Consider me uninformed

[nfoligno]

Yea, that is something I think fans just do not factor. Our scheme was so different from today. We had a DL of Daniels, Traylor, Washington and B.Robinson. This was not a DL created to attack the passer. It was built to copy Baltimore and what they built on the way to the SB. Use the DL to stuff the run and keep your LBs free to mak plays. We were tops in the league (or maybe #2) in shutting down the run, and while we gave up passing yards, I believe we were also #1 or #2 in terms of scoring. DL is evaluated based on sacks, but that simply was not the key role of our DL then.

 

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.

 

[madlithuanian]

I loved the big boys in the middle, Ted and Traylor...but Robinson and Daniels didn't impress me in the least...

 

That scheme back then let Rosie Colvin loose and urlacher as well. With some big plays by Holdman as well. Definitely a difference than today's scheme.

 

But, I disagree w/ Blache, sacks are important!

 

Yea, that is something I think fans just do not factor. Our scheme was so different from today. We had a DL of Daniels, Traylor, Washington and B.Robinson. This was not a DL created to attack the passer. It was built to copy Baltimore and what they built on the way to the SB. Use the DL to stuff the run and keep your LBs free to mak plays. We were tops in the league (or maybe #2) in shutting down the run, and while we gave up passing yards, I believe we were also #1 or #2 in terms of scoring. DL is evaluated based on sacks, but that simply was not the key role of our DL then.

 

[nfoligno]

Hey, I disagree too, but the point is, those DEs worked within the scheme. We all want sacks, but if the scheme doesn't make pass rush a priority (for the DL) then can we really blast them for not racking up the sack totals?

 

Frankly, I use it myself as I find humor in it, but Blache's "sacks aren't important" comment I always thought was over-blown. I understand, and even agree, with his point. He was trying to make the point that consistent pressure is more important than the actual sack. Which would you rather have. A DE who shows up one or two plays a game getting in the sack stat column, or a player who doesn't get a sack, but does put consistent pressure on the QB.

 

I think that was his point, but the statement itself was simply too inflamatory, espeically for a fan base so desperate for big sack numbers.

 

Back to Daniels. Does Alex Brown or Wale impress you? They play in a system the emphasizes the pass rush, and yet neither rack up sack numbers much more than Daniels did. Daniels had 9 sacks one season for us, which is well better than any one season for Brown and equal to Wale's 2nd best season for us. In fact, if you look at Wale's stats over the years, he really only has one season over Daniels. If you take out Wale's 10 sack season, he has sack totals of 6.5, 9 and 5, which is actually less than Daniels three seasons.

 

Is Wale as big, or bigger of a bust than Daniels?

 

I loved the big boys in the middle, Ted and Traylor...but Robinson and Daniels didn't impress me in the least...

 

That scheme back then let Rosie Colvin loose and urlacher as well. With some big plays by Holdman as well. Definitely a difference than today's scheme.

 

But, I disagree w/ Blache, sacks are important!

 

[Daventry]

As far as MM goes, I think he was one of the biggest flops, if not the biggest, of the last few years. He was brought in, and paid, to be a top-tier receiver and he never came close. He seemed to get slower and have more drops as time went on, and also seemed increasingly happy to blame everyone else for his crap performance. Total waste of money.

 

I thought Daniels was a decent DE, in fact much like Alex Brown and, even more, Wale. Never quite a top tier guy, but solid.

 

The defense when Daniels was around was fun to watch, I preferred that system to the one we have now. I wish we could scrap the cover 2, or whatever they are calling it now, and go back to a more aggressive style...

[DABEARSDABOMB]

As far as MM goes, I think he was one of the biggest flops, if not the biggest, of the last few years. He was brought in, and paid, to be a top-tier receiver and he never came close. He seemed to get slower and have more drops as time went on, and also seemed increasingly happy to blame everyone else for his crap performance. Total waste of money.

 

I thought Daniels was a decent DE, in fact much like Alex Brown and, even more, Wale. Never quite a top tier guy, but solid.

 

The defense when Daniels was around was fun to watch, I preferred that system to the one we have now. I wish we could scrap the cover 2, or whatever they are calling it now, and go back to a more aggressive style...

Welcome aboard!!!!

[madlithuanian]

I like Alex Brown. His attitude and work ethic impress me. He seems the consumate team player. I also get a full sense that he;s giving it his all and he cares. Sometimes the results come, somethimes it's not as apparent. I've been dissatisfied w/ Wale for a while. But I honestly didn't expect the world. I thought he was a product of Jason Taylor...and it pretty much looks like that's the case.

 

Maybe my irritation w/ Daniels stems more from the horrid overall team than his performance alone. I just don't recall him ever having an impact in any significant moment or game.

 

Is Wale a bust? I don't know. Depends what your real definition is. You take Reggie While, Deion Sanders, Drew Brees and a few others out of the mix, and for the most part, FA's are all busts.

 

I suppose maybe I'm being harsh on Daniels, but I think I bring it up becasue I think people are being too harsh on MM. For 2 years, I think he was a huge help for the club. After that, not so much...and that's when people were calling for his head. But w/o him, I'm not sure we make our run at the SB.

 

 

Back to Daniels. Does Alex Brown or Wale impress you? They play in a system the emphasizes the pass rush, and yet neither rack up sack numbers much more than Daniels did. Daniels had 9 sacks one season for us, which is well better than any one season for Brown and equal to Wale's 2nd best season for us. In fact, if you look at Wale's stats over the years, he really only has one season over Daniels. If you take out Wale's 10 sack season, he has sack totals of 6.5, 9 and 5, which is actually less than Daniels three seasons.

