Tampa 2. The premise for moving Tillman to FS was that I had recently read a suggestion of the Bears looking at the 3-4 base defense. And in that role, Tillman would be just about right for the FS. The big lure for me is having 4 LB's at the middle level, especially with as much passing that goes on and especially the "dink and dunk" type associated with the West Coast style. That is a killer for the Tampa 2, as has been evidenced over the last few years. Rhodes would still be a sweet pickup though.

As awesome as it would seem and in a word: No. He was available last year for negotiations and I don't think the Bears even sniffed that direction. I think he may need to much money, which we all know is a repellent....usually. As far as a FA that is still out there unsigned that I would really like to see come to Chitown; Derrick Brooks.