defiantgiant

Yeah, we won't know what we have until we see it on the field this year. I think it'll be interesting, especially considering what an unknown the Bears' receivers are. Hester could really take a big step forward, considering that his major strength (his ability to get open deep) coincided with Orton's biggest weakness last season. I'm really hoping for a big year from Bennett. He just tore it up in the SEC, and he got thrown to all of ONE time in 2008. There's no way to know what he's capable of. I'm excited to see what happens this year.

Man, that must suck. I know he probably wasn't thinking about his contract at the time, but dude made and then lost over a million dollars in the span of a minute or so. That's crazy.

Marshall and Royal will be interesting to watch. A lot of the Chicago press keep pointing to those two as evidence that Cutler makes his receivers successful; I don't buy it yet. There's only one year of tape on Marshall without Cutler, and that's his rookie year, which hardly counts. There's no tape of Royal in the pros without Cutler, so it's very hard to say that Cutler made him successful. I will say this: Royal caught over 70% of the passes thrown at him as a rookie, and that's not easy to do, no matter who your QB is. I think both Marshall and Royal will take a step back this year, but I don't know that it'll be a huge one. Marshall should still be over 1,000 yards, and I think Royal should be in the 800-yard range. I think the main thing hurting them will be Orton's poor deep passing, but I don't think it'll be THAT detrimental. Both guys are major run-after-catch threats, and should be able to make up some yards after relatively short passes from Orton.

Yeah, that's what I thought, too. I think it's an interesting point that opposing defenses could have problems using the nickel against the Bears. On the one hand, my first thought as an opposing DC would be to put a nickel corner on Olsen, just because there's just no way I'd want a linebacker covering him downfield. I know most teams' nickel backs would be giving up 65 pounds and six inches of height, but I'd rather have Olsen go against a 5'11" 190-lb. defensive back who can actually keep up with him, rather than put a linebacker on him and watch him run right by the guy. I think Lombardi's right that our 2TE set could potentially cause a lot of matchup problems for opposing defenses, since we have a lot of versatility. They'll have to gameplan for a great receiving threat TE who can block OK, a great blocking TE who's still a legitimate passing target, and a legit dual-threat RB. If opposing defenses over-commit to one facet, treating Olsen like a wide receiver, Clark like a blocking TE, or Forte like a straight-ahead runner, there'll be plenty of ways for those three to take advantage. Really, the more the Bears stay in a double-tight set in 2009, the better off we'll be. Tampa Bay is in a similar situation: they're in great shape at running back, they have one all-around TE and one great receiving TE, but they've only got one real threat at wide receiver. I'll be interested to see if both teams rely as heavily on 2TE formations as I think they will.

From the National Football Post: Diner morning news: How Titans, Bears will adjust by Michael Lombardi TGIF, everyone. The big free-agent signing in the offseason was Albert Haynesworth by the Redskins, and the big trade was the Bears’ deal to get Jay Cutler. Let’s look at those moves from a slightly different point of view — from what’s left for Tennessee and what can be expected from the Bears. ... Ron Turner, Chicago Bears Turner is in a unique position because rarely does a team trade for a young quarterback who has a proven history on the field. He’s like a race car driver who is able to jump in a car in the middle of a race. Coaches often ask themselves how they can best develop a player. Turner, however, has spent the OTA days and mini-camps thinking how lucky he is -- along with asking the question, “How can we score more points with Cutler?” Cutler will be the best thing that has happened to Turner’s career as an assistant coach. He gets a player who’s eager to prove to some that he was badly treated in Denver. He gets a player with a chip on his shoulder (trust me, Cutler’s chip is a good-sized chip) and who’s competitive. Cutler welcomes the challenge that awaits the Bears’ offense. The best thing for Turner is that he doesn’t have to change what the Bears do; he will just be able to do it more effectively. Everyone seems to think the Bears need to improve on the outside at receiver — and to some extent, they do. However, with Cutler, running back Matt Forte and tight end Greg Olsen, the Bears can be very effective controlling the middle of the field. With Desmond Clark as the blocking tight end and Olsen as the Dallas Clark-type tight end, the Bears will be able to force teams to stay in their base defense, thus allowing them to exploit defenses. With the Bears’ running game, along with their desire to run the ball, they can create all kinds of problems for teams just being very basic. Turner has never been afraid to keep calling plays that work (you’d be shocked at the coaches who won’t run the same play twice), so in theory, less is more with Cutler. Like the Colts, being in a simple run-enabling formation will force teams to keep their nickel defense on the sidelines, allowing Cutler to get many first down-type throws — which he’ll complete at a very high rate. Olsen will be a problem for teams to match up with each week because of his size and route running. So for all the talk about Cutler making the Bears’ offense more diversified and complex, it’s my belief that Turner will keep it very simple, very basic with his formations; he can create a host of mismatch problems each week. The mismatches create the diversions; the complex nature of the offense, not the plays. Once he decides to make Devin Hester more like Wes Welker and less like Randy Moss, this offense can be scary good — even without a No. 1 wide receiver.

