Housh not likely coming here

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Housh not likely in Bears' plans

 

T.J. Houshmandzadeh | Bengals

 

Although the Chicago Bears' most productive players receiving the football in 2008 were a converted defensive back (Devin Hester), the tight end (Greg Olsen) and their running back (Matt Forte), Mike Mulligan of the Chicago Sun-Times reports that the team is not interested in pursuing 31 year-old T.J. Houshmandzadeh.

Mulligan points out that Houshmandzadeh would expect a large contract given his emergence as a dominant wideout in Cincinnati, and would only be in the Bears' plans for two or three years. Houshmandzadeh has had five straight seasons of at least 900 yards receiving, and has had at least 90 receptions in the last three. His best campaign was 2007, where he had 112 catches for 1,143 yards and 12 touchdowns.

per espn.com Insider.

[bradjock]

per espn.com Insider.

 

That's not surprising really. In the full article that was in the Sun Times on Wednesday, I think, Mulligan added that after we spent so much money on Moose, and how bad he was, we'd be reluctant to do that again.

 

Housh & Moose are both bigger WR's who don't have great speed. Seeing how much Moose improved after leaving here, one has to wonder exactly what the problem is with Bear WR's.

 

Heck, Marty Booker went from 556 yards in 2007 on a HORRIBLE Miami team, to 221 yards this year.

 

If Housh could fix our QB/WR problem, we should pay him whatever it takes. But realistically he'd just become yet another mediocre/bad WR who can't hang onto the damn ball.

[madlithuanian]

Swell...

 

Here we go again...

 

per espn.com Insider.

[madlithuanian]

What's the solution though?

 

That's not surprising really. In the full article that was in the Sun Times on Wednesday, I think, Mulligan added that after we spent so much money on Moose, and how bad he was, we'd be reluctant to do that again.

 

Housh & Moose are both bigger WR's who don't have great speed. Seeing how much Moose improved after leaving here, one has to wonder exactly what the problem is with Bear WR's.

 

Heck, Marty Booker went from 556 yards in 2007 on a HORRIBLE Miami team, to 221 yards this year.

 

If Housh could fix our QB/WR problem, we should pay him whatever it takes. But realistically he'd just become yet another mediocre/bad WR who can't hang onto the damn ball.

[Wesson44]

What's the solution though?

 

The problem is not our WR thought the years with production, it'ss just the Chicago Bears are and have been a running team. Being built on the run game and defense we don't pass the ball 35-50 times a game like some other teams, so WR'S don't have big numbers here.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

The problem is not our WR thought the years with production, it'ss just the Chicago Bears are and have been a running team. Being built on the run game and defense we don't pass the ball 35-50 times a game like some other teams, so WR'S don't have big numbers here.

The Steelers, Ravens, and Falcons all are running teams too and they have good WR's.

[Bears4Ever_34]

Makes sense. I didn't really want him either.. Too old for the Bears. We need a stud receiver that has a lot of good years left in him. Chad Johnson is the best guy we could get, that is if Cinncy decides to deal him. The Bears are more likely to go in with the same or similar receivers they had this year against next season than go after some high priced guys like Chad Johnson or Anquan Boldin.

[bradjock]

What's the solution though?

 

What I want to know it, how much of a problem is it really? Yes, our WR's are reguarded as bad, but how much do we REALLY want to use them? Greg Olsen & Des Clark combined for 95 catches and almost 1000 yards. I look, for Olsen's numbers to see a big increase again next year, and I look to see one helluva a lot more from the rookie Kellen Davis, who looked great in training camp, but didn't see much time with Clark in front of him.

 

Then you have Matt Forte who had 64 catches for 484 yards. AP's always been very good at catching the ball also.

 

What I'm saying is that we don't necessary need a solution. Turner always talked about "stretching the field" but I'm not certain that's as important any more. That does not utilize Kyle's strengths which is in the shorter passing game. IMO, I think a big receiver like Justin Gage would do great with Orton right now. I don't think that would hold true if Orton were still QBing.

