Consider me uninformed

[nfoligno]

Mulligan of the Sun Times said the following,

 

"It's a reason why anyone who thinks Muhammad was a bad free-agent signing by the Bears is uninformed. "

 

For the record, part of his reasoning was/is that MM was a great run blocking WR, a role that is under-appreciated w/ WRs. Further, after stating that only the uninformed would consider MM a bad FA signing, he then mentions Thomas Smith (CB) who was signed back in 2000. I would agree Smith was a worse signing. I would even agree he was a far worse signing. But that doesn't mean MM was a good signing.

 

As I recall, MM signed w/ the bears in early '05 to a 6 year deal. I full value of the contract varied, as I think there may have been a lot of incentives or something in it, as I recall that it could have been as high as $30m. But it also had $12m in bonus and guarantees and a 3 year value of over $16m.

 

He played 3 seasons of a 6 year contract before being released. That right there puts into question whether or not he was a good/bad FA signing.

 

He was signed coming off a 93-1,400-16 season. It can be debated what exactly our expectations were. I don't think we expected similar numbers, but I do believe we expected big numbers. What did we get? 64, 60 and 40 catch seasons. 750, 860 and 570 yards. 4, 5 and 3 scores. His numbers were not even good for a #2 WR, much less a #1.

 

Finally, I think another reason he was added was to help the QB. We had talent, but lacked consistency at the QB position. He was added w/ the belief he could bring that sort of consistency and elevate the play of the QB. What happened instead? He was quick to throw our QBs under the bus. He was in a battle w/ Terrell Owens, not for yards or scores, but for dropped passes and excuses. His route running was sloppy, and you could tell by how rarely he was open.

 

MM may not have been the worst FA signing, but I would argue he was a bad one, and if giving time to think on it, may still put him in the top 10.

[madlithuanian]

If I look at it from the perspective of "was it a bad signing?" ...I say no. We brought in a veteran WR with a few good years left inhis tank. He was on the downward slide and obviously took his prior season to the bank with our deal. But, he came in, attempted to be a leader, gave credibility to our WR corps, and drew the best coverage, thus making berrian look better.

 

I think I could even argue that MM was a good signing based on a lot of the above. Look, I don't think we could expect miracles. But, he brought us some stability for a very shaky QB. He had his share of drops and then proceeded to throw everyone under the bus...but only really after he left.

 

I look at other botches like Phillip Daniels, Rick Mirer, Kordell Stewart, Merril Hoge, Ironhead Heywood, Edgar Bennett, Charles Tillman, Ricky Manning Jr, Brian Cox etc... as all pretty much bordering on worst of all time. So, by comparision, MM was a stellar signing!

 

 

 

 

Mulligan of the Sun Times said the following,

 

"It's a reason why anyone who thinks Muhammad was a bad free-agent signing by the Bears is uninformed. "

 

For the record, part of his reasoning was/is that MM was a great run blocking WR, a role that is under-appreciated w/ WRs. Further, after stating that only the uninformed would consider MM a bad FA signing, he then mentions Thomas Smith (CB) who was signed back in 2000. I would agree Smith was a worse signing. I would even agree he was a far worse signing. But that doesn't mean MM was a good signing.

 

As I recall, MM signed w/ the bears in early '05 to a 6 year deal. I full value of the contract varied, as I think there may have been a lot of incentives or something in it, as I recall that it could have been as high as $30m. But it also had $12m in bonus and guarantees and a 3 year value of over $16m.

 

He played 3 seasons of a 6 year contract before being released. That right there puts into question whether or not he was a good/bad FA signing.

 

He was signed coming off a 93-1,400-16 season. It can be debated what exactly our expectations were. I don't think we expected similar numbers, but I do believe we expected big numbers. What did we get? 64, 60 and 40 catch seasons. 750, 860 and 570 yards. 4, 5 and 3 scores. His numbers were not even good for a #2 WR, much less a #1.

 

Finally, I think another reason he was added was to help the QB. We had talent, but lacked consistency at the QB position. He was added w/ the belief he could bring that sort of consistency and elevate the play of the QB. What happened instead? He was quick to throw our QBs under the bus. He was in a battle w/ Terrell Owens, not for yards or scores, but for dropped passes and excuses. His route running was sloppy, and you could tell by how rarely he was open.

