Bears sign TE Clark to extension

[adam]

More split time for Olsen? Always good to have depth. Looks like Clark is content with the situation.

LAKE FOREST, ILLINOIS (TICKER) —The Chicago Bears on Sunday agreed to terms with tight end Desmond Clark on a two-year contract extension.

 

Financial terms were not disclosed for the deal, which keeps Clark under contract with the Bears through the 2010 season.

 

Clark, 30, hauled in 44 catches for 545 yards and four touchdowns in 16 games with the Bears last season - his fifth with Chicago.

 

A nine-year veteran, the 6-3 Smith likely will split time at tight end next season with 22-year-old Greg Olsen, the Bears’ first-round draft selection in 2007.

 

Sunday’s deal is the latest in what has been a busy offseason for the Bears (7-9), who also have brought back quarterback Rex Grossman and defensive end Alex Brown this month.

 

The 6-3 Clark has played in 130 career games with the Bears, Miami Dolphins and Denver Broncos, recording 262 catches for 3,067 yards and 24 TDs.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Akcr...t&type=lgns

[DABEARSDABOMB]

I like this because come December and January (hopefully we will be playing in January) it becomes more and more important to be able to run bigger two te sets in cold weather places and knowing you can have Olsen, whose a great blocker and a receiver as well as Clark (who you can end up splitting out wide as a receiver) could really create matchup problems.

 

I also like this because it is the second time this week that the Bears have rewarded one of there guys for working hard and having the right attitude (Alex Brown's extension was the first, now Clark, Orton will be next and than Urlacher). They are sending out the right message and I hope other players in the organization (including Tommie Harris and maybe even guys like Briggs/Berrian) see this and realize that it may be better to stick around with an organization that actually takes care of its guys.

[DrunkBomber]

Im a big fan of this move. Clark has been our most consistent receiving threat the past few years. Hes also a good run blocker.

[kyyle23]

Over the past two years, Clark has averaged 13.2 yards per catch -- most among NFL tight ends.

 

Thats a pretty good reason to bring him back. He finally has been healthy, and he has definitely been productive. It wont hurt to have him and Olsen in a double TE set

[daa84]

Thats a pretty good reason to bring him back. He finally has been healthy, and he has definitely been productive. It wont hurt to have him and Olsen in a double TE set

yeah with the lack of WR depth i think we will be seeing alot more two TE sets or with olsen split in the slot

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Im a big fan of this move. Clark has been our most consistent receiving threat the past few years. Hes also a good run blocker.

Couldn't have said it any better.

[bradjock]

yeah with the lack of WR depth i think we will be seeing alot more two TE sets or with olsen split in the slot

 

I wonder if this means will be playing Olsen at the WR position more? Compared to Moose, Olsen is bigger, faster, and more athletic. Moose is a better blocker, but other then that, there's nothing Moose could do that Olsen couldn't do better.

 

There were far too many stretches that Olsen did not see the field last season. He's a top offensive talent, and he needs to stay on at all times.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Couldn't have said it any better.

 

I know this won't be popular, but could you imagine getting Rashard Mendenhall in this set-up. Mendenhall is a great athlete and I think he could be as effective as Reggie Bush as a receiver out of the backfield, yet more effective as a rusher (because Rashard is actually built to be a full time RB).

 

You put him with Olsen and Clark and those are some solid pieces (upgrade the oline, hopefully bring back BB and than draft a WR somewhere in the 1st 4 rounds). If you can't resign BB, sign someone else. It wouldn't necessarily be the typical offense but you'd definitely have a lot of potential mis-matches and having Clark/Mendenhall who would be great check-down targets while Olsen (both big play with his speed as a TE as well as a check-down), Hester (big play all day), Bradley/Berrian (big play guys) and maybe a guy like Booker and you are talking about a pretty well diversified crop.

 

Yep, I'm having some coolaid

[Connorbear]

I think this is a great move. I think we will see a ton of 2 TE sets this next yr. I predict we see 100+ receptions from our TEs in total.

 

Peace

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

I know this won't be popular, but could you imagine getting Rashard Mendenhall in this set-up. Mendenhall is a great athlete and I think he could be as effective as Reggie Bush as a receiver out of the backfield, yet more effective as a rusher (because Rashard is actually built to be a full time RB).

