Cutler says he's happy with the Bears' receivers

[nfoligno]

Once again, I am talking about the WR's on team and not the TE's, RB's, MLB's, kickers or anything else. It's nice to have players at other positions, and I'm not saying the Bears are doomed to failure. KC had a good offense with Priest Holmes/Larry Johnson and Gonzalez during the Trent Green years even without a big named WR, The Chargers have did it and so on, but this year the Bears are the most unprepared I've ever seen a team at WR.

 

I want to begin where you ended, as I believe it is an important point. I know you want to look at only the WR position, but I do not believe it is right to do so. If Benson was our RB, or if our top TE was a blocking TE, then our lack of experience at WR would be much more pronounced, but as we have a RB who was a lead leader in receptions, and a pair of very solid or better pass catching TEs, I think the emphasis on the WR position is simply less. I don't think you can look at one w/o the other. Especially w/ Olsen, who probably lined up as a WR as often as a TE. I just do not think you can ignore the experience factor at TE.

 

Hester did make strides last year compared to the year before last. I think you are giving him a little bit too much credit tho IMO.

 

How am I giving Hester too much credit? I have never been among those saying he was the next Steve Smith, or placing super high expectations for him. Even w/ Cutler, I have kept the expectations/predictions moderate. Understand. Heading into last offseason, I really didn't expect jack from Hester. I just didn't think he had the menal part of the game enough to learn the offense, routes, etc. But he really developed far more than I expected.

 

Seriously though, I don't see how anyone can take away from what Hester did last year. In 2007, he was a gimick WR more than anything, getting on the field for a play here and there. He didn't know the plays, and that was most evident when Moose was tossing him around and pushing him into position. That year, he had 20 catches for about 300 yards. This past season was really his first as a full time WR. Maybe his stats at the end of the year were not eye-popping, but I look at it more in terms of development. He added He more then doubled both catches and yards, and I think that is impressive. I really just try to look at players from a developmental standpoint, and IMHO, he really took positive strides in that regard last year. I don't think I am giving him too much credit. I am just giving credit where it is do, and have also had to admit I was wrong in doing so. I think more credit would be thrown Hester's way, but too many had ridiculous expectations heading into last year, w/ so many talking about him being the next Steve Smith.

 

They are good tight ends, but I didn't over look it, I'm talking about the WR's. How many TE's actually put up WR numbers tho?

 

TEs I would argue are similar to WRs in terms of numbers and how defenses are forced to play them. Gates, Gonzalez, Cooley, Witten. Add to that a few more in Clark, Daniels and Shockey who are also primary targets in the passing game. I think Olsen can absolutely put himself into that upper tier category.

 

If our TE gets 70+ catches for 800+ yards, I would argue that is very much WR production. I think there are a few #2 Wrs who have slanted the perception of what a #2 Wr should be capable of putting up, but the reality is a smaller number of teams have multiple 1,000 yard receivers, and often you will see a #2 receiver putting up something more like 800 to 900 yards. I think Olsen can be such a weapon.

 

Pennington isn't exactly chopped liver tho. He is the kind of QB that can excel at spreading the ball around like that. No doubt Cutler definitely can throw the ball alot farther, but Pennington is a very efficient QB. I'd rather have Cutler of course.

 

Never said Pennington was chopped liver, but the point is, we have a QB capable of elevating the play of his receivers, much like Pennington and others have done.

 

Miami's WR's had more experience, and you can't really judge talent if you've never seen it on the field. The Bears have 2 WR's that have ever caught the ball in an NFL game. While Miami's WR's were young and may not be big names or extremely talented, only one was a rookie and most had atleast minimal experience in the league. That year or 2 experience tends to have a big impact on a WR's ability to succeed in the NFL, even tho there are some exceptions.

 

Sorry, not buying.

 

Ted Ginn Jr had one season of experience, w/ minimal production. I would argue Hester has more experience (and production) entering this season than Ginn did entering last.

 

Camarillo had one prior season, w/ a whopping 8 catches as he barely saw the field. In fact, I do not believe he even was active until the final 3 games of that season. Sorry, but there is simply not a great enough experience difference between he and Bennett.

 

Bess, their 3rd highest receiver, was a rookie. We have a couple of those.

 

Fasano is next on their chart, followed by Martin. We have two TEs easily equal to their two in terms of experience.

 

Cobbs had a year of experience (w/ 15 catches) prior to last season, but as he only contributed 19 catches, i am not sure you can really factor him so greatly.

 

Sorry, but I just do not see the experience difference you mention. As w/ Bennett, just because a player was in the league for a year prior does not mean he was experienced. In fact, I would argue we have as much, and maybe more, experience than Miami.

