jason

That's better than when I tried to do the same thing (I removed political content without changing the post's football content or message), and someone on the board cried like a bitch, and I essentially got "demoted" from admin.

But, but, but...all those guys from all those teams have all been in the NFL for years, and therefore all know what they are doing!!! Isn't that what has been said ad nauseum on this board? I firmly believe this board could have had a better draft history over the last than the Bears' braintrust.

But that probably has a lot to do with the fact that OL is about twice the need as DT is on the Bears, and Jay Cutler's health - by extension this team's offensive success - is directly tied to that pick.

Quick thoughts on Santonio Holmes: 1) How can any of you guys want Holmes and in the same breath (or in a previous post) get all bent out of shape about the possibility of Moss or TO. Hell, if we want a #1, it's Moss. He has a proven track record in games, and got screwed around last year. I'd rather take the guy with more talent if we're going to pick up a guy with problems off the field. 2) Is Holmes really all that reliable? Everything I can find shows that he's got somewhat unreliable hands and a case of the drops. He's not the worst in the league, but he's certainly not the best. (I realize that drops correlates, to some extent, to the number of targets). Iffy hands doesn't sound like #1 WR stuff to me. Clearly "number of targets" and "team leader" data aren't reliable, because there are a ton of other factors to measure (e.g. opponent, type of offense, type of defenses faced, number of targets, team's record, team's scoring, etc.). But let's put it another way: If this were a fantasy football draft, is he even in the top 10 WRs? Top 15? The fact that there is guaranteed pause tells me he's not really a true #1. I'm not seeing the consistency spoken of in this thread. I'm not seeing the reliability spoken of in this thread. The fact is, he is an above average WR who has one or two big games each year, and disappears in other games during the year. Of course, the same applies to Knox. STATS % of Catches Per Target Over the last three years - when Holmes has been considered a #1 WR, which is based primarily on his # of targets (2010:95, 2009:138,2008:114) - he has 40 total regular season games and 181 catches. Right off the bat we have the following: % of Catches Per Target = 52% (By comparison, Knox - if he's the #1 WR for the Bears - has 54%.) Small/Medium/Large Games Small = Less than 5 catches Medium = 5 or 6 catches Large = More than 6 catches Holmes: 47.5%, 37.5%, 15%, respectively. Knox: 76%, 24%, 0%, respectively. This leads to the concept that Knox is shut down more easily than Holmes, but it's a far too simplistic rubric. Again, we could point to a variety of reasons for this difference. % of QB Completions Holmes - 2010:24%, 2009:23% Knox - 2010:19%,2009:14% Now, this could be taken multiple ways. It could be an indication of QB/WR trust, or perhaps a way to determine if the QB spreads the ball around a bit more. Of note, however, is that over the last two years, the Bears have had 1 more receiver (i.e. eligible pass catcher) with significant catches (i.e. >19) than the teams on which Holmes has played. 2010 - Jets - 5, 2009 - Pitt - 6 2010 - Bears - 6, 2010 - Bears - 7 This gives more support to the hypothesis that the Bears spread the ball around more. ==================================================== Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to crunch a few numbers. Food for thought.

Knox is ALREADY a #2, at worst. I'd say he's more of a 1.5. You've pegged Bennett correctly, even though I honestly believe he's a 2.5. I obviously give the "rankings" in jest as a way to say that each player above is better than the slotted area into which everyone wants to put him. And I that's the problem with the Bears' WRs. None of them can step up into the roles that we'd like them to step up into. Whether that's play design, QB decision, OL protection, or something else, they are currently hindered from becoming the receivers they could be. This goes right back to what Muhsin Muhammad said, "Chicago is where receivers go to die." But since Muhammad there have been multiple changes, so the axiom shouldn't hold true anymore. Should it? This is what helps to shape my OL, OL, OL thoughts for the past few years. I just don't think it can consistently be the WRs. It's something else. I see talent in the Bears' WR corp, but it never seems to shine through. Now if we could put Bennett's hands/toughness on/in Knox, or give Knox's speed to Bennett, then we'd be talking.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Surely Mendenhall has an agent telling him the following: 1) Close your myspace account 2) Close your facebook account 3) Close your twitter account 4) STFU unless someone specifically asks your dumb ass about football