 

So while I think Housh would immediately be our best WR, I don't think having him is that critical. I think we could have damn near the same success with a guy like Bryan Johnson, who has good size.

 

That being said, it'll be interesting to see how much demand there is for Housh. I would think he would generate a deal similar to what Bernard Berrian signed last year, 6 years 43 million $$$. I don't see the Bears paying anywhere that amount of money for Housh.

[Connorbear]

We need a WR that can move the chains. I thought that would be Booker but he is obviously done. Bennett and Rideau should have received a hell of a lot more playing time than they did last yr. ARRGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

 

Peace

[Bears4Ever_34]

I think the thread title is a bit misleading.

[BigDaddy]

We need a WR that can move the chains. I thought that would be Booker but he is obviously done. Bennett and Rideau should have received a hell of a lot more playing time than they did last yr. ARRGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

 

Peace

 

There is an issue here that continues to rear it's ugly head. Talented athletes who just do not seem to develop. All pro receivers who come here and while they don't die, they acquire a virus that turns then into brick handed goofballs and malcontents who throw their QBs under the bus. Look, I hated Muhammed but you only have to look at his production and see he went from 1400+ in Car to 700+ in Chicago. Then he leaves and his first yr back there he gets 900+ yds. Look at Gage, damn near caught for as much yds in his yrs at Chicago in yr 1 at TN. There is a definite pattern here and that pattern begins with the coaches. I personally think the image they are trying to project is a result of bygone historical data that tells them that the Bears should be a running team. Unfortunately, our o line stinks at run blocking so how can you be a running team? Go out and get some phuckin road graters and then develop a PROPER running scheme, then maybe people will believe you get off the bus running instead of getting off the bus failing. Get the offensive line fixed and THIS football team will be worlds better. Then you open up the passing game and guys, there's alot of opportunity in our 3 TEs and I'd like to see a 3 TE set with Hester in the slot, who knows, maybe Riddeau AND Bennett can see the field and make a contribution. Spending money on a WR right now would be senseless unless we address this offensive line.

[nfoligno]

How about Carolina? No question they are a running team, but sure seem to have some solid WR stats at the same time.

 

I also think the idea that we are a running team is a bit of a misconception. We talk about it, but if we look at the stats, I think we find we sure sling it around plenty often. We are not some big time running team. We may like the idea of that identity, but I just don't think that is the reality.

 

The Steelers, Ravens, and Falcons all are running teams too and they have good WR's.

[nfoligno]

CJ? Are you kidding? Forget for the moment the character issues. He flat out stunk last year. He is not a WR that can make an average QB good. He is a WR that needs a QB w/ solid deep ability to get him the ball. This year proved, IMHO, that w/o a QB like Palmer, CJ is just not much by way of a threat. He is a one trick (downfield) pony, and while that is a great trick, if you don't have the QB to mesh w/, he is then a no trick pony.

 

No to mention he wants more money and would cost us picks.

 

Makes sense. I didn't really want him either.. Too old for the Bears. We need a stud receiver that has a lot of good years left in him. Chad Johnson is the best guy we could get, that is if Cinncy decides to deal him. The Bears are more likely to go in with the same or similar receivers they had this year against next season than go after some high priced guys like Chad Johnson or Anquan Boldin.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

CJ? Are you kidding? Forget for the moment the character issues. He flat out stunk last year. He is not a WR that can make an average QB good. He is a WR that needs a QB w/ solid deep ability to get him the ball. This year proved, IMHO, that w/o a QB like Palmer, CJ is just not much by way of a threat. He is a one trick (downfield) pony, and while that is a great trick, if you don't have the QB to mesh w/, he is then a no trick pony.

 

No to mention he wants more money and would cost us picks.