 

Is Wale as big, or bigger of a bust than Daniels?

 

[madlithuanian]

Welcome board!

 

Was he a bigger flop than Ricky Manning Jr? Manning Jr. really couldn't even see the field unless an injury forced him out there.

 

In 2005 MM caught a team high 64 passes for 750yds and 4 TDs. http://www.bearshistory.com/seasons/2005chicagobears.aspx

 

In 2006 , he had 60 catches for 83 yds and 5 TD's. http://www.bearshistory.com/seasons/2006chicagobears.aspx

 

Those aren't HoF numbers, but they were pretty good for our offensivly challenged Bears passing attack...especially given a rookie QB and Rex. Also, whith opposing teams knowing MM was our only real threat.

 

I'm not saying MM is great. I'm just saying that he's not the worst or even bad.

 

I did like the system overall we ran while Daniels played...but I htink I'd have rather seen Alex Brown play in that scheme. Daniels just never impressed me. And maybe that's just selective memory on my part.

 

 

 

As far as MM goes, I think he was one of the biggest flops, if not the biggest, of the last few years. He was brought in, and paid, to be a top-tier receiver and he never came close. He seemed to get slower and have more drops as time went on, and also seemed increasingly happy to blame everyone else for his crap performance. Total waste of money.

 

I thought Daniels was a decent DE, in fact much like Alex Brown and, even more, Wale. Never quite a top tier guy, but solid.

 

The defense when Daniels was around was fun to watch, I preferred that system to the one we have now. I wish we could scrap the cover 2, or whatever they are calling it now, and go back to a more aggressive style...

 

[nfoligno]

I like Alex Brown. His attitude and work ethic impress me. He seems the consumate team player. I also get a full sense that he;s giving it his all and he cares. Sometimes the results come, somethimes it's not as apparent. I've been dissatisfied w/ Wale for a while. But I honestly didn't expect the world. I thought he was a product of Jason Taylor...and it pretty much looks like that's the case.

 

Is Wale a bust? I don't know. Depends what your real definition is. You take Reggie While, Deion Sanders, Drew Brees and a few others out of the mix, and for the most part, FA's are all busts.

 

Close to opposite for me. I always thought Brown was over-rated. He is a nice player, but I don't think you want a nice DE in our scheme. We need a Leanord Little. A Simeon Rice. We need a big ticket, edge pass rusher. Alex Brown is a nice player, but even when Wale and Harris were playing on a higher level, Brown was simply not good enough to take advantage. Brown has a few big games every season (pass rush) and disappears in the rest. Nice guy. Nice player. But from from special.

 

I bought into Wale when he came. I was about as thrilled as w/ adding Cutler. Yes, Wale had Taylor on the opposite side, but that does not take away (IMHO what he did). 9.5 sacks followed by 15. He never hit the level expected in Chicago, but at the same time, did become a solid starter.

 

Wale (and Daniels) for me is like spending a mid 1st round pick on a player expected to be a stud. He becomes a solid starter, but not a stud. Some will always remember him for not living up to his draft status, but if you get past that, the players is a solid piece of your team.

 

Maybe my irritation w/ Daniels stems more from the horrid overall team than his performance alone. I just don't recall him ever having an impact in any significant moment or game.

 

That would make sense. Daniels first season w/ the bears, we won 5 games. That was our Cade McNown/Mathews rotation. The following year, we won 13 games and Daniels was a big part of that. But the year after that, we suffered many injuries, and the team tanked. Then another year of injuries, this time including Daniels, and bad year again. By now, Angelo is in the picture, and ravamping the DL, and Daniels simply no longer fits, and thus is gone.

 

I can easily understand why Daniels would be lumped in w/ that group. On the other hand, I simply consider Daniels one of our solid players from that unit.

 

I suppose maybe I'm being harsh on Daniels, but I think I bring it up becasue I think people are being too harsh on MM. For 2 years, I think he was a huge help for the club. After that, not so much...and that's when people were calling for his head. But w/o him, I'm not sure we make our run at the SB.

 

We simply disagree on MM. I honestly believe he brought very little to the team. Do we go to the SB w/ him? I think we would. I truly believe he was that close to a waste of roster space, and feel even some of the hacks we had behind him could have done as well or better.

 

MM just wasn't very good. He didn't run routes well, and dropped a ton of passes. I just don't get what he did that other "lesser" WRs couldn't. He finished w/ some stats, but anyone who starts will. Bobby Wade had 42 - 481 the year he started 14 games. David Terrell had 40 something for around 700 yards. If you start, and spend most of the year on the field, you are simply likely to have something in terms of stats. But that doesn't mean you were good.

 

At the end of the day, MM seems to me like a player who, if all the surrounding parts are there, he can be a good WRs. Not great, but good. But he needs all the pieces in place. He needs a good QB (Delhomme), OL, opposite WR (Steve Smith) and solid run game. In this sort of a situation, he can be good enough. What he is not is a player who can elevate the play of those surrounding parts, which was the expectation.

[madlithuanian]

Trust me, if we could have got a Rice or such in their prime, it'd be great! But, it wasn't in the cards. I've got no problem w/ Wale, I just didn't expect much.

 

Fair enough...

 

All that said, I'm just looking forward to the potential we have now! Knox could be a real steal...

 

...and I'm glad we didn't overspend to get Housh...

 

I like Alex Brown. His attitude and work ethic impress me. He seems the consumate team player. I also get a full sense that he;s giving it his all and he cares. Sometimes the results come, somethimes it's not as apparent. I've been dissatisfied w/ Wale for a while. But I honestly didn't expect the world. I thought he was a product of Jason Taylor...and it pretty much looks like that's the case.

