jason

That's a good point. From the outside, it looks like the system can turn an average Joe into a productive QB. Maybe the coaches realize it was a fluke? Maybe they realize, like you said, it just highlighted what McCown does well?

Yeah, but how many of those offensive coordinators just plain sucked to begin with? It's not like Chicago has been synonymous for offensive success in the past three decades.

Which goes to the heart of this entire thread (i.e. should the Bears have kept Hester). Knowing what we know now (i.e. $3M per year), it makes much more sense and virtually nobody thinks he should have been kept at that figure, but at the time of this thread's start, we didn't know the financial decisions and it was a special teams related decision (i.e. your statement about "accountability"). If you don't trust his coaching prowess yet in regards to the D/ST, what made you think it was such a good decision for them to basically cut Hester? Was it just your recollection of the games? Because, based on his stats last year, he wasn't much different than preceding years. His punt return avg. was a bit down, but his kickoff return avg. was up significantly. I just think people expect him to remain a superhero for too long. Eleven kick returns in his first two years is an impossible standard to live up to. Devin Hester was the only guy to average over 27 on kickoffs and over 14 on punts last year. Add that to the other stats I listed in the Devin Hester main thread, where he's top 5 or so in just about everything, and I just don't understand where someone with your opinion could support it.

I get what you're saying, but this goes back to the ludicrous "just because he's taller, he's better" discussion we had. 6'2" doesn't mean shit if he can't get open and can't catch. I'll take Wes Welker or Danny Amendola every day of the week over Hixon.

EDIT - Replied before seeing the link. I don't like that Hester left. I think it was a mistake. But even I, his staunchest supporter on this site, didn't think $3M was feasible unless he played a little WR. EDIT 2 The same reasoning is why I thought the Weems signing was stupid, since he was virtually never a WR.

MUCH RESPECT for you posting that Webb comparison.

You're going to use 2013 WR stats for Hester? Really? The point I'm making is, Hixon came in as a WR. He's done nearly nothing. Hester came in as an athlete/DB, and has produced a much better receiving career than Hixon, where Hixon's best season is comparable to Hester's third best season.

I don't see how you can unequivocally say that. Hester has had better seasons.

Agreed. That's why there was such a discussion about whether to keep/extend Cutler. Let's analyze that... Chicago fans were actually debating whether or not the Bears should keep their franchise, pro-bowl QB instead of a journeyman scrub who caught lightning in a bottle with Trestman's offense. Money was obviously paramount in this debate, but it's pretty telling of the offensive production that McCown not only elicits that discussion, but parlays it into a starting gig on another team. I'd prefer a cheap stop-gap at backup QB, just in case (when) Cutler gets hurt. And support that with a mid-round rookie who Trestman can mold.

Hate the TE pick that early. Makes very little sense.

Actually, it's more of a combination of who replaces Hester and what he does in Atlanta. If Hester is similar to what he was this past season for the Bears, then it was a bad idea to replace him unless his replacement does similarly or better at a discounted price.

I trust Trestman's decisions on offense over me too. I think everyone should, obviously. But your last sentence is where the problem is...we can't trust his opinion on special teams yet.

Your points are good, but when I watch the highlights I see a guy with good anticipation, angles, speed, and a pretty good understanding of the defensive alignment. I see nearly none of this when I watch Conte make mistakes (although he's not specifically highlighted). I think as a rookie he'd be an immediate improvement over Conte.

HaHa Clinton-Dix is elite talent.

Great job!

It's in the general theme of this thread. Just because Trestman didn't want him as a WR doesn't necessarily make it a good move, nor does his offensive improvement absolve him of the decline in D and ST. In fact, it directly relates to the decision making in regards to Hester (i. e. This thread).

It's not that simple. It's only that simple for the offense. The D and ST got worse. It's really that simple.

I remember. That's why I never really thought the concept of him being a #1 WR made sense. Hell, I went to a game and had a sign that told him which way to run because he kept going backwards. Having said that, if the coaches give him a small number of plays, a small number of routes, and simple responsibilities, I think he could be successful. Give him just the corner, post, and fade. If he works OK with those, maybe add a dig or out route. As soon as he starts to obviously have problems, scale it back to the last thing he did well. The key here is to minimize it since he's going to be a #3 at best, and more likely a #4.

Old school works better...then you don't have to change it more than every year or so...kind of like cracker's underwear and/or colostomy bag.

And that doesn't even take into account how much of a leader Urlacher was on the field. The defense definitely suffered as a result of having no discernible leader out there last year.

If Hester is a member of Mensa, and I'm below him, then you're somewhere between a homunculus and a stupid jellyfish (not one of the smart ones). Oh, and BTW, Hester was never going to be a #1 WR like Lovie thought, but he was a serviceable 3rd or 4th WR. He doesn't have the biggest or best hands, and he's certainly not the smartest, but he can run a deep pattern and get under the ball. If you recall correctly, he was severely underthrown and poorly overthrown on a handful of passes when running deep during the "WR experiment"-years. Everyone asking for a speedy WR who can stretch the field and catch 20-30 passes a year should have wanted Hester back. The problem he had was that they tried to turn him into a #1, which he isn't.

Again...eat shit. I have been right FAR more times than I've been wrong in regards to the Bears' picks and FA moves, and there is little chance I would have put a worse product on the field than the Bears have over the last decade. I've said before that I don't keep up with the salary cap, but I definitely would have made better moves and draft picks. This is a bad move for the Bears. Hester is still one of the most elite return guys in the NFL, and he's exactly the burner the Bears need at the 4th WR position. He won't get many catches, or many passes for that matter, but he stretches the field for Marshall and Jeffery. This is especially bad for the Bears if when the contract details come out we find he was had for 1-2 million. The Bears will be worse on ST next year without him. I called the D being significantly worse last year without Urlacher (injuries weren't predicted), and I'm calling this one. Bad move.

These are only proposals. That doesn't mean they'll come true. If they do come true, then Hester's value is lessened. If they don't, he still has more value than vet minimum.

Horrible idea. And it won't change the impact or collisions. Now teams will pooch more often. Besides, even if you kick deep, there is still a massive collision with the guys running full speed for 10-15 yards into that first wave of blockers. Just a horrible idea.

I think Matthews would make this offense unstoppable, but it would hurt the defense. Overall, I don't like this draft, but I think this would be Forte's reaction.