 

MM may not have been the worst FA signing, but I would argue he was a bad one, and if giving time to think on it, may still put him in the top 10.

 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

I really can't put the MM signing up there as one of the worst the organization ever made. They went out and were agressive and got a guy that could make an impact and really he did. He provided a stable leadership for Berrian to develop into a #1 along side Moose.

 

In fact, I could make a case that the superbowl season was one of the few seasons where we truly had a decent to good receiving corps over the past 10 years.

 

Moose was a bit of a bust and eventually started throwing the QB under the bus, but as a whole he blocked well and gave us a well respected WR and I think that did ultimately help the Bears and I do think he was a factor in our superbowl run.

[CrackerDog]

MM may not have been the worst FA signing, but I would argue he was a bad one, and if giving time to think on it, may still put him in the top 10.

 

I've always considered you uninformed.

 

Moose was a good signing at the time, petered out a little faster than anyone hoped, and was a victim of the Rex yo yo. If we had the 2005 Moose on this team, this year, with Cutler, he'd produce 90 catches.

 

I don't know if that means he was a bad signing or not. Water under the bridge and not worth the brain damage. Looking back on it, Moose was a disappointment. Just not sure that was Moose or if he'd have met expectation if Rex would've continued to grow as expected.

[nfoligno]

Sorry, but I disagree w/ the responses thus far.

 

Moose was brought in to help the QB. IMHO, he did little to help the QB, and more to hurt him. It seems like the belief today is MM waited to throw QBs under the bus, but as I recall, he did it pretty quickly. Orton was a rookie, and most often, you see players rally around the rookie QB, but MM seemed to do the opposite. The whole "throw the QB under the bus" thing began Orton's rookie season. I remember there was a game Moose was blamed for numerous drops, which made Orton look bad too. After the game, MM didn't even try to be politically correct, but instead flat out put the blame on Orton saying the passes were bad or off-target. Later, he did similar w/ Rex.

 

I think fans are quick to forget how many threads were started after each game about his number of drops. He was brought in to help "stabalize" as you all like to say, the passing game, but his drops and weak route running did little to aid our passing game. Further, I disagree w/ any who say today that MM was drawing double coverage. Our RBs were facing stacked boxes, and a key reason for that was our WRs were now drawing double coverages.

 

As for your list, few on that list were FAs of real significance. IMHO, to be on the list for top tier bad FA signings, they had to get a sizable contract. Players like Kordell Stewart, Hoge and others did not get a ton of money, and I don't think expectations were nearly so high. Some on that list you provided were not even FA signings.

 

I guess I just disagree, but not only do I argue MM was a bad signing, I argue he was among our worst when you factor money and expectations, which I think you have to factor when talking about FA additions.

 

Mulligan of the Sun Times said the following,

 

"It's a reason why anyone who thinks Muhammad was a bad free-agent signing by the Bears is uninformed. "

 

For the record, part of his reasoning was/is that MM was a great run blocking WR, a role that is under-appreciated w/ WRs. Further, after stating that only the uninformed would consider MM a bad FA signing, he then mentions Thomas Smith (CB) who was signed back in 2000. I would agree Smith was a worse signing. I would even agree he was a far worse signing. But that doesn't mean MM was a good signing.

 

As I recall, MM signed w/ the bears in early '05 to a 6 year deal. I full value of the contract varied, as I think there may have been a lot of incentives or something in it, as I recall that it could have been as high as $30m. But it also had $12m in bonus and guarantees and a 3 year value of over $16m.

 

He played 3 seasons of a 6 year contract before being released. That right there puts into question whether or not he was a good/bad FA signing.

 

He was signed coming off a 93-1,400-16 season. It can be debated what exactly our expectations were. I don't think we expected similar numbers, but I do believe we expected big numbers. What did we get? 64, 60 and 40 catch seasons. 750, 860 and 570 yards. 4, 5 and 3 scores. His numbers were not even good for a #2 WR, much less a #1.