 

Is Wale a bust? I don't know. Depends what your real definition is. You take Reggie While, Deion Sanders, Drew Brees and a few others out of the mix, and for the most part, FA's are all busts.

 

Close to opposite for me. I always thought Brown was over-rated. He is a nice player, but I don't think you want a nice DE in our scheme. We need a Leanord Little. A Simeon Rice. We need a big ticket, edge pass rusher. Alex Brown is a nice player, but even when Wale and Harris were playing on a higher level, Brown was simply not good enough to take advantage. Brown has a few big games every season (pass rush) and disappears in the rest. Nice guy. Nice player. But from from special.

 

I bought into Wale when he came. I was about as thrilled as w/ adding Cutler. Yes, Wale had Taylor on the opposite side, but that does not take away (IMHO what he did). 9.5 sacks followed by 15. He never hit the level expected in Chicago, but at the same time, did become a solid starter.

 

Wale (and Daniels) for me is like spending a mid 1st round pick on a player expected to be a stud. He becomes a solid starter, but not a stud. Some will always remember him for not living up to his draft status, but if you get past that, the players is a solid piece of your team.

 

Maybe my irritation w/ Daniels stems more from the horrid overall team than his performance alone. I just don't recall him ever having an impact in any significant moment or game.

 

That would make sense. Daniels first season w/ the bears, we won 5 games. That was our Cade McNown/Mathews rotation. The following year, we won 13 games and Daniels was a big part of that. But the year after that, we suffered many injuries, and the team tanked. Then another year of injuries, this time including Daniels, and bad year again. By now, Angelo is in the picture, and ravamping the DL, and Daniels simply no longer fits, and thus is gone.

 

I can easily understand why Daniels would be lumped in w/ that group. On the other hand, I simply consider Daniels one of our solid players from that unit.

 

I suppose maybe I'm being harsh on Daniels, but I think I bring it up becasue I think people are being too harsh on MM. For 2 years, I think he was a huge help for the club. After that, not so much...and that's when people were calling for his head. But w/o him, I'm not sure we make our run at the SB.

 

We simply disagree on MM. I honestly believe he brought very little to the team. Do we go to the SB w/ him? I think we would. I truly believe he was that close to a waste of roster space, and feel even some of the hacks we had behind him could have done as well or better.

 

MM just wasn't very good. He didn't run routes well, and dropped a ton of passes. I just don't get what he did that other "lesser" WRs couldn't. He finished w/ some stats, but anyone who starts will. Bobby Wade had 42 - 481 the year he started 14 games. David Terrell had 40 something for around 700 yards. If you start, and spend most of the year on the field, you are simply likely to have something in terms of stats. But that doesn't mean you were good.

 

At the end of the day, MM seems to me like a player who, if all the surrounding parts are there, he can be a good WRs. Not great, but good. But he needs all the pieces in place. He needs a good QB (Delhomme), OL, opposite WR (Steve Smith) and solid run game. In this sort of a situation, he can be good enough. What he is not is a player who can elevate the play of those surrounding parts, which was the expectation.

[nfoligno]

I was actually very much in favor of adding Hous, but that was when Orton was our QB. I felt that if we were going to head into the season w/ a QB like Orton, who I liked, but we all know is not special, then we needed to do whatever possible to upgrade around him. Since we added Cutler, I have been against the idea of adding whatever FA is the flavor of the day. We just are not used to it in Chicago, but when you have a QB like Cutler, you find talent emerge from unexpected places. I guarantee you Denver did not expect Royal to breakout as he did last year.

 

W/ Cutler in charge, I am likely in the minority, but I love our prospects for the future at WR. Knox is well ahead of schedule in terms of development. Bennett has not exploded, but does actually lead the team in receptions, and considered he had zero last year, is a credit to Cutler. Then you look at a WR like Aromashodu, who can't get on the field now due to Knox, but is a player who showed a lot of chemistry w/ Cutler in camp. And I still really like Iglesias, who seems to need time for development, but who I think can be a player for us down the road. This does not even factor Hester and our TEs.

 

I think we will see a lot of development from our WRs this year, but next year is when I think our offense will really begin to take off.

 

Trust me, if we could have got a Rice or such in their prime, it'd be great! But, it wasn't in the cards. I've got no problem w/ Wale, I just didn't expect much.

 

Fair enough...

 

All that said, I'm just looking forward to the potential we have now! Knox could be a real steal...

 

...and I'm glad we didn't overspend to get Housh...

 

[lemonej]

The guy that everyone is calling "Thomas Smith" I think is named Thomas Carter and he was supposed to be a good cover corner when he was with the Redskins.

 

If you want to talk about bad signings ther have been a laundry list of them including Ironhead, Chris Hudson,Carter, Lewis Tillman,Eddie Kennison,Josh Bullocks,Phillip Daniels,Blake Brokermeyer, Henry Tillman, Kordell Stewart,etc. Musin Mohammed was not a bad signing, he just didn't fit the same way in this offense but if we want to get technical about his contribution to the team look at all the guys who were here with him and notice that all most of all them are still in the league on other teams, that where I see his impact. You think he had some influence on Bobby Wade,Justin Gage,Mark Bradley and Bernard Berrian?

[nfoligno]

It is Thomas Smith. He was a CB for Buffalo prior to our signing him to a large contract. Never a big interception guy, but was considered a near shut down corner. I think he lasted one year w/ us, and was gone.

