jason

Great post. It's possible to divide the two things that make you happy. If one fails to come through, it's still possible to keep a level head, be upset about it, but still find pleasure in watching your arch nemesis get upset in the playoffs in their first game.

If that turns out to be true, it's a shame, because it's impossible to argue that he's not better than many, many WRs in the NFL at the present moment, and he could help a team win.

That clearly wasn't/isn't the entire intent of the conversation. It's just the ending distraction.

I didn't mention Moss and retirement. That's you. I honestly don't think every team in the NFL thinks TO's done, but instead would rather black-ball him than take a chance that he just might be a douche. It's simply ignorant to pretend that he's not better than the #3 WR on any roster in the NFL. I only bring it up - aside from it being the offseason for a Bears message board that has to deal with almost exclusively the hypothetical at this moment - because I want the Bears to get better, to get players who could improve the team. Even if that means taking some chances. And no matter how much of a douche he could be - which I don't think would happen after he's been humbled enough to play for an Arena team - I believe he's better than any WR on the Bears. And even if someone disagrees with that, you can't disagree that he's not better than the #3 on the roster. This is about improving the team. Oh, and BTW, TO was a great teammate on his last two teams, an all star WR for the Cowboys where he cried in support of his QB, hasn't played for the Eagles for 5 years, and calling him a quitter while on the Eagles is ridiculous considering he came back from a broken leg and a severely sprained ankle in a little over a month to play superbly in the Super Bowl. Like I said earlier, however, it's all a pipe dream because he's already signed with the arena team, and it's apparent Bears management doesn't want to pull out all stops to get wins.

HA! An arbitrator. I agree completely with you, but it appears that there is still disagreement...which has me shaking my head in disbelief.

See, NOW we're getting somewhere. The stats are interesting because nobody else has the YPA that I've seen. I wonder how reliable it is. It would be interesting to chart one game and see how close they are and what they constitute as the cutoff mark. This all started with which position is more important to the Bears' offensive success: OL or WR. (forgive the colors, otherwise it's hard to follow) 1. I started with, "Cutler and Co. were getting into a groove despite the fact that they were severely limited on the number of effective pass routes available. The reason there was a limit was the OL's inability to hold a block for more than 2 seconds consistently." Notice I focused on the routes that were available. 2. You changed the argument to how many routes they ran, and not how effective they were, by saying, "The Bears probably ran as many, if not more deep patterns during the season with Cutler than just about any team in the NFL." 3. I countered with, "Cutler did not have the time to consistently look for the WRs who were running longer-developing routes." 4. You countered with, "Most of his passes were down the field because, as I've been saying, that's how Martz's offense works." 5. Since I didn't have YPA I looked at WR targets as an indicator (which it is), and said, "Knox typically runs longer routes, which is why he has less targets." 6. You ignored targets because they weren't YPA and said, "TPG really have nothing to do with what you are trying to make out." even though now it appears to be an indicator of YPA. 7. And followed it with, "I wish I did have the numbers for Yards per attempt from Cutler because that would put an end to this discussion." 8. To appease you I gave you the short/deep stats from NFL.com. "Cutler threw "short" or "deep,"...according to the NFL.com descriptions" 9. You found YPA (thanks) and discovered all along that Cutler does not throw to deep patterns as often as the other good offenses in the NFL, and only beat the ultra-conservative offenses like the Ravens from your admittedly minimal sample size. 10. You finally replied to short/deep with "I think when you simply compare "Short" and "Deep" it doesn't represent what my argument was because when I say "down field" that includes the intermediate routes as well.", even though it now appears to be an indicator of YPA. In summary: -You and I misunderstood each other initial in regards to "# of deeper routes the Bears ran" and "# of deeper routes the Bears had the ability to throw to." Clearly I was referencing the latter, because it's the only one of the two that has significance in relation to how the OL protects. Judging from your very last post (i.e. "The only way I think you could accurately target the amount of routes being run ...") you still don't seem to grasp the difference. -WR Targets appear to be an indirect indicator of YPA, but we agree an entire game would have to be meticulously broken down to see which routes were run, whether the WR was open, and whether the QB had time to throw to the WR. -Short/Deep from NFL.com appears to be an indirect indicator of YPA, but we agree that the verbiage is a bit vague when compared to YPA. -You were wrong in your assessment of YPA overall (i.e. #4, #7, #9), despite being technically right about an upswing in YPA and better OL play during the streak, and YPA directly correlates to the number of deeper routes available (see top bullet). So, back to square one, OL vs. WR, since the Bears YPA is still lower than most offenses (an admitted assumption based on your YPA stats), that appears to indicate 1 of 2 things: 1. Cutler does not consistently have the time to throw to the WRs running longer routes. 2. The WRs running longer routes are not consistently open as often as those running shorter routes. Anyone who has played WR or DB (I have played both) can tell you that #2 just doesn't make sense. Give me more time as a WR, and I'm more likely to get open. Conversely, make me guard a WR for more time, and I'm more likely to get beat. And while reality is probably a mix of #1 and #2, that ultimately leaves us more of #1. Which is why OL is more important than WR for the Bears, and why they should draft a LT all things being equal.

