jason

Look, I can't help it if he doesn't have a dictionary and can't read the definition for the word "automatically." Wesson's starting offensive lineup: QB - Thomas Jones - Afterall, a bigger arm means stronger throws. RB - Usain Bolt - Dude is the fastest guy on the planet, right? FB - Bryant McKinnie - 6'8", 360lbs. He would obviously be the best FB of all time. Who could stop him? WR - Luc Longley. Thanks for that one TD WR - Omer Asik. Gotta go with another Bull. TE - Ali Villanueva. 6'11", 285lbs. HA! Cutler just has to throw it in the air like Jeff Blake! UNSTOPPABLE. LT - Konishiki LG - John Brower Minnoch - 1400lbs. Try to get around him! C - Toniu Fonoti - At 320lbs or so he's obviously the lightest, but we need a player at this position who can see past his gut to touch the ball. RG - Manuel Uribe - 1300lbs. Best OG tandem ever? RT - Akebono In all seriousness, if bigger were always better, Wes Welker wouldn't have made the NFL, and the Denver Broncos OL wouldn't have been one of the best for all those years when it was one of the lightest. Although, I wouldn't mind seeing Cutler stand in the pocket behind the fat-OL above for the series they play before they got tired.

You could potentially be the mose dense person to ever post on this forum. You contradicted yourself within your first two sentences. If they no longer play WR, they are not WRs. Why don't you understand that? The draft has nothing to do with the game if the players are moved to another position because of their lack of production/ability/opportunity at their original position. Summarization... A- Weems and Thomas are now ST players. That's all there is to it. If a player can't cut it at their drafted position, but they are talented elsewhere, they may make a team's roster at another position. That makes them the new position, not the one in which they were drafted. That topic of talent is why I was in favor of... B- Devin Hester's position change. Devin Hester didn't really have a position when he was drafted, was drafted as an athlete, became an amazing returner, and had more raw ability than perhaps any player since Barry Sanders. A player like that you try to find opportunities for. But even someone as immensely physically talented as Hester initially struggled. That initial struggle is why I'm against... C- Henry Melton playing FB. Him playing FB doesn't make a lot of sense since he hasn't done it in a while, he isn't a dominant performer at his current position, the initial struggle is likely, the likelihood of injury increases, the Bears already have a FB on the roster, and already have two starting-quality RBs on the roster. Your last point is stupid for two reasons: 1. Nobody on this board has influence, so there is no point bringing it up. Again. 2. You don't know that the change will be positive. Neither do the coaches. And that's the entire point of having a board like this, where we get to pontificate on what the players, coaches, GMs, etc. should do since we don't have influence (see #1)

Say it with me: 1. None of these players are Devin Hester. 2. More weight doesn't automatically make someone a better blocker 3. More height doesn't automatically make someone a better pass receiver Do they weigh more or stand taller? Sure. And if all the battles came down to pure mass or all misthrown balls were just a little high, you'd have a point. I'd say the number of INTs Cutler threw that were directy attributable to WRs not attacking the ball is very minimal. More were caused me QB pressure, bad routes by Knox, and poor throwing mechanics. Jeffery shouldn't be handed the #2 position because he's taller, or because he was drafted higher. If the player in front of him knows the routes and playbook better, steps up during the game, makes clutch catches, and goes all out in all facets of the game, then Jeffery should get the reps he deserves...which is less than the starter. If you were the GM, we'd draft nothing but 6'6" WRs and 350lb FBs.

Likewise, dude, likewise. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it a beauty pageant contestant. Both players, no matter how much PT you and their moms hope they get at WR, are playing way more ST than O. And in the case of Weems, it will be about 99.5% ST to .5% WR. That makes them guys who play ST but were drafted to be WRs. Weems and Thomas were drafted as WRs, but now play on STs. It's not like the Bears management said, "Dude! Did you see Weems on the two catches he had last year?! Holy hell, we gotta sign that guy and get him in on offense!" Also, if you mention nonsense about Devin Hester (trust me, the comparison is nonsense for multiple reasons) to support your claim, I'm going to point out why it's nonsense. By your logic the Bears should pass around a sheet in the locker and ask everyone what they positions they played in college, and if they'd like to get some reps in at any positions in which they don't currently see the field.

Perhaps. But I think it's more about the time of adjustment. The learning curve. There is no doubt he was hurt the first two years during the move to WR. But after the two year adjustment period he posted some of the best return numbers of his career. He's averaged more PR yards the past two years than when he was shocking the world...and with only two less TDs to boot.

1. Now that Hester has been playing WR for several years, the "what position were the drafted"-point is inconsequential. 1a. Bringing up Hester's position is kind of silly since he's potentially the most exciting, elusive, explosive player in NFL history since Barry Sanders. 2. You realize the Bears aren't going to throw 20 jump balls a game, right?

We've heard hyperbole and coach-speak before. I'll wait to see the results before I blindly buy in.

The point is not moot. You don't think very deeply on any of this, do you? What was the result of moving a ST player to WR? 1. He became an average WR. 2. More importantly, his ability and impact on ST (you know, where he's best at) was immediately diminished. Just go to his stats and you can see he's listed as a PR year one, KR/PR year two, and then PR/WR thereafter. First two years as a primary ST player (what he is), 11 return TDs. The next two years when they force-fed him into a WR role? 0 return TDs. It took him three years to get back to his old self. Funny, we're back to full circle on this thread topic where the idea of using Melton at FB is tossed around. Learn from the Hester experiment; we don't need a three year experiment at FB. Sorry, dude, other than the players and their mothers, you're about the only person in the world who considers Weems and Thomas primarily WRs. Weems had 189 touches on ST the past three years, and 6 receptions. He's exclusively a ST player. End of discussion. Thomas is at least in possession of more career receptions than a good WR gets in one game, but he's still got more ST touches (60) to receptions (43) - which is why I said Thomas was the only one even up for debate.

