jason

I don't know how/where you're getting your numbers, but I put together a quick spreadsheet for the top ten targeted "receivers" last year: Name Tgts Rec Comp.% QBAtt Team % Megatron 205 122 59.51% 727 28.20% Wayne 194 106 54.64% 627 30.94% Marshall 194 118 60.82% 434 44.70% Welker 174 118 67.82% 637 27.32% A.Johnson 164 112 68.29% 544 30.15% Green 164 97 59.15% 528 31.06% Fitzgerald 153 71 46.41% 555 27.57% Witten 150 110 73.33% 648 23.15% S.Johnson 148 79 53.38% 505 29.31% Vjax 147 72 48.98% 527 27.89% That alone points to a problem. He garnered 44% of the team's targets. No other WR in the NFL was even close. All an opposing defense had to do last year was bracket Marshall, and the Bears' offense was in trouble. Cutler could then throw into coverage where 2 out of 3 possibilities were negative (e.g. INT, INC). After that...time for Cutler to run.

1. I contend that Bennett was open more often than he was targeted, and his percentage could have increased if he were thrown to when he were open, instead of the forced throw to Marshall. 2. Perhaps, which is why I only allocated a very small change to targets for Davis. 3. Imagine you're playing pickup basketball, and there is a guy on the other team that four of your five opponents absolutely hate (i.e. Jordan freeze out in the all star game). You simply don't guard him as closely because you know he's not getting the ball. I think this happened last year because the opponents knew Cutler was going to throw to Marshall. 4. Based on pure percentages, you are right. But in this fictitious world of reallocating targets, it's pretty easy to remember more than one play where someone was open when Cutler threw it to a bracketed Marshall. In this case, it stands to reason that an NFL player, particularly someone with good hands like Bennett, would have made an open catch where Marshall could not make a closely defended catch. You can't really use the current percentages in this alternate scenario because they would obviously change. Hence, Cutler's completion percentage goes up. 5. It is speculation, but that doesn't mean it's not true. Teams that are more balanced have a better chance of taxing the opposing defense. This is just common sense. And if the opponents viewed Bennett, Jeffery, or anyone else as a greater threat, they would have had to devote less attention to Marshall. You don't spread it around for the sake of just spreading it around (i.e. your #9 hitter), but it makes more sense to let your #2 guy bat a bit more when the #1 guy has handcuffs on. As for the other years, I don't think that's a fair assessment. For one, last year we had a mental midget running the offense, and the OL was horrible. Cutler rarely had time to get to the second read. I make no arguments about Marshall being the first read. He should be. But when you look up, see him covered, and then realize as a QB you better run for your life, there isn't a lot of time to get to #2. Same goes for the previous several years. And at no time, regardless of what Bennett or Hester or Knox did/do, are they going to be #1s, regardless of how mistaken Lovie Smith was. All three are, at best, complimentary. Therefore, we're back to the scenario of an offense having reads, and the QB making those reads, and all of those complimentary guys are not going to be #1 reads. No problem normally, but when you can't get to a second read because your OL falls apart, it affects overall numbers. For the record, if Bushrod, Slauson, and Long pan out, I expect Cutler to have a freaking monster year. This offense's problem has been OL the entire time Cutler has been here. Period.

Depressing end to a storied career.

You're right. To a degree. Obviously they're not going to take away 20% of Marshall's targets and feed them to Davis. The return on investment would plummet. If, however, they simply took 1% away and gave that to Davis, and maybe 5% to Bennett, then it's entirely logical the following would have happened (in relative order): 1. Bennett would have had more touches, and played better. This is purely about percentages since he had just about the same % as Marshall. 2. Davis would have had more touches, and possibly played better. This is purely about confidence. 3. Marshall would have seen fewer double and triple teams. 4. Cutler would have had a better completion percentage overall (i.e. not ignoring 1 & 2, and benefiting from a non-blanketed Marshall). 5. The Bears offense would have been better. This ain't rocket science.

I don't see how you can point to targets as a sign of WR inconsistency. Inconsistency stems from receiving percentage. It may have to do with Cutler's trust in them, but that has more to do with Cutler than it has to do with them. They cannot catch the ball if they are not thrown the ball. I don't have a "got open percentage," but the receiving percentage says that the targets are more Cutler's fault than anyone else. Bennett, for instance, has always had great hands. If he had seen the ball more, maybe Cutler's confidence in him grows, maybe Bennett has more catches, a better percentage, and Marshall's burden is lessened. The first domino must fall for the entire string of dominoes to become involved.

