Hester

[nfoligno]

Jason. While I would agree we have not been the best when it comes to developing or utilizing WRs, I do have a couple comments on your examples, as I don't think the entire story is being told.

 

Kennison - Horribly underutilized on the Bears, did better before AND after.

 

2000 was a bad year all around, and Kennison basically played the same position as M.Robinson. I am not sure what your expectations were for him, but he was brought in for just that one season, and it was a season where player after player went down w/ injury, and no chemistry was ever seen. While I am not arguing he was better before and after, I am not sure he is really a great example as this was not a season, nor was he a player, that "fits" the argument. He was w/ the team for only one year, and we had numerous players in front of him (M.Robinson, Engram, Booker. We dealt w/ many injuries that year. We had a new OC and "issues" at Qb. This is not an example like most others where we had a guy for a while, and did little w/ him, but who did better elsewhere.

 

Wade - Did better when not on the Bears.

 

I always see Wade as an example, and to me, it is a very weak one. Do you remember why he was cut? It actually wasn't due to his play as a WR. WR play didn't help, but he was cut due to his constant fumbles in return duty. You can argue that should not have happened, but (a) I think the staff was making a statement and ( I sure don't recall you or anyone else defending him at the time.

 

Wade today is not really much more than he was for us then. He caught 42 for nearly 500 for us. He has added to that slightly, but are you really arguing he is more for Minny than he was for us? If he played as many snaps for us, he would likely have had similar stats. So what. He is a starting WR that puts up #3 or #4 numbers. At the end of the day, that is what he was for us too.

 

Gage - Hell, he didn't even get PT when he was on the Bears, and now he's the Titans' #1 WR.

 

One. Their "#1 WR" had 34 catches last year. Two, he was cut due to injuries as much as anything else. He was a nice looking WR who we drafted and tried to develop, but who could simply not stay healthy. At some point, if a player can't stay healthy, you cut him. Since then, he picked up w/ Tenn and stayed healthy one year, thus missed 4 last. If he misses a chunk of this year, I can see him on the outside looking in too. The point is, Gage was cut due to injury. Prior to that, he was showing some nice things, but at the end of the day, the staff didn't feel they could rely on him to stay healthy.

 

Terrell - I don't know where you are getting this "plenty of places" crap, but it just didn't happen. And I still hold to the belief that he was underutilized, and stuck behind Dez "Stone Hands" White for no reason other than the apparent fact that the coaches at the time loved Dez White during practice, despite the absolute fact he sucked when in the game.

 

It is not in your link, but he also was picked up by NE for a period of time, and didn't do anything there either. You can believe what you want, but David Terrell was a great college WR who was able to dominate based on athleticism, but it takes more in the NFL, and Terrell was never willing to do more. He thought he could just show up on Sundays and dominate, but he couldn't. Guys like Terrell and Mike Williams have to learn the hard way that while talent may allow you to dominate in college, it takes talent and effort in the NFL. If you are not going to put in the effort, your talent simply isn't enough.

 

Aside from all this conjecture, Terrell really does not make your point. you want to make the point that WRs were not developed/utilized w/ the bears, and you want to use their success w/ later teams to make your point. Terrell does nothing to prove your point.

 

Engram - Agreed, he was rock solid, and remains so. He's put up comparable numbers in Seattle, and had a huge year just two years ago.

 

I was one of his biggest fans, and an outspoken critic of Angelo for letting Engram go. But something no one ever thinks about is, if we had not let Engram go, it is very likely Booker would have never develed for us like he did. Booker became a very good WR for us, but it was only after Engram was let go Booker had a place in the offense.

 

Booker - He remains the single WR of the group that goes against the grain. He was one of my favorites when on the Bears, but somehow he has aged in dog years since leaving Chicago.

 

Sorry, but the "dog years" doesn't work. I believe he was 28 when he went to Miami. While age is likely why he stunk for us last year, I don't think you can simply use age as an excuse for why he didn't play well for Miami after leaving the bears.