 

You put him with Olsen and Clark and those are some solid pieces (upgrade the oline, hopefully bring back BB and than draft a WR somewhere in the 1st 4 rounds). If you can't resign BB, sign someone else. It wouldn't necessarily be the typical offense but you'd definitely have a lot of potential mis-matches and having Clark/Mendenhall who would be great check-down targets while Olsen (both big play with his speed as a TE as well as a check-down), Hester (big play all day), Bradley/Berrian (big play guys) and maybe a guy like Booker and you are talking about a pretty well diversified crop.

 

Yep, I'm having some coolaid

Yet when I said we should take Mendehall I was bashed

[fenom283]

I dont get it

[bradjock]

I dont get it

 

My guess is that we're trying to compensate for having a horrible receiver group by having a great tandem of TE's. Either way, his deal couldn't have been for very much. If we resigned our top quarterback (arguably) for 3 million per year, how much could we have given our 2nd best TE (arguably.)

[Mongo3451]

Great news, huh NFO!

[AZ54]

I get it and I like it. $5 mil bonus for a couple more years on the contract. TE is the most injured position in the NFL and having two solid players there is a huge boost to consistency on the offense. As stated above it also gives us more options in receiving since there are so many questions about who our starting WRs will be next year. It can also help our Oline since there are so many questions about who will be starting there as well.

[nfoligno]

Not a fan of this move.

 

I have no problem w/ Clark, but I do not see it. IMHO, we were set up last year as well as we will ever be to use a two TE set. Our WRs were weak. Our OL stunk, and we could have used the extra blocker. Our tailback was not a great pass blocker. We had a solid TE (Clark) as well as a 1st round pick TE that is capable of spreading the field. I screamed for more two TE sets last year, but rarely did we use it. The only time I saw us use the two TE set was out of a power formation, which we always ran from.

 

I would like this move if I believed we truly would employ a two TE set. As it is, I think Turner is a one TE guy, which simply makes me question the move.

[adam]

Not a fan of this move.

 

I have no problem w/ Clark, but I do not see it. IMHO, we were set up last year as well as we will ever be to use a two TE set. Our WRs were weak. Our OL stunk, and we could have used the extra blocker. Our tailback was not a great pass blocker. We had a solid TE (Clark) as well as a 1st round pick TE that is capable of spreading the field. I screamed for more two TE sets last year, but rarely did we use it. The only time I saw us use the two TE set was out of a power formation, which we always ran from.

 

I would like this move if I believed we truly would employ a two TE set. As it is, I think Turner is a one TE guy, which simply makes me question the move.

The only issue I have is if this will take away snaps from Olsen. This is nice insurance, but that seems to be more of a luxury - and can the Bears afford luxuries right now.

[madlithuanian]

Agreed.

 

I just hope the coaching staff figures out a way to use both guys...

 

Im a big fan of this move. Clark has been our most consistent receiving threat the past few years. Hes also a good run blocker.

[madlithuanian]

The move is good...I just question Turner.

 

Not a fan of this move.

 

I have no problem w/ Clark, but I do not see it. IMHO, we were set up last year as well as we will ever be to use a two TE set. Our WRs were weak. Our OL stunk, and we could have used the extra blocker. Our tailback was not a great pass blocker. We had a solid TE (Clark) as well as a 1st round pick TE that is capable of spreading the field. I screamed for more two TE sets last year, but rarely did we use it. The only time I saw us use the two TE set was out of a power formation, which we always ran from.

 

I would like this move if I believed we truly would employ a two TE set. As it is, I think Turner is a one TE guy, which simply makes me question the move.

[nfoligno]

But can you look at one w/o the other?

 

If you have a 3-4 defensive coordinator, does it make sense to draft/sign a 260 lb DE that is may be a good 4-3 fit, but would be an awful 3-4 fit? Would you say, I like the draft pick, but question the DC?

 

Turner is our OC. If we make moves that do not fit w/ that OC, do those moves make sense?

[nfoligno]

That is one of my things. I think Turner is a single TE set OC. We have two TEs capable of starting. Committing to Clark w/ this deal tells me we do not intend to bench him. I am sure Olsen will play, but I do at the same time believe his PT will be significantly less.

 

Again, if I had more faith Turner would use the two TE package more, I would love this deal. My issue is not w/ Clark, nor the deal itself, but as it applies to our scheme.

[madlithuanian]

Yeah. It does a couple things...

 

1. It's not that much loot to have a great back-up

2. Olsen could be moved to WR in many sets, thus having a virtual 2 TE set

3. Tuenr could pull his head out and actually start creating plays that utlize our skills (I know, it sounds funny, but bear with me!)

