Mongo3451 Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 Just sayin... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 Gage always looked good on our roster when given any sort of opportunity. I think part of our problem is that our QB's didn't exactly light the world on fire so it was hard to have a WR produce and at the same time our coaching staff has continued to play the wrong receivers and make poor personell decisions when it comes to the WR position. I will still say that most of our WR's suck absolute donkey balls but Gage was a guy that flashed potential and never really was given a good opportunity despite having shoddy QB play in front of him. Plus the Bears don't seem to use our WR's to there strenghts. For cripes sakes, why are we sending Booker deep, we all know he has zero seperation so while you need to ocassionally alter the routes, use him to his strength over the middle of the field (where he can use his route running ability and strong arms to get off bump coverage and open on shorter patterns). I've long said get the Bears about two good young WR's and than two good vet's and we'd see this team improve. Plus find yourselves a good freaking QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted January 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 Gage always looked good on our roster when given any sort of opportunity. I think part of our problem is that our QB's didn't exactly light the world on fire so it was hard to have a WR produce and at the same time our coaching staff has continued to play the wrong receivers and make poor personell decisions when it comes to the WR position. I will still say that most of our WR's suck absolute donkey balls but Gage was a guy that flashed potential and never really was given a good opportunity despite having shoddy QB play in front of him. Plus the Bears don't seem to use our WR's to there strenghts. For cripes sakes, why are we sending Booker deep, we all know he has zero seperation so while you need to ocassionally alter the routes, use him to his strength over the middle of the field (where he can use his route running ability and strong arms to get off bump coverage and open on shorter patterns). I've long said get the Bears about two good young WR's and than two good vet's and we'd see this team improve. Plus find yourselves a good freaking QB. How good would Gage, Berrian and Hester look as a trio? Perfect combo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 Gage showed flashes with us, but was always in the doghouse with our coaching staff for one reason or another. This just shows you what good coaching can do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 How does Drake keep his job? We've cut umteen receivers who have went on to have some sort of success and haven't really had anyone step up. ALbeit Hester made a lot of strides and Berrian turned into a pretty darn good WR, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boston Boxer Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 How good would Gage, Berrian and Hester look as a trio? Perfect combo. they would look damn good. Hester is the perfect slot WR ala Welker. Pair those WRs with our TEs and RB and you have a great offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 He looked really good tonight. Wish we kept him. Wish we had WRs that could fight off the jam like that. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 He looked really good tonight. Wish we kept him. Wish we had WRs that could fight off the jam like that. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 Gage always looked good on our roster when given any sort of opportunity. I think part of our problem is that our QB's didn't exactly light the world on fire so it was hard to have a WR produce and at the same time our coaching staff has continued to play the wrong receivers and make poor personell decisions when it comes to the WR position. I will still say that most of our WR's suck absolute donkey balls but Gage was a guy that flashed potential and never really was given a good opportunity despite having shoddy QB play in front of him. Plus the Bears don't seem to use our WR's to there strenghts. For cripes sakes, why are we sending Booker deep, we all know he has zero seperation so while you need to ocassionally alter the routes, use him to his strength over the middle of the field (where he can use his route running ability and strong arms to get off bump coverage and open on shorter patterns). I've long said get the Bears about two good young WR's and than two good vet's and we'd see this team improve. Plus find yourselves a good freaking QB. Ultimately, Gage's fumbling promblem doomed him with the Bears. That and with Rex Grossman as QB, Turner craved WR's who could really stretch the field and be a deep threat. Although I wonder if that's changed now with Orton QBing. IMO, Gage would be successful with Orton. Yes, Gage, Bobby Wade, and Mark Bradley have looked good at times. But Brandon Lloyd's looked pretty damn good at times. But that doesn't mean we should keep him. And while it would be nice to have Berrian, I still don't know of anyone who wishes we'd have out-big Minny for his 43 million for 6 years. Hell, he signed for much more then Lance Briggs. Lance made the pro-bowl and Berrian completely dissappeared at times, and did not make his QB's much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Ultimately, Gage's fumbling promblem doomed him with the Bears. That and with Rex Grossman as QB, Turner craved WR's who could really stretch the field and be a deep threat. Although I wonder if that's changed now with Orton QBing. IMO, Gage would be successful with Orton. Yes, Gage, Bobby Wade, and Mark Bradley have looked good at times. But Brandon Lloyd's looked pretty damn good at times. But that doesn't mean we should keep him. And while it would be nice to have Berrian, I still don't know of anyone who wishes we'd have out-big Minny for his 43 million for 6 years. Hell, he signed for much more then Lance Briggs. Lance made the pro-bowl and Berrian completely dissappeared at times, and did not make his QB's much better. The thing people miss on Berrian is that we wouldn't have had to put out that bid had we just done the smart thing and franchised him. If I were running things i'd have franchised Berrian, told Urlacher to shut up (and tried to trade him) and found a way to sign Briggs (I've probably been Briggs biggest backer on this site). Regardles it was very clear the Bears had pure shit at the WR corps and while Berrian might not have been worthy of the contract he got he was the best WR we've had in ages and considering our needs at the WR spot it was absolutely idiotic not to franchise him and thus guaranteeing the fact that he'd be back with the Bears for a season (no one was going to give up 2 1st rounders) and that would have also given time for the Bears to reach a long-term agreement with him (and it would have been worth less than what he got cause he wouldn't have had the leverage to get the deal he got in Minny). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Don't forget that Franchising him would have kept him away from Minny and perhaps change their whole offseason (meaning maybe they spend a 1st round pick on a WR, and not trade for Allen). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixote Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Don't forget that Franchising him would have kept him away from Minny and perhaps change their whole offseason (meaning maybe they spend a 1st round pick on a WR, and not trade for Allen). I think that is a bit of a reach. If they hadn't gotten Berrian I am sure they would have sought another FA WR. I am sure they would have traded for Allen no matter what happened with their desire to add a WR for they felt all they needed for their defense to be "tops" was a pass rusher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 The thing people miss on Berrian is that we wouldn't have had to put out that bid had we just done the smart thing and franchised him. If I were running things i'd have franchised Berrian, told Urlacher to shut up (and tried to trade him) and found a way to sign Briggs (I've probably been Briggs biggest backer on this site). Regardles it was very clear the Bears had pure shit at the WR corps and while Berrian might not have been worthy of the contract he got he was the best WR we've had in ages and considering our needs at the WR spot it was absolutely idiotic not to franchise him and thus guaranteeing the fact that he'd be back with the Bears for a season (no one was going to give up 2 1st rounders) and that would have also given time for the Bears to reach a long-term agreement with him (and it would have been worth less than what he got cause he wouldn't have had the leverage to get the deal he got in Minny). The thing that bugs me about this argument is that everyone on this board, except for me and maybe a few others, has been saying that the WR corp for the Bears has been garbage for years. And then, the guys leave, and do fairly well elsewhere. Then everyone chimes in that they wish the guys would have stayed with the Bears, and it's clear that the coaches have done nothing with the talent they've had. Which is it? Is the coaching horrible, or is the talent horrible? I'm willing to bet Haas will do decent, Lloyd will sign elsewhere and do well, etc., ad nauseum. I still hold to the belief that this WR corp isn't that bad, but they're being HORRIBLY misused...as your mentioning of the Booker deep route proves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyyle23 Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 The thing that bugs me about this argument is that everyone on this board, except for me and maybe a few others, has been saying that the WR corp for the Bears has been garbage for years. And then, the guys leave, and do fairly well elsewhere. Then everyone chimes in that they wish the guys would have stayed with the Bears, and it's clear that the coaches have done nothing with the talent they've had. Which is it? Is the coaching horrible, or is the talent horrible? I'm willing to bet Haas will do decent, Lloyd will sign elsewhere and do well, etc., ad nauseum. I still hold to the belief that this WR corp isn't that bad, but they're being HORRIBLY misused...as your mentioning of the Booker deep route proves. It will always be the opposite of whatever is happening. The 20/20 hindsight on this board is quite amazing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Don't forget that Franchising him would have kept him away from Minny and perhaps change their whole offseason (meaning maybe they spend a 1st round pick on a WR, and not trade for Allen). gmafb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 gmafb He has a very good point. You don't get Berrian and the Vikes still have to address the WR position. That might have even meant they ended up giving a crapload of money to the bust known as Jerry Porter, but it might have meant they had to address the position via the draft which than makes them unable to trade for Allen. Of course this is all in hypotheticals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 gmafb Obviously Minnesota thought their two biggest needs heading into the offseason last year were WR and DE. If they don't get Berrian, perhaps they sign a DE and trade their first for a WR. Maybe they end up signing someone else and still get Allen. Who knows, but to say that if they didn't sign Berrian, they would have still done all the same stuff is bogus. Maybe they would, maybe they would have changed their plans. Who knows. But it's silly of you to completely dismiss it. Give me a freakin break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted January 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 The thing people miss on Berrian is that we wouldn't have had to put out that bid had we just done the smart thing and franchised him. If I were running things i'd have franchised Berrian, told Urlacher to shut up (and tried to trade him) and found a way to sign Briggs (I've probably been Briggs biggest backer on this site). Regardles it was very clear the Bears had pure shit at the WR corps and while Berrian might not have been worthy of the contract he got he was the best WR we've had in ages and considering our needs at the WR spot it was absolutely idiotic not to franchise him and thus guaranteeing the fact that he'd be back with the Bears for a season (no