 

Look, I agree we have not always done a great job developing our WR talent or utilizing them. Frankly, that is sort of what happens when you lack a QB. Teams w/ great QBs seem to find 1st round talent out of undrafted rookie FAs while teams that lack a QB seem to find future CFL players out of top 10 picks. But when I look at the list of WRs as a whole over the last 10 years, I frankly don't see many that would really make your case. If a WR leaves a team lacking any semblence of a QB (such as Chicago) and goes on to have a couple more catches, I don't think that makes your case. W/ few exceptions, WRs who have left Chicago don't seem to do much of anything, and those that do, only improve by a small margin, which just does not make your case, IMHO.

 

While you can give an example here or there of a WR that did "slightly" better after leaving Chicago, I can likely give you 3 that did worse or never made it at all w/ another team.

[nfoligno]

We have pretty much always agreed on this overall idea.

 

I agree that we have not been totally lacking any talent at WR. At the same time, I do think our talent base at Wr has been below average in total. Yes, a legit QB would have helped a lot, but if we had Payton Manning, I do not think we would have found a Marvin Harrison or Reggie Wayne in the group. If we had Carson Palmer, I am not sure we would have found a TJ Housyourmama. We might have found a few better than average guys in the group, but even w/ a franchise QB, I think we would have still said our WR position was below par.

 

Hence my previous statement:

 

"The Bears haven't had Rice and Taylor by a long shot, but they also haven't had the dearth of talent you and many others like to pretend they have had. It's as I said before: HC, OC, QB, OL...one (or more) of the four ruined the opportunities the Bears have had to cultivate WRs and TEs. "

 

[jason]

Those guys were #2-#4's everywhere else. The Bears looked at them to be #1's. That is the definition of crap. You didn't prove me wrong.

 

Do you not understand the differentiation between the word "decent" and what you keep reading (whatever that may be)?

 

Decent means #2s and #3s!!

 

The fact that the Bears looked to them as #1s doesn't show that those WRs were any less #2s or #3s, by your own admission. Which means, by your quote, that you have been proven wrong. If they are #2-#4s, then they are decent. If they were better, they would be #1s, and I wouldn't have used the word "decent."

[jason]

When I referred to Wade, I was talking about the years prior to them picking up Berrian. Notice now a year into Berrian's days (along with the drafting of Percy Harvin) he's now out of a job.

 

The Bears WR's have been bad, very bad. Are some serviceable #2-#4's sure, but having a guy thats a #3 most anywhere else be our #1 is the definition of a bad WR corps.

 

Different debate.

 

Were any of the #2-#4 guys the Bears had legit #1s? Maybe.

MRob for one season.

Booker for one season.

Maybe Hester now.

 

That doesn't take away from the fact that they are decent, which is to say that they fit your requirement of #2-#4 guys.

[jason]

Jason. While I would agree we have not been the best when it comes to developing or utilizing WRs, I do have a couple comments on your examples, as I don't think the entire story is being told.

 

Kennison - Horribly underutilized on the Bears, did better before AND after.

 

2000 was a bad year all around, and Kennison basically played the same position as M.Robinson. I am not sure what your expectations were for him, but he was brought in for just that one season, and it was a season where player after player went down w/ injury, and no chemistry was ever seen. While I am not arguing he was better before and after, I am not sure he is really a great example as this was not a season, nor was he a player, that "fits" the argument. He was w/ the team for only one year, and we had numerous players in front of him (M.Robinson, Engram, Booker. We dealt w/ many injuries that year. We had a new OC and "issues" at Qb. This is not an example like most others where we had a guy for a while, and did little w/ him, but who did better elsewhere.

 

As I said before, I agree with the OC/QB deficiency. If that's why he was underused, so be it. But it doesn't change the fact that he was underused and has done better with other teams than when with the Bears.

 

Wade - Did better when not on the Bears.