One thing I'll be watching in 2009 is how well Ryan Clady protects Kyle Orton. Cutler is no slouch when it comes to evading pass pressure; I'll be interested to see if Clady gives up more sacks when he has a less mobile QB. If he can give up less than one sack for the second year in a row, I'll be ready to call him an elite LT. The converse kind of goes for the Bears: even if our o-line's pass protection isn't the best in the world, Cutler will probably make them look better than they are. Kyle was good at a lot of stuff last season, but he wasn't that elusive in the pocket. Hopefully between Cutler's feet and the upgrades on the line, we don't see a Bears QB peeling himself off the ground quite so many times in 2009.

One quick thing: the Steelers' offensive line is TERRIBLE. Like, not just bad for a SB-winning team, but actually bad. I know Arians tried to mess with the numbers and say that only 19 of the 46 sacks they allowed were actually "their fault," but come on. That line lets Roethlisberger get hit CONSTANTLY. Does anybody actually believe that "running backs, tight ends, receivers, and quarterbacks" gave up the other 27 sacks? And, honestly, that group is not much better at run-blocking than they are at pass protection. The Steelers have a reputation as a run-heavy team, and Willie Parker's a pretty good back, but in 2008 they were 29th in the league in yards per carry and 23rd in total rushing yards. The reason the Steelers were able to make it all the way with a line like that (aside from that monster of a defense) is that Roethlisberger is great at not letting a hit turn into a sack. Tom Brady avoids sacks by having a quick release and getting the ball out of there when he's getting hit, Roethisberger does it by being extremely tough for defenders to bring down. Both of them have offensive lines that let them get hit a LOT, but both guys can consistently take a hit and still get the ball out. That Ben took 46 sacks when he's great at staying on his feet is a testament to exactly how often his line let somebody through to hit him.

Oh, I'm a big fan of Angelo's, and I'll be the first to say that he's made a bunch of good decisions, but I really think letting Thomas Jones go wasn't one of them. I know he basically promised him a trade in exchange for one more big season, but it should never have come to that. They should have just paid the guy. He's got a track record of being unhappy about his contract, but he's not the kind of guy who gets a big payday and quits working. Anyway, I'm just bitter. I was a huge fan of TJ's. I do think you're right, though, Forte and Kevin Jones should be good this year.

According to a couple of Minnesota fans I've talked to, Charley Walters basically just makes his stories up. He doesn't reveal any primary sources for the "buzz" he's referring to, and every other news outlet that picked up the story just used Walters as their source. According to Rotoworld, "Walters essentially writes a gossip column" and "isn't a reliable source." I'd definitely bring Harrison in on a no-risk contract where we could cut him before the season, if need be. He looked like a shell of his former self last season, and I wonder if his knee problems finally got the better of him. That said, if it turns out he can still play at a high level, why not at least bring him into camp?

Yeah, our 05-06 line was a very good run-blocking group, but they still were going against 8 in the box constantly. Rex wasn't really a threat because he was too inconsistent, and Kyle didn't have the long ball to open things up. When I think back on it, it's a testament to that line and Thomas Jones that we had as much success as we did running the ball. If there's one thing I'm legitimately mad at Angelo for, it's trading Jones. Imagine if they had kept him after '06...TJ/Forte (or Forte/TJ) would be an AWESOME backfield. But I think Forte and The Other Jones should do just fine this year. Teams won't be able to stack the line of scrimmage like they have in the past. Hester's got a long way to go as a receiver, but he's already shown that he can beat single-coverage, and you have to believe that Cutler will get him the ball if he's open. I think our running backs are going to see a lot of five- and six-man fronts this year.

Yeah, he'll be an AWESOME defensive backs coach when he's done playing. He's basically a position coach on the field already.