I don't know why you're being so oblivious about this. Common convention and roster size doesn't allow any team to just pick up ST players, so they have to pick up guys who are ST players who happen to have a position after their name. The position after their name means nothing, however, because in reality their position is ST. There is no debating that Weems and Thomas are unlikely to see the field on offense. Your argument is akin to saying Doug Flutie should be called a kicker because he did that drop kick one time. His normal position, where he was on the field 99.9% of the time, was QB. Therefore, he's a QB. Is Forte a QB because he gets to throw one or two passes per year? No. He's a RB. Similarly, Thomas and Weems are ST players until something drastic happens to Marshall, Hester, Bennett, and Jeffery...maybe even Sanz. Here's a good article about the subject. Go to Google and type in "Eric Weems"+"Chicago Bears"... Link 1: "Kick returner/wide receiver" 2: "Special Teams Ace" 3: "Return Man" 4: "Return Specialist and Gunner on Special Teams" 5: "Special Teams Ace" The ONLY player up for debate is Thomas - absolutely killed it last year with 3 receptions - who maaaaybe will win the #5 battle over Sanz, and that's only because Knox is injured. BTW, the answer to your question of where they will line up? Regardless of the lead or deficit, their primary position on the Bears will be on Special Teams.

I don't buy that for one moment. Regardelss of talent, the quick slant is a route that has been used for eons, and the Packers have gutted the Bears for years with it. Despite that, however, the Bears very infrequently used it in recent memory. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the Bears didn't even use the entire route tree. Having the talent helps, but exploiting the talent available helps more. And that's what I don't think has happened very well.

You're contradicting yourself. If he earns the position, that implies he is the best player for the job.

Read the article. That's the entire point.

I would think mass transit advantages would be one of the reasons the Bears WOULD host a Super Bowl. The L is awesome, the Metra has a wide reach from Wisconsin to Dekalb County to almost Gary, Indiana, and the bus schedules in Chicago are very convenient. Weather? Not so much.

Maybe a little bit premature, but the odds are out for week 1. The Bears are ten point favorites. Is that an indication of how good the Bears are going to be, how bad the Colts were, or both?

Anyone care to enlighten me with the inside knowledge of what happened involving the McDome and all other details? http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...,2107439.column

Yes, true, I hope so. But I wonder what will happen if/when the TOP victory leads to less stats for Cutler, Marshall, et al. Will there be problems on defense? What I hope for is the end of predictability. The last four or five OCs have been utterly predictable, especially Turner. I look forward to the day of seeing a formation and being consistently surprised about the results of the play. Far too often in the past we can see the formation and know immediately what is going to happen. If we can guess the play, so can the opponents.

LOL! Awesome.

My god how many times does this have to be explained to you? They did not get 4 WRs. They got two WRs, and two dudes who will play almost exclusively on ST. And, as stated, just because the Bears make a move doesn't make it the right thing to do. You may side with them, but if you side with them on everything you have about a 50% chance of being wrong.

Yes, because every move the Bears have ever made has been the correct move.

You are oversimplifying the word "easy." Do the Bears and other teams know the Packers are probably passing? Yes. Can they stop the Packers from passing successfully? Not really. Therefore, it's not all that easy to gameplan against them, because their offense still scores. If they have superior talent or a seemingly unstoppable play, then it requires a defensive adjustment (i.e. game-planning), and if that adjustment doesn't produce results, they are still difficult to gameplan against.

And yet, despite all his measurables, Summers was not drafted. It's not impossible to be an UDFA and make the NFL, but the odds are slimmer and it's an indication that the people in the NFL do not believe the player's talents equate to the NFL field.

Wesson Just like it was easy to game plan against the Packers because they had a week running game Me ...don't kid yourself, it was FAR from easy to gameplan against the Packers. They've been tearing the entire league a new ass for more than a few years. AZ54 Maybe scoring 10pts is getting torn up in your opinion but it seems to me one team has been right there holding their offense in check. (provides list of games in which Bears give up 22 PPG) Me I point out the 22PPG figure, and the oddity of that one game in which the Bears' D played well while the Packers' O played poorly. Then I ask you, "Do you consider giving up three TDs per game a defensive success for the Bears?" The reason for the question is obvious: The Bears gave up 22PPG, and the 10pt. game was an anomaly. My advice would be to read the ENTIRE thread. I simply replied to Wesson's original "the Packers are easy to gameplan against" statement by categorically and simply disproving it. Also, I never stated whether 22 PPG was successful; I merely asked a question. But you are right, the Bears have shown better success against the Packers' offense than average. One must also consider, if bringing up the Bears 22PPG, that they had more combined TDs via KR, PR, and Fumble/INT return than any other team in the league. Over a quarter of their TDs were non-offensive. The Packers, meanwhile, nearly doubled the Bears' total TDs and only had 10% of their TDs come from non-offensive sources, further proving the difficulty in gameplanning for their offense.

So the Bears have done better than average against the Packers...but still given up over 3 TDs per game. Interesting.

I admit the situations are different (especially the position switching), but I expect your full support in the next TO, Randy Moss, or OchoCinco thread.

Height does not necessarily equate to increased production, better hands, the ability to catch, the ability to run routes, shielding off defenders, making the catch at the maximum height possible, or a variety of other concepts that seem to elude you. If all of it did, then every team in the NFL would have something like a 95% success rate in the red zone with the fade route and/or jump ball.