 

I always see Wade as an example, and to me, it is a very weak one. Do you remember why he was cut? It actually wasn't due to his play as a WR. WR play didn't help, but he was cut due to his constant fumbles in return duty. You can argue that should not have happened, but (a) I think the staff was making a statement and ( I sure don't recall you or anyone else defending him at the time.

 

Wade today is not really much more than he was for us then. He caught 42 for nearly 500 for us. He has added to that slightly, but are you really arguing he is more for Minny than he was for us? If he played as many snaps for us, he would likely have had similar stats. So what. He is a starting WR that puts up #3 or #4 numbers. At the end of the day, that is what he was for us too.

 

I remember why Wade was cut...fumbles. I sure as hell didn't defend him, nor will I do so now. Regardless, the reason for his release is inconsequential to this discussion. The fact remains, he did better when not on the Bears. That's not to say the guy is a world beater, but I'm just making the case that he has done better outside of Chicago, which lends itself to the debate of whether or not Chicago has been able to properly develop the talent they have had, however minimal that may be, at the wide receiver position.

 

Gage - Hell, he didn't even get PT when he was on the Bears, and now he's the Titans' #1 WR.

 

One. Their "#1 WR" had 34 catches last year. Two, he was cut due to injuries as much as anything else. He was a nice looking WR who we drafted and tried to develop, but who could simply not stay healthy. At some point, if a player can't stay healthy, you cut him. Since then, he picked up w/ Tenn and stayed healthy one year, thus missed 4 last. If he misses a chunk of this year, I can see him on the outside looking in too. The point is, Gage was cut due to injury. Prior to that, he was showing some nice things, but at the end of the day, the staff didn't feel they could rely on him to stay healthy.

 

Regardless of why he was cut, or the number of catches he had last year (both of which are red herrings), the guy has done better outside of Chicago, period. That is not up for debate.

 

Terrell - I don't know where you are getting this "plenty of places" crap, but it just didn't happen. And I still hold to the belief that he was underutilized, and stuck behind Dez "Stone Hands" White for no reason other than the apparent fact that the coaches at the time loved Dez White during practice, despite the absolute fact he sucked when in the game.

 

It is not in your link, but he also was picked up by NE for a period of time, and didn't do anything there either. You can believe what you want, but David Terrell was a great college WR who was able to dominate based on athleticism, but it takes more in the NFL, and Terrell was never willing to do more. He thought he could just show up on Sundays and dominate, but he couldn't. Guys like Terrell and Mike Williams have to learn the hard way that while talent may allow you to dominate in college, it takes talent and effort in the NFL. If you are not going to put in the effort, your talent simply isn't enough.

 

Aside from all this conjecture, Terrell really does not make your point. you want to make the point that WRs were not developed/utilized w/ the bears, and you want to use their success w/ later teams to make your point. Terrell does nothing to prove your point.

 

Yes, I remember Terrell got a try out at NE, but he didn't land there. And he sure as hell didn't go "plenty of places" after leaving the Bears. I believe just about everything you say, but the one addition is, I still believe the coaches screwed him. Guys like that are used to being handed everything in life, and getting it easily. When he came in his rookie year and scored a few touchdowns, and played better in games than Dez White, I'm sure it was difficult for him to understand why he wasn't starting over White. The talk at that time was all about practice this and that, which makes what you are saying regarding hard work legit. However, Dez White undeniably sucked, and barring anything we are unaware of regarding something behind closed doors at Halas Hall, there is no reason Terrell should have been on the bench. Headcase primadonnas don't come back from emotional scarring very well.

 

Engram - Agreed, he was rock solid, and remains so. He's put up comparable numbers in Seattle, and had a huge year just two years ago.

 

I was one of his biggest fans, and an outspoken critic of Angelo for letting Engram go. But something no one ever thinks about is, if we had not let Engram go, it is very likely Booker would have never develed for us like he did. Booker became a very good WR for us, but it was only after Engram was let go Booker had a place in the offense.

 

That's a red herring and you know it. It has nothing to do with his ability in our out of Chicago.

 

Booker - He remains the single WR of the group that goes against the grain. He was one of my favorites when on the Bears, but somehow he has aged in dog years since leaving Chicago.