Actually, Johnson is a good middle of the field WR as well a down the field WR. Sure, Houshmanzadeh had a good year with a bad QB, but it's pretty tough to have a good season with a bad QB, just ask the Bears WR's for every year except for 2 years in the past 15 years.

 

Johnson isn't even a bad person. Sure, he talks a lot, but sometimes that's good. Do you want the same old group of f***ing robots that we had last year? This is why I want Kenny Britt- he's good and he talks some smack.

 

I would definitley trade our 2nd for him.

[nfoligno]

One thing I think will be interesting to see is what happens this year w/ CJ. Last year, Cincy turned down Wash's offer of two 1st round picks for him. If they now accept only a 2nd round pick, they will seriously lose face. Will they eat their share of humble pie and just take what they can get for him, which is going to be FAR less in value than what they could have gotten last year, or try to save face and demand the moon or just keep him.

 

Frankly, I think CJ sticks w/ Cincy this year. Especially if they lose TJ, they will have nothing at WR for their franchise QB. I can see them simply holding onto CJ, unless someone makes them another ridiculous offer.

 

Actually, Johnson is a good middle of the field WR as well a down the field WR. Sure, Houshmanzadeh had a good year with a bad QB, but it's pretty tough to have a good season with a bad QB, just ask the Bears WR's for every year except for 2 years in the past 15 years.

 

Johnson isn't even a bad person. Sure, he talks a lot, but sometimes that's good. Do you want the same old group of f***ing robots that we had last year? This is why I want Kenny Britt- he's good and he talks some smack.

 

I would definitley trade our 2nd for him.

[madlithuanian]

It's all relative, but it is a problem. Temas that win Super Bowls tend to be excellent either passing, running or on D. And the other 2 elements usually are good to very good. Never lousy.

 

Last year, Giants had an excellent D, very good RB, very good passing game.

 

I don't think our passing game is anything by average. We need to get good. That, I believe, requires a good legit WR threat. If we continue to relay on short passes to the RB and TE, we are not good. We are treading water.

 

We still need to stretch the field. Otherwise, teams will stack the box. Wheter it's done 4 times a game or 10, we can debate. But we must go deep to keep D's honest. I think that requires some legit WR's. Not the crop we have now. One legit guy will make a difference. Whether it's a Holt, a TJ,etc... But we need a veteran that can move chains. let Hester run long, and throw underneath to the legit guy.

 

 

What I want to know it, how much of a problem is it really? Yes, our WR's are reguarded as bad, but how much do we REALLY want to use them? Greg Olsen & Des Clark combined for 95 catches and almost 1000 yards. I look, for Olsen's numbers to see a big increase again next year, and I look to see one helluva a lot more from the rookie Kellen Davis, who looked great in training camp, but didn't see much time with Clark in front of him.

 

Then you have Matt Forte who had 64 catches for 484 yards. AP's always been very good at catching the ball also.

 

What I'm saying is that we don't necessary need a solution. Turner always talked about "stretching the field" but I'm not certain that's as important any more. That does not utilize Kyle's strengths which is in the shorter passing game. IMO, I think a big receiver like Justin Gage would do great with Orton right now. I don't think that would hold true if Orton were still QBing.

 

So while I think Housh would immediately be our best WR, I don't think having him is that critical. I think we could have damn near the same success with a guy like Bryan Johnson, who has good size.

 

That being said, it'll be interesting to see how much demand there is for Housh. I would think he would generate a deal similar to what Bernard Berrian signed last year, 6 years 43 million $$$. I don't see the Bears paying anywhere that amount of money for Housh.

[nfoligno]

Chicken and the Egg. TEs and RB accounted, by far, for the majority of our catches and were integral in the passing game, but the question is, was that because our WRs couldn't catch a cold, or because the WRs were simply never the focus.