 

 

The guy that everyone is calling "Thomas Smith" I think is named Thomas Carter and he was supposed to be a good cover corner when he was with the Redskins.

 

 

[nfoligno]

If you want to talk about bad signings ther have been a laundry list of them including Ironhead, Chris Hudson,Carter, Lewis Tillman,Eddie Kennison,Josh Bullocks,Phillip Daniels,Blake Brokermeyer, Henry Tillman, Kordell Stewart,etc. Musin Mohammed was not a bad signing, he just didn't fit the same way in this offense but if we want to get technical about his contribution to the team look at all the guys who were here with him and notice that all most of all them are still in the league on other teams, that where I see his impact. You think he had some influence on Bobby Wade,Justin Gage,Mark Bradley and Bernard Berrian?

 

I have already argued in favor of Daniels. I also would disagree on Brockermeyer. Hell, I may even argue we have not had a better LT since. He was never a great run blocking LT, which is what many were upset w/ him about, but he was considered among the best in the league in pass protection.

 

Most of the others you mention were not good, but at the same time, most were of minimal cost.

 

I am not sure I understand the idea that many of those WRs are in the league today due to the influence of MM. Frankly, I don't even really recall stories about how MM was working late into practices to work w/ the other young WRs. I read about that sort of thing this past camp w/ Pace and Kreutz helping other OL. I read that about Clark working w/ our TEs and even WRs. I read that about Tillman working w/ Bowman and Graham. I do not recall the stories of MM working w/ our young WRs.

 

Just because a veteran WR was on the team does not mean he helped the others.

[lemonej]

It is Thomas Smith. He was a CB for Buffalo prior to our signing him to a large contract. Never a big interception guy, but was considered a near shut down corner. I think he lasted one year w/ us, and was gone.

 

 

The guy that everyone is calling "Thomas Smith" I think is named Thomas Carter and he was supposed to be a good cover corner when he was with the Redskins.

So lets add them both to the list.LOL

[madlithuanian]

Oh, I wanted him big time! But in hindsight now, I'm glad we passed!

 

I actually am starting to feel the same. Like our D and O lines, I'd prefer to build from the draft now.

 

Agreed. I think this is the "test" year. Next year, we streamline... But, one can still hope the test results in a fine tuning in the playoffs!

 

I was actually very much in favor of adding Hous, but that was when Orton was our QB. I felt that if we were going to head into the season w/ a QB like Orton, who I liked, but we all know is not special, then we needed to do whatever possible to upgrade around him. Since we added Cutler, I have been against the idea of adding whatever FA is the flavor of the day. We just are not used to it in Chicago, but when you have a QB like Cutler, you find talent emerge from unexpected places. I guarantee you Denver did not expect Royal to breakout as he did last year.

 

W/ Cutler in charge, I am likely in the minority, but I love our prospects for the future at WR. Knox is well ahead of schedule in terms of development. Bennett has not exploded, but does actually lead the team in receptions, and considered he had zero last year, is a credit to Cutler. Then you look at a WR like Aromashodu, who can't get on the field now due to Knox, but is a player who showed a lot of chemistry w/ Cutler in camp. And I still really like Iglesias, who seems to need time for development, but who I think can be a player for us down the road. This does not even factor Hester and our TEs.

 

I think we will see a lot of development from our WRs this year, but next year is when I think our offense will really begin to take off.

 

[madlithuanian]

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

 

 

Here's a link to Smith...

 

So lets add them both to the list.LOL

 

[nfoligno]

Agreed. I think this is the "test" year. Next year, we streamline... But, one can still hope the test results in a fine tuning in the playoffs!

 

No question. The hope is we can see Knox develop for us the way Royal did for Denver. That doesn't mean he has to be as good, but simply see him take a fast track development like Royal.

 

I think this year, we will continue to see (a) the ball spread around and ( different players stepping up each week. In week one, we saw Hester and Bennett provide some consistent play, while Knox added a big catch. In week two, K.Davis and Knox stepped up big, and Olsen/Hester stepped up at the end w/ some big catches.

 

This week, I can see Forte having a breakout game, as well as whoever else. Knox is really in position for a big game as Seattle has issues w/ their starting CBs, meaning whoever their nickel is will be a deep depth chart DB, and Knox has big potential to exploit. W/ their LB issues, Olsen and Davis could have big games as well.

 

Point is, I think we will see development spread out this year. The hope is, a player or two really emerge by the end of the year who look not only promising, but appear to be studs. Olsen was the favorite pick in preseason for this. Knox is the favorite pick today. By season's end, who knows.

[madlithuanian]

I hear ya! I've always felt that a championship team on O needs a top QB and a top RB and/or WR. We've got the QB, I hope Forte can be the RB, and maybe between the likes of Olsen and Knox, we may have the WR....

 

Man, what fun this is! I cannot wait for Sunday!

 

Agreed. I think this is the "test" year. Next year, we streamline... But, one can still hope the test results in a fine tuning in the playoffs!

 

No question. The hope is we can see Knox develop for us the way Royal did for Denver. That doesn't mean he has to be as good, but simply see him take a fast track development like Royal.

 

I think this year, we will continue to see (a) the ball spread around and ( different players stepping up each week. In week one, we saw Hester and Bennett provide some consistent play, while Knox added a big catch. In week two, K.Davis and Knox stepped up big, and Olsen/Hester stepped up at the end w/ some big catches.

 

This week, I can see Forte having a breakout game, as well as whoever else. Knox is really in position for a big game as Seattle has issues w/ their starting CBs, meaning whoever their nickel is will be a deep depth chart DB, and Knox has big potential to exploit. W/ their LB issues, Olsen and Davis could have big games as well.