 

Finally, I think another reason he was added was to help the QB. We had talent, but lacked consistency at the QB position. He was added w/ the belief he could bring that sort of consistency and elevate the play of the QB. What happened instead? He was quick to throw our QBs under the bus. He was in a battle w/ Terrell Owens, not for yards or scores, but for dropped passes and excuses. His route running was sloppy, and you could tell by how rarely he was open.

 

MM may not have been the worst FA signing, but I would argue he was a bad one, and if giving time to think on it, may still put him in the top 10.

 

[selection7]

The money makes a difference. Was Merril Hoge a disappointment? I was a little young at the time. I don't remember it that way. Why did you list Charles Tillman madlithuanian?

[nfoligno]

I believe he only played one season for us, so I doubt he was great, but I too don't recall well. We are talking about a FB from 15 years ago though, right? I doubt he received a big contract, so even if he was a FA bust, I don't think he belongs on the list. We bring in numerous FAs every year, but only so many for big bucks w/ big expectations.

 

The money makes a difference. Was Merril Hoge a disappointment? I was a little young at the time. I don't remember it that way.

 

[madlithuanian]

You're just trolling! There's not enough to talk about that we've not all already gone over!

 

When he made the comments about orton, he also tempered them with great comments about Rex. (Yes, we now know more as hindsight is 20/20).

 

As much as he made some drops, and we got on him for it. He also made catches. I personally saw him bring in a great td catch in Chicago while sitting in the end zone. he had talent.

 

And I still contend that his presence took opponents' top coverage guys away from Berrian,etc.

 

You can argue the dollars. But, the bears had always been well under the cap, and his money, to the best of my knowledge, didn't prevent any other signings. You may want to re-assess your comment and say that he might now have been worth the money, but I'm sure there were more FA's out there in the NFL pulling down similar with far worse situations.

 

I guess I'm just not seeing why you have such anger towards MM. What exactly did you expect when he came here? Jerry Rice? I certainly didn't expact that. I thought we'd be getting a decent vet that could command some D/referee respect in the league. He did just that. i certainly didn't htink he'd mirror that ridiculous seasonhe had before. We didn't have the O for that. But we desperately needed something. And when you do that in FA, you usually pay far more than things are worth.

 

 

Sorry, but I disagree w/ the responses thus far.

 

Moose was brought in to help the QB. IMHO, he did little to help the QB, and more to hurt him. It seems like the belief today is MM waited to throw QBs under the bus, but as I recall, he did it pretty quickly. Orton was a rookie, and most often, you see players rally around the rookie QB, but MM seemed to do the opposite. The whole "throw the QB under the bus" thing began Orton's rookie season. I remember there was a game Moose was blamed for numerous drops, which made Orton look bad too. After the game, MM didn't even try to be politically correct, but instead flat out put the blame on Orton saying the passes were bad or off-target. Later, he did similar w/ Rex.

 

I think fans are quick to forget how many threads were started after each game about his number of drops. He was brought in to help "stabalize" as you all like to say, the passing game, but his drops and weak route running did little to aid our passing game. Further, I disagree w/ any who say today that MM was drawing double coverage. Our RBs were facing stacked boxes, and a key reason for that was our WRs were now drawing double coverages.

 

As for your list, few on that list were FAs of real significance. IMHO, to be on the list for top tier bad FA signings, they had to get a sizable contract. Players like Kordell Stewart, Hoge and others did not get a ton of money, and I don't think expectations were nearly so high. Some on that list you provided were not even FA signings.

 

I guess I just disagree, but not only do I argue MM was a bad signing, I argue he was among our worst when you factor money and expectations, which I think you have to factor when talking about FA additions.

 

[madlithuanian]

i argue that money doesn't make the difference. You have to pay to get FA's. And as far as I can assess, his signing didn't prevent us signing anyone else that would have made a difference at that time w/o knowledge of the future.

 

My bad on Tillman...I meant Lewis Tillman formerly of the NYG in the 90's...

 

 

 

The money makes a difference. Was Merril Hoge a disappointment? I was a little young at the time. I don't remember it that way. Why did you list Charles Tillman madlithuanian?

 

[madlithuanian]

Again, what exactly were you expecting from MM?

 

That somehow one old decent WR was going to turn our stagnant system into "Air Coryell"? That you were going to get exactly the same out of him from the previous year?