 

Sorry, but I have a hard time believing that WRs just are not that important in our offense. We have legit weapons at TE and RB, but how many offenses can you point to that were successful w/o a legit WR option? The only two I can think of are KC and SD, but (a) Gonzo and Gates are two elite TEs, and as much as we may like Olsen, he has a LONG way to go before such a comparison and ( first Priest and then Larry Johnson in KC while LT in SD. We all love Forte, but he has not proven himself remotely close enough to such a comparison.

 

I would also like to point out that, when these offenses were clicking, they both had two of the best OLs in the NFL. So, you "might" be a pretty good offense w/o a good/great WR, but the only teams I can think of had pro bowlers at TE, RB and OL. We have some talent, but nothing close to the caliber it takes to offset the lack of a WR.

 

For me, I just have to consider all the times Orton (a) seemed to search forever looking for an open option and ( passes were dropped by WRs, often forcing us to punt.

 

You can argue or question how much of an upgrade we need at WR. Do we need a great WR, or just some upgrades. I would argue that, unless we see massive upgrades on the OL and in quantity (if not quality) at WR, then I think we need to see a singular massive upgrade, and TJ would represent that.

 

As for how much would I give TJ, I can tell you this. I would absolutely give him Berrian money. IMHO, he is a much better WR than Berrian. He would help this offense far more than Berrian. And the reality is, we have it to spend.

 

Let me ask you. Where do you want us to spend the money? We will have around $25m (assuming no cuts) in cap space w/ virtually no in-house players to extend or re-sign. From past posts, it does not seem like you are on board w/ signing any of the top DL, OL or WR. One way or another, we will use our cap space, so how do you want to use it?

 

What I want to know it, how much of a problem is it really? Yes, our WR's are reguarded as bad, but how much do we REALLY want to use them? Greg Olsen & Des Clark combined for 95 catches and almost 1000 yards. I look, for Olsen's numbers to see a big increase again next year, and I look to see one helluva a lot more from the rookie Kellen Davis, who looked great in training camp, but didn't see much time with Clark in front of him.

 

Then you have Matt Forte who had 64 catches for 484 yards. AP's always been very good at catching the ball also.

 

What I'm saying is that we don't necessary need a solution. Turner always talked about "stretching the field" but I'm not certain that's as important any more. That does not utilize Kyle's strengths which is in the shorter passing game. IMO, I think a big receiver like Justin Gage would do great with Orton right now. I don't think that would hold true if Orton were still QBing.

 

So while I think Housh would immediately be our best WR, I don't think having him is that critical. I think we could have damn near the same success with a guy like Bryan Johnson, who has good size.

 

That being said, it'll be interesting to see how much demand there is for Housh. I would think he would generate a deal similar to what Bernard Berrian signed last year, 6 years 43 million $$$. I don't see the Bears paying anywhere that amount of money for Housh.

[nfoligno]

One. I absolutely agree we need to upgrade the OL. I have said as much for years. W/ a crap OL, it only highlights our WRs inability to get quick sep and find holes in a secondary. While I do not think much of our WRs, I would agree any group of WRs will improve w/ a solid OL that can give the QB time. I would like nothing better than for us to add Gross to replace Tait, draft Duke to replace Garza and re-sign St. Clair to replace Beekman, who would be a soon replacement for Kreutz.

 

Two. W/ that said, our depth chart at WR has become similar to our backup QBs. In Chicago, backup QBs were always the most popular. The starter stunk, so the belief was the unknown guy backing him up had to be better. Rarely did that prove true, but it didn't matter to fans. Ditto w/ our WRs. Whether it is Hass, Rideau, Bennett or whoever, Bear fans seem to really fall in love w/ the fringe depth WRs who don't get a chance, believing they are pro bowlers in waiting. Maybe. But while I agree an upgraded OL would benefit, I also think our WRs suck, and we need to upgrade here as well. It is not one or the other, but both.

