2009 Draft Scenarios

[Da Bears 88]

I'm not sure how you can tell Williams is a bust when he's not even playing. Let the guy actually play before calling him a bust.

Problem is that you don't know if his back will hold up. The guy breaks down more than a car.

[BearSox]

Below is were the "experts" have Orakpo going so far, also included Bears pick:

. drafttek.com #6 to Oak (Bears select #14 Greg Hardy DE ---> Sam Brafford and Taylor Mays go right after)

. walterfootball.com (1) #2 KC (Bears select #19 Everette Brown DE)

. walterfootball.com (2) #12 GB (Bears select #19 Greg Hardy DE)

. fantasyfootballjungle.com #3 Cin (Bears select #17 Colt McCoy QB -->Author thinks Orton is FA)

. huddlegeeks.com #13 GB (Bears select #20 Brian Cushing OLB)

. thehuddlereport.com #12 Buf (Bears select Eugene Monroe OT)

. nfldraftsource.com #12 GB (Bears select #17 Darius Heyward-Bey WR)

. footballsfuture.com #7 Oak (Bears select 19 Jeremy Maclin WR)

 

As the Texas hype builds, so will Orakpo. He is going anywhere from 2-13 and has been climbing recently.

It doesn't matter what school he went, as he has everything NFL scouts drool over. He has size, speed, power, strength, production, and to top it off, he's just a great football player who is very smart. I've been saying he's gonna be a top 5 pick for the past couple of months.

[BearSox]

Problem is that you don't know if his back will hold up. The guy breaks down more than a car.

What??? He breaks down more than a car? This is the first serious injury he's ever had. He went through all 4 years at Vandy healthy. I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[Pixote]

What??? He breaks down more than a car? This is the first serious injury he's ever had. He went through all 4 years at Vandy healthy. I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

LOL, you beat me to it. After reading the post you responded to I was going to say the same thing. He is hardly in a position to be considered an injury risk type of player. I expect big things from Williams next year.

[nfoligno]

I see both sides of this.

 

On one hand, yes, he did play throughout college. On the other hand, there were reports prior to the draft that many teams had dropped or taken Williams off their boards due to potential back issues. Was the report a degenerative back, like Urlacher? Something like that.

 

So while he played throughout college, there was reason to consider him an injury risk going forward.

 

LOL, you beat me to it. After reading the post you responded to I was going to say the same thing. He is hardly in a position to be considered an injury risk type of player. I expect big things from Williams next year.

[Iguana]

LOL, you beat me to it. After reading the post you responded to I was going to say the same thing. He is hardly in a position to be considered an injury risk type of player. I expect big things from Williams next year.

 

yea, ditto Pix's ditto.

[jason]

nfo...consolidating a bit...

1) You say Bennett shouldn't automatically get on the field because the guys in front of him are playing poorly, but why shouldn't he? It's the same garbage thought process that kept Dez "Stone Hands" White in the game, because he's good in practice. Sooner or later a guy has to produce on Sunday; and if he doesn't, you bring in someone who hasn't had the chance. It's a better option than bringing out the same guy who doesn't produce week to week. You say the coaches can "only do so much", and it's up to the player to produce. I agree. And that's why Bennett should be in there. Even if the others do better in practice, your theory holds that the other guy has to get a shot when the ones who start aren't producing.

 

2) Yes, our WRs have had drops. That's on them. As a high schooler I played center-field in baseball. I know that when we had one of those games where the ball never came to me, and when the ball never made it to me in the air in a catchable position, those games were hard to keep concentration. I'd say the WRs are the same way. I don't blame as many on the WRs as some - Connor mentioned one during the chat session that I didn't think was catchable - but I think a lot of it is concentration, and the fact that they are unaccustomed to getting the ball repetitively and consistently.

 

3) We disagree on Rashied Davis. He doesn't have stats, but you can't use the # of catches against him considering the facts that A) The Bears aren't known as a passing team, B] The Bears have had bad OCs for a while, C) The Bears have had either a bad OL or QB for a while, and D) The Bears have had several players on the same level, thereby keeping the totals low for just about every player. Not to mention the fact that at best he's been the slot-WR, a #3 guy on the Bears offense...which doesn't amount to catches. In my viewpoint, when he has been in the game, and when he's had the ball thrown to him, he's made more plays than not.

 

4) Hester has the talent to be a #1, but maybe not the head. He's almost the opposite of Marvin Harrison. I'd say he'll never be more than a good #2 (with improvement), and end up resembling Bernard Berrian.

 

5) Regarding the WR or OL idea, I think both would help, and I want both. But I think OL would help more. I also think that a stud WR drafted by the Bears would be wasted behind this coaching staff. First and Second rounders do better in the NFL? Where was Bennett drafted again? But, yes, a stud WR would help some.

[Connorbear]

nfo...consolidating a bit...