As far as the big picture being similar, I'll agree with that. The Bears have a very good QB, have a top-10 running back who can catch, will (probably) use a TE as their #1 receiving target, and (hopefully) will have their leading wideout pull in 900-1000 yards receiving. I even think you can extend the parallel a little further: I see no reason why Earl couldn't perform like Chris Chambers has been for the past few years (roughly 35 catches-500 yards-4 TDs or so.) All the nit-picking about effectiveness aside, I think you're right. The Bears' 2009 offense might not perform quite up to the elite level that San Diego's did in 2008 (when they were 11th in the league in total offense, 7th in passing yards, and 2nd in offensive scoring,) but it's going to be set up in a very similar way, and it should be productive. EDIT: Also, I definitely think the Bears will have a better ground game than the Chargers. As good as they were in every other category, San Diego was 20th in the league in rushing last year, and I think 2009 might finally be the year where LdT breaks down for real. Meanwhile, Forte's on his way up and won't be seeing 9 guys in the box any more.

Yeah, I really hope they're not snowing everybody about his knee injury from '06. If it's the kind of thing they just have to be careful about, that's fine. Guys play through some chronic injuries and are still productive. But if he's going to keep playing at the diminished level that we saw last season, that's a problem. And I really, really hope he doesn't reinjure it. I think this season will be a big year for Tommie, one way or another.

I'm not trying to argue that Hester being a less effective receiver than Jackson is Hester's fault. Whether it's in his control (yards after the catch) or out of his control (yards through the air, to some extent) is beyond the scope of my argument. All I'm trying to say is that I think it's unlikely that he'll improve as much in one year as Jackson did. Now, the issue of Cutler/Orton as compared to Rivers is interesting. It's true that Hester's going to be working with a better QB than he was last year, and I definitely believe that'll help him improve statistically. But I doubt that improvement in QB play will net Hester a proportional improvement like Vincent Jackson's, and I think there's good reason for that doubt: Jackson saw a larger improvement in Rivers' performance than Hester is likely to see going from Orton to Cutler. Jackson's statistical jump in 2008 coincided with a HUGE step forward for Philip Rivers. Let's compare 2007 Rivers to 2008 Orton and 2008 Rivers to a ballpark estimate of what Cutler can do in 2009 (provided that Cutler's performance stays more or less the same per-attempt as it has been throughout his career.) Some people think Jay will take a step backward with Turner and the Bears WRs, but for the purposes of this argument, I'm assuming he won't. So first let's look at 2007 Rivers and 2008 Orton: 2007 Rivers: 277/460 (60.2%) for 3152 yards (6.9 YPA), 21 TD, 15 Interceptions, 82.4 QB rating 2008 Orton: 272/465 (58.5%) for 2972 yards (6.4 YPA) 18 TD, 12 Interceptions, 79.6 QB rating Philip Rivers' performance in 2007 is surprisingly similar to Orton's in 2008. Their completions/attempts numbers were nearly identical. Orton threw for slightly fewer yards, TDs, and interceptions, all of which you'd expect from a relatively safe QB who doesn't have a great deep ball. All in all, though, Rivers' 2007 is VERY comparable to Orton's 2008. Rivers really turned a corner in 2008, however: 2008 Rivers: 312/478 (65.3%) for 4009 yards (8.4 YPA), 34 TD, 11 Interceptions, 105.5 QB rating Since Orton and pre-improvement Rivers are pretty comparable, all we have to ask now is whether Cutler in 2009 will be as good as Rivers in 2008. To get my Cutler projection, I assumed that the Bears will throw the same number of times with Cutler in 2009 (527 attempts) as they did with Orton/Grossman in 2008. My reasoning is that Cutler's a better QB than Turner's had in the past (which should increase the number of passing attempts,) but the Bears as a whole will be better and won't be playing from behind as often (which should lead to fewer passing attempts) so the two factors should cancel each other out. Then I applied Cutler's career completion percentage and per-attempt performance (yards, TDs, and interceptions per attempt) to those 527 attempts. It's mainly just a rough estimate to reflect how Cutler has performed thus far in his career. So let's compare 2008 Rivers to my hypothetical 2009 Cutler: 2008 Rivers: 312/478 (65.3%) for 4009 yards (8.4 YPA), 34 TD, 11 Interceptions, 105.5 QB rating 2009 Cutler: 329/527 (62.5%) for 3899 yards (7.4 YPA), 23 TD, 15 Interceptions, 87.6 QB rating While I think that Cutler will be a big upgrade over Orton, his career numbers are not anywhere close to Rivers' performance in 2008. To match Rivers' 2008 on a per-attempt basis, Cutler would need to hit a career-high completion percentage, bump up his YPA by an entire yard, and have a career-low interception total. If you're predicting that Cutler will help Hester to a Vincent Jackson-like improvement, you've got to be predicting a HUGE career season from Cutler in his first year under Ron Turner. Yes, Cutler could easily top Orton by nearly 1,000 yards (which would put him 670 yards over Orton/Grossman combined) and that will help Hester. But I don't see Cutler having the best season of his career in his first year in Chicago, just like I don't see Hester breaking out to the extent that Jackson did. Will Hester improve? Yes. Will Cutler be an upgrade? Yes. But I just don't think we can bank on either of them blowing up like Rivers/Jackson did in 2008. That kind of thing just doesn't happen that often.