one was going to give up 2 1st rounders) and that would have also given time for the Bears to reach a long-term agreement with him (and it would have been worth less than what he got cause he wouldn't have had the leverage to get the deal he got in Minny). The bold part is what a lot of people argued last year as the main reason to bite the bullet and sign him. If for only a stop gap until we got some talent in here. Letting him go made the cupboard bare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 I'd say it is both. One, while WRs leave here and do better than they did w/ us, it isn't like we are talking about letting Reggie Wayne go. Some have done better than they did here, but how many WRs who left the bears went on to the pro bowl. They are better elsewhere, but not great. Two, trust me, I will get to coaching, but part of the issue IMHO is talent, not just WR, but overall. It is well known how much we invest in defense, so it is any surprise our offense is not great? Our QB situation has been average to bad to very bad for years. Our OL is rarely a high point. Run game is on and off. So I think overall talent is a factor. Three. coaching is absolutely an issue. I don't think we develop WRs very well. I also think we pigeon hole players. We are very controlling in how we use players (X or Y or whatever) but after they leave, they often are put into a different role, and simply look better. I think most would agree coaching is a factor, which is why most question why Drake is still on the staff. Four. At the same time, while some of the WRs we have had on the roster have looked better elsewhere, we regardless have not had that great WR talent. It is one thing to have some decent or good players, but another to have an upper tier WR. Having that upper tier WR simply makes life for everyone else easier. I think we have had many #2, #3 and #4 WRs, but have simply not found that #1, which I believe we really need. The thing that bugs me about this argument is that everyone on this board, except for me and maybe a few others, has been saying that the WR corp for the Bears has been garbage for years. And then, the guys leave, and do fairly well elsewhere. Then everyone chimes in that they wish the guys would have stayed with the Bears, and it's clear that the coaches have done nothing with the talent they've had. Which is it? Is the coaching horrible, or is the talent horrible? I'm willing to bet Haas will do decent, Lloyd will sign elsewhere and do well, etc., ad nauseum. I still hold to the belief that this WR corp isn't that bad, but they're being HORRIBLY misused...as your mentioning of the Booker deep route proves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 I'd say it is both. One, while WRs leave here and do better than they did w/ us, it isn't like we are talking about letting Reggie Wayne go. Some have done better than they did here, but how many WRs who left the bears went on to the pro bowl. They are better elsewhere, but not great. Two, trust me, I will get to coaching, but part of the issue IMHO is talent, not just WR, but overall. It is well known how much we invest in defense, so it is any surprise our offense is not great? Our QB situation has been average to bad to very bad for years. Our OL is rarely a high point. Run game is on and off. So I think overall talent is a factor. Three. coaching is absolutely an issue. I don't think we develop WRs very well. I also think we pigeon hole players. We are very controlling in how we use players (X or Y or whatever) but after they leave, they often are put into a different role, and simply look better. I think most would agree coaching is a factor, which is why most question why Drake is still on the staff. Four. At the same time, while some of the WRs we have had on the roster have looked better elsewhere, we regardless have not had that great WR talent. It is one thing to have some decent or good players, but another to have an upper tier WR. Having that upper tier WR simply makes life for everyone else easier. I think we have had many #2, #3 and #4 WRs, but have simply not found that #1, which I believe we really need. I'd agree and say it's both as well. I'm just sick of hearing about how bad the WRs are when they are on the Bears, and then hearing about how all the guys the Bears let go are doing so much better elsewhere. If nearly every WR who leaves the Bears either prospers or at least improves, that means there is a hell of a lot more blame put on the coaching staff here. Perhaps the Bears could benefit from that same pool of talent that gets exploited elsewhere if the coaching staff here had a damn clue about how to coach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 For the record, I do think our current group of WRs suck. Could they be better for us than they have thus far shown? Sure. But i do not see a #1 WR on the roster, and believe that if we added one, that would go a long way toward getting more out of the current group of Wrs. I'd agree and say it's both as well. I'm just sick of hearing about how bad the WRs are when they are on the Bears, and then hearing about how all the guys the Bears let go are doing so much better elsewhere. If nearly every WR who leaves the Bears either prospers or at least improves, that means there is a hell of a lot more blame put on the coaching staff here. Perhaps the Bears could benefit from that same pool of talent that gets exploited elsewhere if the coaching staff here had a damn clue about how to coach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 For the record, I do think our current group of WRs suck. Could they be better for us than they have thus far shown? Sure. But i do not see a #1 WR on the roster, and believe that if we added one, that would go a long way toward getting more out of the current group of Wrs. And, for the record, I think they are slightly below average...as I have said for the past several years. And when each player left, I predicted that they would do better elsewhere. When those players have been given opportunities, they have almost always done better than when they were with the Bears. This group of WRs will be no different when they leave the Bears, eventually. 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.