1) You say Bennett shouldn't automatically get on the field because the guys in front of him are playing poorly, but why shouldn't he? It's the same garbage thought process that kept Dez "Stone Hands" White in the game, because he's good in practice. Sooner or later a guy has to produce on Sunday; and if he doesn't, you bring in someone who hasn't had the chance. It's a better option than bringing out the same guy who doesn't produce week to week. You say the coaches can "only do so much", and it's up to the player to produce. I agree. And that's why Bennett should be in there. Even if the others do better in practice, your theory holds that the other guy has to get a shot when the ones who start aren't producing.

 

3) We disagree on Rashied Davis. He doesn't have stats, but you can't use the # of catches against him considering the facts that A) The Bears aren't known as a passing team, B] The Bears have had bad OCs for a while, C) The Bears have had either a bad OL or QB for a while, and D) The Bears have had several players on the same level, thereby keeping the totals low for just about every player. Not to mention the fact that at best he's been the slot-WR, a #3 guy on the Bears offense...which doesn't amount to catches. In my viewpoint, when he has been in the game, and when he's had the ball thrown to him, he's made more plays than not.

 

1 - Agree that Bennett should be getting offensive reps. Please don't ever mention 'Stone Hands' again.

 

2 - I like Davis but not as a #3. He is a #4 or #5 five - a receiver who can fill in when necessary and is a very good special teams player. I believe he signed a 3 yr deal for approximately 5 million which reflects that. However, with Booker and Lloyd being out for portions of the yr he has been getting alot more reps on offense than he should. Those reps should be going to Bennett.

 

Peace

[nfoligno]

1) You say Bennett shouldn't automatically get on the field because the guys in front of him are playing poorly, but why shouldn't he? It's the same garbage thought process that kept Dez "Stone Hands" White in the game, because he's good in practice. Sooner or later a guy has to produce on Sunday; and if he doesn't, you bring in someone who hasn't had the chance. It's a better option than bringing out the same guy who doesn't produce week to week. You say the coaches can "only do so much", and it's up to the player to produce. I agree. And that's why Bennett should be in there. Even if the others do better in practice, your theory holds that the other guy has to get a shot when the ones who start aren't producing.

 

The problem here is, at least for me, I have no clue how Bennett looks in practice. If he looks pretty decent in practice, but others simply look better, I would agree w/ your point. If Booker looks great Monday through Saturday, but bombs on Sunday, while Bennett looks decent in practice, Bennett should play. BUT, if Bennett looks awful in practice, then I do not agree he should get into the games. If, and this is a big if as we don't know, but if Bennett simply looks lost in practice, I just do not agree he warrants a spot on game day. I am not talking about being a great practice player, but I do believe a player needs to prove he could help or is competant before getting playing time.

 

St. Clair looked awful in Minny. Many want Williams to play. But what if during practice, Williams was getting consistently blown off the ball. What if Williams looked weak and slow. Would you still argue he should play? Just because the guy who is playing isn't playing well, does not mean to me the guy behind him should automatically get a shot. I think the guy behind him still must show the staff something to warrant that opportunity.

 

Now, that is NOT to say Bennett hasn't. My point is only that, w/o knowing, I just do not believe we can say he should be in there, no matter what.

 

2) Yes, our WRs have had drops. That's on them. As a high schooler I played center-field in baseball. I know that when we had one of those games where the ball never came to me, and when the ball never made it to me in the air in a catchable position, those games were hard to keep concentration. I'd say the WRs are the same way. I don't blame as many on the WRs as some - Connor mentioned one during the chat session that I didn't think was catchable - but I think a lot of it is concentration, and the fact that they are unaccustomed to getting the ball repetitively and consistently.

 

Not sure I buy this one. That would be one thing if we were talking about our #4 WR getting on a field a few times and maybe getting one or two looks a game, but we are talking about starting WRs who are getting thrown to enough to keep their concentration in the game. And further, how many of the drops came in either 3rd down situations or in the red zone. Sorry, but concentration should NEVER be a problem in these situations. Further still, we are talking about receivers who are often the first or second reads. These guys should not lack concentration. If you were talking about a guy who was the 4th or 5th read, I could better see your point, but a guy who knows he is one of the first two reads should be ready.

 

I just do not buy your argument, nor your analogy. You talk about playing centerfield, and I do know what you are talking about. You have 9 innings, and a minimum of 27 at bats. If during the game, you have a load of strikeouts or infield hits, I can see the outfield's attention wandering a bit. But I just do not buy the idea that our WRs get so few looks.

 

3) We disagree on Rashied Davis. He doesn't have stats, but you can't use the # of catches against him considering the facts that A) The Bears aren't known as a passing team, B] The Bears have had bad OCs for a while, C) The Bears have had either a bad OL or QB for a while, and D) The Bears have had several players on the same level, thereby keeping the totals low for just about every player. Not to mention the fact that at best he's been the slot-WR, a #3 guy on the Bears offense...which doesn't amount to catches. In my viewpoint, when he has been in the game, and when he's had the ball thrown to him, he's made more plays than not.