 

Once again, outside of Jackson, their WR's had experience. Baskett 2 years, Curtis 5 years, Avant 2 years, and so on. Is it alot of experience? no, it's not. WR's usally need time to develop in the NFL, Jackson himself should be better this year. You can pick one or 2 rookies that made a significant contribution and expect it out of the Bears, but that is usually the exception and not the rule.

 

One, Baskett, Curtis and Avant all had "some" prior experience, but you are talking about 3 WRs that contributed only about 30 catches each. Sorry, but that isn't anything to write hope about. Their main receiving weapons were a rookie and their RB, each of which we can match. Their WRs who had experience were actually the ones that failed.

 

Two, I have talked about this before, but I do not buy anymore the argument that WRs need 3 years to develop in the NFL. I think that once was the case, but for some years now, do not believe it is true. More and more rookie WRs make an impact in their rookie year, not to mention their 2nd season. I am not talking about the extremes like Jackson or Boldin, but simply capable of making solid contributions, which is all I am talking about.

 

Look, if Orton were the QB, I would be a bit more concerned, but w/ a QB like Cutler, I just think we are in a better position to expect more from our receivers. Further, as I said to start, I just do not think you can take out of the equation the experience of our two TEs and RB in the passing game. Those 3 accounted for nearly 160 catches last year. How can that not be factored?

[Mongo3451]

 

- I think Hester is primed for a very nice season. Hester jumped from 20-300 to 51-650. That is a nice bounce, and even better when you factor how weak our offense overall was. I think 70-900 is VERY realistic. I think he could very well get more, but that would be a 20 catch and 250 yard bounce, which is not huge, but would make him a very productive piece of the offense.

I agree, but other than Hester, we have no WR's I have confidence in. Remember this post is about WR's. I understand we have other weapons, but they are not part of any original argument.

 

Frankly, am not sure I expect any one of our inexperienced receivers to break out like Royal, Deshaun Jackson or the like. What I think we may see is something more similar to Miami last year, w/ multiple inexperienced receivers contributing. I can see Bennett and Iglesias both have 40+ catches. I think Knox will have a lower catch total, but could provide bigger yardage numbers due to solid YPC average. Now throw in D.Clark, who is not going to simply be written out of the offense.

Again, WR's only. The pattern is that the only way to make an argument for our WR's is to enhance them with the other skill positions. Point is our WR's will have a hard tim standing on their own merit.

 

I would argue that plenty often a team finishes the year w/ a #1 that wasn't a #1 going in. How many thought Lance Moore would be NO's #1? Deshaun Jackson? Hester enters the season as a default #1 for us, as there is no other WR we could even call a #1, but that doesn't mean much to me. When you have a stud QB, he can develop a WR into a #1.

Again, I agree Hester can be a #1. Will he? Who knows...

 

Honestly, there is just so much talk about the WR position, I just think our TE setup gets overlooked. I think Olsen has a very good shot to develop into an upper tier TE, and most teams w/ an upper tier TE do not have a stable of stud WRs.

I don't think anyone on this board is overlooking that we have a very good set of TE's and good recieving RB. They were never part of the debate though. We are not talking about TE's because we know we are set there. I am not fearful that our offense will not be productive. The addition of Pace and Cutler are huge. I am simply defending Terra Tor's right to say he has no confidence in our WR's.

 

SD may be a good offense to compare against. While I am not saying Olsen will be as dominating as Gates, I do think the set up could be similar.

 

Gates - Olsen

V.Jackson - Hester

Tomlinson - Forte

I don't think so. All players mentioned are uniquely different. (even Cutler and Rivers) I actually think there is no team like us. Our WR's just need to grow up quickly or have a veteren talent infusion. The former makes for growing pains, anticipation and excitement. An upgrade like Plax, makes us a contender from the offensive standpoint.

 

[LT2_3]

I agree, but other than Hester, we have no WR's I have confidence in. Remember this post is about WR's. I understand we have other weapons, but they are not part of any original argument.

 

I've re-read the entire post and nowhere did I see anything that limited the discussion to WRs. I realize that isn't your point, but I think that Nfo discussing the passing game as a whole is completely legit - and I agree. For me, the bottom line is that Cutler is going to find someone to throw the ball to and as long as the offense works well, I don't care if the guys getting the yards are WRs, TEs, or RBs.

 

Again, WR's only. The pattern is that the only way to make an argument for our WR's is to enhance them with the other skill positions. Point is our WR's will have a hard tim standing on their own merit.

