jason

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.

You could lose that bet with some people on this board. I generally watch five or six games each Saturday during the season (thank you DVR), and nearly all off day games. I even stay up late for the stupid West coast games.

Yeah, the only difference is that now you're acknowledging it is all opinion. Before you were acting like you had the crystal ball in lap and already knew "Toon in the 2nd round(he will be a much better pro than McNutt)". As for Walter Football, I only brought it up because you said, "we have to many average WRs we need better prospects than McNutt," but later said you wanted Toon...which is fairly hypocritical since most sites (like Walter) rate McNutt higher than Toon. Even if you're right, and Toon's a better prospect than most are predicting, that still puts him in about the same boat as McNutt, which goes right back to your comment about having enough "average WRs." That obviously leads to a deduction that you think McNutt is average, and Toon is above average. It'd definitely opinion, but looking at their career stats, their measurables, and their highlight reels, it's hard to see how you could come up with that opinion unless you happen to be a Wisconsin fan, like the color red, or you just like the comic connection to the name Toon (although I'd argue McNutt is a funnier name).

How are you going to challenge someone else's opinion about McNutt, like the dude is some scrub that will barely make the NFL, and then come out after that and say with authority that Toon will be much better than McNutt?! What do you base your opinion on? Just to play devil's advocate, Walter Football has McNutt rated higher than Toon. I'd say this highlight reel says a lot about McNutt's ability and future in the pros, and most highlight stuff I've seen from Toon makes him look like a possession receiver who doesn't have good enough speed to break away.

And yet, the teams that played in the super bowl were 2nd and 8th in overall offense, as well as 2nd and 5th in passing offense, respectively. On top of that they were 31st and 27th defensively. Make no mistake, the Super Bowl was the exception; those teams are offense-minded first and that's what got them to the big dance.

All the rounds chosen are based upon multiple websites' round projections of these players. I believe, if these websites are remotely accurate, that there is a distinct possibility of the players going in the rounds I've listed. Having said that, RME JICO, I never said the scenario was likely, just that I'd like to see it play out that way. It would utterly thrill me to see the Bears actually put all the eggs for one year in the offensive basket. I'm tired of being historically known as a defensive team despite the fact that during Lovie's years the defense has been continually retooled and rebuilt, with far more focus than the offense, yet the defense has at best produced results inconsistently. For once it would be nice to see the Bears go all-in on offense.

Interesting thoughts. And I hadn't really thought of it that way. Maybe instead of tooling to fit into the ever-diminishing window for the D, the Bears should steer a majority of their focus and steer into the Cutler/Forte window? Maybe it's time the Bears actually became an offensive team? You know, like most of the rest of the NFL has attempted. I'm not saying ignore the D entirely, but wouldn't it be great if the new GM said, "Screw it, we have studs on both side of the ball, but the studs on O are younger. Let's build an offensive dynasty through the draft!" That would excite me. I'd much rather win 35-28 than lose 17-10. With that in mind, what if the new GM signed a key piece or two on D (e.g. Avril and Finnegan) then came straight out and went for O in the draft with something like the following? 1 - Peter Konz, C, Wisc. 2 - Marvin McNutt, WR, Iowa 3a - Nick Toon, WR, Wisc. 3b - Nate Potter, LT, Boise St. 4 - LaMichael James, RB, Oregon 5 - Ladarius Green, TE, Louisiana-Lafayette 6 - Chris Rainey, WR/RB/KR/PR, Florida Or 1 - Michael Floyd, WR, ND 2 - Kelechi Osemele, OG, Iowa State 3a - Dwight Jones, WR, UNC 3b - Nate Potter, LT, Boise St. 4 - Ben Jones, C, UGA --or-- Michael Brewster, C, OSU (whoever falls) 5 - Case Keenum, QB, Houston 6 - Cody Johnson, FB, Texas Ignore the D for now. Just draft Offense and try to follow the NFL trend of outscoring your opponent.

You beat me to it.

You had me at first, and then started going off the deep end (i.e. get rid of Lovie even if the Bears go to the SB - that will never happen). Are they close? Yes. Absolutely. With Cutler, Forte, and Carimi coming back, add in a healthy draft pick or two and a FA or two, there is no reason why they're not right there competing. Hell, getting in the playoffs is the key, because any team can get hot. Are they close for a long period of time? No. As you mentioned, age is going to start affecting the team. Depth isn't great. I see a two or three year window.

Look, I realize you're on board with improving the OL, but can we quit with this revisionist history BS already? How many times does it have to be proven that the OL is still a major flaw? They unequivocally did not improve enough or consistently perform well enough to be put on the back burner. However you want to try to prove it, the deed has already been done. We've run this course numerous times already on this board. It's nonsense to believe OL isn't at worst need 1B, and in my opinion 1A. As it stands now, LT is a mess with Webb, C is a position of need because Garza doesn't have a ton of time and the staff appears to not trust Spencer enough to start him, Louis is at best underwhelming at RG, and Carimi/Williams are both injury concerns. Please, enough with this nonsense that they were doing well. Improving during the winning streak, yes...but that's because they were atrocious before that, and there wasn't anything else to do other than get better. They actually regressed after the winning streak and finished the season as one of the worst OLs in the NFL. Make no mistake, an overhaul is still needed. And MadLith, I saw your post.