 

I understand all our offensive issues. At the same time, while I have no problem saying Davis is a decent looking WR, and have said in the past I believe he can be a solid slot (#3) WR, I simply disagree his body of work leads to the belief or expectation that he is a solid starting WR in the NFL. He is a nice slot guy. That is where he has played in the past, and the position (IMHO) that best utilizes his skill assets. But that is different from being a starter. He was given the starting role this year, and IMHO, has simply not proven he is capable. He has had other games w/ the drops. Whether you want to call it concentration or whatever, he simply has not proven a capable starter, much less a go to WR, which again, is the main crux of my argument.

 

4) Hester has the talent to be a #1, but maybe not the head. He's almost the opposite of Marvin Harrison. I'd say he'll never be more than a good #2 (with improvement), and end up resembling Bernard Berrian.

 

Now there is a statement we can agree w/. There is little question of Hester's pure athleticism, and thus potential ability. But in the NFL, you need more than that. You need the head to go along w/ the talent. You need to be able to master the playbook. You need to master route running. I have heard former players talk about this. If the WR is standing on the LOS before the snap, and having to think about the playcal and what he is supposed to do, he has already lost the battle. He should simply "know" what his assignment is, and be able to focus on what the defense is doing. If while running his route, he is thinking about the route, rather than simply running in instinctually, then he is less likely to have the focus and concentration to beat his man and finish the play.

 

I just question whether Hester has the head to ever be a consistent WR threat. I believe Hester can be a weapon as a slot WR, w/ a more limited playbook. If he has to learn the entire playbook and all the routes, I think he will struggle. If he has to only learn a portion, I think his chance to master that smaller amount is better. I just do not see him ever having the consistency in his game to be a legit starter.

 

Even if I did go along w/ your belief that he can be a solid #2, that still goes back to my original point of not having a #1 WR on this team.

 

5) Regarding the WR or OL idea, I think both would help, and I want both. But I think OL would help more. I also think that a stud WR drafted by the Bears would be wasted behind this coaching staff. First and Second rounders do better in the NFL? Where was Bennett drafted again? But, yes, a stud WR would help some.

 

One, Bennett was drafted in the 3rd, not the 2nd.

 

Two, we agree on the OL. My point is NOT that we shouldn't draft OL, but (a) if there are no OL of value w/ our pick, WR to me is the 2nd choice to consider and ( if we are simply not going to draft OL in the first (remember, we are talking Angelo here) then WR to me is the next best option to improve this team. Not just the offense, but the team.

 

Three, you say a WR is wasted w/ this staff, but I could argue the same about OL (as well as most other positions). How many OL have we drafted and developed? Kreutz was the former staff. Tait St. Clair and Garza were developed elsewhere. Beekman was drafted by us, and is starting, but that same staff was ready to start Metcalf and didn't consider Beekman a legit option at OG until injuries forced the issue. That is as big of a knock on our staff's ability when it comes to the OL as any. While there have not been a ton of OL drafted by this staff, I would point out the few that were showed little development. Can you say Metcalf?

 

Heck, I would argue WRs have developed more than OL w/ this staff. Wade and Gage showed a greater level of development and play for us. Berrian never turned into the stud #1 we wanted, but developed more than any OL we drafted. Davis was a defensive player, and yet has developed into a WR, whether slot as I believe or #2 as you believe.

 

On the whole, I think we agree more than disagree here. I still believe, as you, that OL is our #1 priority. At the same time, I have simply come to believe the need for a #1 WR is greater than I believed in the past. In the past, I felt that if we build the OL, one of our current WRs would step up to become a #1. Maybe not a stud, but a #1. I know believe that none of our current WRs have #1 capability, and further, question whether any of our current WRs really even have #2 capability. While I believe improving the protection for Orton is a must, I also believe we must give him better weapons than what he currently has to work with. I was never a big fan of Berrian, but he would be a HUGE upgrade to what we currently have on the roster.

[madlithuanian]

I'm with you on that nfo...

 

I'm hoping for the best, but fearing the worst...

 

let's not forget Benson was a beast in college and once he got to the pros, he fell apart physically and mentally.

 

I see both sides of this.

 

On one hand, yes, he did play throughout college. On the other hand, there were reports prior to the draft that many teams had dropped or taken Williams off their boards due to potential back issues. Was the report a degenerative back, like Urlacher? Something like that.

 

So while he played throughout college, there was reason to consider him an injury risk going forward.

[jason]

1) You say Bennett shouldn't automatically get on the field because the guys in front of him are playing poorly, but why shouldn't he? It's the same garbage thought process that kept Dez "Stone Hands" White in the game, because he's good in practice. Sooner or later a guy has to produce on Sunday; and if he doesn't, you bring in someone who hasn't had the chance. It's a better option than bringing out the same guy who doesn't produce week to week. You say the coaches can "only do so much", and it's up to the player to produce. I agree. And that's why Bennett should be in there. Even if the others do better in practice, your theory holds that the other guy has to get a shot when the ones who start aren't producing.