 

That's really too vague to respond to without any clarification. What argument FOR our WRs are you talking about? That none of them other than Hester is a good FF prospect at this point? That the national media doesn't have a receiver to hang their hat on when evaluating them? They aren't proven. No argument there. But so what? At what point does "not proven" = "won't produce"?

 

In what context do they need to stand on their own merits? Back in 2001 we entered the season with no proven WRs and Booker stepped up with 100 receptions and 1071 yards. My point is that someone will catch the ball.

 

Again, I agree Hester can be a #1. Will he? Who knows...

 

Can someone please explain to me what a #1 receiver is beyond having the most receiving yardage in the WR corps? I think the concept migrated from the FF world where you can discuss whether a WR is worthy of being your top producing WR. The problem is that NFL teams don't work lilke that. Players are looked at for matchups they create. So, for instance, Hester is very valuable on the field because of the attention he attracts like double coverage deep which opens up the running game and underneath routes. That doesn't show up on the FF stat sheet because he's creating openings for other players to be productive. So, is he a #1 WR from a yardage standpoint? It really doesn't matter because he makes the team more effective whether he touches the ball or not. IMO he's a #1 WR already because of that even though he doesn't have prototypical yards.

 

And if you want a baseline of what to expect from Hester this year, start by taking last year's stats and adding in the pass interference yards that he racked up last year even though Orton couldn't get passes to him in the same county. You can add 77 yards from the Saints game alone.

 

I don't think anyone on this board is overlooking that we have a very good set of TE's and good recieving RB. They were never part of the debate though. We are not talking about TE's because we know we are set there. I am not fearful that our offense will not be productive. The addition of Pace and Cutler are huge. I am simply defending Terra Tor's right to say he has no confidence in our WR's.

 

Well they may not be part of your point, but they are a huge part of the passing game. The offense works as whole or not. Those guys being good at their jobs draws attention from the WRs so indirectly they are a key piece of the equation.

 

Of course TerraTor has the right to say anything he wants, but that doesn't mean that anyone will take him seriously. I take his negative opinions as a fundamental part of the nature of the universe. It conveniently allows me to ignore anything he says because it's always the same: negative.

 

I don't think so. All players mentioned are uniquely different. (even Cutler and Rivers) I actually think there is no team like us. Our WR's just need to grow up quickly or have a veteren talent infusion. The former makes for growing pains, anticipation and excitement. An upgrade like Plax, makes us a contender from the offensive standpoint.

 

I get that you are making the argument to go after a proven WR. The problem is that Marshall isn't coming here even if he gets traded (which I doubt) and I personally don't think Plax is going to play much this year at all - which would make him nothing more than a distraction. I think he's going to get an 8 game suspension and I don't believe his attorney that his court case will get continued all the way to February. Without knowing his availability for the season, signing him would be stupid.

[defiantgiant]

Can someone please explain to me what a #1 receiver is beyond having the most receiving yardage in the WR corps? I think the concept migrated from the FF world where you can discuss whether a WR is worthy of being your top producing WR. The problem is that NFL teams don't work lilke that. Players are looked at for matchups they create. So, for instance, Hester is very valuable on the field because of the attention he attracts like double coverage deep which opens up the running game and underneath routes. That doesn't show up on the FF stat sheet because he's creating openings for other players to be productive. So, is he a #1 WR from a yardage standpoint? It really doesn't matter because he makes the team more effective whether he touches the ball or not. IMO he's a #1 WR already because of that even though he doesn't have prototypical yards.

 

And if you want a baseline of what to expect from Hester this year, start by taking last year's stats and adding in the pass interference yards that he racked up last year even though Orton couldn't get passes to him in the same county. You can add 77 yards from the Saints game alone.

 

Yeah, I remember reading an article on that: some guy watched all of last season's games and estimated that Orton flat-out missed Hester on a deep pass at least 12 times. How many of those 12 Devin would have caught, had they been on-target, is anybody's guess; his catch rate suggests he might have pulled in at least 6-7 of them. That would have added a significant chunk of yardage to his season totals.

 

I agree with you that the only concrete definition of a #1 receiver is "the #1 receiving option on your team." I think a lot of people are using the term to mean something closer to "an elite receiver in the NFL." Is Hester the Bears' #1 option? Absolutely. Is he an elite receiver? Not at this juncture.