He does. Also, he never had the same speed or range after the calf injuries started, and that wasn't his strong suit to begin with. I think he was probably hampered by that injury even when he was listed as healthy. If he'd been the same player (when healthy) since 2004 that he was from 2000-2003, he'd have had a really impressive career.

I wonder what kind of a career he would have had if his leg hadn't gotten rolled up that one time. That was basically the start of his chronic Achilles/calf/hamstring problems, and his other injuries have been of the freak accident type. We still would have lost him for 2007 (knee) and half of 2006 (Lisfranc fracture), but we would have had him for the playoffs in 2005, which might have been the difference in the Panthers game.

Per Rotoworld, Kansas City has agreed to terms with Mike Brown. I'll be sorry to see him in a different uniform, but I hope he has success in K.C. With a very, very young group on defense, Kansas City could benefit a ton from a leader like Brown in the locker room.

Nfo, I think we're closer to agreement on the first two points than you think, but I should clarify my third point a little. The major categories where I don't see the Bears being equal to San Diego are the following: QB - Passing Yards: In a vacuum, Cutler certainly has the ability to beat Rivers' 4,000 yard mark - he broke 4,500 yards with the Broncos last season. But the Broncos were running a wide-open passing offense, and San Diego's offense is closer to Denver's than it is to Chicago's. It remains to be seen whether Turner will stick to a conservative, run-based attack or not. If he does, I don't see Cutler quite making it to 4,000 yards passing. I agree that Cutler will be a significant improvement over previous years, and I guess this is splitting hairs, but I just don't see him quite making it to 4,000. I think 3,800-3,900 yards is about the best I'd expect. With a year in the offense under his belt and some better-developed receivers, I think he should break 4k yards in 2010. QB - Touchdowns: Sorry, but Cutler's not going to throw for 34 scores. The Bears' red-zone receiving package is not going to look ANYTHING like the Chargers'. San Diego gets down near the goal line and they get to put Antonio Gates, probably the second-best receiving TE in the NFL, on the field with Vincent Jackson (6'5" 240 lbs) and Malcom Floyd (6'5" 226 lbs.) All three guys are massive jump-ball threats. They throw the ball very successfully in the red zone as a result. The Bears, Cutler or no, are still going to punch it in on the ground when they get close to the end zone. We've got Greg Olsen and very little else in the way of red-zone targets. Rivers did make the jump from 22 TDs to 34, but I don't know of any reason why we'd expect Cutler to do the same without a comparable surrounding cast. My main point was that Rivers' primary option in the red zone, thanks to his receivers, was to throw the ball. I believe the Bears' primary option will still be to run it in with Forte, which will limit Cutler's passing TDs. I'm going to have to quote you here, because I think we're in agreement. You said, "I believe (a) Cutler will have solid TD numbers, and ( while his total TDs may be fewer than Rivers, that may also be offset by more ground game scores, thus keeping the overall picture w/ SD intact." I agree with this entirely. I think the Bears' offense as a WHOLE should score as much as San Diego's did last year. I just don't think Cutler will account for as many of our TDs as Rivers did of San Diego's. I see the Bears' offense scoring far less than 34 times through the air, but making it up on the ground. WR1 - Receiving yards: Jackson took a GIANT leap forward between 2007 and 2008. Do I think it's possible that Hester could do the same? Yes, definitely. Do I think we should be expecting Hester to take that kind of a