 

Sorry, but the "dog years" doesn't work. I believe he was 28 when he went to Miami. While age is likely why he stunk for us last year, I don't think you can simply use age as an excuse for why he didn't play well for Miami after leaving the bears.

 

My "dog years" comment was an allusion to his drastic decline in stats since leaving Chicago. He's the only WR I can find who does much worse when leaving, and I don't really know why that is.

 

Look, I agree we have not always done a great job developing our WR talent or utilizing them. Frankly, that is sort of what happens when you lack a QB. Teams w/ great QBs seem to find 1st round talent out of undrafted rookie FAs while teams that lack a QB seem to find future CFL players out of top 10 picks. But when I look at the list of WRs as a whole over the last 10 years, I frankly don't see many that would really make your case. If a WR leaves a team lacking any semblence of a QB (such as Chicago) and goes on to have a couple more catches, I don't think that makes your case. W/ few exceptions, WRs who have left Chicago don't seem to do much of anything, and those that do, only improve by a small margin, which just does not make your case, IMHO.

 

While you can give an example here or there of a WR that did "slightly" better after leaving Chicago, I can likely give you 3 that did worse or never made it at all w/ another team.

 

As for improvements, keep in mind this originally was a discussion of "decent" versus OMG! completely horrible!!! I claim they have been decent. Not great, just decent. The fact that nearly all improve outside of Chicago, even if by small margins, is just supporting evidence for my claim. As for your counterpoint, I'd like to see you give me as many examples of WRs who did worse. I listed every consequential WR who was on the Bears during those years, and I even forgot Mark Bradley, who seems to be doing better in KC than when he was in Chicago. Go for it.

 

[nfoligno]

First, to start w/ where you ended.

 

As for improvements, keep in mind this originally was a discussion of "decent" versus OMG! completely horrible!!! I claim they have been decent. Not great, just decent. The fact that nearly all improve outside of Chicago, even if by small margins, is just supporting evidence for my claim.

 

One, I am not arguing we have not had "decent" WR talents in chicago, and agree w/ you that numerous WRs would have done far better if our QB and overall offensive situation was better.

 

Two, at the same time, you also argue the WRs do better after leaving here, even saying "nearly all," and this I simply disagree w/.

 

You mention Wade. Do you believe stats tell the whole story? I simply do not believe Wade is a better receiver today, or at any point after leaving Chicago, than he was in Chicago. As a WR, he actually did produce a decent season, especially considering his inexperience at the time. W/ that said, I do not believe he ever really developed into more than he was for us. He got more snaps w/ Minny, and thus his "stats" were a bit higher (not much) but that doesn't mean he improved.

 

You mention Gage, and here I would agree he did improve after leaving Chicago, but at the same time, I would argue he doesn't really fit the argument as he was limited in Chicago due to injury. He has been more healthy since we cut him, but I just feel this is a different situation. The concept of the argument is, being in Chicago limited him, but it was not so much the QB and system but more his inability to stay healthy. Same for Bradley. When he was healthy, for us, he looked pretty decent, but just couldn't stay healthy. He left and went to KC, where he looked good for a short period of time, before getting hurt there too.

 

At the end of the day, I would say it like this. Over the last decade or whatever, we have lacked great WRs, but at the same time, we have not been totally w/o talent. I would further say the talent we have had often seemed less than they were due to lacking at QB (and offense overall). But w/ that said, none of the WRs we have let go significantly did better than they did here. Some may have looked a little better, but not by much. You would agree, I believe, that in a better situation, a player will improve, but the amount of improvement IMHO reflects the minimal ability of most of these WRs.

 

The reality is, we (a) have lacked a good, much less great, QB ( we have not really invested much at WR, often expecting late round picks to develop, © we have not run a WR friendly system.

 

So I would agree that we have not been as totally lacking in WR talent as some often think, while at the same time, I don't think we had that much talent either.