 

In my mind, an elite receiver is somebody like Calvin Johnson or Larry Fitz. Those guys not only draw double coverage (which you touched on) in order to open things up for other players; they are also are productive despite facing double coverage all the time. Those two qualities are very closely linked. Compare Fitzgerald to, say, Lee Evans. Evans gets double-covered constantly, since (pre-T.O.) he's been the only legitimate receiving threat on the Bills. Does that open the game up for other Bills players? Not as much as you might think, since Evans can be controlled pretty well as long as you put two guys on him. He sees a lot of passes come his way (averages 104 targets a year, 112 if you don't count his rookie season) but he's not tremendously productive for a mid-first-round pick. That speaks to the fact that he's been the only receiver that opposing defenses had to account for, but also to the fact that they accounted for him pretty well while still being able to defend everybody else.

 

When Evans is double-covered, the guys around him don't see as many defenders in their faces, but he's no longer the go-to receiver in the Bills' offense. That makes life harder for everybody else in the passing game, since Trent Edwards doesn't have a safety-valve receiver he can trust to make the reception.

 

What you need from an elite receiver is the ability to command double-coverage and still be an effective option. That's what Larry Fitzgerald brings to Arizona: you HAVE to focus your defense on him, and he'll still hurt you while opening things up for Boldin and Breaston. He'll kill you if you don't double him, but even when you do, he's still the #1 option in that offense.

 

I think Hester's already a Lee Evans type of #1: he's got the ability to do some damage when he's not accounted for, and he'll be hard enough to cover that defenses will have to take some attention off Cutler's other targets. But your #1 guy can't just be a decoy to draw coverage. Hester's got to show that he can attract attention from defenses and still be a go-to receiver for Cutler. He's our #1 guy either way, but if he can do that, I'll feel comfortable calling him a top-tier receiver.

[Mongo3451]

 

I've re-read the entire post and nowhere did I see anything that limited the discussion to WRs. I realize that isn't your point, but I think that Nfo discussing the passing game as a whole is completely legit - and I agree. For me, the bottom line is that Cutler is going to find someone to throw the ball to and as long as the offense works well, I don't care if the guys getting the yards are WRs, TEs, or RBs.

I was responding to the post where Terra was slammed for commenting on the WR’s, as they were the only receiver’s mentioned on the original post. NFO knows that, as he well adept at embellishing commentary to support his argument. (Classic debating skills which I respect) Also, bringing Forte and the TE’s into the argument is overstating our obvious strengths.

 

That's really too vague to respond to without any clarification. What argument FOR our WRs are you talking about? That none of them other than Hester is a good FF prospect at this point? That the national media doesn't have a receiver to hang their hat on when evaluating them? They aren't proven. No argument there. But so what? At what point does "not proven" = "won't produce"?

I really don’t argue anything from a FF perspective, unless we are talking about FF. I find it very reasonable to be skeptical of a group of WR’s that have proven nothing in the league. I’ve learned enough from our coaching staffs stubbornness to adapt to feel the WR’s will develop on the kool-aid level.

 

In what context do they need to stand on their own merits? Back in 2001 we entered the season with no proven WRs and Booker stepped up with 100 receptions and 1071 yards. My point is that someone will catch the ball.

OK, I’ll bite. It’s 2009 and 8 seasons since we’ve had a surprise receiver. Otherwise the only thing we can base anything on is development and experience. Experience is slim and development must be accelerated. They have done nothing as a unit, so their merits really don’t exist yet. So we have faith.

 

 

Can someone please explain to me what a #1 receiver is beyond having the most receiving yardage in the WR corps? I think the concept migrated from the FF world where you can discuss whether a WR is worthy of being your top producing WR. The problem is that NFL teams don't work lilke that. Players are looked at for matchups they create. So, for instance, Hester is very valuable on the field because of the attention he attracts like double coverage deep which opens up the running game and underneath routes. That doesn't show up on the FF stat sheet because he's creating openings for other players to be productive. So, is he a #1 WR from a yardage standpoint? It really doesn't matter because he makes the team more effective whether he touches the ball or not. IMO he's a #1 WR already because of that even though he doesn't have prototypical yards.

There are two ways to look at a #1 reciever. 1st is from the team’s perspective. Your best is your #1. (that being Devin) 2nd is from the NFL perspective. That is the receiver that the QB counts on to make plays on a consistent basis and has high production. (what Devin aspires to be)

 

And if you want a baseline of what to expect from Hester this year, start by taking last year's stats and adding in the pass interference yards that he racked up last year even though Orton couldn't get passes to him in the same county. You can add 77 yards from the Saints game alone.

No argument there.

 

Well they may not be part of your point, but they are a huge part of the passing game. The offense works as whole or not. Those guys being good at their jobs draws attention from the WRs so indirectly they are a key piece of the equation.

