Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 Donte Stallworth, current NE WR, now an UFA. He'd look good in our WR core if Berrian leaves. However, if NE loses Moss, I think they'll sign Stallworth. He'd be their #1/#2 Anyways, what do you think of this possibility? He'll 28 next November, which is pretty decent. I'd give him 3-4 years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 SI says the Pats have an option on him. They could make even more room for themselves without too much trouble, thanks to some rather hefty option bonuses that will force them to make decisions on receivers Donte' Stallworth and Kelley Washington by the end of the month. Stallworth has a $6 million option bonus due by Feb. 29, and if picked up, it'll extend his contract through 2008. He gets another $2 million for being on the roster on March 1, so in essence it's an $8 million decision. Washington has a $4 million option bonus that would extend his deal four years if New England activates it. Odds are Stallworth stays, and Washington's option is declined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 Donte Stallworth, current NE WR, now an UFA. He'd look good in our WR core if Berrian leaves. However, if NE loses Moss, I think they'll sign Stallworth. He'd be their #1/#2 Anyways, what do you think of this possibility? He'll 28 next November, which is pretty decent. I'd give him 3-4 years... I don't think Stallworth is an UFA yet. I believe he's due a 6 million $$$ Roster bonus, so there's speculation he'll be cut. IMO it's good for the Bears he's on the market, but he strikes me as being pretty damn similar to Berrian. They're both 27, both appear to be damn good #2 receivers, but not #1's, neither one has ever caught for a 1000 yards, Stallworth is listed at 6-0, 200, while Berrian is 6-1, 185. Berrian appears to be faster. It'll be interesting to see which of the two gets more money. I just hope like hell if we're going to pay for a WR, we keep our own. Personally I think we'll let Berrian walk, hope like hell Mark Bradley develops, and draft a WR fairly early. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 IMO it's good for the Bears he's on the market, but he strikes me as being pretty damn similar to Berrian. They're both 27, both appear to be damn good #2 receivers, but not #1's, neither one has ever caught for a 1000 yards, Stallworth is listed at 6-0, 200, while Berrian is 6-1, 185. Berrian appears to be faster. It'll be interesting to see which of the two gets more money. I just hope like hell if we're going to pay for a WR, we keep our own. The worry with Stallworth before this season has always, always been injuries, and I think the simple fact that Berrian doesn't have the track record of getting hurt as much will make Berrian more valuable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBearSox Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 you gotta think Berrian is gonna get the money considering the QBs that have been throwing to him.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyyle23 Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 The worry with Stallworth before this season has always, always been injuries, and I think the simple fact that Berrian doesn't have the track record of getting hurt as much will make Berrian more valuable. you beat me to the punch, the guy cannot stay healthy. He is electric when healthy, but he just cant stay on the field Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 Berrian has a pretty poor injury history too. He also gator-arms passes at times if there's gonna be a big hit, and doesn't fight the CB to prevent an INT very well, and how many routes does he run over the middle? I understand the argument that he's had poor QB play hindering his stats but on the other hand when you consider our other WR options he's by far been the best (at least last year) and should have had the lions share of receptions. The fact he didn't get 1000 yards might be a better indication of his ceiling. In the end I don't think any of this matters because the FA market is so slim at WR. It he's offered huge $$$ it might be in our best interests to let BB go and find a cheaper alternative like Stallworth or Bryant Johnson. I don't think the dropoff would be that great if any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 Berrian has a pretty poor injury history too. He also gator-arms passes at times if there's gonna be a big hit, and doesn't fight the CB to prevent an INT very well, and how many routes does he run over the middle? I understand the argument that he's had poor QB play hindering his stats but on the other hand when you consider our other WR options he's by far been the best (at least last year) and should have had the lions share of receptions. The fact he didn't get 1000 yards might be a better indication of his ceiling. In the end I don't think any of this matters because the FA market is so slim at WR. It he's offered huge $$$ it might be in our best interests to let BB go and find a cheaper alternative like Stallworth or Bryant Johnson. I don't think the dropoff would be that great if any. Isn't Gaffney a FA as well? I would take a look at him if he is. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDaddy Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 you gotta think Berrian is gonna get the money considering the QBs that have been throwing to him.... OR, maybe the reason our QBs look so bad is the fact that they were throwing to the dropsy twins, Berrian and Moose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 OR, maybe the reason our QBs look so bad is the fact that they were throwing to the dropsy twins, Berrian and Moose. DING Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 OR, maybe the reason our QBs look so bad is the fact that they were throwing to the dropsy twins, Berrian and Moose. Or, perhaps more importantly, because for the last year they were doing so while 3/4 of the way down on the ground. Even Brady couldn't win a game from his back side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBearSox Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 OR, maybe the reason our QBs look so bad is the fact that they were throwing to the dropsy twins, Berrian and Moose. Touche.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownman Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 My concern as already mentioned by Kyyle23 is that Stallworth has been injury prone lately. Might be a nice addition however, we still need a true #1 receiver that will catch the rock and there are other problems with the offense as well. Not able to justify throwing ugly money at a potential free agent who may not live up to expectations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Berrian has a pretty poor injury history too. He also gator-arms passes at times if there's gonna be a big hit, and doesn't fight the CB to prevent an INT very well, and how many routes does he run over the middle? I understand the argument that he's had poor QB play hindering his stats but on the other hand when you consider our other WR options he's by far been the best (at least last year) and should have had the lions share of receptions. The fact he didn't get 1000 yards might be a better indication of his ceiling. In the end I don't think any of this matters because the FA market is so slim at WR. It he's offered huge $$$ it might be in our best interests to let BB go and find a cheaper alternative like Stallworth or Bryant Johnson. I don't think the dropoff would be that great if any. I agree with most of what you said. I've said this before, Berrian reminds me of Nate Burelson who showed flashes at times in Minny, received a HUGE contract with Seattle, and has been a big dissappointment. Berrian is an outstanding 2nd option, and has had some of the best plays I've seen by any Bear WR. But the big plays are too few and too far between. I have a feeling when he signs a contract we're all going to say WOW! What I disagree with is that Stallworth & Johnson will be cheaper alternatives. The market's bare, and this has become a passing league. During the 2nd half of the Super Bowl there were only two rushing first downs in the 2nd half. That's never happened before. Stallworth & Johnson are also going to find huge paydays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Isn't Gaffney a FA as well? I would take a look at him if he is. Peace Even if Gaffney's available, he was bad enough that NE brought in Moss, Welker, AND Stollworth. How bad must he be for that to happen? That being said, if Berrian walks, WR becomes a top priority for this team. Along with him, Johnson & Stollworth, there's not much availble. Currently the Bears have Rashied Davis (assuming we sign him), who is a nice #4 WR, Hester who is a GREAT #3 (I still don't want to see us use him too much or it will hurt his kick/punt returns), Moose who's a great blocker, great leader, but slow as hell, and not an every down WR. That leaves us with Mark Bradley? Yikes. That's scary. In other words, adding Stollworth would be just adding another bad/mediocre WR to a bad/mediocre group. We'll have to draft one early. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkerBear7 Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Stallworth = $8 million for this? REC YDS AVG LNG TD ATT YDS AVG LNG TD FUM LST 2007 46 697 15.2 69 3 1 12 12.0 12 0 0 0 NO to Stallworth! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Agreed. I'd rather just sign Berrian to a long term contract...or even tag him over paying that loot for an injury prone player. Stallworth = $8 million for this? REC YDS AVG LNG TD ATT YDS AVG LNG TD FUM LST 2007 46 697 15.2 69 3 1 12 12.0 12 0 0 0 NO to Stallworth! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Berrian has a pretty poor injury history too. He also gator-arms passes at times if there's gonna be a big hit, and doesn't fight the CB to prevent an INT very well, and how many routes does he run over the middle? I understand the argument that he's had poor QB play hindering his stats but on the other hand when you consider our other WR options he's by far been the best (at least last year) and should have had the lions share of receptions. The fact he didn't get 1000 yards might be a better indication of his ceiling. In the end I don't think any of this matters because the FA market is so slim at WR. It he's offered huge $$$ it might be in our best interests to let BB go and find a cheaper alternative like Stallworth or Bryant Johnson. I don't think the dropoff would be that great if any. Spot on AZ54! I've been talking about BB's lack of stugats all season long. I think it's imperative to extend Dez Clark to ensure us a 2 TE package that will offset the lack of talent on the outside. Unless we sign a stud #1 we will be weak at the WR position this year. We might as well have solid guys who can fight for the catch and block. I stated a few weeks ago to watch how teams stack the box on without BB. I take that back now. IMO - his speed was the only thing respected by defenders last year. They play him over the top and it's all good. Unless he can go to the mid and deep middle he will never draw double coverage. Thus making it easier to cover other areas. That's why he won't be anyone's #1, even if he gets paid like one. Sign Dez and sign Bryant Johnson if he's available.