 

 

 

There is an issue here that continues to rear it's ugly head. Talented athletes who just do not seem to develop. All pro receivers who come here and while they don't die, they acquire a virus that turns then into brick handed goofballs and malcontents who throw their QBs under the bus. Look, I hated Muhammed but you only have to look at his production and see he went from 1400+ in Car to 700+ in Chicago. Then he leaves and his first yr back there he gets 900+ yds. Look at Gage, damn near caught for as much yds in his yrs at Chicago in yr 1 at TN. There is a definite pattern here and that pattern begins with the coaches. I personally think the image they are trying to project is a result of bygone historical data that tells them that the Bears should be a running team. Unfortunately, our o line stinks at run blocking so how can you be a running team? Go out and get some phuckin road graters and then develop a PROPER running scheme, then maybe people will believe you get off the bus running instead of getting off the bus failing. Get the offensive line fixed and THIS football team will be worlds better. Then you open up the passing game and guys, there's alot of opportunity in our 3 TEs and I'd like to see a 3 TE set with Hester in the slot, who knows, maybe Riddeau AND Bennett can see the field and make a contribution. Spending money on a WR right now would be senseless unless we address this offensive line.

[madlithuanian]

Good point...

 

There needs to be some sign of legit assessment of our benched WR's. I mean, Bennet wasn't a low pick. He was fairly high, and should have seen the field a few more times. Especially in games that were blowouts... I just keep coming back to the point that our staff cannot seem to develop players. Or maybe even assess their skills. The running game and TE's appear fine, but anything involving the deeper passing game just looks like an unsolved mystery to our staff. If we were better at this, I'd be more comfortable saying the we, as fans, tend to like the guy on the bench! But, there are real questions to whether this staff can regognize talent on the bench...

 

 

Two. W/ that said, our depth chart at WR has become similar to our backup QBs. In Chicago, backup QBs were always the most popular. The starter stunk, so the belief was the unknown guy backing him up had to be better. Rarely did that prove true, but it didn't matter to fans. Ditto w/ our WRs. Whether it is Hass, Rideau, Bennett or whoever, Bear fans seem to really fall in love w/ the fringe depth WRs who don't get a chance, believing they are pro bowlers in waiting. Maybe. But while I agree an upgraded OL would benefit, I also think our WRs suck, and we need to upgrade here as well. It is not one or the other, but both.

[dawhizz]

My guess is the Bears go after a guy like Reggie Williams (who has a contract option in Jacksonville, but probably won't be back). There's not a lot to be excited about out there, but I think the Bears have been hurt by not having a guy with size who can, at least theoretically, go up and get a jump ball. He's a young guy who could still develop, IMO.

[nfoligno]

Do not misunderstand my comments to mean our staff is good in terms of development, or recognizing talent. But at the same time, have you not noticed how every WR deep on our depth chart, or on our practice squad, is the 2nd coming? It might be one thing if we were just talking about 2nd (Bradley) or 3rd (Bennett) round picks, but every undrafted rookie FA we bring in is considered a potential pro bowler.

 

I agree w/ the argument we should have been playing these kids more. I can not explain why Bennett, and the rest, could not get a snif of playing time when the WRs in front of them were failing miserably. At the same time, I do still just get the sense the depth chart WRs have become very similar to the 3rd string QBs for the bears. The unknown is always better than the known, at least until the unknown becomes known that is.

 

While I agree our team does little to develop WR talent, to me, that is only a greater reason to sign a solid, developed, veteran rather than draft a WR in the 1st round. If our team is so lacking in the ability to develop talent, why spend our top pick on another WR?

 

And I know some will argue we have no ability to utilize veteran WRs either, but who have we brought in? Booker? He looked washed up in Miami, but many (including myself) felt he might still have something left. He didn't. Moose? Yea, he has done better this year, but not exactly great, and is on a MUCH better overall offense. Moose should have never been considered a #1, but in our system, he was too often looked upon that way. What other veterans have we brought in. Just because it didn't workout w/ those two veterans, we write off adding any more veteran WRs. Hell, by that reasoning, we have not gotten it done drafting WRs either, so I guess we just give up on the position all together since nothing has worked.