In knowing that, our WR’s were widely criticized for not being able to get off the LOS, make separation and catch the ball. That’s after the other skill positions were producing.

Of course TerraTor has the right to say anything he wants, but that doesn't mean that anyone will take him seriously. I take his negative opinions as a fundamental part of the nature of the universe. It conveniently allows me to ignore anything he says because it's always the same: negative.

Agreed

 

 

I get that you are making the argument to go after a proven WR. The problem is that Marshall isn't coming here even if he gets traded (which I doubt) and I personally don't think Plax is going to play much this year at all - which would make him nothing more than a distraction. I think he's going to get an 8 game suspension and I don't believe his attorney that his court case will get continued all the way to February. Without knowing his availability for the season, signing him would be stupid.

Making a play for an upgrade was not my intent. I’m not sure we could maximize a Burress this year. If I knew we would have him all season, I would be fine with a one year contract for him. Otherwise, like I stated on numerous occasions, we will lean on our youngsters to develop quickly and expect a few growing pains.

 

[nfoligno]

I was responding to the post where Terra was slammed for commenting on the WR’s, as they were the only receiver’s mentioned on the original post. NFO knows that, as he well adept at embellishing commentary to support his argument. (Classic debating skills which I respect) Also, bringing Forte and the TE’s into the argument is overstating our obvious strengths.

 

Been a while since my "debating skills" were referenced. I did in fact debate for many years, and at time laugh when I realize I "discuss" on this board as if I were in a damn debate, as opposed to shooting the shit w/ a bunch of fellow drunks

 

Back to the point. Some want to discuss our WRs, and do so in a vacuum. I get it. Our WRs are neither proven studs, or proven for that matter. My the point I would make is, different teams are going to look at their WRs differently. Take Az as an example. They have two stud WRs, and frankly, their 3rd WR is pretty damn good. They have a pass happy offense which focuses around the WR. On the other hand, they do not really utilize their TE or RB in the passing game. Thus, if they were to loose Fitz or Boldin, they would likely try to immediatly replace that player. Simply having one stud WR is not enough for their system. But our scheme is simply very different. We utilize our TEs and RBs in the passing game as much as the WRs. Thus the need to the depth of proven commodities is not as necessary as it is for a team like Az.

 

That is why I do not think we can talk about the lack of experience at WR w/o factoring the passing game potential of our TEs and RBs. 178 of our teams catches went to TEs and RBs. W/o checking, I would bet that ranks close to the top. Further, over half of our TDs passes went to TEs and RBs.

 

So, my point is, when the TE and RB positions are such a factor in our offense as they are, you can't look at the WR position w/o factoring them. If we were a team like Az, that would be different, but we are not.

 

I really don’t argue anything from a FF perspective, unless we are talking about FF. I find it very reasonable to be skeptical of a group of WR’s that have proven nothing in the league. I’ve learned enough from our coaching staffs stubbornness to adapt to feel the WR’s will develop on the kool-aid level.

 

I think the point of the FF comment was simply that the idea of a "#1 WR" seems to have been skewed over the years due to FF. When someone mentions #1 WR, the immediate thought of most would point to FF #1 WRs.

 

OK, I’ll bite. It’s 2009 and 8 seasons since we’ve had a surprise receiver. Otherwise the only thing we can base anything on is development and experience. Experience is slim and development must be accelerated. They have done nothing as a unit, so their merits really don’t exist yet. So we have faith.

 

I would argue it is a bit more than just faith. I would argue it is a level of expectation based on surrounding factors. I think it fair to believe Hester will continue his development. Heck, I believe you below say Orton missed Hester on like 12 deep passes, and he may have caught as many as 5 or 6 of those, which likely would have been for about 200 more yards. Beyond Hester, which I think is the focus of the argument, I think is has to be factored the upgrades to the OL and QB. If not for those, I would be with you screaming about our WR corp, but due to those upgrades, I think there is more support behind the faith, than simply having kool-aid blind faith.

 

There are two ways to look at a #1 reciever. 1st is from the team’s perspective. Your best is your #1. (that being Devin) 2nd is from the NFL perspective. That is the receiver that the QB counts on to make plays on a consistent basis and has high production. (what Devin aspires to be)

 

I personally think there are many ways to look at a #1 WR. In SD, for example, they have Jackson as their #1 WR. He is a big play threat, and put up good yardage stats, but I have a hard time considering anyone who only had 50 something catches a #1 WR. Conversely, Mason had 80 catches for Baltimore, but is he really a #1 anymore?