 

Beggar's can't be choosers. And at the time, the Bears were pretty much a laughing stock of the league. When that happens, as we now wee in Cleveland, you have to over-pay. Something tells me the McCaskey's still pulled in a hefty profit for the seasons MM was here...

 

I'd hate to see what it would have been without him...

 

 

 

 

I believe he only played one season for us, so I doubt he was great, but I too don't recall well. We are talking about a FB from 15 years ago though, right? I doubt he received a big contract, so even if he was a FA bust, I don't think he belongs on the list. We bring in numerous FAs every year, but only so many for big bucks w/ big expectations.

 

[CrackerDog]

Again, what exactly were you expecting from MM?

 

I like your list a lot! I laughed that 90% of it seemed to be from during the Wanny era. Damn I'm glad he's gone.

[selection7]

I believe he only played one season for us, so I doubt he was great, but I too don't recall well. We are talking about a FB from 15 years ago though, right? I doubt he received a big contract, so even if he was a FA bust, I don't think he belongs on the list. We bring in numerous FAs every year, but only so many for big bucks w/ big expectations.

 

'After seven seasons with the Steelers, Hoge signed with the Chicago Bears as a free agent in 1994, but played in just five games with only six carries and 13 receptions. He retired after suffering a series of concussions. '

 

I definitely didn't remember his contribution was that small. I did remember the early retirement.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

By the way, I think the Thomas Smith and Phillip Daniels signings were two of the biggest busts in franchise history. IIRC, the franchise made a huge statement in those signings during the Jauron era (largest contracts, etc) and both of them were bums. Smith a bigger bum than Daniels who had some injury problems but we had very high expectations for both.

[madlithuanian]

Ha! It was a lot of Wanny guys! I was finally out of college during those years and could afford to go to games, so that's when everything really became very apparent!

 

Me too!

 

I like your list a lot! I laughed that 90% of it seemed to be from during the Wanny era. Damn I'm glad he's gone.

 

[madlithuanian]

No argument there!

 

By the way, I think the Thomas Smith and Phillip Daniels signings were two of the biggest busts in franchise history. IIRC, the franchise made a huge statement in those signings during the Jauron era (largest contracts, etc) and both of them were bums. Smith a bigger bum than Daniels who had some injury problems but we had very high expectations for both.

 

[CrackerDog]

By the way, I think the Thomas Smith and Phillip Daniels signings were two of the biggest busts

 

Speaking of big busts...

 

 

[madlithuanian]

 

Speaking of big busts...

 

[Connorbear]

Sorry, but I disagree w/ the responses thus far.

 

Moose was brought in to help the QB. IMHO, he did little to help the QB, and more to hurt him. It seems like the belief today is MM waited to throw QBs under the bus, but as I recall, he did it pretty quickly. Orton was a rookie, and most often, you see players rally around the rookie QB, but MM seemed to do the opposite. The whole "throw the QB under the bus" thing began Orton's rookie season. I remember there was a game Moose was blamed for numerous drops, which made Orton look bad too. After the game, MM didn't even try to be politically correct, but instead flat out put the blame on Orton saying the passes were bad or off-target. Later, he did similar w/ Rex.

 

I think fans are quick to forget how many threads were started after each game about his number of drops. He was brought in to help "stabalize" as you all like to say, the passing game, but his drops and weak route running did little to aid our passing game. Further, I disagree w/ any who say today that MM was drawing double coverage. Our RBs were facing stacked boxes, and a key reason for that was our WRs were now drawing double coverages.

 

As for your list, few on that list were FAs of real significance. IMHO, to be on the list for top tier bad FA signings, they had to get a sizable contract. Players like Kordell Stewart, Hoge and others did not get a ton of money, and I don't think expectations were nearly so high. Some on that list you provided were not even FA signings.

 

I guess I just disagree, but not only do I argue MM was a bad signing, I argue he was among our worst when you factor money and expectations, which I think you have to factor when talking about FA additions.

Agreed 100%

 

Peace

[madlithuanian]

Really guys?

 

MM's contract and performance was worse then Smith and Daniels? MM $30M compared to Daniels of $25M (20% more) and Smith $22.5M (about 30% more)?

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...&id=2000387

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/...smith_bears_ap/

 

Factor the cap in 2005 compared to 2000. (Basically $85M compared to $67M) 27% increase.