 

I simply think you have to take it on an individual basis. While the age may be similar, I contend TJ Hous is a very different player/situation than Moose. Moose was a very inconsistent WR who we signed coming off a career year, and one in which blew out of the water his previous seasons. TJ on the other hand has proven to be a very consistent WR, and further, one that can excel in an offense that makes ours look stellar. Everyone wants to compare TJ to Moose, but to me, they are worlds apart.

 

If our staff truly is inept in their ability to develop WR talent, to me, that only furthers the reasoning to sign already developed talent. Also begs the question why the hell our WR coach (Drake) still is employed.

 

Good point...

 

There needs to be some sign of legit assessment of our benched WR's. I mean, Bennet wasn't a low pick. He was fairly high, and should have seen the field a few more times. Especially in games that were blowouts... I just keep coming back to the point that our staff cannot seem to develop players. Or maybe even assess their skills. The running game and TE's appear fine, but anything involving the deeper passing game just looks like an unsolved mystery to our staff. If we were better at this, I'd be more comfortable saying the we, as fans, tend to like the guy on the bench! But, there are real questions to whether this staff can regognize talent on the bench...

[madlithuanian]

Definitley not! I know where you stand on that! I was just hi-liting that point basically!

 

The grass is always greenr basically...

 

...and I agree. If we can't develop guys, why draft a WR. As much as it pains me, at least if we go D...there's a better shot at success with the pick. But, on the otherhand, we could draft O, and then watch a new regime change that could indeed groom that pick.

 

 

Do not misunderstand my comments to mean our staff is good in terms of development, or recognizing talent. But at the same time, have you not noticed how every WR deep on our depth chart, or on our practice squad, is the 2nd coming? It might be one thing if we were just talking about 2nd (Bradley) or 3rd (Bennett) round picks, but every undrafted rookie FA we bring in is considered a potential pro bowler.

 

I agree w/ the argument we should have been playing these kids more. I can not explain why Bennett, and the rest, could not get a snif of playing time when the WRs in front of them were failing miserably. At the same time, I do still just get the sense the depth chart WRs have become very similar to the 3rd string QBs for the bears. The unknown is always better than the known, at least until the unknown becomes known that is.

 

While I agree our team does little to develop WR talent, to me, that is only a greater reason to sign a solid, developed, veteran rather than draft a WR in the 1st round. If our team is so lacking in the ability to develop talent, why spend our top pick on another WR?

 

And I know some will argue we have no ability to utilize veteran WRs either, but who have we brought in? Booker? He looked washed up in Miami, but many (including myself) felt he might still have something left. He didn't. Moose? Yea, he has done better this year, but not exactly great, and is on a MUCH better overall offense. Moose should have never been considered a #1, but in our system, he was too often looked upon that way. What other veterans have we brought in. Just because it didn't workout w/ those two veterans, we write off adding any more veteran WRs. Hell, by that reasoning, we have not gotten it done drafting WRs either, so I guess we just give up on the position all together since nothing has worked.

 

I simply think you have to take it on an individual basis. While the age may be similar, I contend TJ Hous is a very different player/situation than Moose. Moose was a very inconsistent WR who we signed coming off a career year, and one in which blew out of the water his previous seasons. TJ on the other hand has proven to be a very consistent WR, and further, one that can excel in an offense that makes ours look stellar. Everyone wants to compare TJ to Moose, but to me, they are worlds apart.

 

If our staff truly is inept in their ability to develop WR talent, to me, that only furthers the reasoning to sign already developed talent. Also begs the question why the hell our WR coach (Drake) still is employed.

[BigDaddy]

Do not misunderstand my comments to mean our staff is good in terms of development, or recognizing talent. But at the same time, have you not noticed how every WR deep on our depth chart, or on our practice squad, is the 2nd coming? It might be one thing if we were just talking about 2nd (Bradley) or 3rd (Bennett) round picks, but every undrafted rookie FA we bring in is considered a potential pro bowler.