 

The problem here is, at least for me, I have no clue how Bennett looks in practice. If he looks pretty decent in practice, but others simply look better, I would agree w/ your point. If Booker looks great Monday through Saturday, but bombs on Sunday, while Bennett looks decent in practice, Bennett should play. BUT, if Bennett looks awful in practice, then I do not agree he should get into the games. If, and this is a big if as we don't know, but if Bennett simply looks lost in practice, I just do not agree he warrants a spot on game day. I am not talking about being a great practice player, but I do believe a player needs to prove he could help or is competant before getting playing time.

 

St. Clair looked awful in Minny. Many want Williams to play. But what if during practice, Williams was getting consistently blown off the ball. What if Williams looked weak and slow. Would you still argue he should play? Just because the guy who is playing isn't playing well, does not mean to me the guy behind him should automatically get a shot. I think the guy behind him still must show the staff something to warrant that opportunity.

 

Now, that is NOT to say Bennett hasn't. My point is only that, w/o knowing, I just do not believe we can say he should be in there, no matter what.

 

Then we simply disagree. If one guy is a practice stud, but sucks in the game, you put the other guy in and give him a shot...even if he isn't a great practice player. What harm can be done?

 

2) Yes, our WRs have had drops. That's on them. As a high schooler I played center-field in baseball. I know that when we had one of those games where the ball never came to me, and when the ball never made it to me in the air in a catchable position, those games were hard to keep concentration. I'd say the WRs are the same way. I don't blame as many on the WRs as some - Connor mentioned one during the chat session that I didn't think was catchable - but I think a lot of it is concentration, and the fact that they are unaccustomed to getting the ball repetitively and consistently.

 

Not sure I buy this one. That would be one thing if we were talking about our #4 WR getting on a field a few times and maybe getting one or two looks a game, but we are talking about starting WRs who are getting thrown to enough to keep their concentration in the game. And further, how many of the drops came in either 3rd down situations or in the red zone. Sorry, but concentration should NEVER be a problem in these situations. Further still, we are talking about receivers who are often the first or second reads. These guys should not lack concentration. If you were talking about a guy who was the 4th or 5th read, I could better see your point, but a guy who knows he is one of the first two reads should be ready.

 

I just do not buy your argument, nor your analogy. You talk about playing centerfield, and I do know what you are talking about. You have 9 innings, and a minimum of 27 at bats. If during the game, you have a load of strikeouts or infield hits, I can see the outfield's attention wandering a bit. But I just do not buy the idea that our WRs get so few looks.

 

Think about how you almost agree near the end here with the outfield analogy. Now think about the number of hits versus the number of balls to a bored outfielder in the game. Now compare that to the number of balls thrown to our WRs a game. I see a very directly relateable ratio.

 

 

3) We disagree on Rashied Davis. He doesn't have stats, but you can't use the # of catches against him considering the facts that A) The Bears aren't known as a passing team, B] The Bears have had bad OCs for a while, C) The Bears have had either a bad OL or QB for a while, and D) The Bears have had several players on the same level, thereby keeping the totals low for just about every player. Not to mention the fact that at best he's been the slot-WR, a #3 guy on the Bears offense...which doesn't amount to catches. In my viewpoint, when he has been in the game, and when he's had the ball thrown to him, he's made more plays than not.

 

I understand all our offensive issues. At the same time, while I have no problem saying Davis is a decent looking WR, and have said in the past I believe he can be a solid slot (#3) WR, I simply disagree his body of work leads to the belief or expectation that he is a solid starting WR in the NFL. He is a nice slot guy. That is where he has played in the past, and the position (IMHO) that best utilizes his skill assets. But that is different from being a starter. He was given the starting role this year, and IMHO, has simply not proven he is capable. He has had other games w/ the drops. Whether you want to call it concentration or whatever, he simply has not proven a capable starter, much less a go to WR, which again, is the main crux of my argument.

 

I think this is semantics. I think of a slot guy as a starter, albeit not an every-down starter.

 

 

4) Hester has the talent to be a #1, but maybe not the head. He's almost the opposite of Marvin Harrison. I'd say he'll never be more than a good #2 (with improvement), and end up resembling Bernard Berrian.

 

Now there is a statement we can agree w/. There is little question of Hester's pure athleticism, and thus potential ability. But in the NFL, you need more than that. You need the head to go along w/ the talent. You need to be able to master the playbook. You need to master route running. I have heard former players talk about this. If the WR is standing on the LOS before the snap, and having to think about the playcal and what he is supposed to do, he has already lost the battle. He should simply "know" what his assignment is, and be able to focus on what the defense is doing. If while running his route, he is thinking about the route, rather than simply running in instinctually, then he is less likely to have the focus and concentration to beat his man and finish the play.

 

I just question whether Hester has the head to ever be a consistent WR threat. I believe Hester can be a weapon as a slot WR, w/ a more limited playbook. If he has to learn the entire playbook and all the routes, I think he will struggle. If he has to only learn a portion, I think his chance to master that smaller amount is better. I just do not see him ever having the consistency in his game to be a legit starter.

