Jump to content

Worst case scenario for WR


Connorbear

Recommended Posts

Let's say we do not get another WR in FA or via the draft. I show the following on the roster:

 

- Hester

- Davis

- Bennett

- Aromashodu (waived by Indy - did not play for us)

- Rideau

- Burgess (practice squad)

 

I would assume then the top 5 would make the team with Hester, Davis, and Bennett as the top 3. If this is the case then why not play Olsen more at WR (he played around 15% of his plays there this last yr with Kellen Davis and Clark at TE). We had some success with Olsen at WR last yr and I would love to see Kellen Davis get some time on the field - he looked very good in the preseason. Formation could be 2 WR (Hester and Olsen), 2 TE (Davis and Clark), and 1 RB. Or go empty backfield and add another WR or split out RB.

 

Believe me, this is not the situation I want. I was just thinking about how to maximize our passing game as is.

 

Thoughts?

 

Peace :dabears

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think using Olsen at WR next year is absolutely in the plans. Turner talked about this in a Q&A. He was asked about moving Olsen to WR, and said they don't feel they need to, and pointed out how much we moved him around and played him at WR. Particularly in the 2nd half of the season, Olsen was used all over. He played outside WR, slot, was sent in motion and even lined up at FB. And that isn't counting his time at TE.

 

I think Olsen playing WR is absolutely part of the plans, no matter what we do in FA or the draft. While I love moving him around, I would much rather that be an option, rather than a necessity.

 

Let's say we do not get another WR in FA or via the draft. I show the following on the roster:

 

- Hester

- Davis

- Bennett

- Aromashodu (waived by Indy - did not play for us)

- Rideau

- Burgess (practice squad)

 

I would assume then the top 5 would make the team with Hester, Davis, and Bennett as the top 3. If this is the case then why not play Olsen more at WR (he played around 15% of his plays there this last yr with Kellen Davis and Clark at TE). We had some success with Olsen at WR last yr and I would love to see Kellen Davis get some time on the field - he looked very good in the preseason. Formation could be 2 WR (Hester and Olsen), 2 TE (Davis and Clark), and 1 RB. Or go empty backfield and add another WR or split out RB.

 

Believe me, this is not the situation I want. I was just thinking about how to maximize our passing game as is.

 

Thoughts?

 

Peace :dabears

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say we do not get another WR in FA or via the draft. I show the following on the roster:

 

- Hester

- Davis

- Bennett

- Aromashodu (waived by Indy - did not play for us)

- Rideau

- Burgess (practice squad)

 

I would assume then the top 5 would make the team with Hester, Davis, and Bennett as the top 3. If this is the case then why not play Olsen more at WR (he played around 15% of his plays there this last yr with Kellen Davis and Clark at TE). We had some success with Olsen at WR last yr and I would love to see Kellen Davis get some time on the field - he looked very good in the preseason. Formation could be 2 WR (Hester and Olsen), 2 TE (Davis and Clark), and 1 RB. Or go empty backfield and add another WR or split out RB.

 

Believe me, this is not the situation I want. I was just thinking about how to maximize our passing game as is.

 

Thoughts?

 

Peace :dabears

Makes sense, but God I hope we pick up someone with experience. Hester as the No. 1? That's not something I would want. I do fel that Olsen has shown the versatility to play all over, and is a solid reciever. I agree with nfo, though that it would be better for us to keep our options open with Olsen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best case scenario at WR

 

you gave a worst case, so I wanted to give a best case.

 

- Hester

- Holt

- Bennett

- Robiskie

- Rideau/ Davis

 

Now, when I say best case, I am talking about practical and reality. Of those Wrs available or potentially available, I see no one that would help more than Holt. Holt would be a tremendous upgrade, offer veteran leadership to a very young and inexperience group, but due to his age, he would not be a long term answer and thus WR would still be considered a need. Thus we draft Robiskie. I actually like Nicks better, but unless we trade down, I don't see his being a Bear, while Robiskie is nearly as good in my book, would be a greater value pick and very well could be there for our 2nd rounder.

 

And before some get critical, I placed Bennett over Robiskie simply because he has a year of practice w/ the team. I would have no issue if the rookie beat him out for the #3 spot.

 

Point is, we give a shorter field, solid route runner and pass catcher (Holt) to play opposite Hester. This helps Orton and could help Hester, as he may more often be able to run deeper patterns. We would also be able to develop and use often our two young WRs in Bennett and Robiskie. As for the 5th spot, it would likely be Davis, but the simple of it is, whoever looks better on special teams wins the job.

 

Let's say we do not get another WR in FA or via the draft. I show the following on the roster:

 

- Hester

- Davis

- Bennett

- Aromashodu (waived by Indy - did not play for us)

- Rideau

- Burgess (practice squad)

 

I would assume then the top 5 would make the team with Hester, Davis, and Bennett as the top 3. If this is the case then why not play Olsen more at WR (he played around 15% of his plays there this last yr with Kellen Davis and Clark at TE). We had some success with Olsen at WR last yr and I would love to see Kellen Davis get some time on the field - he looked very good in the preseason. Formation could be 2 WR (Hester and Olsen), 2 TE (Davis and Clark), and 1 RB. Or go empty backfield and add another WR or split out RB.

 

Believe me, this is not the situation I want. I was just thinking about how to maximize our passing game as is.

 

Thoughts?

 

Peace :dabears

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best case scenario at WR

 

you gave a worst case, so I wanted to give a best case.

 

- Hester

- Holt

- Bennett

- Robiskie

- Rideau/ Davis

 

Now, when I say best case, I am talking about practical and reality. Of those Wrs available or potentially available, I see no one that would help more than Holt. Holt would be a tremendous upgrade, offer veteran leadership to a very young and inexperience group, but due to his age, he would not be a long term answer and thus WR would still be considered a need. Thus we draft Robiskie. I actually like Nicks better, but unless we trade down, I don't see his being a Bear, while Robiskie is nearly as good in my book, would be a greater value pick and very well could be there for our 2nd rounder.

 

And before some get critical, I placed Bennett over Robiskie simply because he has a year of practice w/ the team. I would have no issue if the rookie beat him out for the #3 spot.

 

Point is, we give a shorter field, solid route runner and pass catcher (Holt) to play opposite Hester. This helps Orton and could help Hester, as he may more often be able to run deeper patterns. We would also be able to develop and use often our two young WRs in Bennett and Robiskie. As for the 5th spot, it would likely be Davis, but the simple of it is, whoever looks better on special teams wins the job.

I would love that to happen but would expect it to be,

Hester

Bennett

Rideau

Davis

Robiske

I think we have to draft one, and expect to draft one due to the lack of activity in Free agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO the best case serino is this one

 

1. Sign Holt

2. Draft Macklin/DHB

3. Hester

4. Bennett

5. Rideau/davis

6.Aromnshodu

 

With DavisAromnshodu getting cut

I think DHB isnt going to have a good career in the NFL. Look at his production his last year. I think he is a Troy Williamson type, speed but lacks other traits. I think you have to have a track record at being productive, and then it still is a crap shoot.

ATT00274_1_.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think DHB isnt going to have a good career in the NFL. Look at his production his last year. I think he is a Troy Williamson type, speed but lacks other traits. I think you have to have a track record at being productive, and then it still is a crap shoot.

I screwed my attchment up.

ATT00274_1_.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like using Olsen more at WR. I think Desmond Clark is fast approaching the point where he's going to be on the decline. If we get dependent on Olsen at WR and Clark misses time to injury, we're really going to be stuck with our dorks in our hands. Let's get some talent at WR already...please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...