 

Point is, I think we will see development spread out this year. The hope is, a player or two really emerge by the end of the year who look not only promising, but appear to be studs. Olsen was the favorite pick in preseason for this. Knox is the favorite pick today. By season's end, who knows.

 

[LT2_3]

I have a problem with some of the assumptions being thrown around. Like just because a player wasn't a "Bad signing" doesn't mean it was a "Good signing" by default. Conversely, just because a player wasn't a "Good signing" doesn't automatically make them a "Bad signing" either.

 

I see Moose and Daniels as "Average signings" because while they didn't put up spectacular numbers, they did fill a role competently, and they didn't cost more than the going rate for free agents at the time they were signed. Did they get paid alot of money? Yes, but not more than they were going to make elsewhere anyway.

 

I think in both cases, the team was better off for having each guy on the team rather than depending on a rookie draft pick or some less expensive journeyman.

 

I think people generally expect too much from free agents in general. It's not like baseball where you can just interchange players at will and a player has the same stats pretty much no matter where they play. Football is a team sport and judging a player based on individual stats is naive at best. Ogun was better playing opposite Taylor, Moose was better playing with Delhomme (why I can't fathom, but it doesn't matter), and Daniels was, well, very steady and solid as a DE.

 

Actually, I 'm going to defend Daniels a bit and say that people had ridiculous expectations for him. Sure, he wasn't spectacular and didn't take over games, but guess what? GUYS LIKE THAT DON'T HIT FREE AGENCY!!! Why would you expect a free agent to perform like that? Just because he took advantage of the system to make as much money as possible? What? Really? Should he have said "No No No! You can't pay me that much because I'm going to be a disappointment to the fans!"?

 

Here's the bottom line: If you sign a player in free agency to a going-rate deal, expect to be underwhelmed because true playmakers never make to free agency. Now if Cutler underperforms, then it's something to be disappointed in because we gave up so much to get him, but a guy off the street that you don't have to give anything up but money for? No. They aren't that good or they wouldn't be available.

[madlithuanian]

I can't argue against your points...

 

Good analysis....

 

I have a problem with some of the assumptions being thrown around. Like just because a player wasn't a "Bad signing" doesn't mean it was a "Good signing" by default. Conversely, just because a player wasn't a "Good signing" doesn't automatically make them a "Bad signing" either.

 

I see Moose and Daniels as "Average signings" because while they didn't put up spectacular numbers, they did fill a role competently, and they didn't cost more than the going rate for free agents at the time they were signed. Did they get paid alot of money? Yes, but not more than they were going to make elsewhere anyway.

 

I think in both cases, the team was better off for having each guy on the team rather than depending on a rookie draft pick or some less expensive journeyman.

 

I think people generally expect too much from free agents in general. It's not like baseball where you can just interchange players at will and a player has the same stats pretty much no matter where they play. Football is a team sport and judging a player based on individual stats is naive at best. Ogun was better playing opposite Taylor, Moose was better playing with Delhomme (why I can't fathom, but it doesn't matter), and Daniels was, well, very steady and solid as a DE.

 

Actually, I 'm going to defend Daniels a bit and say that people had ridiculous expectations for him. Sure, he wasn't spectacular and didn't take over games, but guess what? GUYS LIKE THAT DON'T HIT FREE AGENCY!!! Why would you expect a free agent to perform like that? Just because he took advantage of the system to make as much money as possible? What? Really? Should he have said "No No No! You can't pay me that much because I'm going to be a disappointment to the fans!"?

 

Here's the bottom line: If you sign a player in free agency to a going-rate deal, expect to be underwhelmed because true playmakers never make to free agency. Now if Cutler underperforms, then it's something to be disappointed in because we gave up so much to get him, but a guy off the street that you don't have to give anything up but money for? No. They aren't that good or they wouldn't be available.

 

[nfoligno]

I see Moose and Daniels as "Average signings" because while they didn't put up spectacular numbers, they did fill a role competently, and they didn't cost more than the going rate for free agents at the time they were signed. Did they get paid alot of money? Yes, but not more than they were going to make elsewhere anyway.

 

Regarding MM - I do not think he filled a role competently. I also think there is more reason to question whether another team would have given him so much. As we signed him so quickly out of the gates, we have no real idea what his market value was. W/ that said, if we paid him half as much, I would not feel he was even an average signing. I think he was a bust for us, plain and simple, and that is even factoring what you said about keeping lower FA expectations.

 

I think in both cases, the team was better off for having each guy on the team rather than depending on a rookie draft pick or some less expensive journeyman.

 

Disagree again. When I look at MM's contribution, I think most journeymen FAs could have done just as well.

 

I think people generally expect too much from free agents in general. It's not like baseball where you can just interchange players at will and a player has the same stats pretty much no matter where they play. Football is a team sport and judging a player based on individual stats is naive at best. Ogun was better playing opposite Taylor, Moose was better playing with Delhomme (why I can't fathom, but it doesn't matter), and Daniels was, well, very steady and solid as a DE.

 

Agree and disagree. Agree that we as fans often expect too much from a FA. Disagree that it is naive to judge a player based on individual stats. That may not be the only factor to judge a player, but it is a big one. Further, if you have read my arguments, I have gone way beyond individual stats in arguing against MM.

 

Actually, I 'm going to defend Daniels a bit and say that people had ridiculous expectations for him. Sure, he wasn't spectacular and didn't take over games, but guess what? GUYS LIKE THAT DON'T HIT FREE AGENCY!!! Why would you expect a free agent to perform like that? Just because he took advantage of the system to make as much money as possible? What? Really? Should he have said "No No No! You can't pay me that much because I'm going to be a disappointment to the fans!"?