 

Even if I did go along w/ your belief that he can be a solid #2, that still goes back to my original point of not having a #1 WR on this team.

 

Agreed on all accounts.

 

 

5) Regarding the WR or OL idea, I think both would help, and I want both. But I think OL would help more. I also think that a stud WR drafted by the Bears would be wasted behind this coaching staff. First and Second rounders do better in the NFL? Where was Bennett drafted again? But, yes, a stud WR would help some.

 

One, Bennett was drafted in the 3rd, not the 2nd.

 

Two, we agree on the OL. My point is NOT that we shouldn't draft OL, but (a) if there are no OL of value w/ our pick, WR to me is the 2nd choice to consider and ( if we are simply not going to draft OL in the first (remember, we are talking Angelo here) then WR to me is the next best option to improve this team. Not just the offense, but the team.

 

Three, you say a WR is wasted w/ this staff, but I could argue the same about OL (as well as most other positions). How many OL have we drafted and developed? Kreutz was the former staff. Tait St. Clair and Garza were developed elsewhere. Beekman was drafted by us, and is starting, but that same staff was ready to start Metcalf and didn't consider Beekman a legit option at OG until injuries forced the issue. That is as big of a knock on our staff's ability when it comes to the OL as any. While there have not been a ton of OL drafted by this staff, I would point out the few that were showed little development. Can you say Metcalf?

 

Heck, I would argue WRs have developed more than OL w/ this staff. Wade and Gage showed a greater level of development and play for us. Berrian never turned into the stud #1 we wanted, but developed more than any OL we drafted. Davis was a defensive player, and yet has developed into a WR, whether slot as I believe or #2 as you believe.

 

On the whole, I think we agree more than disagree here. I still believe, as you, that OL is our #1 priority. At the same time, I have simply come to believe the need for a #1 WR is greater than I believed in the past. In the past, I felt that if we build the OL, one of our current WRs would step up to become a #1. Maybe not a stud, but a #1. I know believe that none of our current WRs have #1 capability, and further, question whether any of our current WRs really even have #2 capability. While I believe improving the protection for Orton is a must, I also believe we must give him better weapons than what he currently has to work with. I was never a big fan of Berrian, but he would be a HUGE upgrade to what we currently have on the roster.

 

Agreed...but before the Bears spend a #1 on a WR - unless an absolute steal drops to them - I'd say Bennett and others need to get a shot. For instance, why the hell did Rideau, Haas, and Monk not make it? I don't know about Monk, but from all accounts the other two were lighting it up at practices and mini-camps...so that weak argument by the coaches can't be used against them.

[nfoligno]

Then we simply disagree. If one guy is a practice stud, but sucks in the game, you put the other guy in and give him a shot...even if he isn't a great practice player. What harm can be done?

 

Look, I really do not know any specifics w/ regard to Bennett, but you really do not believe a guy on the bench or in Bennetts situation, has to show anything to play? He should play no matter what due to the failures of the guys ahead of him? What if he is struggling to learn the playbook? If you don't know the playbook in practice, why should the staff expect you to suddenly know it on Sunday?

 

I really don't have a problem w/ Bennett playing. Heck, w/ this staff, there is just no telling. For years, I just could not understand why we would continue to play guys who were worthless on the field when there were young guys on the depth chart who "may" do more. Maybe they wouldn't, but it makes sense to give them a look so you know.

 

Think about how you almost agree near the end here with the outfield analogy. Now think about the number of hits versus the number of balls to a bored outfielder in the game. Now compare that to the number of balls thrown to our WRs a game. I see a very directly relateable ratio.

 

Sorry, but I just think the analogy of centerfield in baseball and WR in football are day/night differences. I know what you are trying to say, but just don't care for the analogy. I have played outfield, and frankly, it is easy for the mind to wonder. You are out there deep, and would have to shout to be heard by the nearest person. You could go numerous innings and never move your feet. Very different for a WR though. He isn't just standing around, and that alone to me is a huge difference in holding attention. Further, the centerfielder is one of 9 positions who may be in position to make a play. The WR is one of a smaller number. Further, we are talking about our starting WRs here, so we are talking about players who are the first and second reads on most passing downs. There simply is FAR less to understand when a starting WR loses focus.

 

I think this is semantics. I think of a slot guy as a starter, albeit not an every-down starter.

 

Maybe it is semantics. I think of a slot WR as your #3 WR. He doesn't start, as the base is a 2 WR formation. When he comes in, he lines up on the inside and usually matches up w/ the opponents nickel DB, not their starting CB. So (a) your slot WR doesn't need to know the entire playbook necessarily, as he isn't on the field for every play and ( your slot WR doesn't matchup w/ starting caliber corners. Also, your slot receiver works the inside area, and is usually given a free release, as opposed to starting WRs who more often are jammed at the LOS. And maybe most important, the slot receiver is not usually considered a QBs go-to option, and thus is not as counted on.