 

Making a play for an upgrade was not my intent. I’m not sure we could maximize a Burress this year. If I knew we would have him all season, I would be fine with a one year contract for him. Otherwise, like I stated on numerous occasions, we will lean on our youngsters to develop quickly and expect a few growing pains.

 

In the end, we agree we are likely to go w/ what we have. I think the difference is, you don't see as much reason for elevated expectations as I do. I am among those who believes the OL and QB make the WR more so than the other way around. We are not used to having a QB like Cutler, so it is hard for most Bear fans to think this way, but I simply believe Cutler brings a factor to our WR expectations that can't be ignored.

 

 

[nfoligno]

I agree, but other than Hester, we have no WR's I have confidence in. Remember this post is about WR's. I understand we have other weapons, but they are not part of any original argument.

 

Said before, but I just do not believe it is right to look at one w/o the other. As I said in another post, if we were an offense like Az, which doesn't utilize the TE or RB in the passing game, it would be far more accurate to look solely at the WR position in a vacuum, but our TE and RBs accounted for more than 1/2 of our catches, yards and scores. The reality is, we have 2 TEs which play like WRs, and 1 RB who (I think) led the league in catches for a RB, and had catch totals more in line w/ a #2 WR. Thus, I just don't think it right to look at our WRs in a vacuum, as our TE and RB positions are such a great factor of our passing game.

 

Again, WR's only. The pattern is that the only way to make an argument for our WR's is to enhance them with the other skill positions. Point is our WR's will have a hard tim standing on their own merit.

 

Wasn't that a key point in upgrading both the QB and OL? If we didn't upgrade those two positions, I would see your point. But many believe a franchise tier QB makes the WRs. You have to factor Cutler into the equation.

 

I don't think anyone on this board is overlooking that we have a very good set of TE's and good recieving RB. They were never part of the debate though. We are not talking about TE's because we know we are set there. I am not fearful that our offense will not be productive. The addition of Pace and Cutler are huge. I am simply defending Terra Tor's right to say he has no confidence in our WR's.

 

Anyone has the right. The point I would make though is, due to our TEs and RBs, the need for a bunch of proven WRs is less so than for another team, like Az. If Olsen, Clark, Forte and Hester all produce, we will have a solid passing game. Do we need the kids to play? Yes. But if none "break out" ala Royal, we are still in a good situation due to the rest.

 

I don't think so. All players mentioned are uniquely different. (even Cutler and Rivers) I actually think there is no team like us. Our WR's just need to grow up quickly or have a veteren talent infusion. The former makes for growing pains, anticipation and excitement. An upgrade like Plax, makes us a contender from the offensive standpoint.

 

I have said I believe we are similar to SD, which utilizes 1 WR, 1 TE and 1 RBs in the passing game, w/ minimal contribution from the rest. Further, I would argue we are in a great position to be a "contender from the offensive standpoint" now, w/ what we have.

[madlithuanian]

Just butting my head in where it probably doesn't belong...

 

I really think you're on to something there. I really feel, by default alone, that the upgrade on the OL and at QB will make the entire offense better. Now, take the next step and you could conclud that Forte will be better, that Olsen will be better, and that our young WR's will be better than last year. You mix all that up, and I think you will see a significant improvement on the overall offsense. Would it be swell to take a Burress-like talent...yes! Is it a necessity? I do not think so. Without diving into the D, I think a SB winning O needs the following:

 

1. Stellar QB - Big Ben, Brady, Manning, etc...these guys have moxie and skill. You need it to win it. Cutler is that guy.

2. Good rushing attack - Willie Parker, Bettis, Dillon, etc... You don't need an AP, but you need a quailty attack. Forte is that guy.

3. Great line - the Steelers, Giants and Pats all had super solid O lines. I'm not sure we do...but we might. We will need to see how well our new additions work. But there certainly is a legit potential of "very good".

4. Good receivers - Look at who's won these SB's recently...It was usually not a lot of sheer heroics from one WR diva. Usually a brilliant catch by one... Moss last year, Tyree, etc. Who's to say that Hester can't pull a lucky grab n' go or Olsen with a leap in the end zone? We don't need stats. We need TD's. I think our corps, if they progess as we've been hearing, can be that.

5. Good game-calling. Ok, here we are in trouble!

 

 

 

 

The point I would make though is, due to our TEs and RBs, the need for a bunch of proven WRs is less so than for another team, like Az. If Olsen, Clark, Forte and Hester all produce, we will have a solid passing game. Do we need the kids to play? Yes. But if none "break out" ala Royal, we are still in a good situation due to the rest.

[nfoligno]

1. Stellar QB - Big Ben, Brady, Manning, etc...these guys have moxie and skill. You need it to win it. Cutler is that guy.