jump? Nope. Between those two years, Jackson's catch rate went from 51.3% to 58.4% and his yards-per-catch went from 15.1 to 18.6. Proportionally, that's a very large increase in both catching ability and per-catch production. Compared to the rest of the league, Jackson started with a low catch rate and a pretty high YPC, higher than most NFL receivers have. In 2008, he improved that to an average catch rate and a genuinely elite YPC. Of all the receivers in the league with at least 20 catches last year, only 3 guys had a higher YPC than Vincent Jackson. Meanwhile, Hester finished 2008 with a 55.4% catch rate and a YPC of 13: he actually caught a lot more of the passes thrown his way than Jackson did back in 2007, but he did significantly less with those receptions. Basically, Hester's starting with a slightly below-average catch rate and a fairly average YPC. So to make a jump proportionally equal to Jackson's, 2009-Hester would have to catch over 63% of passes thrown to him and would need to improve his YPC to over 16. That would make him a very reliable target by NFL standards, as well as a pretty good big-play threat. If he made that big of an improvement, he'd be able to hit 1100 yards receiving in about 110 targets, not that many more than the 101 that Jackson got in 2008. His stat line would look something like: 69 receptions for 1,110 yards and 6 TDs. As far as my math, what I did was find the proportional increase in per-target production between Jackson's 2007 and Jackson's 2008, then apply that to Hester's 2008. So when I say Hester would need to catch over 63% of the passes thrown to him, that's not in order to hit Jackson's 2008 yardage totals on a fixed number of targets, that's just to make proportionally as big of an improvement as Jackson did. Same thing goes for YPC: to have a proportional one-year increase from 2008-2009 like Jackson did from 2007-2008, Hester's YPC would have to go up by more than 3 yards, since 15.1:18.6 is the same ratio as 13.0:16.1 - they both divide out to a 1:1.23 ratio. If Hester's YPC increases by less than 23% of his 2008 number, then he's not improving as much as Jackson did. So I'm actually not assuming that "everything remains the same for Hester" in terms of targets. In fact, I pointed out that Hester would need an increase in targets (up from 92 to 110 or so) to get close to Jackson's production. Basically, what I'm trying to say is "is it likely that Hester improves proportionally as much in 2009 as Jackson did in 2008?" I think the answer to that question is no. I don't think that 70 catches is unreasonable at all, what I'm wondering is how many times Cutler is going to have to throw it to Hester to get him to 70. The same thing is true of yardage: of course Hester can break 1,000 yards, but the question is how many plays it'll take him to do it. The more plays it takes, the less effective he is as a player. Without any proportional improvement at all, Hester could have gotten 70 catches in 2008; the problem is that he would have needed 126-127 targets to do it, and when you're getting thrown to that much, 70 catches is not a remarkable number to have. Likewise, he could have gotten 1,050 yards in 2008, but it would have taken him 81 catches (which, in turn, would have required that he be targeted on a whopping 146 passes.) He'd have the numbers, but 1,050 yards is not great production for a guy who gets thrown to 146 times. I'm not trying to argue that Hester won't improve. I'm saying that it's unlikely that he'll see as dramatic an improvement as Vincent Jackson did between 2007 and 2008. I'm not saying he won't catch 70 passes or break 1000 yards - what I AM saying is that I doubt he'll be as effective on a per-target basis as Jackson was in 2008. He could beat Jackson's total numbers, but he will probably need a lot more passes going his way than the 101 that Jackson saw in 2008.