And I'm fine with the disagreement. The thing I have to ask, however, is "what's a #1?" In the Bears offense, we don't know because there isn't time to run 5 step drops when Cutler is getting hit on most 3 step drops. And 7 step drops are out of the question. Go look at some Warner highlights with the Rams. He was CONSTANTLY in 5 step drops, and there was a ton of time in the pocket. Did he get hit? Absolutely. But there were equal amounts of standing in the pocket surveying the field types of plays. Back to the #1 issue... Hester - Not a #1 because his route running isn't polished, has questionable hands at times, and will focus on ST. Bennett - Not a #1 because he's not fast enough to run away, not quick enough to consistently separate, and his routes aren't Marvin Harrison sharp. Knox - This is where I disagree. If this guy just toughens up mentally a bit (i.e. doesn't quit on routes, doesn't run incorrect routes), then I believe he could be just as much a #1 as someone like Steve Smith. Let's look at Knox for a second. 1 - Speed 2 - Quick Burst 3 - Adequate routes 4 - Good hands That combination says #1 to me. The Bears OL just has to consistently give Cutler enough time to work in more plays. There isn't a single #1 WR in NFL history who made a living on consistently getting open on 3-step routes. But to reply to defiantgiant, the fact that he can sometimes be shut down at the line is worrying...which is why he's not a compete #1 yet. Last but not least, I thought you wanted a #1?! What does Santonio Holmes have to do with this? Hell, Knox had more yards than him last year. I don't believe Holmes is anywhere this idea of a #1 WR.

No worries... Now we can get back to debating whether or not a "true #1 WR" (whatever that really means) would help an offense that has to pick Cutler off the ground every other play. I don't really think it's necessary, because I believe the combo of Bennett-Knox-Hester (and assorted cast) could put up huge, St. Louis type numbers if Cutler had time to stand in the pocket and hit on the various routes in the fully implemented Martz offense.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I even quoted you. "I think you're right that they need a top tier starting WR to compete in this division." There is no ambiguity in that statement. In this subsequent explanation, however, you've done a much better job of explaining yourself.

The last part essentially means we're in agreement. I don't necessarily believe we might need a prototypical #1 WR based upon what the other teams in the division do. Of course getting upgrades at every position would help the team. If the Bears managed to trade for Adrian Peterson, Peyton Manning, and Calvin Johnson I'd be all for it. But is it necessary to compete? I don't think so. I'd much rather see the latter two additions to the team instead of seeing a WR who would probably have similar problems to the guys last year (i.e. not enough time to run all the possible routes).

That's kind of my point, but your logic fails. You think you're using it against me, but you're not. What my point is, comparing your team to another, or pieces/players to another, is not a legit way to evaluate your own team. Saying, "The other teams have great WRs!" is not a valid way to analyze what the Bears have on their roster, nor is it a proper method to determine what strengths and weaknesses are. And given the parity in the league, simply looking at a team's record or divisional record is not a very bright way to determine what the team's needs are. The original comment was about "competing in the division." Given that the Bears won the division and only had one divisional loss, it makes the reasoning (i.e. gotta have the prototypical #1 WR to compete in the division) illogical.

First of all, the quote above is a viral misattribution to MLK Jr.'s. Second, read the entire article posted above. Here's a taste of Mendenhall's stupidity to whet the apetite: “What kind of person celebrates death? It's amazing how people can HATE a man they have never even heard speak. We've only heard one side...’’ Either Mendenhall is colossally ignorant, or...well, there really isn't a second option.

That is such a bogus line of reasoning. In fact, it's not even reasoning. It's comparison. That's it. If the Bears needed a top tier starting WR to compete in this division, wouldn't they have done worse that winning the division? Not to mention going 5-1 within the division. You shall not covet your rival's WR. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor's stadium or location, his offensive or defensive coordinator, his center or defensive back, or anything that belongs to your rival. Would having Vincent Jackson make the Bears better? No doubt. Is he a need to compete in the division? Unequivocally no. Are the Bears lacking a WR who can put up #1 WR stats? Up for debate...and until Cutler gets more than a second or two of uninterrupted time in the pocket, we might never know.

