jason

Moose of then vs. TO and Moss of now, I agree. If that's the issue it's just a matter of miscommunication. Even though I think Moose was highly overrated at the time. But if we're talking Moose of then vs. TO/Moss of the same year(s), then I stand by what I said. Out of the three, Moose was a distant third, despite coming off of his one huge year.

All of what you've said may be true, but I'd love it if the Bears just took a chance of catching lightning in a bottle. As for Moose, tell DBDB that. When he came up for FA it was after his one big year, he was overrated, and paid as a #1, but he was never more valuable or highly thought of than TO or Moss. Saying otherwise is just a fabrication.

Moose wasn't a maybe, but he WAS a question mark, and he certainly wasn't valued over Moss or Owens. I distinctly remember saying that he was valued too highly because he had a career year in 2004 (most yards and TDs of his career) and tricked people into thinking he was better than he really was. His stats and history were called into question by many. Also, he wasn't more in demand than Owens and Moss. Owens was already signed with Philly in 2004 and was easily more in demand when he hit the FA market. Hell, Owens was more in demand even with his next FA opportunity in Dallas. And Moss wasn't available either, but he did put up 13 TDs in an injury-filled year and would have gotten more suitors than Muhammed. Saying he was more in demand than Moss and TO is just ridiculous. Before his fluke year of 16 TDs, Muhammed had 7 total TDs in the three previous years. C'mon man, look in the mirror and be honest. If all three were available for the same money, Muhammed would have been third on the list of talent, and the only reason the demand would have been similar would be because, up until that point, he hadn't caused any off-field issues.

Probably, but the difference is that Holt actually did perform after he became a free agent. He wasn't an all pro, but he was a steady #2 WR that the Bears could have used just as well. Pace just plain sucked.

That's the kind of close-minded thinking the Bears' front office doesn't need. When desperate situations present themselves, you must open your mind to all possible scenarios for improvement. It's funny that the Bears wouldn't take that kind of chance, and many Bears fans support that restrictive mindset, yet the team many of us wish we could be (i.e. New England) signed Holt to a 1-year, 1.7mil contract. It wasn't necessarily Holt's performance that ended his career; it was a knee injury. The year before he had 51 catches for 722 yards, was the second leading WR, and could have easily done the same thing on a Bears team whose leading WR was Devin Hester - who many on this board want to stop playing WR - with 57 catches. Sorry, but the only dream world is the one in which he wouldn't have helped the Bears.

Why not? Beggars can't be choosers. There is a big difference between the maybes the Bears picked up (i.e. Moose, Roy) and the maybes available (i.e. Moss, Owens).

What do you mean by this? How can you know what would have happened if a player was signed or drafted in this hypothetical situation you have declared unsuccessful?

Yeah, the name drop was kind of interesting because he was added as an aging player with a great past, we all had lots of hope, and he wasn't effective. And at the time, just about everyone was in favor of him being signed. Kind of like a current situation.

The most interesting part of that entire thread: Almost three years ago and neither the LT nor WR position has been addressed. The sad part is, it has been longer than that. The need was known for so long, but it kept getting ignored and having bandaids thrown on each. No wonder JA got his ass canned.

The bolded part is exactly what I'm talking about. Go after the big name, current #1, get him. Then sign Moss as the wild card with incentive in his contract. Then draft a young guy early in the draft. If Moss acts up or doesn't perform - which I don't see happening to be quite honest, he knows it's the end of the line - he gets cut, and the rookie, Bennett, Hester, etc. get more throws their way.

No, I'm saying one each from the menu. Like a pu-pu platter of WRs. Either Jax or Bowe AND Either TO or Moss AND Either 2nd or 3rd round Combos could be... Jax, TO, 2nd Jax, Moss, 3rd Bowe, TO, 2nd Bowe, Moss, 3rd ...and so on.

I was actually unsure but hopeful for Roy. He had talent but could never fully realize that talent. I do know he made a highlight reel catch or two against the Bears. Saying what Moss will or won't do next year is different from a prediction. I think if he were on the Bears, he would do much better than Roy this year, and certainly better than a rookie. Just because you don't want him doesn't mean he's suddenly bad. He dominated a very short time ago, and there's no reason to believe he couldn't still be very effective this year.

I don't think it's an either/or situation. To me, the ideal situation is one of each of the following: A. V-Jax/Bowe B. Moss/TO C. 2nd/3rd rounder That way the Bears have nabbed a legit #1 with years left, taken a chance on a guy who has shown a history of dominance and could put up good numbers, and addressed the position with the future in mind.

That's so easy to say it's almost not worth saying. It's like saying, "Let's pick up a DE that gets 15 sacks a year." Of course everyone would be on board with it. But would you be against getting Bowe/Jackson/Colston AND Moss? To me, the idea of having Jackson/Moss/Bennett as the starting trio sounds like a recipe for a VERY happy Cutler. Not only that, but I don't see a team being able to guard that trio very well.

I don't think either guy is great, but I actually do think 1200/10 is a possibility for either because there aren't really other great options. Again, this isn't because I think they're still great, just that the options are limited and someone has to get the yards and TDs. I'd imagine Cutler would default to either guy over just about anyone else on roster. Agreed almost completely. Moss/TO shouldn't the answer, just the stop-gap while another FA and a rookie find their way. Depends on which team they go to. If Moss or TO went to the Bears, I'd take that bet. Sorry, I live in the Tennessee Titans broadcasting area. That's all I get on local stations. Tennessee quit on Moss. Go look at the targets. They didn't even really try to integrate him, and since they sucked, reason dictates that they try to use Moss. They didn't. I watched the games. They didn't use him.

