jason

Between the noncall against Hunter, and the call against Afalava on the Knox return, that's about a 100 yard difference. Single bad calls don't determine the game, but enough of them do.

And this hold is called. Gimme a freakin break. That was a misdemeanor. The holding on Hunter was a felony.

I've noticed over the years that more and more holding is allowed as "blocking," but the non-call on Hunter was atrocious. There was more hugging on that play than at a family reunion.

They didn't miss a holding call. They missed a RAPING call. That was one of the most blatant holds I've ever seen that managed to not get called. Horrible, and it was completely responsible for the long run.

I don't hear too much about the HORRIBLE WRs right now. Knox = lightning fast, good hands, great routes Hester = lightning fast, good hands, OK routes Bennett = sorta fast, great hands, great routes Add in two TEs, regardless of whether or not Clark is out, and it's a legit passing offense. Let's just hope the receivers and Cutler continue to gel and get better.

HORRIBLE start on offense. Two WR screens (regardless of who caught the ball)?

I don't think anything is "obvious" other than the obvious miscommunication. Could it have been Cutler? Yes. Could it have been the WRs? Yes.

The first part about the INTs may be right, but one has to consider how much else was miscommunication. I know at least one of those near miss INTs was because the WR didn't run an out, a button-hook instead, and Cutler threw the out. The second part about the WRs looking like flag football kids is just plain retarded. Did Bennett or Hester dump your sister?

I think he looks like a douche in the first two pictures.

One of those guys you mentioned is not like the others. Vincent Jackson is not a #1, he's just in a prolific offense with one of the best RBs of all time, and one of the best TEs of all time, and a fairly awesome QB.

I'd say he has an overall upgrade, but not one of the three trumps Holly Madison.

Different debate. Were any of the #2-#4 guys the Bears had legit #1s? Maybe. MRob for one season. Booker for one season. Maybe Hester now. That doesn't take away from the fact that they are decent, which is to say that they fit your requirement of #2-#4 guys.

Do you not understand the differentiation between the word "decent" and what you keep reading (whatever that may be)? Decent means #2s and #3s!! The fact that the Bears looked to them as #1s doesn't show that those WRs were any less #2s or #3s, by your own admission. Which means, by your quote, that you have been proven wrong. If they are #2-#4s, then they are decent. If they were better, they would be #1s, and I wouldn't have used the word "decent."

I don't see this as a terribly big loss considering he's the second best TE on the team, and the blocker of the two starting TEs. His replacement should fill in admirably.

This is the only reason why any NFL team should want Baskett.

Hence my previous statement: "The Bears haven't had Rice and Taylor by a long shot, but they also haven't had the dearth of talent you and many others like to pretend they have had. It's as I said before: HC, OC, QB, OL...one (or more) of the four ruined the opportunities the Bears have had to cultivate WRs and TEs. "

The argument was that the Bears have had decent WRs over the past decade. You said otherwise. It doesn't have to "jump off the page" to be decent. Simply put, I proved you wrong. Nobody said the Bears had a team full of allstars at WR, but they have had a decent group of WRs who have been mismanaged and underutilized. You can argue semantics all you want, but the guys I mentioned, with the exception of Terrell, have gone on to success elsewhere in the NFL, and have collectively done better than when they were with the Bears. Kennison - Horribly underutilized on the Bears, did better before AND after. Wade - Did better when not on the Bears. Gage - Hell, he didn't even get PT when he was on the Bears, and now he's the Titans' #1 WR. Terrell - I don't know where you are getting this "plenty of places" crap, but it just didn't happen. And I still hold to the belief that he was underutilized, and stuck behind Dez "Stone Hands" White for no reason other than the apparent fact that the coaches at the time loved Dez White during practice, despite the absolute fact he sucked when in the game. Engram - Agreed, he was rock solid, and remains so. He's put up comparable numbers in Seattle, and had a huge year just two years ago. Booker - He remains the single WR of the group that goes against the grain. He was one of my favorites when on the Bears, but somehow he has aged in dog years since leaving Chicago. The point I'm making is, regardless of whether or not the stats are "similar," Berrian had a better year statistically with the Vikings. And, remember, you said the Vikings problems at WR were the only reason Wade got to start/play. They were THAT bad.

Where is all the uproar from just the other day saying how bad the WRs stunk up the joint?!?! I agree with your assessment, and I think they'll continue to progress.

One game is not very statistically significant. In four years with the Bears, Berrian had 2.6 RPG, 37.9 YPG, 14.6 YPC, and 13 TDs. In the two years he started, the stats were 3.9 RPG, 55.55 YPG, 14.3 YPC, and 11 TDs. In the one year he has started for Minnesota, he had 3.0 RPG, 60.3 YPG, 20.1 YPC, and 7 TDs. In all but Receptions Per Game he improved while on the Vikings, who are just as much a running team as the Bears, and have such bad WRs - as DBDB pointed out - that a castoff from the Bears (Wade) started for more than one game, let alone more than one year. Add to that is the QB comparison, in which the Bears might actually have an advantage during the last few years. Sorry, but Berrian's stats, which are admittedly only one year, only prove my point that the Bears don't utilize their WRs to their fullest potential...not the other way around.

Decent Star 2008: Hester, Olsen, Davis, Clark 2007: Berrian, MuhMuh, Olsen, Davis, Bradley, Clark 2006: Berrian, MuhMuh, Gage, Bradley, Davis, Clark 2005: Berrian, MuhMuh, Gage, Bradley, Wade, Clark 2004: Berrian, Terrell, Gage, Wade, Clark 2003: Booker, Terrell, Gage, Wade, Clark 2002: Booker, MRob, Terrell, White 2001: Booker, MRob, Terrell, White 2000: Booker, MRob, White, Kennison, Engram 1999: Booker, MRob, Engram, Conway I'd say that's better than decent, actually. Several were underused (MuhMuh, Clark, Olsen, Terrell, Gage). A few went on to have success after the Bears (Booker, MuhMuh, Wade, Gage, Kennison, Engram, Bradley), and in most cases improvements. It's nearly impossible to intelligently argue that the Bears haven't had opportunities to use players at the WR and TE position, yet have failed miserably to do so. Go look at each WRs careers, and their stats outside of the Bears, and I think you'll find a compelling argument that there has been talent; it has just been mismanaged. Every player on the list, other than Terrell, has done better in at least one way, when they were with another team other than the Bears. I'm nearly positive of this. The Bears haven't had Rice and Taylor by a long shot, but they also haven't had the dearth of talent you and many others like to pretend they have had. It's as I said before: HC, OC, QB, OL...one (or more) of the four ruined the opportunities the Bears have had to cultivate WRs and TEs.

I don't care about bringing in a vet at this point. You let the guys you have on the roster learn. Period. The Bears have had decent WRs over the last ten years or so, but the combination of bad/average QBs, bad/average OCs, bad/average OLs, and the reluctancy of the coaching staff to give the young guys playing time has resulted in a bunch of young WRs who have not met expectations. Hester, Bennett, Knox, and the two TEs should be sufficient.

Anyone blaming the D for losing this game, well, obviously didn't watch the game.