4. Turner (and maybe even Lovie, etc.) could be gone next year...

 

In the purest sense, I follow you...but I still don't think it's that much loot to keep him around. Plsen did get KO'ed for some games with injury last season. I think it's good insurance at a reasonable price.

 

But can you look at one w/o the other?

 

If you have a 3-4 defensive coordinator, does it make sense to draft/sign a 260 lb DE that is may be a good 4-3 fit, but would be an awful 3-4 fit? Would you say, I like the draft pick, but question the DC?

 

Turner is our OC. If we make moves that do not fit w/ that OC, do those moves make sense?

[nfoligno]

1. It's not that much loot to have a great back-up

 

But he was not a FA, and we already had him as a backup for "not much loot".

 

2. Olsen could be moved to WR in many sets, thus having a virtual 2 TE set

 

Nice thought, but what is it based on? Is it based on anything Turner has done, or incidated might be done? I don't think so. I could argue Wolfe might be effective as a WR, but unless our staff indicates we may do it, is there is a point in using that argument to justify his drafting?

 

3. Turner could pull his head out and actually start creating plays that utlize our skills (I know, it sounds funny, but bear with me!)

 

Turner absolutely could do a reversal, and even make the two TE set our base package. Who knows. If that comes to pass, then I would take everything back and say this was not a bad move at all. But all evidence points to the opposite thus far. In previous stint w/ Chicago, and later w/ Illinois, did Turner ever really utilizie two TEs?

 

4. Turner (and maybe even Lovie, etc.) could be gone next year...

 

And? I understand your point, but again, why not then wait to make a move until after you find a new coach, and know the plans of that new coach?

[nfoligno]

To any who believe this is a good move, let me ask you this?

 

Why not simply re-sign Clark next year? Think about it. Clark is coming off one of his best years ever, or was it his best? His market is pretty high today. What will it be next year. Does everyone not believe Olsen is going to see more snaps? Does everyone not believe Olsen's numbers are going to go up? While some might argue, I think logic will say that if Olsen's numbers go up, Clarks numbers are most likely to go down.

 

Today, Clark's market value is pretty high. A year from now? He will be a year older (he will be 32 at the start of the 2009 season). He will not likely be coming off a career high. He may not even be a starter, as I think most would expect Olsen to win that job by some point this year. So the most likely situation, IMHO, is Clark's market a year from now will not be as high as it is today. That tells me he would not be difficult to sign a year from now, if we still want him, which brings me back to my ealier issue. Will we even want him a year from now if we do not use a two TE set?

 

A year ago, Clark was a guy we were looking to replace/upgrade. While never bad, he was never that great for us either. We spent a 1st round pick to replace him, and make no mistake about it. Olsen was signed to replace Clark. One year later, we are giving him an extension?

 

Sorry, but I fail to see the logic. IMHO, we could have/should have let Clark play out his final season, and if we still had interest, we could have signed him then. I bet you his market a year from now would not be what it is today. Further, if we do not want him, we simply let him walk away.

[madlithuanian]

All valid points...but from what I read, much is about loyalty and his positive influence in the locker room. I think that probably accounts for a lot which we've not discussed. I'll be honest, I like guys that want to be and retire as a Bear...

 

I think it also attemps to prevent the position from being a need for years to come...we're simply locked in at TE.

 

But he was not a FA, and we already had him as a backup for "not much loot".

Nice thought, but what is it based on? Is it based on anything Turner has done, or incidated might be done? I don't think so. I could argue Wolfe might be effective as a WR, but unless our staff indicates we may do it, is there is a point in using that argument to justify his drafting?

Turner absolutely could do a reversal, and even make the two TE set our base package. Who knows. If that comes to pass, then I would take everything back and say this was not a bad move at all. But all evidence points to the opposite thus far. In previous stint w/ Chicago, and later w/ Illinois, did Turner ever really utilizie two TEs?

And? I understand your point, but again, why not then wait to make a move until after you find a new coach, and know the plans of that new coach?

['TD']

Im disappointed with this offseason as a whole. Turner is still here. No position coaches were fired. People were cut that should have been, but I think others should have too (ie. Arch and Manning Jr.). People were extended that we have replacements waiting for. Berrian wasn't tagged. Rex is back . and Orton is supposedly looking to extend for near the same money as Rex is getting. All of which should limit the FA spending.