Is this the situation that's created when there is no GM, but the new hire has to keep the incumbent HC, who doesn't have an OC, but promoted the OL coach to a position in which he's never worked? The only people the Bears are going to be able to get are friends of the staff and/or noobs. Either way, it's not a pretty picture. Lovie should have gone with JA.

I'm completely disregarding anything with McCown and Hanie in it since that's been such a favorite tactic for anyone criticizing or evaluating this offense. But on to Cutler...at 6.42 yards per attempt he threw more consistently and more often downfield than the other teams like Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Stafford, Rivers, and Romo (notice I ignored the others that don't belong in this conversation)? You're saying this even though they all average more YPA? Are you saying there is so much YAC built in that the numbers are overly inflated for each team?? Unless you're saying it's all YAC, the data you present doesn't even support your argument. In fact, it refutes it. If Cutler has a lower YPA or YPC, then he threw shorter more often than the other teams/QBs you are mentioning. Unless of course you can find a YAC stat that shows otherwise, that shows the other teams are getting a ton of YAC while the Bears are getting very little. By the way, are you basing these stats on yards per attempt or yards per completion? They are two different things. If it's the former, where did you get the information? I'd be interesting in seeing it since that's exactly what I was looking for. But since I couldn't find it, and I suspect your stats are based on YPC and not YPA, why does it not surprise me that you completely ignored the following stats from my previous post? MIN: Short 26, Deep 6 TB: Short 28, Deep 5 PHI: Short 28, Deep 7 DET: Short 14, Deep 7 SD: Short 23, Deep 8 Those counts are straight from NFL.com play by play based upon the words "short" and "deep." No ambiguity, no bias. The stats say that you're wrong in regards to the "Cutler often threw downfield argument." What do you say to those numbers? Last but not least, I'm willing to put the "WR targets" issue to rest. It's an agree-to-disagree issue. I am convinced they are an indication, maybe not a complete picture, but at least an indication of the types of routes a WR runs when considering an OL under duress. Naturally if the QB has less time, he will have to look at the routes that take less time. Therefore, the player that runs shorter, quicker routes will likely get more targets than a player who runs more longer-developing routes. I honestly don't know why you disagree with this; it's a simple concept based on nothing more than simple math. In an ideal offense where the QB has more time, it may not hold true, but for a team like the Bears with a weak OL and weak WRs, I believe it to be an accurate indicator of which WRs are running shorter routes and at least getting the opportunity to be open before the QB is pressured.

True. Maybe 2 is too many? Maybe 1, particularly 1 that has been humbled enough to take an arena league contract, would be more easily controlled by established leadership like Urlacher, Briggs, Tillman, Peppers, and Garza? Maybe not. But it's a pipe dream anyway, and one that should have happened years ago when he was in his prime and available.

"Prior to taking over the offensive coordinator position at the University of Pittsburgh, he served as the Offensive Line Coach and Running Game Coordinator of the Wisconsin Badgers football team" I like the bolded part A LOT.