And then they cut his ass. Easy. It's only a fascination because the need is so great. If there weren't a realistic possibility that the old WRs would perform better than the current young WRs it wouldn't be an issue.

HA! Sarcasm font. I'm not saying they solve all problems. I'm saying they are viable options that should have been explored LONG ago. If the Bears had gone after TO or Moss when they were both available the first or second time, we probably wouldn't have had the absence of #1 WR for, well, forever. Compare either Moss or TO's numbers to any Bears' WR over the same time and you'll find the disparity. Year after year everyone on the board supports the Bears' hesitancy to get either WR, and year after year there were three truths: the Bears didn't get either, the Bears lacked a true #1, and the two WRs kicked ass all over the league. The way I see it now, there is still a chance to catch lightning in a bottle with both of them. They each want to prove they still have it. They each could probably be signed to minimal, incentive-based contracts that could yield high results. If they start shit, cut them. If they don't, they could be just the push the Bears' offense needs to get up the hill. If I were GM, I'd sign them both. TO is the underneath possession guy; Moss is the over the top guy. I'd have Bennett and Hester in the mix (since I don't think Knox will be coming back), and I'd do everything I could to turn the offense into a west coast offense that max-protects on a fairly frequent basis. I'd draft LT in the first, someone like Toon or McNutt in the 2nd (to learn tricks of the trade from the soon to be HoFers), keep a FB and/or TE in on just about every play to protect Cutler, and let Jay throw for 4000+ yards.

Yeah, and imagine if the Bears would have actually made the move one of the countless offseasons we have had this debate/discussion. The Bears would have finally had a #1 WR. Something that hasn't been around in forever. But no, let's keep passing on them every year and ignoring the #1 WR while complaining every year about not having a #1 WR. The discussion is only remotely different now because they are older, but they were both available numerous times over numerous years...and the Bears could have had them both. But instead everyone would rather sit around a bitch about the potential that either of the two guys would cause problems...while getting 1200yds and 10TDs in their sleep.

Back to the opinions thread...we all have them, and we can agree to disagree, but please stop with the ridiculous comparisons to Roy Freaking Williams. Randy Moss and TO have always been better than Williams, and it's never been close.

I covered this a long time ago. Randy Moss would be a great addition and you have to almost totally discount his last year with three teams. He was barely used in New England, and then after that he was all but ignored. And this is especially true in Tennessee where he got almost no targets despite being on an atrocious passing offense without other options. He did not quit on them; they quit on him. I'd go so far as to say he's guaranteed to put up somewhere close to 10 TDs. He's just unguardable from a physical standpoint. And if the talk of him still being able to run a sub-4.4 is true, he's still a poor man's #1 WR, and better than any WR on the Bears' roster right now.

HA!!! I thought right off the bat this was going to be a bitch fest posting. Especially considering recent disagreements. I'm glad it's not, however. I hate boards where everyone rides each others' jocks. This board is great because there are tons of disagreements and debates. We can all agree to disagree eventually on most topics, including the coaches, GMs, players, and draft...even though everyone knows, deep down, LT is a much bigger need than WR.

True, he's not under contract. But I don't think that is a problem. The dude has bad enough stats that virtually nobody is going to be interested in him. It would be shocking if he didn't resign with the Bears where he at least has a shot at a starting TE gig. Based upon his current resume, most teams aren't going to give him that promise.

Conversely, I'd take 50 straight years of Mike Brown over Danielle Manning.

It's not my fault you contradict yourself in the span of a few posts. Let me show you how you did it... We all have opinions. Agreed. I'd probably say I'm 50/50 on predictions, mostly because we can never see what my predictions are because the players don't end up on the Bears. But what you still fail to grasp is that I'm not stating my opinion in this thread, just attacking yours. I don't know who will be better, but I didn't put "he will be a much better pro than McNutt." Then you said "we have to many average WRs we need better prospects than McNutt," which implies McNutt is average (something most scouts/mocks/highlights disagree with). Opinion to be sure, but you stated your opinion as fact. Finally, you declared your man-crush for Toon, which means A] You think he's better than McNutt, and B] You don't think Toon is average. (Note: I'm giving you credit for being able to come to conclusion B after statement A). The only reason I came at you like I did was the fact that you attacked another person and their opinion with the following ignorant lines: So what do you base that on? Your an Iowa fan? I dont think that makes him better than he is. He will make a team but we need to shoot higher than McNutt if we expect to be better this year." So now you're taking the "one opinion is just as good as another opinion"-stance, even though you started out the thread with a personal attack of someone's opinion because they might happen to be a fan of a team? Um, ok. For the record, you couldn't be more wrong about me personally and ad hominems immediately weaken your position, which is amusing. You know what they say about people who assume.

Appreciate it. It's no surprise that I pretty much like this mock except for the Orson Charles pick. I dislike it for multiple reasons, the first of which is the fact that I don't think the Beasr need a TE until we know what Davis can do. Davis is a much more known commodity than a college kid, and Davis has all the measurables. With limited chances this year, Davis did very well and could be a sleeper. I'd rather see that TE pick spent on a Center (Ben Jones, UGA or Michael Brewster, OSU will fall) or a higher rated DE with potential (e.g. Julian Miller, WV) greater than a 7th rounder.