 

I too have defended Daniels.

 

Here's the bottom line: If you sign a player in free agency to a going-rate deal, expect to be underwhelmed because true playmakers never make to free agency. Now if Cutler underperforms, then it's something to be disappointed in because we gave up so much to get him, but a guy off the street that you don't have to give anything up but money for? No. They aren't that good or they wouldn't be available.

 

I would agree expectations are usually too high for FAs, but disagree w/ your comment that only bad players hit FA. Circumstances, other than they simply aren't that good, exist for FAs to hit FA. While less often, you do still see teams that just flat out can not afford a player, and yet the tag may not be an option. You also see a situation where a team is already loaded at a position. Wasn't Michael Turner a FA? How about Drew Brees? Both situations came about due to the team already having their starter in place, and thus allowed a good FA to hit the market. I agree that today, as teams better manage the cap, the FA pool is not close to what it once was, but disagree that only trash hits FA.

[LT2_3]

I see Moose and Daniels as "Average signings" because while they didn't put up spectacular numbers, they did fill a role competently, and they didn't cost more than the going rate for free agents at the time they were signed. Did they get paid alot of money? Yes, but not more than they were going to make elsewhere anyway.

 

Regarding MM - I do not think he filled a role competently. I also think there is more reason to question whether another team would have given him so much. As we signed him so quickly out of the gates, we have no real idea what his market value was. W/ that said, if we paid him half as much, I would not feel he was even an average signing. I think he was a bust for us, plain and simple, and that is even factoring what you said about keeping lower FA expectations.

 

One cool thing is that we can agree to disagree. I thought Moose at least fulfilled his role as being the Bears #1 receiver for the first couple of years. In fact, he was our leading receiver his first 2 years. I don't think it should be his fault that our QBs sucked. I actually would be curious how he would do with Cutler as QB. I think he would have done much better at that point.

 

I think in both cases, the team was better off for having each guy on the team rather than depending on a rookie draft pick or some less expensive journeyman.

 

Disagree again. When I look at MM's contribution, I think most journeymen FAs could have done just as well.

 

So how do you compare Moose to the journeymen Booker and Lloyd we signed last year? (see below but we're talking about the difference between red chip and white chip players here)

 

I think people generally expect too much from free agents in general. It's not like baseball where you can just interchange players at will and a player has the same stats pretty much no matter where they play. Football is a team sport and judging a player based on individual stats is naive at best. Ogun was better playing opposite Taylor, Moose was better playing with Delhomme (why I can't fathom, but it doesn't matter), and Daniels was, well, very steady and solid as a DE.

 

Agree and disagree. Agree that we as fans often expect too much from a FA. Disagree that it is naive to judge a player based on individual stats. That may not be the only factor to judge a player, but it is a big one. Further, if you have read my arguments, I have gone way beyond individual stats in arguing against MM.

 

Yeah. I know you've argued more than just stats. He was a bit prima donnaish throwing the QBs under the bus occasionally, but I expect that from the position. It's part of the personality most of the time. I hate to bring FF into this, but I tend to shy away from individual players and draft from systems. For instance, the Colts #3 guy last year was worth as much or more than the Bears #1 receiver. If a WR changes teams, I usually stay away from them because you never know what you're gonna get. Housh in Seattle and Coles in Cinci this year are examples. I guess I'm not surprised by Moose's performance and behavior so I see it all as what I expected and therefore a "not bad" signing. But that doesn't mean "good."

 

Here's the bottom line: If you sign a player in free agency to a going-rate deal, expect to be underwhelmed because true playmakers never make to free agency. Now if Cutler underperforms, then it's something to be disappointed in because we gave up so much to get him, but a guy off the street that you don't have to give anything up but money for? No. They aren't that good or they wouldn't be available.

 

I would agree expectations are usually too high for FAs, but disagree w/ your comment that only bad players hit FA. Circumstances, other than they simply aren't that good, exist for FAs to hit FA. While less often, you do still see teams that just flat out can not afford a player, and yet the tag may not be an option. You also see a situation where a team is already loaded at a position. Wasn't Michael Turner a FA? How about Drew Brees? Both situations came about due to the team already having their starter in place, and thus allowed a good FA to hit the market. I agree that today, as teams better manage the cap, the FA pool is not close to what it once was, but disagree that only trash hits FA.

 

There you go again with the "not good" = "bad" thing again.

 

I look at it like the Blue chip, Red chip, White chip method of player evaluation.

 

Blue chip = Total stud in his prime with no health issues

Red chip = either a steady solid starter, a fallen blue chip player due to injury, or a player that has shown talent, but isn't proven as a starter over a 16 game season

White chip = Fungible commodity that could probably be replaced easily without much drop off in performance

 

The Blue chip guys never make it to the free market. Turner was an unknown with no more than 502 yards in a season before signing with Atlanta. Brees had an injury to his throwing shoulder that no one knew for sure how it would heal. Both were red chip guys. Daniels was a solid red chip guy, and Moose was a red chip guy due to his age (32) and the fact that his previous seasons were up and down and not consistent.

 

My point is that occasionally you can get a red chip prospect that ends up performing at a blue chip level, but that's the exception to the rule. In free agency, you end up paying blue chip prices for red chip players. Most of the time, they play like red chip players - which are overpaid by the nature of the system.

[madlithuanian]

Well said...