I think you're dead on except the very last part. I didn't think he looked that bad. But for most of the NFL teams to even take a look at him, they'd have to be looking at a player who doesn't have TO's history. His history, his attitude, his demeanor, his antics are the reason he is not signed by an NFL team. Not his ability. Does this look like a guy who is out of shape or slow? I sure don't think so. Wilbon wrote a good article on why the Bears should take a chance on him. http://espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/story/_/id/...e-terrell-owens It's just crazy to me how quickly everyone wants to discount TO and never give the guy a shot, despite the fact the last time he was on an NFL field he put up stats that are significantly better than anyone currently on the Bears' roster.

Maybe. But isn't TO a completely different player with a much higher profile and more unique case? Also, why would he act like an ass, with a goal to be cut, when it's apparent the reason all of the teams passed on him originally was because they think he acts like too much of an ass? Wouldn't that be reinforcing the reason nobody took a chance on him, and thereby further increasing the probability that nobody will take a chance on him?

Ignoring the type of route a WR runs as it relates to the amount of time a QB has is simply ignorant. It's simple math. If WR A runs a route that takes 2 seconds to develop, WR B runs one in 1 second, and WR C runs one in 3 seconds, which of the two are options for a QB that has only 2 seconds? Math is hard. Look, I was just bringing in the other teams because you wanted to use them as examples of teams that clearly didn't go down field as often, and clearly threw the ball shorter, and clearly got rid of the ball quicker. It's not my fault the argument blew up in your face when I used the actual stats from the box scores you mentioned. Perhaps you should try looking at stats before pulling them out of your ass? Those teams mix it up, but the stats don't represent what you thought they did. But of course every time you bring something up, and I refute it with stats, you attempt to dismiss the stat without ever providing any hard data to support your position. Why don't you take your own advice and do some number crunching since the stats would be so obviously in favor of your argument. Also, since you're fond of personal attacks, I think you're an idiot if you actually simultaneously think that the Bears OL couldn't protect the QB, that the WRs were running longer/deeper routes, that every person interested in Chicago wanted Martz to design and run plays that took less time to execute, and the offense was still successful. You realize how contradictory and incomplete that is? I'm not saying the WRs didn't run the freaking routes. I'm saying the QBs didn't often have the time to look to those routes. The stats support that line of thought. The WR targets supports that reasoning. Take a minute to reason out what you're saying, because you clearly haven't done so... 1. The offense calls long developing plays 2. The WRs run long developing routes 3. The QBs spent more time in the pocket because they often threw to WRs who took longer to get open (because they clearly couldn't throw to the deeper routes while spending less time in the pocket) 4. The OL couldn't pass block for a long period of time, none could, because that's a flaw in the Martz offensive scheme 5. The offense was relatively successful with all of the above being true This is straight out of your mouth. If #4 is true, then 1-3 would not be true. Don't believe me? Since you're so fond of stats (but conveniently not fond of looking them up), check this out. Straight from NFL.com, it's a quick count during the 5 game win streak (because you mentioned when the offense was successful) of the number of times Cutler threw "short" or "deep," (NFL.com descriptors) without consideration for whether the pass was complete or incomplete, without worrying about if there was a penalty, according to the NFL.com descriptions (note: pass not included if NFL.com didn't include the adjective descriptors): MIN: Short 26, Deep 6 TB: Short 28, Deep 5 PHI: Short 28, Deep 7 DET: Short 14, Deep 7 SD: Short 23, Deep 8 I already know you're going to say, "of course the ratios look like that, they have to pass short to open up the deep passes." Of course I know this. But I'm just providing a statistic, yet again, that disproves the picture you're trying to paint (i.e. that the Bears often threw downfield). The great majority of the Bears' passing success was on short routes. Nonetheless, Cutler threw short approximately 78% of the time. That effectively negates the nonsense you're spewing about Martz's offense throwing the ball downfield while in Chicago. What you may be trying to say is, "Martz's offense is, by design, intended to go deep often." With this I agree. It's basically the philosophy he carried from the Greatest Show on Turf days: spread out the D, create one-on-one, protect the QB long enough to exploit the one-on-one, use a pass-catching RB to help create mistakes, take shots downfield. Problem is, the OL wasn't good enough to allow it to happen in Chicago, which essentially neutered the offensive possibilities. Would the numbers change if someone like VJax were on the team this past year? Perhaps, but unknowns are impossible to measure.