 

2000:

 

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/question644.htm

 

2005:

 

http://football.calsci.com/SalaryCap.html

 

Tack in generic inflation as well...

 

Bottom line, I just don't see how MM and his money are any worse than Smith and Daniels....

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed 100%

 

Peace

 

[adam]

At the time, the Moose signing was actually pretty good. He was arguably the best WR in 2004, leading the league in yards and TDs and made the Pro Bowl on a losing team. The first two years on the Bears we had a record of 24-8 with him. In 2004, our leading receiver was Terrell (Moose had more yards in 2004 than our top 2 receivers combined).

 

The problem was we bought high. He was never going to achieve that again, and if you look at his stats, he only has 3 true standout years. He either had over 90 catches or less than 70 catches, no in between. With the Bears, and ever since 2004, he has been the latter. Also, we got him at age 32. That is about where you see some drop-off in production.

 

So if you compare him relatively to what we had in 2004, he was a huge upgrade. We got to the SB with him, so I wouldn't say it was a complete bust. The QB carousel must also affect WRs. As much as we've had QB's since McMahon, you can say the same thing about receivers.

 

WRs since 2000 no longer on team:

 

Lloyd, Booker, Berrian, Moose, Bradley, Gage, Wade, Terrell, White, Robinson, Kennison

 

Also, think about the continuity. How many of these guys played on the team multiple years with the same QB? Booker?

[Connorbear]

Really guys?

 

MM's contract and performance was worse then Smith and Daniels? MM $30M compared to Daniels of $25M (20% more) and Smith $22.5M (about 30% more)?

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...&id=2000387

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/...smith_bears_ap/

 

Factor the cap in 2005 compared to 2000. (Basically $85M compared to $67M) 27% increase.

 

2000:

 

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/question644.htm

 

2005:

 

http://football.calsci.com/SalaryCap.html

 

Tack in generic inflation as well...

 

Bottom line, I just don't see how MM and his money are any worse than Smith and Daniels....

I'll agree that Smith was a bigger bust than MM. Daniels and MM were both busts but MM added the "throwing his teammates under the bus" issue. I'll take Daniels over him.

 

Peace

[nfoligno]

Madman,

 

When did I EVER say MM was the worst FA signing ever? In fact, I believe I started this by saying he wasn't. My argument was never that he was the worst FA signing ever. I posted parts of an article saying only the uninformed believe MM was a bad signing. This discussion stems from that article.

 

I do not believe MM was a good signing. In fact, I believe he was a bad signing. Was he the worst ever? No. And I have never argued that. Where does he fit on the list. I have no idea. As many bad FA signings as we have had over the years, that would be one hell of a research project. The one thing I would argue is, I think Daniels was a better (relative) signing than MM. Frankly, I don't think it is even close.

 

Really guys?

 

MM's contract and performance was worse then Smith and Daniels? MM $30M compared to Daniels of $25M (20% more) and Smith $22.5M (about 30% more)?

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...&id=2000387

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/...smith_bears_ap/

 

Factor the cap in 2005 compared to 2000. (Basically $85M compared to $67M) 27% increase.

 

2000:

 

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/question644.htm

 

2005:

 

http://football.calsci.com/SalaryCap.html

 

Tack in generic inflation as well...

 

Bottom line, I just don't see how MM and his money are any worse than Smith and Daniels....

 

[nfoligno]

I never agreed w/ the belief Phillip Daniels was such a huge bust.

 

No. He never lived up to the great expectations. He was added after a 9 sack season w/ Seattle, and the belief was, the sack total would go up from there, but he never got over that 9 sack total. With that said, while he did not live up to the hype, I simply would not agree he was such a bust either. He wasn't the pass rushing force we hoped, but he was actually a pretty damn good DE for us.

 

Everyone always talks about Alex Brown as being such a solid DE. Well, I would argue Daniels was just as good as Brown, and frankly, I might argue better. Daniels had 20.5 sacks in his first 3 seasons. If I put Brown's best three year run together, he totals 19. Both are comparable in tackle numbers as well. As much praise as Brown often gets in regard to run defense, I would argue Daniels was considerably better. I think it can also be pointed out that while brown plays in a defensive scheme that is all about pass rush, Daniels played in the opposite. Stop the run, maintain your lane, then rush the QB if you can.