(no to Stallworth) He's big strong kid and a decent blocker. He's been stuck behind two really good one's in AZ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Agree and disagree w/ points. I agree w/ the idea of signing Bryant Johnson, though I would like to see what his market value will be. If his market value is based on his proven performance and stats, his value should be very reasonable. On the other hand, if he is viewed as a WR w/ a ton of upside, held back only by a pair of elite WRs, his value could be inflated. Then factor the flat out weak FA class, and add in a mediocre at best rookie pool, and I am simply not sure where BJ's market value ends up. If the cost starts to soar, I would take a pass. I disagree w/ the idea of re-signing Clark. I totally understand what you are saying, and while I might agree in theory, I disagre because I have yet to see Turner really utilize the two TE system. We had a solid veteran and a stud rookie this year, while also having a weak group of WRs and a weaker OL. In otherwords, we were totally setup to run a 2 TE set. How often did we? I like the idea, but unless we actually utilize 2 TEs, what is the point. I actually think we may be better of simply trying a system more like KC or SD centered around a single TE. Further, do you think Clark's market value will be "that" high a year from now? We can just as easily not resign him, avoid committing to him long term, and let things play out as they will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 On Bryant Johnson: While he's been the #3 WR in Arizona he's had plenty of starting playing time due to injuries to either Fitzgerald or Boldin in the last two years. He's known for dropping some easy balls and not always running great routes. He was also wasn't the model NFL player in his early years. I don't know if he's matured or not but what little I've seen of him in a couple minicamp type practices (and it's very very little) he doesn't put much effort into running his routes or making the difficult catch. In contrast Fitzgerald looks crisp and focused on every route and will still layout to catch a bad pass. As compared to what we saw from Berrian last year I don't see much difference in what we'd get in productivity on the field. If Johnson ever grows up and gets focused on his job he's got talent and size that could make a first-rate WR. You would have thought that would have happened last year with him needing a new contract and maybe it did because he did make some great catches last season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 On Bryant Johnson: While he's been the #3 WR in Arizona he's had plenty of starting playing time due to injuries to either Fitzgerald or Boldin in the last two years. He's known for dropping some easy balls and not always running great routes. He was also wasn't the model NFL player in his early years. I don't know if he's matured or not but what little I've seen of him in a couple minicamp type practices (and it's very very little) he doesn't put much effort into running his routes or making the difficult catch. In contrast Fitzgerald looks crisp and focused on every route and will still layout to catch a bad pass. As compared to what we saw from Berrian last year I don't see much difference in what we'd get in productivity on the field. If Johnson ever grows up and gets focused on his job he's got talent and size that could make a first-rate WR. You would have thought that would have happened last year with him needing a new contract and maybe it did because he did make some great catches last season. Whichever of these guys we think looks best...I think the Bears have to make a move for someone, even if it's just Berrian. Looking at the Bears WR's, if Berrian walks, next year they're basically looking at Hester, Davis, Bradley if he's kept, and Hass, with potentially 2 good tight ends but no obvious receiving threat out of the backfield unless Benson or Wolfe dramatically improves over last year. In other words, the Bears receiving corps is, on paper, a disaster without someone else added. It could be better than it looks obviously, if Hester steps up, Olsen steps up, someone else steps up, etc., but on paper, that's a really weak group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Agree and disagree w/ points. I disagree w/ the idea of re-signing Clark. I totally understand what you are saying, and while I might agree in theory, I disagre because I have yet to see Turner really utilize the two TE system. We had a solid veteran and a stud rookie this year, while also having a weak group of WRs and a weaker OL. In otherwords, we were totally setup to run a 2 TE set. How often did we? I like the idea, but unless we actually utilize 2 TEs, what is the point. I actually think we may be better of simply trying a system more like KC or SD centered around a single TE. Further, do you think Clark's market