[madlithuanian]

He is and he isn't. I think knox could be really good. And in order to get him there, you've got to get him out there getting reps... Which means, to some degree, he is ready for prime time.

 

Knox is not ready for prime time but I do like getting him some reps in the game. The guy I'd like to get on the field is DA. He's a bigger WR and should be better suited for the quick slants against press coverage. I think we only had 4 WR on the active roster so the coaches would have to decide between Knox or Davis. I vote for the future.

 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Do you not understand the differentiation between the word "decent" and what you keep reading (whatever that may be)?

 

Decent means #2s and #3s!!

 

The fact that the Bears looked to them as #1s doesn't show that those WRs were any less #2s or #3s, by your own admission. Which means, by your quote, that you have been proven wrong. If they are #2-#4s, then they are decent. If they were better, they would be #1s, and I wouldn't have used the word "decent."

You've thrown a handful of decent guys together over a 10 year period. At no more than one or two seasons did the team have what would be considered a decent set of WR's. Having your #3 playing a #1 and a #4 playing a #2 is not a decent WR corps. Its a below average to very bad one.

[jason]

First, to start w/ where you ended.

 

As for improvements, keep in mind this originally was a discussion of "decent" versus OMG! completely horrible!!! I claim they have been decent. Not great, just decent. The fact that nearly all improve outside of Chicago, even if by small margins, is just supporting evidence for my claim.

 

One, I am not arguing we have not had "decent" WR talents in chicago, and agree w/ you that numerous WRs would have done far better if our QB and overall offensive situation was better.

 

And, as I suspected, we pretty much agree.

 

Two, at the same time, you also argue the WRs do better after leaving here, even saying "nearly all," and this I simply disagree w/.

 

You mention Wade. Do you believe stats tell the whole story? I simply do not believe Wade is a better receiver today, or at any point after leaving Chicago, than he was in Chicago. As a WR, he actually did produce a decent season, especially considering his inexperience at the time. W/ that said, I do not believe he ever really developed into more than he was for us. He got more snaps w/ Minny, and thus his "stats" were a bit higher (not much) but that doesn't mean he improved.

 

I don't believe Wade has done significantly better, he has just done better. And, it's not just the totals that show this, it's the YPR and TDs have gone up as well.

 

You mention Gage, and here I would agree he did improve after leaving Chicago, but at the same time, I would argue he doesn't really fit the argument as he was limited in Chicago due to injury. He has been more healthy since we cut him, but I just feel this is a different situation. The concept of the argument is, being in Chicago limited him, but it was not so much the QB and system but more his inability to stay healthy. Same for Bradley. When he was healthy, for us, he looked pretty decent, but just couldn't stay healthy. He left and went to KC, where he looked good for a short period of time, before getting hurt there too.

 

I agree and disagree with this notion. True, injuries limited both Gage and Bradley. However, when they were healthy, the coaching staff still didn't give them much opportunity. I'm quite sure I could dig up somewhere on this board where I said that Bradley should be getting more PT, when he was just fine. When in the lineup, the guy looked stronger, bigger, and faster than anyone on our roster (faster was pre-Hester).

 

At the end of the day, I would say it like this. Over the last decade or whatever, we have lacked great WRs, but at the same time, we have not been totally w/o talent. I would further say the talent we have had often seemed less than they were due to lacking at QB (and offense overall). But w/ that said, none of the WRs we have let go significantly did better than they did here. Some may have looked a little better, but not by much. You would agree, I believe, that in a better situation, a player will improve, but the amount of improvement IMHO reflects the minimal ability of most of these WRs.

 

The reality is, we (a) have lacked a good, much less great, QB ( we have not really invested much at WR, often expecting late round picks to develop, © we have not run a WR friendly system.

 

So I would agree that we have not been as totally lacking in WR talent as some often think, while at the same time, I don't think we had that much talent either.

 

Agreed. No #2 or #3 turned into a #1. When talent is limited, which it was, that's not expected. But at the same time, the other teams always seem to be able to squeeze one more drop of blood out of that stone.