bradjock Posted January 5, 2008 Report Share Posted January 5, 2008 This is something I can't remember anyone bringing up before (which means it's probably been brought up 1000 times.) But as we talk about bringing in impact players, our history would indicate that we wouldn't give a rookie the chance to play. Yes it's happened before with this staff but only when there was nobody else available (Kyle Orton & Trumaine McBride). Probably the most blatant examples of this were how long it took us to get Hester involved during the 2006 season. Hell, the season was half-way over before we let him start returning kick-offs. Not to mention the way Greg Olsen often dissappeared this year. This theory could also explain why we never saw Hass or Beekman. Knowing this leaves me very doubtful that we can expect anything immediatel from the guys we draft in April Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadevtx Posted January 5, 2008 Report Share Posted January 5, 2008 Skill players usually take longer to adjust than do the trench men, and let's face it, Hester's mental capacity has a lot to do with his slow progress.I think they're bringing him along slowly cuz the guy wants to make a bg play so badly, he is a danger to give the ball away or leave himself vulnerable to a big hit. The difference between running back punts and kicks is huge. Punts you usually have more time to see the field develop while the ball is in the air cuz 9/11 defenders are slow off the ball and breaking from the line of scrimmage. Kicks everyone is spaced out and running full speed for 30-40 yards before contact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted January 5, 2008 Report Share Posted January 5, 2008 This is something I can't remember anyone bringing up before (which means it's probably been brought up 1000 times.) But as we talk about bringing in impact players, our history would indicate that we wouldn't give a rookie the chance to play. Yes it's happened before with this staff but only when there was nobody else available (Kyle Orton & Trumaine McBride). Probably the most blatant examples of this were how long it took us to get Hester involved during the 2006 season. Hell, the season was half-way over before we let him start returning kick-offs. Not to mention the way Greg Olsen often dissappeared this year. This theory could also explain why we never saw Hass or Beekman. Knowing this leaves me very doubtful that we can expect anything immediatel from the guys we draft in April Disagree. - Orton started but we had Blake in by the beginning of the season. They could have switched to Blake after the Cleveland debacle but didn't. - McBride started this year over Manning Jr. who was perfectly healthy. - Payne was starting this yr before he was hurt. - Both Tommie Harris and Chris Harris started their rookie yrs. - Olsen missed the first 2 games this yr with an injury and finished with 39 catches (only 5 behind Clark who played every game this yr) and, sorry, but their is no way he should have started over Clark this yr. - Dusty missed all of last yr and was the starter in game 1 when he got hurt. - Manning started last yr after Brown was injured. We saw impact this yr from Olsen, McBride, Graham, and Wolfe. Last yr we saw impact from Anderson, Hester, and Manning. I don't see this as an issue. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted January 5, 2008 Report Share Posted January 5, 2008 Part of the issue may be the Bears tendency lately to use the IR list as sort of a redshirt year for some of their defensive guys. Dvoracek, Bazuin, Okwo all were put on IR for some fairly minor injuries their rookie years because the Bears didn't really have spots for them in September, and therefore that's 3 guys who we've drafted pretty highly who didn't contribute their first year. You could say the same thing about guys who were blocked like Williams as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted January 5, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2008 Disagree. - Orton started but we had Blake in by the beginning of the season. They could have switched to Blake after the Cleveland debacle but didn't. - McBride started this year over Manning Jr. who was perfectly healthy. - Payne was starting this yr before he was hurt. - Both Tommie Harris and Chris Harris started their rookie yrs. - Olsen missed the first 2 games this yr with an injury and finished with 39 catches (only 5 behind Clark who played every game this yr) and, sorry, but their is no way he should have started over Clark this yr. - Dusty missed all of last yr and was the starter in game 1 when he got hurt. - Manning started last yr after Brown was injured. We saw impact this yr from Olsen, McBride, Graham, and Wolfe. Last yr we saw impact from Anderson, Hester, and Manning. I don't see this as an issue. Peace Good point with the defensive guys. I see your argument. I still wonder if we hate to play offensive rookies. While Olsen did play a lot, is there any one of us who didn't think he should be on the field more? Meanwhile, Wolfe, other then a random carry here or there, didn't see any meaningful action until Cedric Benson went down. He was frequently inactive. The first game AP started, I expected to see a lot from Wolfe, and he didn't see the field. Orton might be the exception, but he began starting out of desperation when Rex went down and Hutchinson played his way out of the league. Berrian's rookie year might be another exception, but when the guys in front of you are David Terrell and Bobby Wade . . . It also could be that the offensive players we drafted flat out suck. But either way, we've demonstrated a tendency to bring offensive players along VERY slowly. I can't see any offensive draft pick, like running-back for example, having any significant impact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted January 5, 2008 Report Share Posted January 5, 2008 Good point with the defensive guys. I see your argument. I still wonder if we hate to play offensive rookies. While Olsen did play a lot, is there any one of us who didn't think he should be on the field more? Meanwhile, Wolfe, other then a random carry here or there, didn't see any meaningful action until Cedric Benson went down. He was frequently inactive. The first game AP started, I expected to see a lot from Wolfe, and he didn't see the field. Orton might be the exception, but he began starting out of desperation when Rex went down and Hutchinson played his way out of the league. Berrian's rookie year might be another exception, but when the guys in front of you are David Terrell and Bobby Wade . . . It also could be that the offensive players we drafted flat out suck. But either way, we've demonstrated a tendency to bring offensive players along VERY slowly. I can't see any offensive draft pick, like running-back for example, having any significant impact. Can you give an example of a team that plays rookie RBs, WRs, or TEs alot unless there is an injury? Teams usually make more of an effort to bring 1st rounders into the mix more than later round guys, but even then, look at how the Colts used Addai his rookie year. He had 15 or fewer carries 9 of 16 games and didn't break 100 yards until week 12. It seems like you're trying to indict either the drafting or coaching when I think it's pretty common practice throughout the nfl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.