value will be "that" high a year from now? We can just as easily not resign him, avoid committing to him long term, and let things play out as they will. On Clark: The reason it was hard to utilize the two TE set was the weakness of the OL. Instead of being able to place them both in the route, one would have to provide support. This is because the D can now play a bigger package with our two TE's. A stronger OL will help, but the greatest importance is with some creative play design and winning some of the mismatches. As far as signing him now versus next year is concerned: is you get him cheaper this year than next. Plus you have insurance in an area that you want to remain a strength. I really don't think his contract value will be very high either way due to age and carreer stats, but he is really good blocker and also one of those locker room guys as a bonus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 On Clark: The reason it was hard to utilize the two TE set was the weakness of the OL. Instead of being able to place them both in the route, one would have to provide support. This is because the D can now play a bigger package with our two TE's. A stronger OL will help, but the greatest importance is with some creative play design and winning some of the mismatches. As far as signing him now versus next year is concerned: is you get him cheaper this year than next. Plus you have insurance in an area that you want to remain a strength. I really don't think his contract value will be very high either way due to age and carreer stats, but he is really good blocker and also one of those locker room guys as a bonus. Sorry, but I have to disagree all around. I am not certain if you are saying we did run two TE sets, but one had to block so we were unable to utilize the two TEs as receivers at the same time, or if you are arguing we could not lineup two TEs at the same time because defenses would play a bigger package. Since I am not sure which is your point, I'll address both. 1. If we were to lineup two TEs, likely one, or sometimes both, would have to stay back to block. But I would argue that we simply didn't use this lineup often at all. It isn't simply a matter of not utilizing both TEs as receivers at the same time, but simply not even having them on the field together. So whether both run a route, one runs a route, or neither, it doesn't matter as we rarely used the package at all. 2. I REALLY disagree w/ the thinking that when you OL is weak, you avoid two TE sets because a D would "play a bigger package". I would argue (a) this does not often happen. If a team has two TEs, you most often simply counter it w/ your base package. You still use your LBs and SS to matchup w/ the two TEs. Likely your SS takes on and your SLB take the other, unless your WLB is big enough or your MLB is fast enough. How do you think the D would play bigger. Do you think they would add a 4th LB to their package, or add another DL? I can think of rare occasions I have seen this, and even then, it was to counter a run game and not a two TE package. ( if a D did try and add a bigger defender to their package to counter two TEs, you likely would be in a better position to take advantage. You would then force a team to take a starter out of the lineup and insert a backup, who our TEs would be more likely to expose. Further, if they did this, they did this, they are more likely putting their CBs on an island against our WRs, thus creating yet another mis-match for us to exploit. No, I would argue that if you have a situation where you have a weak OL, two TEs can be a great scheme. You simply have more options for blocking and route running. The D would not know if both TEs were going to block, run a route, seperate w/ 1 blocking and 1 running a route (and they would not know which would run the route), of if the TEs would chip block then run a route. I felt all year as I watched our OL fail that using two TEs would greatly help out, but we simply rarely used it. I simply question whether the two TE set is something Turner really is on board w/. It may be a set he uses some, but not a set he would base his offense around, and if he isn't going to use it enough, then there is simply no point in having two very good TEs. Finally, I go back to the point of what is the point in re-signing Clark early. To me, you sign players early when you, like you said, try to get them before their market value goes up. Assuming Olsen gets more and more reps, it is more likely than not going to take away from Clarks numbers. So I simply do not see Clark's value going up. That means we should be able to sign him a year from now just a easily as we could sign him today, if not easier. At the same time, I would point out that anytime you lockup a player, you are taking a risk. What if Clark has a bad year. What if he has an injury. You always take that risk when you lockup a player, which is why I simply do not see the point in locking up a player early when you really are not getting anything out of it. I just see far more potential downside than I see the upside. So to summarize, (a) I think Turner is more of a single TE guy, which questions the need to have Clark longterm w/ Olsen on the roster and ( simply do not see the reason to re-sign Clark a year early when we are unlikely to get much out of the deal. We can sign him just as easy and cheap in a year as we could now, so why take on the