Yeah, I remember reading an article on that: some guy watched all of last season's games and estimated that Orton flat-out missed Hester on a deep pass at least 12 times. How many of those 12 Devin would have caught, had they been on-target, is anybody's guess; his catch rate suggests he might have pulled in at least 6-7 of them. That would have added a significant chunk of yardage to his season totals. I agree with you that the only concrete definition of a #1 receiver is "the #1 receiving option on your team." I think a lot of people are using the term to mean something closer to "an elite receiver in the NFL." Is Hester the Bears' #1 option? Absolutely. Is he an elite receiver? Not at this juncture. In my mind, an elite receiver is somebody like Calvin Johnson or Larry Fitz. Those guys not only draw double coverage (which you touched on) in order to open things up for other players; they are also are productive despite facing double coverage all the time. Those two qualities are very closely linked. Compare Fitzgerald to, say, Lee Evans. Evans gets double-covered constantly, since (pre-T.O.) he's been the only legitimate receiving threat on the Bills. Does that open the game up for other Bills players? Not as much as you might think, since Evans can be controlled pretty well as long as you put two guys on him. He sees a lot of passes come his way (averages 104 targets a year, 112 if you don't count his rookie season) but he's not tremendously productive for a mid-first-round pick. That speaks to the fact that he's been the only receiver that opposing defenses had to account for, but also to the fact that they accounted for him pretty well while still being able to defend everybody else. When Evans is double-covered, the guys around him don't see as many defenders in their faces, but he's no longer the go-to receiver in the Bills' offense. That makes life harder for everybody else in the passing game, since Trent Edwards doesn't have a safety-valve receiver he can trust to make the reception. What you need from an elite receiver is the ability to command double-coverage and still be an effective option. That's what Larry Fitzgerald brings to Arizona: you HAVE to focus your defense on him, and he'll still hurt you while opening things up for Boldin and Breaston. He'll kill you if you don't double him, but even when you do, he's still the #1 option in that offense. I think Hester's already a Lee Evans type of #1: he's got the ability to do some damage when he's not accounted for, and he'll be hard enough to cover that defenses will have to take some attention off Cutler's other targets. But your #1 guy can't just be a decoy to draw coverage. Hester's got to show that he can attract attention from defenses and still be a go-to receiver for Cutler. He's our #1 guy either way, but if he can do that, I'll feel comfortable calling him a top-tier receiver.

I agree with basically all of this, except for one point: Hester and Jackson are not a wash by any means. Jackson is a better receiver until Hester proves otherwise, and I'm not sure that will happen. Remember that Jackson is an extremely young, up-and-coming player in his own right. If he makes even a small improvement on 2008, it'll be very hard for Hester to touch his production even in a best-case scenario. Other than that, though, I agree with you on pretty much every count. O-line, receivers, and QB play all go to San Diego. RB and TEs go to Chicago; Forte will have a slightly better year than LdT, and I think Olsen and Clark can combine to barely edge out Gates in receiving yards. San Diego's second TE, Manumaleuna, is basically an extra offensive tackle. He's not really a receiving threat at all. Still, I don't think the Bears' offense needs to be as productive as San Diego's. If we can put up 21 a game reliably and the defense can bounce back to '05-'06 form, we should win a lot of games.

The major categories where I don't see the Bears being equal to San Diego are the following: QB - Passing Yards: In a vacuum, Cutler certainly has the ability to beat Rivers' 4,000 yard mark - he broke 4,500 yards with the Broncos last season. But the Broncos were running a wide-open passing offense, and San Diego's offense is closer to Denver's than it is to Chicago's. It remains to be seen whether Turner will stick to a conservative, run-based attack or not. If he does, I don't see Cutler quite making it to 4,000 yards passing. QB - Touchdowns: Sorry, but Cutler's not going to throw for 34 scores. The Bears' red-zone receiving package is not going to look ANYTHING like the Chargers'. San Diego gets down near the goal line and they get to put Antonio Gates, probably the second-best receiving TE in the NFL, on the field with Vincent Jackson (6'5" 240 lbs) and Malcom Floyd (6'5" 226 lbs.) All three guys are massive jump-ball threats. They throw the ball very successfully in the red zone as a result. The Bears, Cutler or no, are still going to punch it in on the ground when they get close to the end zone. We've got Greg Olsen and very little else in the way of red-zone targets. WR1 - Receiving yards: Jackson took a GIANT leap forward between 2007 and 2008. Do I think it's possible that Hester could do the same? Yes, definitely. Do I think we should be expecting Hester to take that kind of a jump? Nope. Between those two years, Jackson's catch rate went from 51.3% to 58.4% and his yards-per-catch went from 15.1 to 18.6. Proportionally, that's a very large increase in both catching ability and per-catch production. Compared to the rest of the league, Jackson started with a low catch rate and a pretty high YPC, higher than most NFL receivers have. In 2008, he improved that to an average catch rate and a genuinely elite YPC. Of all the receivers in the league with at least 20 catches last year, only 3 guys had a higher YPC than Vincent Jackson. Meanwhile, Hester finished 2008 with a 55.4% catch rate and a YPC of 13: he actually caught a lot more of the passes thrown his way than Jackson did back in 2007, but he did significantly less with those receptions. Basically, Hester's starting with a slightly below-average catch rate and a fairly average YPC. So to make a jump proportionally equal to Jackson's, 2009-Hester would have to catch over 63% of passes thrown to him and would need to improve his YPC to over 16. That would make him a very reliable target by NFL standards, as well as a pretty good big-play threat. If he made that big of an improvement, he'd be able to hit 1100 yards receiving in about 110 targets, not that many more than the 101 that Jackson got in 2008. His stat line would look something like: 69 receptions for 1,110 yards and 6 TDs. I'm not saying Hester's not capable, but that's a lot to hope for.