[nfoligno]

One cool thing is that we can agree to disagree. I thought Moose at least fulfilled his role as being the Bears #1 receiver for the first couple of years. In fact, he was our leading receiver his first 2 years. I don't think it should be his fault that our QBs sucked. I actually would be curious how he would do with Cutler as QB. I think he would have done much better at that point.

 

David Terrell was our leading receiver once. That doesn't mean he was a good player, much less starter, for us.

 

Sure, w/ a good QB (much less Cutler) his numbers would have gone up. But that is part of my whole problem. He was brought in w/ the belief he could improve the QBs. I am not saying anyone expected numbers like he posted his last year in Carolina, but I do believe the staff felt like he was the sort of WR that could elevate the QBs we had, rather than the sort of WR who can look good w/ a good QB. Sorry, but most NFL WRs can look good w/ a good QB.

 

So how do you compare Moose to the journeymen Booker and Lloyd we signed last year? (see below but we're talking about the difference between red chip and white chip players here)

 

Just curious, why am I limited to the two players we brought in last year, like those are the only journeymen guys out there?

 

I'm sorry, but I just do not see what MM did that is so special, or so different from what many WRs in the league could do. His stats were not great, but I would even argue the stats were better than the actual. He would have a couple good games, w/ many no-shows. Further, as I have argued before, most starting WRs are bound to has some stats w/ their name. Just like if you give a RB enough carries, even w/ a 3.1 ypc avg, he can still end up w/ some decent yardage totals.

 

To me, MM simply did little to help the offense. We can talk day and night about how he was hurt by the offense and QB, but part of why he was added was to aid that same group. IMHO, he did more to hurt than help. He didn't draw the double teams, as expected. His route running was never consistent, and the only thing less consistent was his hands.

 

Yeah. I know you've argued more than just stats. He was a bit prima donnaish throwing the QBs under the bus occasionally, but I expect that from the position. It's part of the personality most of the time. I hate to bring FF into this, but I tend to shy away from individual players and draft from systems. For instance, the Colts #3 guy last year was worth as much or more than the Bears #1 receiver. If a WR changes teams, I usually stay away from them because you never know what you're gonna get. Housh in Seattle and Coles in Cinci this year are examples. I guess I'm not surprised by Moose's performance and behavior so I see it all as what I expected and therefore a "not bad" signing. But that doesn't mean "good."

 

One, I would agree that of all the positions, WRs often are the biggest talkers and showboats. At the same time, I do not agree that you expect a WR to throw his QB under the bus. Frankly, that is something often reserved for Terrell Owens. usually, the WR says or does dumb things, but not often does a WR show so little care for his QB. It happens, yes. But I don't think near often enough that you should expect or accept it.

 

Two, when talking about the "beyond the stats" stuff, I mean more than just the times he threw his QB under the bus. How about the drops? So often Orton or Rex were bashed, but damn, they would put the ball in his hands, or hit him in the numbers, and he still dropped the ball. As often as I read about it happening w/ others, I do not recall a single article talking about MM putting him the extra hours w/ either the QBs or the young WRs.

 

When Cutler signed on w/ the Bears, you read tons of stories of his working w/ Olsen and other receivers, outside of team activities. There were numerous stories of Pace working well after practice w/ Williams and others. Louis, a 7th round rookie, talked about how impressed he was a future HOF player like Pace would spend so much time w/ a guy questionable to even make the team. You read stories like this all the time, but I don't recall ever hearing from Berrian or others that MM was helping them.

 

No, whether looking at the stats, or those things that don't show up on a stat sheet, I just do not believe MM did much to help the team. I believe middle of the road FAs could likely have done just as much.

 

There you go again with the "not good" = "bad" thing again.

 

I look at it like the Blue chip, Red chip, White chip method of player evaluation.

 

Blue chip = Total stud in his prime with no health issues

Red chip = either a steady solid starter, a fallen blue chip player due to injury, or a player that has shown talent, but isn't proven as a starter over a 16 game season

White chip = Fungible commodity that could probably be replaced easily without much drop off in performance

 

The Blue chip guys never make it to the free market. Turner was an unknown with no more than 502 yards in a season before signing with Atlanta. Brees had an injury to his throwing shoulder that no one knew for sure how it would heal. Both were red chip guys. Daniels was a solid red chip guy, and Moose was a red chip guy due to his age (32) and the fact that his previous seasons were up and down and not consistent.

 

My point is that occasionally you can get a red chip prospect that ends up performing at a blue chip level, but that's the exception to the rule. In free agency, you end up paying blue chip prices for red chip players. Most of the time, they play like red chip players - which are overpaid by the nature of the system.

 

Okay, so you are saying the games elite players don't hit FA. Okay, I can go along w/ that. But I do not believe that is what you said before. You said, "but a guy off the street that you don't have to give anything up but money for? No. They aren't that good or they wouldn't be available".

 

There is a huge gap between saying "aren't that good" blue chip players. You define red chip players, and said this group of players are available, but in your definition, red chip players can be good players. No, you don't get an Orlando Pace in his prime. You more often get him after. A QB like Brees? Frankly, I think he is an exception. W/ or w/o the arm injury, he was going to be on the free market as the team had drafted Rivers prior to Brees becoming a pro bowl player. But I would agree that is an unusual situation.

 

If we paid blue chip price for a red chip player, and got red chip production. Fine. That isn't unusual, and sort of expected when dealing w/ FAs. But IMHO, we paid blue chip market for white chip production and play.

[lemonej]

One cool thing is that we can agree to disagree. I thought Moose at least fulfilled his role as being the Bears #1 receiver for the first couple of years. In fact, he was our leading receiver his first 2 years. I don't think it should be his fault that our QBs sucked. I actually would be curious how he would do with Cutler as QB. I think he would have done much better at that point.