risk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 I am not certain if you are saying we did run two TE sets, but one had to block so we were unable to utilize the two TEs as receivers at the same time, or if you are arguing we could not lineup two TEs at the same time because defenses would play a bigger package. Since I am not sure which is your point, I'll address both. "No need to address both as I meant that we don't use it because it was not a good option with our crappy line." So, I'll address "2" 2. I REALLY disagree w/ the thinking that when you OL is weak, you avoid two TE sets because a D would "play a bigger package". I would argue (a) this does not often happen. If a team has two TEs, you most often simply counter it w/ your base package. You still use your LBs and SS to matchup w/ the two TEs. Likely your SS takes on and your SLB take the other, unless your WLB is big enough or your MLB is fast enough. How do you think the D would play bigger. Do you think they would add a 4th LB to their package, or add another DL? I can think of rare occasions I have seen this, and even then, it was to counter a run game and not a two TE package. ( if a D did try and add a bigger defender to their package to counter two TEs, you likely would be in a better position to take advantage. You would then force a team to take a starter out of the lineup and insert a backup, who our TEs would be more likely to expose. Further, if they did this, they did this, they are more likely putting their CBs on an island against our WRs, thus creating yet another mis-match for us to exploit. "Think of a 4 reciever set" 2 WR's and 2 TE's... Do you counter that with a base package or a nickel. The answer is base, which is bigger in a passing situation. This also what the Defense wants if you are a weak OL team. This why I vehemently disagree with you statement below. Why? Because you have just shortened the field and placed more men in the box. Who cares if the DB's are on an island if you the QB is on his back. The OL has to be good to runa 2 TE set, because the defense has to respect that they will get burned by cheating up and putting the DB's on an island. No, I would argue that if you have a situation where you have a weak OL, two TEs can be a great scheme. You simply have more options for blocking and route running. The D would not know if both TEs were going to block, run a route, seperate w/ 1 blocking and 1 running a route (and they would not know which would run the route), of if the TEs would chip block then run a route. I felt all year as I watched our OL fail that using two TEs would greatly help out, but we simply rarely used it. I simply question whether the two TE set is something Turner really is on board w/. It may be a set he uses some, but not a set he would base his offense around, and if he isn't going to use it enough, then there is simply no point in having two very good TEs. Finally, I go back to the point of what is the point in re-signing Clark early. To me, you sign players early when you, like you said, try to get them before their market value goes up. Assuming Olsen gets more and more reps, it is more likely than not going to take away from Clarks numbers. So I simply do not see Clark's value going up. That means we should be able to sign him a year from now just a easily as we could sign him today, if not easier. "This part is simply a difference in philosophy" I see Clark as a core player that can be signed cheaply now. Yes, he may be signed almost as cheaply next year and maybe not. I simply don't take that risk on a low dollar contract. Not a big deal though. Also, running teams find great benefit in 2 TE sets. IE: Running play action draws a LB instead of a Safety. Thing is, your line has to be strong enough to establish the running game before play action can be called. This we could not do last season. The year before, play action was pretty good. At the same time, I would point out that anytime you lockup a player, you are taking a risk. What if Clark has a bad year. What if he has an injury. You always take that risk when you lockup a player, which is why I simply do not see the point in locking up a player early when you really are not getting anything out of it. I just see far more potential downside than I see the upside. So to summarize, (a) I think Turner is more of a single TE guy, which questions the need to have Clark longterm w/ Olsen on the roster and ( simply do not see the reason to re-sign Clark a year early when we are unlikely to get much out of the deal. We can sign him just as easy and cheap in a year as we could now, so why take on the risk? Turner has been quoted as saying he wants to run 2 TE's more. I don't see where you get he's not a 2 te guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 If Clark is playing well next year I think he's a good candidate to get a contract extension midseason. I agree there's no reason to do this now but if he's still playing well next season why take a risk he leaves via FA? Or take a risk that his market value ends up higher than what you wanted to pay but end up matching anyway. TE is the most injured position in the NFL and it's worth it to have two guys who can play well. There is no logical reason for Turner not to have used two TE more often last year. He found himself inside a box with 8 or 9 men and had no idea how to get out of it. 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.