 

Remember Blache's famous quote? "Sacks are over-rated"

 

In many ways, I would say Daniels was like Wale. Like Wale, Daniels never emerged as the pass rush force expected when brought to Chicago, but also like Wale, he proved to be a very solid DE for us while he was here.

 

Contrast that w/ FA additions like Thomas Smith and RMJ, who we spent considerable cash on, and yet they could not even hold down a job.

 

MM fits in the middle IMHO. He was paid big bucks, and while he did start, his performance was not starter tier. I think fans so soon forget. I remember well how so many fans on this board were screaming for him to be benched. As bad as the WR talent as we had behind him was, his play was so poor that most here felt he shouldn't even be on the field.

 

By the way, I think the Thomas Smith and Phillip Daniels signings were two of the biggest busts in franchise history. IIRC, the franchise made a huge statement in those signings during the Jauron era (largest contracts, etc) and both of them were bums. Smith a bigger bum than Daniels who had some injury problems but we had very high expectations for both.

 

[madlithuanian]

Fair enough. I got the gyst from your comments, but after re-reading, you don't specifically state that. You say bad. Even with that, I disagree.

 

You really think Daniels helped the Bears more than MM? Wow...I'm shocked.

 

I also think in order to really prop you argument, you need to look at all FA signings in the NFL. Look at the mad loot the Skins and others paid for guys with bad productivity.

 

Maybe your argument in general is that FA's aren't worth the price. Then, I'd give you that. But as far as the reality of FA's go, I think MM was better than the norm.

 

Madman,

 

When did I EVER say MM was the worst FA signing ever? In fact, I believe I started this by saying he wasn't. My argument was never that he was the worst FA signing ever. I posted parts of an article saying only the uninformed believe MM was a bad signing. This discussion stems from that article.

 

I do not believe MM was a good signing. In fact, I believe he was a bad signing. Was he the worst ever? No. And I have never argued that. Where does he fit on the list. I have no idea. As many bad FA signings as we have had over the years, that would be one hell of a research project. The one thing I would argue is, I think Daniels was a better (relative) signing than MM. Frankly, I don't think it is even close.

 

[bowlingtwig]

I never agreed w/ the belief Phillip Daniels was such a huge bust.

 

No. He never lived up to the great expectations. He was added after a 9 sack season w/ Seattle, and the belief was, the sack total would go up from there, but he never got over that 9 sack total. With that said, while he did not live up to the hype, I simply would not agree he was such a bust either. He wasn't the pass rushing force we hoped, but he was actually a pretty damn good DE for us.

 

Everyone always talks about Alex Brown as being such a solid DE. Well, I would argue Daniels was just as good as Brown, and frankly, I might argue better. Daniels had 20.5 sacks in his first 3 seasons. If I put Brown's best three year run together, he totals 19. Both are comparable in tackle numbers as well. As much praise as Brown often gets in regard to run defense, I would argue Daniels was considerably better. I think it can also be pointed out that while brown plays in a defensive scheme that is all about pass rush, Daniels played in the opposite. Stop the run, maintain your lane, then rush the QB if you can.

 

Remember Blache's famous quote? "Sacks are over-rated"

 

In many ways, I would say Daniels was like Wale. Like Wale, Daniels never emerged as the pass rush force expected when brought to Chicago, but also like Wale, he proved to be a very solid DE for us while he was here.

 

Contrast that w/ FA additions like Thomas Smith and RMJ, who we spent considerable cash on, and yet they could not even hold down a job.

 

MM fits in the middle IMHO. He was paid big bucks, and while he did start, his performance was not starter tier. I think fans so soon forget. I remember well how so many fans on this board were screaming for him to be benched. As bad as the WR talent as we had behind him was, his play was so poor that most here felt he shouldn't even be on the field.

Great post. I didn't feel. That was a good off season for us because we got Daniels and Big Ted Washington, and although those 2 never put up the stats that we all expecting they helped solidify the line and it kept the Oline from getting to our LB's so if you look at it Urlacher probably had his best seasons with those 2 guys on that line.