 

David Terrell was our leading receiver once. That doesn't mean he was a good player, much less starter, for us.

 

Sure, w/ a good QB (much less Cutler) his numbers would have gone up. But that is part of my whole problem. He was brought in w/ the belief he could improve the QBs. I am not saying anyone expected numbers like he posted his last year in Carolina, but I do believe the staff felt like he was the sort of WR that could elevate the QBs we had, rather than the sort of WR who can look good w/ a good QB. Sorry, but most NFL WRs can look good w/ a good QB.

 

So how do you compare Moose to the journeymen Booker and Lloyd we signed last year? (see below but we're talking about the difference between red chip and white chip players here)

 

Just curious, why am I limited to the two players we brought in last year, like those are the only journeymen guys out there?

 

I'm sorry, but I just do not see what MM did that is so special, or so different from what many WRs in the league could do. His stats were not great, but I would even argue the stats were better than the actual. He would have a couple good games, w/ many no-shows. Further, as I have argued before, most starting WRs are bound to has some stats w/ their name. Just like if you give a RB enough carries, even w/ a 3.1 ypc avg, he can still end up w/ some decent yardage totals.

 

To me, MM simply did little to help the offense. We can talk day and night about how he was hurt by the offense and QB, but part of why he was added was to aid that same group. IMHO, he did more to hurt than help. He didn't draw the double teams, as expected. His route running was never consistent, and the only thing less consistent was his hands.

 

Yeah. I know you've argued more than just stats. He was a bit prima donnaish throwing the QBs under the bus occasionally, but I expect that from the position. It's part of the personality most of the time. I hate to bring FF into this, but I tend to shy away from individual players and draft from systems. For instance, the Colts #3 guy last year was worth as much or more than the Bears #1 receiver. If a WR changes teams, I usually stay away from them because you never know what you're gonna get. Housh in Seattle and Coles in Cinci this year are examples. I guess I'm not surprised by Moose's performance and behavior so I see it all as what I expected and therefore a "not bad" signing. But that doesn't mean "good."

 

One, I would agree that of all the positions, WRs often are the biggest talkers and showboats. At the same time, I do not agree that you expect a WR to throw his QB under the bus. Frankly, that is something often reserved for Terrell Owens. usually, the WR says or does dumb things, but not often does a WR show so little care for his QB. It happens, yes. But I don't think near often enough that you should expect or accept it.

 

Two, when talking about the "beyond the stats" stuff, I mean more than just the times he threw his QB under the bus. How about the drops? So often Orton or Rex were bashed, but damn, they would put the ball in his hands, or hit him in the numbers, and he still dropped the ball. As often as I read about it happening w/ others, I do not recall a single article talking about MM putting him the extra hours w/ either the QBs or the young WRs.

 

When Cutler signed on w/ the Bears, you read tons of stories of his working w/ Olsen and other receivers, outside of team activities. There were numerous stories of Pace working well after practice w/ Williams and others. Louis, a 7th round rookie, talked about how impressed he was a future HOF player like Pace would spend so much time w/ a guy questionable to even make the team. You read stories like this all the time, but I don't recall ever hearing from Berrian or others that MM was helping them.

 

No, whether looking at the stats, or those things that don't show up on a stat sheet, I just do not believe MM did much to help the team. I believe middle of the road FAs could likely have done just as much.

 

There you go again with the "not good" = "bad" thing again.

 

I look at it like the Blue chip, Red chip, White chip method of player evaluation.

 

Blue chip = Total stud in his prime with no health issues

Red chip = either a steady solid starter, a fallen blue chip player due to injury, or a player that has shown talent, but isn't proven as a starter over a 16 game season

White chip = Fungible commodity that could probably be replaced easily without much drop off in performance

 

The Blue chip guys never make it to the free market. Turner was an unknown with no more than 502 yards in a season before signing with Atlanta. Brees had an injury to his throwing shoulder that no one knew for sure how it would heal. Both were red chip guys. Daniels was a solid red chip guy, and Moose was a red chip guy due to his age (32) and the fact that his previous seasons were up and down and not consistent.

 

My point is that occasionally you can get a red chip prospect that ends up performing at a blue chip level, but that's the exception to the rule. In free agency, you end up paying blue chip prices for red chip players. Most of the time, they play like red chip players - which are overpaid by the nature of the system.

 

Okay, so you are saying the games elite players don't hit FA. Okay, I can go along w/ that. But I do not believe that is what you said before. You said, "but a guy off the street that you don't have to give anything up but money for? No. They aren't that good or they wouldn't be available".

 

There is a huge gap between saying "aren't that good" blue chip players. You define red chip players, and said this group of players are available, but in your definition, red chip players can be good players. No, you don't get an Orlando Pace in his prime. You more often get him after. A QB like Brees? Frankly, I think he is an exception. W/ or w/o the arm injury, he was going to be on the free market as the team had drafted Rivers prior to Brees becoming a pro bowl player. But I would agree that is an unusual situation.

 

If we paid blue chip price for a red chip player, and got red chip production. Fine. That isn't unusual, and sort of expected when dealing w/ FAs. But IMHO, we paid blue chip market for white chip production and play.

NFO let me clarify this by saying I don't disagree with the point you're making but believe that also this team thought they had their QB(Grossman) in place and thought of Moose as getting him a weapon. With Berrian already being here and I think we had Jammiin Elliott,Wade and Gage he was viewed as an instant veteran leader to this young group and was thought to be a number 1 WR because none of this group had shown they were going to be the guy before he got here.