 

So it may be semantics, but I am just giving you an idea of my thought process. I think Hester can develop into a weapon in the role I describe, but I just do not feel he has the consistency (or potential for such) to be an everydown starting WR.

 

Agreed...but before the Bears spend a #1 on a WR - unless an absolute steal drops to them - I'd say Bennett and others need to get a shot. For instance, why the hell did Rideau, Haas, and Monk not make it? I don't know about Monk, but from all accounts the other two were lighting it up at practices and mini-camps...so that weak argument by the coaches can't be used against them.

 

I have NO problem w/ the idea of giving other receivers more opportunities. In a small way, I think we have some as Booker seems to have be nearly written off while others were given an increased role. But I agree this needs to go deeper.

 

W/ that said, I still question the idea that giving these WRs an increased role would change much. Do you honestly believe any of these players can develop into a legit #1 WR? IMHO, at best, we can hope one develops into a #2, and more likely they develop into a valuable rotation player. But what I feel we lack is a legit #1. We have a bunch of guys who "might" be capable of developing into a #2 or #3, but I just don't see the #1 in the group. Used to, I believed w/ a solid OL and run game, having a group of #2s would get it done, but I now believe we really need a #1.

[jason]

Then we simply disagree. If one guy is a practice stud, but sucks in the game, you put the other guy in and give him a shot...even if he isn't a great practice player. What harm can be done?

 

Look, I really do not know any specifics w/ regard to Bennett, but you really do not believe a guy on the bench or in Bennetts situation, has to show anything to play? He should play no matter what due to the failures of the guys ahead of him? What if he is struggling to learn the playbook? If you don't know the playbook in practice, why should the staff expect you to suddenly know it on Sunday?

 

I really don't have a problem w/ Bennett playing. Heck, w/ this staff, there is just no telling. For years, I just could not understand why we would continue to play guys who were worthless on the field when there were young guys on the depth chart who "may" do more. Maybe they wouldn't, but it makes sense to give them a look so you know.

 

Given this staff's horrible record with player development, especially offensive player development, and considering the fact that Bennett went to Vandy, a school definitely not known as a freebie school even for athletes, my answer is yes. Put him in. I don't care. I'm convincde he can't do worse.

 

Think about how you almost agree near the end here with the outfield analogy. Now think about the number of hits versus the number of balls to a bored outfielder in the game. Now compare that to the number of balls thrown to our WRs a game. I see a very directly relateable ratio.

 

Sorry, but I just think the analogy of centerfield in baseball and WR in football are day/night differences. I know what you are trying to say, but just don't care for the analogy. I have played outfield, and frankly, it is easy for the mind to wonder. You are out there deep, and would have to shout to be heard by the nearest person. You could go numerous innings and never move your feet. Very different for a WR though. He isn't just standing around, and that alone to me is a huge difference in holding attention. Further, the centerfielder is one of 9 positions who may be in position to make a play. The WR is one of a smaller number. Further, we are talking about our starting WRs here, so we are talking about players who are the first and second reads on most passing downs. There simply is FAR less to understand when a starting WR loses focus.

 

It's a matter of degrees, and I think that our WRs know that A-They are not the first, second, or third options in this offensive offense, and B-They are simply not the greatest WRs in the league. You put in the other downs in which they are involved, but I don't know that many WRs feel like that (except Hines Ward). When they don't get passes, many seem to consider that an "off" down.

 

 

Agreed...but before the Bears spend a #1 on a WR - unless an absolute steal drops to them - I'd say Bennett and others need to get a shot. For instance, why the hell did Rideau, Haas, and Monk not make it? I don't know about Monk, but from all accounts the other two were lighting it up at practices and mini-camps...so that weak argument by the coaches can't be used against them.

 

I have NO problem w/ the idea of giving other receivers more opportunities. In a small way, I think we have some as Booker seems to have be nearly written off while others were given an increased role. But I agree this needs to go deeper.

 

W/ that said, I still question the idea that giving these WRs an increased role would change much. Do you honestly believe any of these players can develop into a legit #1 WR? IMHO, at best, we can hope one develops into a #2, and more likely they develop into a valuable rotation player. But what I feel we lack is a legit #1. We have a bunch of guys who "might" be capable of developing into a #2 or #3, but I just don't see the #1 in the group. Used to, I believed w/ a solid OL and run game, having a group of #2s would get it done, but I now believe we really need a #1.