 

For me, this is A#1. After Baltimore won in 2000, everyone started to believe you can win w/ great defense and an average QB, but that team was an exception, not the rule. Whether Cutler delivers this year or not, I think we are in a better position than we have been in a very, very long time.

 

2. Good rushing attack - Willie Parker, Bettis, Dillon, etc... You don't need an AP, but you need a quailty attack. Forte is that guy.

 

Agreed. Its great if your RB is great, but you really just need to have a "good" running back. I would add that often, when you have a great QB, your RB is capable of more due to not facing stacked boxes.

 

3. Great line - the Steelers, Giants and Pats all had super solid O lines. I'm not sure we do...but we might. We will need to see how well our new additions work. But there certainly is a legit potential of "very good".

 

I'm a trenches guy. Even when our OL was good, it wasn't great. I don't expect it to be great this year. What I expect it for it to at least be a considerable upgrade from last year and potentially a good unit. I think they will finish the year stronger than they begin.

 

4. Good receivers - Look at who's won these SB's recently...It was usually not a lot of sheer heroics from one WR diva. Usually a brilliant catch by one... Moss last year, Tyree, etc. Who's to say that Hester can't pull a lucky grab n' go or Olsen with a leap in the end zone? We don't need stats. We need TD's. I think our corps, if they progess as we've been hearing, can be that.

 

Agreed. Having a Fitz/Boldin combo is awesome, but not what you need to win a SB.

 

5. Good game-calling. Ok, here we are in trouble!

 

Unfortunately, that's no joke. My hope is that (on offense) the issues have been more about personnel than coaching, and Turner will show this year that he is actually a very good OC.

[defiantgiant]

3. Great line - the Steelers, Giants and Pats all had super solid O lines. I'm not sure we do...but we might. We will need to see how well our new additions work. But there certainly is a legit potential of "very good".

 

One quick thing: the Steelers' offensive line is TERRIBLE. Like, not just bad for a SB-winning team, but actually bad. I know Arians tried to mess with the numbers and say that only 19 of the 46 sacks they allowed were actually "their fault," but come on. That line lets Roethlisberger get hit CONSTANTLY. Does anybody actually believe that "running backs, tight ends, receivers, and quarterbacks" gave up the other 27 sacks?

 

And, honestly, that group is not much better at run-blocking than they are at pass protection. The Steelers have a reputation as a run-heavy team, and Willie Parker's a pretty good back, but in 2008 they were 29th in the league in yards per carry and 23rd in total rushing yards.

 

The reason the Steelers were able to make it all the way with a line like that (aside from that monster of a defense) is that Roethlisberger is great at not letting a hit turn into a sack. Tom Brady avoids sacks by having a quick release and getting the ball out of there when he's getting hit, Roethisberger does it by being extremely tough for defenders to bring down. Both of them have offensive lines that let them get hit a LOT, but both guys can consistently take a hit and still get the ball out. That Ben took 46 sacks when he's great at staying on his feet is a testament to exactly how often his line let somebody through to hit him.

[madlithuanian]

I could not agree more regarding your comment on Baltimore! There are truly the exception that makes the rule.

 

Yeah, the coaching is the troubling element in all this. But, now that Turner has all the ingredients, hopefully he can bake a good pie! It's tough to make a good apple pie when you don't have apple (Culter)!

 

 

 

1. Stellar QB - Big Ben, Brady, Manning, etc...these guys have moxie and skill. You need it to win it. Cutler is that guy.

 

For me, this is A#1. After Baltimore won in 2000, everyone started to believe you can win w/ great defense and an average QB, but that team was an exception, not the rule. Whether Cutler delivers this year or not, I think we are in a better position than we have been in a very, very long time.

 

2. Good rushing attack - Willie Parker, Bettis, Dillon, etc... You don't need an AP, but you need a quailty attack. Forte is that guy.

 

Agreed. Its great if your RB is great, but you really just need to have a "good" running back. I would add that often, when you have a great QB, your RB is capable of more due to not facing stacked boxes.

 

3. Great line - the Steelers, Giants and Pats all had super solid O lines. I'm not sure we do...but we might. We will need to see how well our new additions work. But there certainly is a legit potential of "very good".

 

I'm a trenches guy. Even when our OL was good, it wasn't great. I don't expect it to be great this year. What I expect it for it to at least be a considerable upgrade from last year and potentially a good unit. I think they will finish the year stronger than they begin.