I think it would be slightly wasteful to sign Finley since nobody really knows the potential Davis may have, but if it's the double-edged sword of hurting a rival like this while picking up an already established player, it's a hard deal to pass up if the money is right. Talked to a friend today who is from Green Bay, and when I posed the idea to him he didn't seem to upset or concerned. Apparently the going thought in GB amongst the hard-core fans is that Finley, while talented, is inconsistent with his focus, routes, and hands.

Decent idea, but I wonder if he has gas left in the tank. It would be nice to have someone on the other side of Peppers that can actually cause pressure.

You know what's odd, I haven't seen anything posted on the Chicago Bears FB page. I'm sure if they posted it there would be a ton of likes already.

Yes, they could cut him. Hold a brief press conference, say his antics in the locker-room were contradictory to the team's wishes, spell out exactly what he did so that it's clear who was in the wrong, and then they could cut him. At this point, it wouldn't surprise anyone because of exactly what you're saying. Everyone thinks he's a cancer, so the Bears would not lose any PR battles because it would be something all the other teams could relate to. The best that happens is, he helps the team tremendously. The worst that happens is, he acts like a douche and he gets cut with no skin off the Bears' ass.

Could you be more dense? Simple ignoring a stat doesn't mean the stat doesn't matter. The fact is, Knox typically runs longer routes, which is why he has less targets. This is directly attributable to how much time a QB has in the pocket, and how long protection holds up. Attempting to make your point based on scoring is disingenous at best, ignorant at worst, because it doesn't take into account rushing, field position, and a variety of other considerations. Discounting targets when referencing the passing game and offensive scheme, and then talking about points shows you're either ignoring stats, or have very little understanding of them as they relate to our discussion and football. Especially when Cutler averaged an 87.7 QBR, 56% completion percentage, 16.6 completions, 13.3 yards per completion, and barely over 1 TD per game during the winning streak. Yes, that's clearly going down field consistently and successfully. You want to talk about box scores, you go look at some for a change. For comparison, the QBs you clearly haven't looked at: Rodgers - 13.5 Yards Per Completion Brees - 11.7 YPC Brady - 13.1 YPC Romo - 12.1 YPC Stafford - 12.0 YPC Wow, another surprise, the QBs you say are throwing short and getting rid of the ball are pretty much right where Cutler is, and one of your examples, GB, actually throws for more YPC. Unfortunately, there is nowhere I can find that accurately reflects Yards Per Attempt, or where the pass was intended to be thrown on incompletions. Also, it's comical that you point to the Martz system as being ineffective at protecting the QB long enough to actually run the longer routes yet then say the OL was doing exactly that. Last but not least, if you don't know by now what I'm talking about, and you literally require me to spell out everything (i.e. putting in the word "consistently" and "successfully" each time a sentence is written), every time, and put in every word, every time, then you're incapable of even understanding the concept to begin with.

HELL YES. Now it's time for him to get Hester back focused for an explosive 2012 season.

I agree. I've been a fan of Jerome Simpson for some time. He could be reaching that point where he grasps it all and makes a breakthrough.