 

Yes, I believe Bennett has the skills and talent to develop into a #1 WR. He's a lot like a Marvin Harrison type WR. Will he develop into a #1 WR? No. Probably not. Why? Coaches. I don't think the Bears will EVER have a truly legit #1 WR while this coaching staff is in place, or while the defensive minded philosophy of the Bears permeates throughout the Bears' organization.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

In regards to Earl Bennett, I would love to seem him get an opportunity. The question is, when and how do we use him. Coming into the draft, the scouting report on this guy is he has decent size (6-1 205), adequate speed 4.52, excellent hands, and great route running ability. Most teams had him on there radar, but since he didn't possess the speed to be a #1, he slipped on draft day. So when the Bears selected him, they knew he would either fit in as a #2 possession WR or #3 slot WR. Looking over the Bears roster, the whole team looks to be #2 or #3's. Devin Hester who Lovie insisted will be the Bears #1 really doesn't have the size or route running ability to truly be a #1. With time, maybe he can develop into a Steve Smith type WR, but the clock is ticking. Brandon Lloyd, showed a glimpse of hope against TB, but lately it seems he has trouble getting seperation. I would consider Lloyd as a teams backup #2. Marty Booker fits in the same category as Lloyd, so it comes down to who's the better backup #2. Rashied Davis is a typical #3 slot WR and has shown some glimpses of filling the role. If he can get over the droppies, he can make a decent starting slot WR. So looking over the Bears current roster, Lovie needs to bury his love for Booker and Lloyd and let the kid have his opportunity or decide to sit Davis and let Bennett work the slot.

 

Bennett started off on fire in Vandy, which plays in a pretty tough SEC. Set SEC records and really only played with a talented QB for one season (Jay Cutler). He is very smart, which Vandy requires academics (Notre Dame, Northwestern, Stanford, Duke, and Wake Forest) so I doubt he's struggling with the playbook. He is known for putting many hours of extra work on fundamentals (routes). So unless he told the coaches that he's not ready, it comes down to the coaches prefering to play a vet. and that's how I see it. I see Lovie being a big pus and that he is afraid to sit a Marty Booker or a Brandon Lloyd. For the Bears to ever get better, the players coach needs to grow some balls and not worry about hurting feelings.

[nfoligno]

Jason, I'll make this one short.

 

You want Bennett to play. Okay, me too. WR is one of the few positions you can work a player into the game w/o making any major changes. It just would not be difficult to start getting Bennett some reps.

 

I have no problem w/ this. I do disagree though with the idea Bennett can be a #1. Sure, anything is possible. Until a player plays, anything is technically possible. But I think few would agree he has #1 WR potential.

 

You compare him to Harrison, but didn't Harrison have more speed, at least earlier in his career? He was a 1st round pick too.

 

I see Bennett's potential, based on scouting reports, as being a #2. He supposedly has the hands and route running, but simply not the speed. To me, that screams #2 WR.

[Mongo3451]

Jason, I'll make this one short.

 

You want Bennett to play. Okay, me too. WR is one of the few positions you can work a player into the game w/o making any major changes. It just would not be difficult to start getting Bennett some reps.

 

I have no problem w/ this. I do disagree though with the idea Bennett can be a #1. Sure, anything is possible. Until a player plays, anything is technically possible. But I think few would agree he has #1 WR potential.

 

You compare him to Harrison, but didn't Harrison have more speed, at least earlier in his career? He was a 1st round pick too.

 

I see Bennett's potential, based on scouting reports, as being a #2. He supposedly has the hands and route running, but simply not the speed. To me, that screams #2 WR.

I'm starting the outcry for Bolden now. We started crying for Faneca and were not appeased. We a need a #1 that can get off the line of scrimage and make plays. A #2 will only emerge then.

[nfoligno]

I'm starting the outcry for Bolden now. We started crying for Faneca and were not appeased. We a need a #1 that can get off the line of scrimage and make plays. A #2 will only emerge then.

 

I'm all for getting Boldin, but I do still believe we have to consider everything. Boldin is not a FA. We have to trade for him. While I am not opposed to trading for a player, I do believe the price matters. I am not sure I am willing to give up a 1st and 3rd (for example) and then provide him w/ a new deal which makes him one of the top 5 highest paid WRs in the league, which I bet is what he demands.

 

I think I would rather just sign TJ Housyourmama. IMHO, TJ has proven he is not just a compliment to CJ. TJ is a #1 WR in his own regard. I like Boldin more, but if giving the choice between getting TJ w/o compensation and Boldin for whatever AZ demands, I think I would just as soon get TJ.

[Connorbear]

I'm all for getting Boldin, but I do still believe we have to consider everything. Boldin is not a FA. We have to trade for him. While I am not opposed to trading for a player, I do believe the price matters. I am not sure I am willing to give up a 1st and 3rd (for example) and then provide him w/ a new deal which makes him one of the top 5 highest paid WRs in the league, which I bet is what he demands.

 

I think I would rather just sign TJ Housyourmama. IMHO, TJ has proven he is not just a compliment to CJ. TJ is a #1 WR in his own regard. I like Boldin more, but if giving the choice between getting TJ w/o compensation and Boldin for whatever AZ demands, I think I would just as soon get TJ.

I agree I would like to keep the 1st rounder. The only issue with TJ is he will be 32 by the time the season starts next yr. Boldin is 28. I just want to avoid the issue we had with Moose (paying a player who is past his prime).

 

Peace

[nfoligno]

Damn. I did not realize he was that old. This is his 8th season. W/ so many players hitting the league at 20ish, being 31 after 8 seasons seems high. I guess he started in the NFL a bit older than most.

