jason

I don't know if this is a simple reply of truth, or a clever double entendre. If it's simple truth, I agree. Mayer sucks. If not, bravo for lacing sarcasm and a reference to one of my favorite lines from Taken.

Your whole premise is based on a big if. Especially for a guy who has limited football background and knowledge, and has bounced from team to team without significant playing time. And the saying goes, "if frogs had wings..."

It's infuriating! I asked legit questions in the past, and they never get answered. Almost nothing of significance ever gets answered. Maybe next he can answer whether Jay Cutler has the starter's role locked up this year.

http://www.chicagobears.com/news/chalk-tal...d0-394fa8a6cdcf Will Lance Briggs be moved to middle linebacker to control the defense? Seriously? SERIOUSLY!? These are the questions he gets? These are the questions he answers?! If the question was sent from someone on this board...

Actually, I'm not a big ERod fan. I'm a "don't waste a draft pick before actually trying to use his skill set and seeing what he has"-fan. The Bears have done far too much of this in recent years. It aggravates me. Don't freaking draft a guy unless there are plans to use him. I'm completely alright with picking up Cinnabon for the exact reasons you mentioned (i.e. basketball pedigree), but I loathe mismanagement of personnel. It's one of the main reasons why I hate how the Bears have dicked around with the OL for years, putting a G at C, a C at G, a T at G, and a scrub at T.

:lol:

Here you go again. :shakehead

Lined Up Using They could line him up at WR, TE, FB, and QB but if they run, run, pass deep, and direct snap to the RB, respectively, then he's not being used. Like last year. BTW, all this kind of stuff was discussed in ERod's comical draft thread. Wow, were there a lot of wrong people in that one.

Are using? When the hell did that happen? Did I miss that season? Or are you going off of what has been said about the upcoming season? We've been teased with the double-TE formation enough times that it was a positive in the running game one season and a positive in the passing game in another. I gotta see it to believe it. And, thus far, ERod has most certainly not been used "all over the field." But, yeah, let's go ahead and basically throw away a pass-catching, hybrid TE who excelled in college for a guy who is tall. Football Player > Measurables.

That's how I remember it too. I remember thinking, "We own the Falcons as long as Vick is their QB. Thanks Urlacher."

Michael Wright, despite working for ESPN, obviously didn't look at Urlacher's stats. Even the ESPN link within his own article to Urlacher's player page does not produce 1779 tackles. ESPN has him at 1353 total tackles.

No, I did not. But from your brief synopsis, it sounds like he's probably right. I think a lot of Carimi's problems last year with the bull rush dealt with anchoring himself too high or not leaning into the block. He was so worried about beat on edges that he just let the defender plow him. Then after the defender did that, Carimi was confused and often guessed on his mechanics. He should deliver just as many pass blocking hits as he receives, if not more.

Likewise. For some reason the offseason morphs opinions, and turns bad players into average players (see: Webb) and bad players into horrible players (see: Carimi). Carimi showed enough promise in run-blocking alone to be given a chance to compete. The fact that he was coming off of injury, and dicked around by one of the most overwhelmed coaches in recent history (Tice), should be the icing on the cake.

Measurables Football skills Hester has better measurables than Bennett, but there is no mistaking who is the better receiver. I'd still rather see ERod at the #2 TE position than a project like Cinnabon. There is a reason ERod was drafted in the 4th; he should be used for that reason.

Does he belong in the pantheon? Does he belong in the HoF? Let's make a quick comparison... Player A: 12 seasons, 179 games, 19 sacks, 7 INTs, 0 TDs, 12 Fumble Recoveries (FRs), 1488 tackles*, 2 DPOY, 10 Probowls Player B: 12** seasons, 180 games, 41.5 sacks, 22 INTs, 2 TDs, 15 FRs, 1358 tackles***, 1 DPOY, 8 Probowls Player C: 9 seasons, 119 games, ??? sacks, 22 INTs, 27 FRs, 1020 tackles****, 2 DPOY*****, 8 Probowls Which player is better? A case could be made for any of the three. They're that close. Player A is Singletary. Player B is Urlacher. Player C is Butkus. It's sort of an apples to oranges discussion considering defensive scheme, but the argument isn't about whether Urlacher is HoF worthy; that's undeniable. The real argument is whether or not he's the best MLB in Chicago Bear history. I never got to see Butkus play (other than highlight reels), but he appears to win the battle. More tackles per game than the others, the same INTs as Urlacher in three less seasons (not to mention the fact that Butkus certainly wasn't playing in the Lovie-2), and a ridiculous number of fumble recoveries shapes my opinion considerably. My opinion: Butkus > Urlacher > Singletary *Found Singletary's tackles on Wikipedia **We won't count 2009 when Urlacher played in a single game. ***There seems to be disagreement on Urlacher's tackles. NFL: 1229, Profootballreference: 1358, ESPN: 1353 ****Wikipedia again *****NEA NFL DPOY

I'd rather see ERod as the #2 TE than Cinnabon.

The summary: I think I didn't make it clear. I think Cutler didn't have a choice most of the time other than throwing to the #1 read. I just think they should have designed more plays where another player was the #1 read. THEN, if that guy is covered Cutler could just look towards Marshall and heave it like Cade McNown used to do with MRob. The result would not have been much different than throwing into double or triple coverage when he is the primary target anyway. 1. This relates to your point in 5, but confidence helps. I think confidence would make most better, and in terms of more targets, Bennett better percentage-wise. It's like a RB getting three carries up the gut on 3rd and 1. His YPC isn't going to be great. But give him another 10 carries not in that situation, and his average climbs. Same thought process. There could still be excuses. Adding the pieces is only the first step. The pieces must perform. If Bushrod and Slauson sucks, we still have the OL problem. If they don't suck, but Trestman decides to call the equivalent of slamming Garrett Wolfe into the middle of the line three straight times, then we have what I'll call the "Ron Turner Special." There could still be excuses.

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.