It will continue to be irritating until you realize it's the truth. You can't just spout off nonsense and expect not to be called on it. The simple fact is, the majority of the time this past season Cutler (and other Bears' QBs) did not have the sufficient time to adequately go to 5 and 7 step drops, nor did they have adequate time to read through progressions. It may have happened from time to time, maybe even a few plays in a row when the OL was playing well, but it didn't happen close to consistently. Cherry picking a few catches doesn't prove your point. The plural of anecdotal evidence is neither fact nor data. I don't know why you try to revise history and act like the Bears were going downfield every game all season. They may have ran the routes, but the success rate was severely diminished because the QB didn't have time. My god man, do you even have a memory of more than one week? Every single person on the board was saying that the Bears needed to go to shorter routes because Cutler didn't have time to wait for the longer routes to develop. This is fact. Did you ever stop to think that Cutler averaged 31 passes this year, and for the games they were regular contributors, the following breakdown occurred for the WRs: Bennett - 3 Games - 6.6 Targets Per Game Hester - 9 Games - 6.13 TPG Sanzenbacher - 7 Games - 4.7 TPG Knox - 11 Games - 3.9 TPG Williams - 11 Games - 3.18 TPG Wow, big surprise, Knox had less targets than all the other guys who ran underneath and/or slot-type routes! The only WR he had more targets than was Roy Freaking Williams, who may have been the biggest FA WR disappointment in history. Cutler did not have the time to consistently look for the WRs who were running longer-developing routes. Fact. It's not about how many they ran. It's about how many Cutler had the time to find. Why don't you understand that? And unless you can find me some reliable YAC numbers, it's very difficult to determine the YPC as an indicator of anything other than how a QB and WR worked TOGETHER. Keep in mind, I'm not saying any of the Bears' WRs are world-beaters. Despite the fact that I've been touting Bennett since he got drafted, he is clearly not a #1; he's a damn good #2. I'd love to see the Bears get a legit star at WR, and it's entirely possible this offseason, but the same problem will exist as long as Cutler (or whatever QB is in the game) is under consistent pressure. Tice all but came out and said in his interview as being selected OC that the OL wasn't cutting it, and they needed to get a lot of help (e.g. TEs in to block, 6 man OLs, RBs chipping more often) so the QB had time to find open WRs. Just accept it; it's fact. There were very few times this year, that certainly weren't consistent enough for a rhythm to be had, for Cutler to sit in the pocket and feel comfortable enough to go through progressions and/or wait for longer routes. Knox may have been wide open on a ton of routes downfield, but Cutler just didn't have the consistent time to wait on those plays. If he had waited, he may have gotten one or two more long TDs, but he would unequivocally taken a bunch more sacks and heard a whole lot of "he's holding the ball too long" talk. For the record: Kellen Davis may have made those plays. We just don't know because he was so underutilized in a Martz offense.

Kellen Davis shows it all in this one. Route running, hands, agility, strength, elusiveness, speed. All he needs is more opportunities to catch the ball and show what he can do. In this highlight reel, he displays his talents even more. Pay careful attention to nasty one-hander at about 2:51. The Bears don't need another TE. They need to work with what they have and develop the obvious talent.

No, they can't do that. It's illegal in all shapes and forms to be going forward at the snap. It would result in, based on what else is going on, one of the following fouls: -False Start -Illegal Motion -Illegal Shift -Illegal Formation

Completely agreed. First thing I thought of was Hester going into the hole as a FB, or trying to seal an edge on a toss-sweep. Bad idea.

False. Cutler and Co. were getting into a groove despite the fact that they were severely limited on the number of effective pass routes available. The reason there was a limit was the OL's inability to hold a block for more than 2 seconds consistently. If they were able to give Cutler a nice pocket to sit in and progress on reads, guys like Knox and Hester would be open more often by simple virtue of their speed. You're only looking at part of the picture. All the guys you mentioned have teams with good/great OLs. Hell, did you see the ridiculous amount of time Tebow had in the pocket and scrambling around behind the line of scrimmage? Have you ever watched Drew Brees drop back and feel rushed? And Eli Manning often could pick his nose before passing. They're all putting up huge numbers, but if you put them behind a shit OL, it doesn't matter what WRs they have; the numbers will fall drastically. Which is why the MuhMuh comment about "where WRs come to die" has so much merit. It spans offensive coordinators, quarterbacks, running backs, and just about every other turnover except HC and GM. Why? Because Lovie and JA never valued the OL as much as most other positions. Hopefully that will change, but as long as the OL is in flux and incapable of consistently protecting the QB, the WRs will never reach their true potential and we'll always be talking about getting that next big, bad WR.