 

Still, while I do understand what you are saying, there are some huge differences between TJ and Moose. I know you are not necessarily comparing the two so much, but simply use him as an example. Still, there are differences between he and Moose, as well as he and old veterans in general.

 

One. As mentioned above, while he is 31, he turned 31 not that long ago, and will still be 31 at the start of next year. More importantly though, he is in only his 8th season in the NFL. Most 31 or 32 year olds have more seasons under their belt. Also, he played more sparingly his first two seasons, and thus only has 6 seasons of true wear and tear.

 

Two. TJ is not a speed receiver. A WR who bases his game on speed and downfield threat will show the effects of age much sooner and more dramatically. I think if you look around the league, you find that possession receivers last much longer.

 

Three. While age is absolutely a factor, I think it is alway important to look at other things. Often, players play well into their 30s. I believe that you can look at numerous factors, as well as the play in general, and see signs of decline before it happens. I do not believe TJ has shown the signs of decline. Far from it. This year, the offense around him has been flat out awful. Their QB situation is so bad, Rex may actually be an upgrade. Their run game is so bad, they signed and start Benson! Their OL is so bad, it makes our look all pro. Even w/ all this, TJ is on pace for over 100 catches and over 1,100 yards. As the only player on the team worth attention, he is still producing. I don't think you see that often from a player ready to decline.

 

Four. As much as anything, I like his consistency. Look at his numbers over the last 4 or 5 years, and you see consistent improvement. Yea, this year will reflect a dropoff some, but I would argue that doing so in the situation he is in is an even greater accomplishment than putting up big numbers when everything was going well.

 

The last point is, for the record, why I never liked the Moose signing. He was an inconsistent WR throughout his career, and what do we do. We sign him after he has a single great (career best) season and pay him (and expect) as if that were the standard. That always made me sick.

 

Look, I would absolutely love to get Boldin, and even if it costs us in a trade, would still find out what it would take to get him. But if the asking price is a 1st, or more, I am simply not sure his value through a trade would be equal to getting TJ w/o giving up the picks.

 

I agree I would like to keep the 1st rounder. The only issue with TJ is he will be 32 by the time the season starts next yr. Boldin is 28. I just want to avoid the issue we had with Moose (paying a player who is past his prime).

 

Peace

[ChileBear]

I agree I would like to keep the 1st rounder. The only issue with TJ is he will be 32 by the time the season starts next yr. Boldin is 28. I just want to avoid the issue we had with Moose (paying a player who is past his prime).

 

Peace

We would end up paying a tone of $ for what, two, three seasons? And, anyway, we all know this is the black hole of WRs! Get Boldin.

[Connorbear]

Look, I would absolutely love to get Boldin, and even if it costs us in a trade, would still find out what it would take to get him. But if the asking price is a 1st, or more, I am simply not sure his value through a trade would be equal to getting TJ w/o giving up the picks.

I never said trade for Boldin. I think he will at least cost us a #1 and possibly more and we simply cannot afford that with the holes we currently have on the team.

 

I would much rather sign TJ but I am worried about his age.

 

Peace

[DrunkBomber]

Jason, I'll make this one short.

 

You want Bennett to play. Okay, me too. WR is one of the few positions you can work a player into the game w/o making any major changes. It just would not be difficult to start getting Bennett some reps.

 

I have no problem w/ this. I do disagree though with the idea Bennett can be a #1. Sure, anything is possible. Until a player plays, anything is technically possible. But I think few would agree he has #1 WR potential.

 

You compare him to Harrison, but didn't Harrison have more speed, at least earlier in his career? He was a 1st round pick too.

 

I see Bennett's potential, based on scouting reports, as being a #2. He supposedly has the hands and route running, but simply not the speed. To me, that screams #2 WR.

I know hes a bigger target, but a lot of the reason Boldin slipped was because of what youre saying about Bennett. Im not comparing the two, I actually think he might be more of a Hines Ward, but just because he isnt the fastest guy or wasnt a first rounder doesnt mean he cant be a number one WR.

[madlithuanian]

Moss was had for far less... I'd say a #2 might be able to get him and I'd say that's worth it. Or maybe trade our first and get their #2...something other than just losing a 1st. The possibilities are endless...including trading Ogun or other players...

 

We would end up paying a tone of $ for what, two, three seasons? And, anyway, we all know this is the black hole of WRs! Get Boldin.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Moss was had for far less... I'd say a #2 might be able to get him and I'd say that's worth it. Or maybe trade our first and get their #2...something other than just losing a 1st. The possibilities are endless...including trading Ogun or other players...

I'd rather give up a 3rd this year and a 2nd next year for Boldin.

 

This year, we have too many weaknesses to be trading a 2nd rounder. Plus, we'll probably get another 3rd anyway thanks to Berrian.

[madlithuanian]

Works for me!

 

I'd rather give up a 3rd this year and a 2nd next year for Boldin.

 

This year, we have too many weaknesses to be trading a 2nd rounder. Plus, we'll probably get another 3rd anyway thanks to Berrian.