jason

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.

They said the same thing about Tice, and he was horrible.

As I've stated before, we should be more critical with an unproven staff. Not more optimistic. Trust is earned. Whether or not a coach gives a player a chance on ability or not is sort of a red herring, because ultimately it still comes down to performance. Love and staff may have, ignorantly, believed Webb was a good player. Maybe their OL evaluation skills were just horrible? Given the status of the OL over the last 5-6 years that could be entirely possible. Did they think they were doing what was best for the team to win? Of course. Did it result in the necessary wins? Well, neither are with Chicago. I don't think any coach actively submarines their own team, but that doesn't make them oracles of all football decisions. They can F up too...we should know, we saw Lovie do plenty of it.

Let me put it another way...If the staff moves Carimi to OG, he obviously won't get the reps needed to fully compete at OT. No Mike Tice stuff at all, just a matter of position on a football field. And if Webb "wins" the RT battle, I still don't think he gives the Bears the best chance to win.

That would be Monday Night Futbol.