OK, I think this is the difference in our perspectives: it depends on what you mean by "#1 receiver." I'm expecting Hester to be a VERY low-end #1 guy in 2009, much closer to Anquan Boldin/Eddie Royal levels of production than Larry Fitz/Brandon Marshall ones. That doesn't mean that he won't be the Bears' #1 option or improve from last year, but I doubt very much that he turns into an elite receiver overnight. If he absolutely blows up and puts up 1400 yards or something like that, then I agree that Chicago wouldn't be in the market for a premier receiver, even if Bennett flops. But I expect Hester to be somewhere in the 900-1000 yard range, sort of between a very productive #2 and a not-that-productive #1. If that happens and Bennett can't step up, I'd rather invest more in the position, bring in a player who is on that elite level, and have Hester as a high-end #2. We could do a lot of damage with Vincent Jackson or Braylon Edwards across from Devin. EDIT: It still makes me mad that the pick we spent on Mark Bradley could have been Vincent Jackson. Let's see, do we want an injury-prone guy with very little experience at the position, or a 6'5" 240-pound matchup nightmare with 37 TD receptions in college?

I think the Bengals are a good fit for Benson. He's not going to be a great back anywhere he goes - he's too slow to be any kind of breakaway threat, and he's not a pure bulldozer like Brandon Jacobs or Marion Barber. On the Bengals, though, I think he could be sort of a poor-man's Jamal Lewis and be decently productive. If Bernard Scott is as good as I think he will be, he and Benson could be a mid-pack backfield tandem. Plus Cincinnati just seems like the team he should have been on all along. As soon as they signed him, I thought, "oh, that makes sense."

Well, I was looking at it slightly differently. To get up to an acceptable level of production at the WR position, I think we're looking for the greatest single improvement from Bennett. If Hester just gets some more passes thrown his way, he'll be approaching low-end #1 receiver production. His catch rate and production per-catch last year were both perfectly acceptable; to get close to 1000 yards, he really only needs to take a small step forward and get a little more attention from Cutler than he got from Orton. I'm not saying we're not counting on Hester to produce, but I think he doesn't need to step up THAT much. Maybe he goes from 51-665 to something like 70-913. To get 70 catches (even if he doesn't improve on last season at ALL,) Hester would still only need 126 targets, which is around what you'd expect for a #1 receiver on a run-heavy team. Hines Ward, Derrick Mason, and Steve Smith all got around that many targets last season, and they're all #1 options on teams that love to run the ball. So I don't think Hester needs to improve drastically to be a high-end #2 or low-end #1 receiver, he should get to that level of production just by virtue of being the primary option at WR. If he can catch it a little more often or do a little more after the catch, he shouldn't have any problem getting just over 1000 yards on the season. Even with Hester as the #1 guy, however, there's a lot more production unaccounted for. Look at how many times the Bears threw it to WRs last year. Hester got 92 targets, Rashied Davis got 67, Brandon Lloyd got 50 and Marty Booker got 49. That's 258 passes to our top 4 wideouts. I expect Davis' targets to drop significantly, maybe all the way back down to the 32 looks he got in 2007. Suppose that Knox and Iglesias pick up the rest of Davis' targets and Hester sees 126 passes go his way. That leaves 65 passes going to Earl Bennett, which is 64 more than he saw in 2008. So even if the TEs and Forte continue to have a major role in the passing game, the Bears are going to be counting on a significant contribution from Bennett. At a minimum, I think he needs to catch 40 of those 65 for (based on his college YPC) somewhere between 440 and 560 yards, plus at least a couple of scores. That's a much larger leap forward than the one that Devin Hester needs to make, and that's assuming we don't throw it any more often with Cutler than we did with Orton. I'm not saying Earl won't do it, but if he doesn't, we could be in the market for a veteran wideout next offseason.

I think this is the most likely scenario. If Earl Bennett totally fails to step up, after spending a year in the system and being reunited with his college QB, I think maybe we go shopping in free agency. But all signs point to the Bears going into the 2009 season with what they have.