How do you figure? Bennett had nearly the exact same receiving percentage that Marshall did, except he was used (i.e. targeted) FAR, FAR less. Hester wasn't far behind. Marshall - 192 targets, 118 catches, 61.5% receiving percentage Bennett - 49 targets, 29 catches, 59.2% receiving percentage Hester - 40 targets, 23 catches, 57.5% receiving percentage Jeffery - 48 targets, 24 catches, 50.0% receiving percentage Davis - 44 targets, 19 catches, 43.2% receiving percentage And I'm sure if Cutler didn't throw over their wide open heads a few times to a double/triple teamed Marshall, their percentages would be higher. Come to think of it, so would Marshall's. Win-win for the Bears. Hell, maybe even Davis would have been better...doubtful, but possible.

If tape of offensive linemen playing poorly warrants being cut, then the Bears will be doing a lot more cutting than just Carimi. Expect to see Webb, Garza, and just about everyone else dropped from the ranks as well.

That stat is complete shit. Without factoring QB scrambling, QB hits, QB hurries, blown plays, throw always, etc., etc. the stat is incomplete. I'd say his average time til sack was higher because he had to run away more often because his protection broke down so much quicker than most others.

This thread reeks of "correlation causation." He could be staying in AZ because: -He talked to a coach who asked him where he felt most comfortable rehabbing -He simply wants to rehab in AZ -He is making great strides in AZ and wants to shock the new coaches with his physique/explosiveness/etc. -He figures he's going to get cut, so he might as well be healthy for his next team and train where he wants -He was given the playbook and told as long as he has it down by minicamp they didn't care as much about OTAs -He made the decision to stay in AZ on a Thursday In other words, we don't know why he's staying in AZ. It could be a bad move for him. It could be a good move for him.

Agreed. I guess it's diff'rent strokes for different folks, but I'm not sure of the world when this is unattractive:

Seriously?! At one point she was one of the most famous pseudo celebrities out there. She was VERY in demand, all over the tv, and, oh yeah, she's worth a ridiculous amount of money. As far as worth/status goes, and it pains me to say this, Paris Hilton could have done much better.

Getting rid of him this early would be stupid in terms of finances, depth, and youth. On top of that, it reeks of Colombo.

I like that one. I, and many of my friends, have always held the belief that a fantasy football team name should be either be vulgar, funny, topical, or all three. One of my Yahoo team names last year was Penn State Shower Wrasslers.

Expect a quick read of the D, a snap, a peak at the first option. At that point, either the ball will be thrown or the camera angle will jar suddenly with a quick snapping movement right. If its the latter option, the footage will show QB feet in the air, with a befuddled Webb in the background, as impact causes the screen to go blank like a cliche horror movie.

If the intention all along was to move Long to OT, then I thin the Warford pick would be a great one.

I have never, in the many years posting on this board, disagreed with someone more often than you. As much as I don't like the movements made by the organization over the past decade or so, I would probably be dead if you were in charge. You'd have probably started the draft (without hindsight) Eifert and Amerson (i.e. backup and backup).

Ditto. I would have preferred pure BPA in the first round since Floyd was so highly regarded, and because it would have set up Warford in the second, but that ship has sailed.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9259106/...roit-lions-2013 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That was the intent. I'm with you. Floyd seems like a stud pick in terms of BPA, and starting out with Floyd then Warford would appear to be a better start than Long then Bostic.

THAT IS THE POINT. It is supposed to be a hindsight 20/20 draft. We don't have the inside knowledge to know when someone might get drafted, but they do. Therefore, the only way this makes sense is if we pretend we knew. As a result, we can predict Warford would be there in the second, and we could draft BPA in the first if a highly rated player inexplicably fell.

In other news, professional sports teams piss on fans and put out reports of rain. This is nothing new. What are they supposed to say? The Chicago Bears officially report that they think Jamarcus Webb will suck, just like the rest of the time he's been in a Chicago Bears uniform. They hope to use him as a swing tackle at best, and hope he doesn't have a drug relapse that costs them Jay Cutler for the year.

You're right...for some reason (busy at work) I was thinking that we, as a board, steered away from Long with the collective first rounder. I like OL, but even I wouldn't have gone OG, OG in the first two rounds. This was simply a misunderstanding.

As far as I'm concerned, you can end it right there. Warford was a 2nd round, at worst, talent. He was a mega-steal in the early part of the third. But others have a hard-on (for some reason) for a backup TE. Spence would have been the next guy on the list.

It's like politics, minds won't be changed. Right now, however, marijuana is illegal. You and Webb don't like it? Go through legal channels to fight it. Until then, you shouldn't do it, particularly if you have a job where your physical and mental preparedness is directly related to the health of another person, not to mention the potential millions (billions?) your organization stands to gain should you perform well enough to actually help the team win a Super Bowl.

I'm not skeptical because I'm an arm-chair analyst. I'm skeptical because I'm a Bears fan. Until proven otherwise, skepticism should be expected. Regarding Lovie and the pads...I believe that may very well be a true statement.