 

4. Good receivers - Look at who's won these SB's recently...It was usually not a lot of sheer heroics from one WR diva. Usually a brilliant catch by one... Moss last year, Tyree, etc. Who's to say that Hester can't pull a lucky grab n' go or Olsen with a leap in the end zone? We don't need stats. We need TD's. I think our corps, if they progess as we've been hearing, can be that.

 

Agreed. Having a Fitz/Boldin combo is awesome, but not what you need to win a SB.

 

5. Good game-calling. Ok, here we are in trouble!

 

Unfortunately, that's no joke. My hope is that (on offense) the issues have been more about personnel than coaching, and Turner will show this year that he is actually a very good OC.

 

[madlithuanian]

I think you're right right on the Pitt OL. I forgot how many sacks they gave up last year. However, I was kind of coupling their last SB against Seattle in that equation. I also think Big Ben has a habit of holding onto the ball a bit too much. Thus, many of the sacks are on him. He's a good escape artist, but not that good.

 

Your RB info basically agrees with my statement that AP isn't needed as a RB, you just need to be good.

 

In a nutshell, your takes on Ben and Brady pretty much get to, I think, the same conclusion I have. That Cutler can bring that same savvy to the Bears.

 

 

One quick thing: the Steelers' offensive line is TERRIBLE. Like, not just bad for a SB-winning team, but actually bad. I know Arians tried to mess with the numbers and say that only 19 of the 46 sacks they allowed were actually "their fault," but come on. That line lets Roethlisberger get hit CONSTANTLY. Does anybody actually believe that "running backs, tight ends, receivers, and quarterbacks" gave up the other 27 sacks?

 

And, honestly, that group is not much better at run-blocking than they are at pass protection. The Steelers have a reputation as a run-heavy team, and Willie Parker's a pretty good back, but in 2008 they were 29th in the league in yards per carry and 23rd in total rushing yards.

 

The reason the Steelers were able to make it all the way with a line like that (aside from that monster of a defense) is that Roethlisberger is great at not letting a hit turn into a sack. Tom Brady avoids sacks by having a quick release and getting the ball out of there when he's getting hit, Roethisberger does it by being extremely tough for defenders to bring down. Both of them have offensive lines that let them get hit a LOT, but both guys can consistently take a hit and still get the ball out. That Ben took 46 sacks when he's great at staying on his feet is a testament to exactly how often his line let somebody through to hit him.

 

[defiantgiant]

I think you're right right on the Pitt OL. I forgot how many sacks they gave up last year. However, I was kind of coupling their last SB against Seattle in that equation. I also think Big Ben has a habit of holding onto the ball a bit too much. Thus, many of the sacks are on him. He's a good escape artist, but not that good.

 

Your RB info basically agrees with my statement that AP isn't needed as a RB, you just need to be good.

 

In a nutshell, your takes on Ben and Brady pretty much get to, I think, the same conclusion I have. That Cutler can bring that same savvy to the Bears.

 

One thing I'll be watching in 2009 is how well Ryan Clady protects Kyle Orton. Cutler is no slouch when it comes to evading pass pressure; I'll be interested to see if Clady gives up more sacks when he has a less mobile QB. If he can give up less than one sack for the second year in a row, I'll be ready to call him an elite LT.

 

The converse kind of goes for the Bears: even if our o-line's pass protection isn't the best in the world, Cutler will probably make them look better than they are. Kyle was good at a lot of stuff last season, but he wasn't that elusive in the pocket. Hopefully between Cutler's feet and the upgrades on the line, we don't see a Bears QB peeling himself off the ground quite so many times in 2009.

[Mongo3451]

Been a while since my "debating skills" were referenced. I did in fact debate for many years, and at time laugh when I realize I "discuss" on this board as if I were in a damn debate, as opposed to shooting the shit w/ a bunch of fellow drunks

Remember, in debate, it's hard to bullshit a bullshitter.

 

In the end, we agree we are likely to go w/ what we have. I think the difference is, you don't see as much reason for elevated expectations as I do. I am among those who believes the OL and QB make the WR more so than the other way around. We are not used to having a QB like Cutler, so it is hard for most Bear fans to think this way, but I simply believe Cutler brings a factor to our WR expectations that can't be ignored.

We agree on more than that my friend. I too believe our ancillary skill positions will be able to off-set and/or enhance our lack of experience at WR, as all those areas look to be better than last year. Also, I have stated elevated expectations in other posts. Here is a snippet of mine from your SD comparison post: " Our arrow is pointing more upward than theirs is though. I expect our O will be around 12th in the NFL this year, which is not bad at all. " What are your thoughts on what our NFL ranking will be? Others comment as well...