 

I agree w/ the argument we should have been playing these kids more. I can not explain why Bennett, and the rest, could not get a snif of playing time when the WRs in front of them were failing miserably. At the same time, I do still just get the sense the depth chart WRs have become very similar to the 3rd string QBs for the bears. The unknown is always better than the known, at least until the unknown becomes known that is.

 

While I agree our team does little to develop WR talent, to me, that is only a greater reason to sign a solid, developed, veteran rather than draft a WR in the 1st round. If our team is so lacking in the ability to develop talent, why spend our top pick on another WR?

 

And I know some will argue we have no ability to utilize veteran WRs either, but who have we brought in? Booker? He looked washed up in Miami, but many (including myself) felt he might still have something left. He didn't. Moose? Yea, he has done better this year, but not exactly great, and is on a MUCH better overall offense. Moose should have never been considered a #1, but in our system, he was too often looked upon that way. What other veterans have we brought in. Just because it didn't workout w/ those two veterans, we write off adding any more veteran WRs. Hell, by that reasoning, we have not gotten it done drafting WRs either, so I guess we just give up on the position all together since nothing has worked.

 

I simply think you have to take it on an individual basis. While the age may be similar, I contend TJ Hous is a very different player/situation than Moose. Moose was a very inconsistent WR who we signed coming off a career year, and one in which blew out of the water his previous seasons. TJ on the other hand has proven to be a very consistent WR, and further, one that can excel in an offense that makes ours look stellar. Everyone wants to compare TJ to Moose, but to me, they are worlds apart.

 

If our staff truly is inept in their ability to develop WR talent, to me, that only furthers the reasoning to sign already developed talent. Also begs the question why the hell our WR coach (Drake) still is employed.

 

I certainly never would want to compare Moose to TJ however, before we do this again, we really NEED to understand what is happening with our passing game because you can't turn your back on the fact that Moose went back to Car and gets over 900 yds. You just can't. We need to know why these guys are having such a hard time in the passing game. We gotta stop guessing or we're just going to continue to waste money on WR talent that will never go anywhere. Now,are the routes different here than anywhere else? If they are, what are the differences and are THEY causing the decline? Is our offensive too complex? I've heard that thrown out there before that there is an awful lot to our playbook for an offense that basically stinks. Is it just that Orton or whoever is playing QB has to get rid of it too quickly and the receivers are just late in getting to their spots ? Whatever it is, we should know by now. There shouldn't be anymore guessing going on but it appears that now Angelo wants to hang it on the QB. Could it be he's covering his ass for such a shitty drafting of o linemen and our WR situation? Of course that's probably part of it but again I ask, why on earth couldn't a 3rd rd pick see the field at all? There is absolutely positively NO EXCUSE for that and I blame every coach on this offensive staff and Lovie Smith for that. It was Lovie who first declared Bradley as our #1 WR. Of course, that was before we released him but what on earth would possess a HC to make a statement like that without some kind of validation in terms of past performance or some tangible reason? Then it was Hester is on his way to being #1 WR. Well that obviously didn't happen. I don't know, maybe we just expect too much outta these coaches. Are we being unreasonable for wanting a WR corp who can run the route, shed the CB, catch the pass on a moderately consistent basis? It just seems to me that after about 25 yrs of crappy offenses, somebody, somewhere in this collective turd pool we call an NFL franchise would say enough is enough. We are going to know exactly why we're failing and By God, we're gonna fix it.

 

Look, all I know is, somebody has to get smart here. We cannot continue to fail offensively the way we have. There MUST be some improvement either in the scheme or the players performance

[AZ54]

I'll just have to agree completely with post.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

I just noticed that the thread title is a bit messed up.

 

Can somebody change "liking" to "likely"?