For those who wanted him, aren't you glad the Bears didn't get him now? http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/rosen...,4140951.column

Rd 2, Pick 28 - Brandon Harris - DB Rd 4, Pick 30 - Rashad Carmichael - DB Rd 5, Pick 13 - Shiloh Keo, DB

I don't think the Bears have multiple positions of need, because I still think the clamoring for a WR is unwarranted. The main reason the WRs weren't standouts was the absolute failure of the OL. The bad OL play resulted in Cutler being harassed, hurt, jumpy, and eventually injured. That created a situation where the full compliment of offensive plays wasn't in use. That meant many of the routes that would benefit the Bears' offensive talent couldn't be used. Grabbing a mid-tier FA WR won't do much to help any of the above. Doesn't matter how tall he is. Making sure Cutler stays upright and Martz can implement a full offensive plan does matter.

BEST Denver - MASSIVE draft. Nate Irving and Von Miller will probably start at LB in their first years. Rahim Moore and Quinton Carter will probably be starting together at safety not much longer afterwards. Orlando Franklin has the potential to start on the OL, and the Broncos also nabbed two potentially dangerous TE threats. Indianapolis - The rich get richer. This team wins because it understands the draft. Step 1: Identify your best player. Step 2: Maximize your best player's talents. How do you do that? OL, OL. Costanzo and Ijalan will give Peyton tons of time to throw to...it doesn't really matter (see: scrubs who caught tons of passes last year). Peyton Manning was sacked fewer than any other QB in the NFL last year, and the Colts still went back-to-back to upgrade protection. Oh yeah, Drake Nevis is an immediate starter at DT. Buffalo - They got half of a starting defense in this draft. Dareus will be a beast at DT, the combo of Aaron Williams and Da'Norris Searcy could end up starting, and Kelvin Sheppard will probably start day 1. Cincinnati - They got one of the most electrifying WRs to ever enter the draft (Green), a future stud at QB (Dalton), and an OG that will start for several years (Boling). Dontay Moch is just icing on the cake. New England - Just like the Colts, they know where the bread is buttered. Nate Solder will be a stud, and Cannon was a day 3 steal. Ras-I will be a starter and they prepared for the future with Mallett. They know how to draft. Period. WORST Carolina - I don't think the Cam Newton pick was smart for an organization that already had a young, promising QB. Add that to the other mediocre picks and it doesn't impress. Houston - I hate their draft. Three straight DBs? Did they get bizarro Matt Millen to help this year? Minnesota - HAHAHAHAHA. Ponder?! THEN A TIGHT END?! HAHAHAHA. Seattle - What the hell were they doing? Even Nick Saban thought they reached in Round 1. The only good selection they made was in round 2 when they grabbed Moffitt. Tennessee - Locker is a huge reach. I like their defensive additions, but they bombed on the QB pick (and got the wrong RB to spell Chris Johnson).

So, the draft is over. We know where everyone was selected. Without imaginary trades, what do you wish the Bears would have done with the players available when they picked? 1st - Gabe Carimi, OL, Wisconsin 2nd - Stephen Paea, DT, Oregon State 3rd - Clint Boling, OL, UGA 5th - Quan Sturdivant, LB, UNC 6th - Greg McElroy, QB, Alabama

Highlighted the important part. For whatever reason (hint: Lovie and his defensive reputation) the Bears always seem to draft more defense...even when not needed nearly as much as offense. It's especially puzzling because 2008 yielded such riches with the first three picks (Williams, Forte, Bennett). Since day 3 picks are almost always projects of some sort, it looks like the Bears will have many of the same problems as last year (QB protection and run blocking, weak one-on-one DB play)

Thanks for the links. Bittersweet, they are. Clint Boling was there, but won't be when the Bears select again. He would have been a great Rd 3 pick. Instead of a project OLB/DB/S hybrid.

All the talk about depth has validity, but the reason this pick is questionable is that other positions have worse depth (compared to S).

Good point. It wasn't a reach...to the Bears. But to just about everyone else involved with the NFL draft, it was a reach. And since the Bears need other positions more, especially more than a project OLB/DB/S hybrid who probably will do no better than ST, it's a reach.

Isn't that the main problem we ALL have with the Bears' drafts? There's always the WTF pick. Why does JA and crew always have to be sooooo smart? Just pick the stud from the SEC school at the position of need, relatively close to the degree of need.

Glad that at least some people think he was worth a draft pick, but it sure does feel like a reach. Boling, OG, UGA would have fit like OJ's glove (the first time he put it on).

Do not like this pick. ESPN just shits on him in their analysis. He was projected as a guy who might not even get drafted. Horrible reach when there were two quality OG picks left and better talent at other positions of greater need. Once again JA proves that this board could probably draft better.